ryan234abc

At last! I've been waiting for a place to put this image and I believe it's time to show it! +Rep if you like it! I'll return the favour!

Permission to say 'Wow'. That is amazing! Not picking fault or anything, but I bet it's impossible to land. The way I'd go about it, is land it in two parts, dock it on the ground, re-fuel with chosen method, then take off again. If I were to do it (again NOT PICKING FAULT!!!), I'd try to make it more compact. I bet the front wobbles like jelly on a Saturn V. That, or strut it up. But I guess you wouldn't be able to re-strut it again without certain mods. Still, I really like it! I wasn't expecting such a hard task to look so rational, even for someone as good as you. You are going to have trouble docking that in space though. It'd be hard to incorporate an RCS system on something like that - like you said, diminishing returns. And allow me to quote you and say "Kudos for trying!"

Got one! Looks amazing! I'll try it out! Also... FIRST

Got myself a 666 variant - trying it out now. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who builds with cheats on. Without them, the craft can't always look the best all the time (THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS DON'T HATE) and with cheats, it becomes less about missions and more about fun when making and flying craft.

I guess it is. dV from sea level is 10km/s I think. It changed in the last update, making it slightly easier by taking off 400m/s dV requirement. The model I have screenshots of is the mk 1 - it's just the basic rig design which I edited over time, making mk 6-7 (can't remember) the one to achieve orbit. Problem is, I started tinkering, launching, repeat and forgot to save a lot of it (at least anything that works, I got mk2 but that's a straight downgrade) until I got the perfect design, then took it straight to Eve and tested it. When it worked on Kerbin with an orbit over 200,000m, I sent it to Eve and it only made it once out of several attempts. This design is just so impractical, I'd never use it. I only made it because I was so stubborn to make it work. I'm working out a new method to do fuel transfers - TBH a Gilly mining rig would be easiest, and putting the station into orbit of Gilly would make it even easier (I think I'll do that). Haven't checked Gilly's resources yet though, although I doubt getting to a good spot will be too taxing. But hey! If even that fails, I've got a crew transport in orbit of Eve that has enough fuel to return to Kerbin - all else fails, I'll transfer the fuel from that (not use it, it's incredibly inefficient).

Tell me about it. Parts of the wing actually BLEW OFF in a few attempts. It was mainly launch, f5, repeat until I got lucky enough to get an encounter with my station, with fuel to spare. It's made me think though: Maybe I could try and get your other ships off the surface of Eve with NO assistance, but refuelling. The Longsword stands a good chance, given the higher fuel capacity. Just so long as I used that up, it'd work amazing (lets hope so). I'll get right around to testing it.

Well. If that's what KSP looks like, I won't dare look at your persistent.sfs file. It's probably over a GB xD

Made a Mun lander, with the objective of fitting in at least ONE MK3 tank. Works surprisingly well, although haven't made a launcher / transfer stage yet... Leave a rep if you like it! I'll be sure to return!

Right then. Here's the screenshots. I only got pics of the MK1 rig, the final had a lot more fuel. Normally I wouldn't do this, it was beyond impossible to do without some sort of cheats. At this point I gave up on being legit and just used hyperedit to get it there and docked. At this point, I turned cheats off, and began the ascent. The rig is incredibly unstable and the 20 tries I mentioned were me failing to correct course or the rig flipping and powering into the ground at a substantial speed. Luckily, I managed to do it in the end, albeit with a little help from hyper edit to get the rig to the shuttle in the first place. Here's the pics then; p.s I may have used unbreakable joints... im not very legit now, but I certainly am stubborn... Is it OK if I play KSP with cheats enabled all the time? It's funner but less satisfying...

Well, it wasn't COMPLTELY unaided. I made an SRB rig the did a bit of VTOL workings, and it was over 20 tries before I did it, but i'd say that it counts. I'll see if I can get screenshots.

Alright! After substantial fuel loading, I refuelled the Spatha and filled its tanks. And boy was it close. I had ended up burning through ALL of the ships main tanks, and had to switch to the cargo. In the aftermath, I was left with enough fuel for a 3 second burn. Boy was that close. Thank god for F5 as well, I messed up a few of the encounters with the VB2. Here's the documentation (I sound so professional) of the approach. No screenshots of fuel loader or take off/accent, I was a little distracted by the VB2 going out of range.

I got a plan for that. It's not complete yet, but I've almost finished a custom adapter that can carry fuel between the low down mining rig and the high(er) Spatha. Also, my Spatha is retrofitted with a fuel tank that carries ore, along with storage space for the 3 fuels it creates. Having said that, when attempted pre-mission on Eve to test its abilities, it has a tendency hinder its orbital capabilities. Along with the fact I've never actually docked a vehicle in orbit (saying that, I have, but I just can't do the orbital matching stuff), and the fact it'll take me AGES to refuel the VB2 for its return to Kerbin, this could prove to be a little tricky. More screenshots on the way, I guess.

Okay! After a bit of work (and a rarity for me, no hyper edit OR cheats) I did this! The orbit is very exact I know, but its off by a couple of 1000 and its only perfect like that because I HATE inclined and imprecise orbits. Either way, show it some love, the VB2 Station! That surface base is the one shown near the pole on the Tracking Station Map. There are a few drilling rigs behind the Kerbal.

At last! *begins to cry*. The VB Station in 1.0! My GOD I have been waiting for this! *Wipes tears from eyes* (shy voice) Gimme... Ill try to upload a few pics of what I do with it, but no promises till I can get it all done and dusted. I'd love to make an Ike station with it but last time anything went near that thing, singe 5x timewarp blew the cabin off. Then switching vessels stuck it back on. Then I EVA'd my Kerbal. Got put on escape trajectory from whole Duna system. Glitches, eh? Second thoughts, screw Ike, I knew something was wrong when the EVA report said (or at least hinted at) the Magic Boulder zipping past. Low Eve orbit it is then!

Vall or Laythe. As mentioned by Red Iron, Laythe is a more fuel efficient destination. However, water means some fuel must be used to change orbits. This also requires accuracy due to Aerobraking, which leads on to downside 2; atmosphere. Heat shields are heavy, and hard to place when dealing with craft over 3.5. Of course, Parachutes once through heating effects save a butt load of fuel. Vall then. I'd say Vall, mainly because of Laythe's downsides: Water and Atmosphere (because who likes habitability and life!?!?). With Vall, you could land in one of those (relatively) flat areas and no heat shields would be needed. However, it really depends on fuel efficiency. I'd recommend both, but they each have their own set of problems and advantages.

The problem with the Vernor RCS thrusters is they burn away at your main fuel supply. This means that you could lose DV before beginning transfer burns. Normal RCS thrusters (to my knowledge) are slightly more fuel efficient or at the very least, don't burn away at your main supply. This stops all those unwanted surprises and shocks like "Jeb, we told you not to drink the Oxidiser!" "I didn't..." *X-Files music*

Welcome to KSP News! Today's headlines : Minmus Mining missions misplaced by mischievous Mollusk! Our head artist, Kicasso Kerman, renders his own, seamlessly beautiful version! xD hope you like Ryan

Reminds me of the Cacafuego. Still have that ship, served me well. +Rep.

This was my attempt at it. Funnily enough I finished it today, came onto KSP forum and found this thread. I launched it as one piece. The lander is parked in the background, just past the hill. It docks to the 4 docking ports. I parked at AT Rabbit (courtesy of Frank_G) and my own personal Scout Hovership. Of course, the actual transfer and lander was assembled in orbit. Note I did NOT use cheats or the Hyperedit in the shot. +Rep if you like it! Just so you all know, I launched it in one piece because launching it in bits would be very annoying to assemble on the surface. Also the lander was part Hammer SRB, part Skipper LF+O engines. And it has no more fuel in it (exactly 10.3 units left which will burn in under 2 seconds). So it was a one way trip for those wondering. Its original purpose was actually to serve as a command base for the Duna system.

Just downloaded myself an AT Rabbit. I can't make rovers for the life of me, and I was pleasantly surprised at the quality. Already tested it out, and I intend to bring it into active service. Wonderful craft, couldn't be in better hands!

Okay. Lets try to insert an imgur. Fingers crossed this works first time. I just had to show you these. All working in 1.0.4! Took 2 packs, but I brought an extra assembly rover (refitted with MOAR SCIENCE!) Well, that rover isn't here because it's er.. somewhat spaced out... in er.... several pieces... across the surface... It did make it after I took the screenshot.

1. Most of the time, I use cheats. ALL the cheats. Well, besides the ore map thing and part clipping (sometimes). In other words, the ones that make your vehicles amazing...ly better because they usually suck. 2. I can't use manoeuvre nodes 3. I was once dumb enough to try and land a plane on the Mun (532m/s impact) and on Duna, where there isn't sufficient speed to slow down (279m/s impact).

Damn, you have some nice landers! Also, I like that re-entry shell. Love the way it drags the cargo behind. And for the record I do like pointy (or rounded off) backsides (DON'T SAY IT YOU DIRTY MINDED PERSON) as opposed to engines lugging behind.

Hi Ace! We can help you of course, but we need a screenshot first. And perhaps you'd like to file this question in the help section (or whatever its called xD). That way, lots more people would have a much better chance of finding out the answer for you!

It depends. Would the extra weight affect the COM enough for it to flip during flight? If it were me, I'd usually use Poodle's, mainly because they are easier to incorporate into a design without having to change it. It's your call, but keep what I said in mind. Rep if it helps!