Grenartia

Don't you think that if there were better ways to do it, it would've been done already?

Please tell me you're using the 1812 overture with cannons.

Docking from orbit on a lander? That's a lot of skillz, yo. Well, there's your problem. You don't have any fins on the bottom.

I do the same thing with parachutes on planes. Worst of all, I can't even actually do spaceplanes. I just stick them on there in case I lose controllability midflight. I use MJ for nearly everything. Probably why I'm a crappy pilot. I mean, I can do it on my own if I have to, but I find it tedious and prefer MJ.

I've found those 1.25 service bays are also very good at keeping you from roasting your chutes during reentry. The drag can be offset by adding some larger wings at the bottom, in my experience, at least. If you're that concerned about losing delta-v, you could attach some jet boosters and minimal jet fuel (I find the Big-S wing strakes are good for this).

Thanks, I'll try that when I get back to my desktop.

I imagine if one wanted to, they could set up an orbital conveyor belt, of solar power generators topping off battery modules, and from there, getting kicked into the outer Kerbol system near the various planets and moons, to maintain an easy power supply. One could even have said batteries powering mining bases to extract the ore and process it into LF/O and/or monoprop in order to keep the conveyor belt going.

I think the title is self explanatory, so I'll just get to the why. I like the visibility of cupolas. Especially for rovers. Its rather limiting to have a cupola for virtually every size and form factor except 1.25m.

Speaking of science mode (and to a lesser extent), I just farm as much science as I can at KSC.

See, I also do the redundancy thing. Just not with FCs. I always figured that Kerbals can just metabolize most forms of EM radiation and are resistant to alpha and beta emitters. Certainly explains why they have no problem with nuclear rockets on liftoff, and why they can live indefinitely in a capsule with no obvious source of food. So, as much as that logic holds up, putting RTGs in close proximity is basically feeding them.

I mean, I've just never really seen a benefit to fuel cells. Then again, I'm entirely uncomfortable with the idea of sacrificing any delta-v, even if I need power.

I suppose you're SOL unless you packed RTGs or fuel cells. Speaking of which, does anyone actually use fuel cells?

Quite an understatement.

I've never used an Orion mod (mostly because I haven't found one compatible with the version I was using whenever I looked), but any time I talk about the RL project to my friends, they find it hard to believe that 1: this was an actual thing that was researched and 2: that it was actually feasible in the first place. And then that's when I start redirecting the conversation to Thunderwells. Man, the things I wish they'd put in stock.

Lets see... Ooh! More things to add to my playlist. How did I not come across this earlier?

I'm no good with shuttles or spaceplanes, but I do use them for OMS and landing engines (very useful back when I used to constantly fry my chutes). Question: Are those kickbacks on that station loaded? Its good to have an emergency reserve, if, say, you underestimate delta-v requirements, or due to some tragic happenstance, you need to return to Kerbin (or a nearby station/base/whathaveyou) quickly. Those situations usually require a lot of delta-v, and assuming you're already carrying it, a monoprop OMS system can really give you a precious few dozen m/s of dv.

Lately, I've been trying to design the Ultimate RoverTM. I wanted it to have the following characteristics: -carry 4 kerbals at a single time in a cab -be entirely stock -carry enough LFO and the proper engines to attain a decent suborbital jump from most moons -carry enough xenon and ion engines to attain orbit after the LFO runs out (goes without saying that it would need a lot of electric charge, RTGs, and large solar panels) -carry enough monoprop to dock with, as well as possibly enough to right itself after a rollover -not use any crew parts (i.e., cockpits, cabins, etc.) -be able to survive a rollover without significant loss of functionality -fit inside a mk 3 cargo bay -keep part clipping, if any, to an absolute minimum -be able to haul a trailer like a semi would (i.e., can't use docking ports, that would make it basically just a single, long, rigid vehicle with a tiny turning radius) -aesthetics were not a key design point, but I didn't want a rover that looked like garbage Seemed simple enough to me, as I figured I could reasonably do those things (after all, its not like I was asking it to also be an SSTO that could also return from the surface of Eve while hauling the trailer(s)), but after a month of tinkering, discovering that I could not design such a rover that did not look super ugly or meet the propulsion requirements (or, in some cases, I could, only to discover that my design had parts too close to the wheels). And even the trailer capability was rather wonky in practice. So, I have finally decided to break down and start using crew parts and mods.

So, I really, really, really LOVE this mod. But one thing bugs me. And that's that certain cockpits have sub-optimal placement of the RPM displays. The problem is that they are placed too far down, meaning that you either have to zoom out to see the whole thing (which makes reading it or making out details quite difficult), or, depending on the severity of the problem, either not use the display, or only see part of it. The fish head and the bubble cockpits have the most severe occurrence of the problem, but its also quite noticeable in the hypersonic cockpit. The other cockpits don't seem to have this problem.

I must not know what that is, because I tried what I thought it was and it didn't work.

Yes, it works from the launchpad, too. And just to clarify, this does not happen when the pod is oriented horizontally. Although I have gotten it to work by orienting it horizontally and then tilting vertically after dropping it from a launch clamp, but it only seems to work in that case once the pod touches the ground. Which is weird because it didn't have to any other time I tried it.

I think they're referring to the MJ command pod. I've noticed something extremely similar to this as well in 1.1.2. If you orient it vertically and launch on the runway, the Kraken immediately (even with the throttle cut all the way down to 0) accelerates it horizontally in a random direction in excess of 1000m/s (and stays pretty close to the ground). This only works with the command pod (I tried replicating it with the radially-mounted case, and it doesn't happen, and it also doesn't happen when just using stock parts). This works even with launch clamps on the side (and will drag the clamps along with it). I have not tried this from the VAB, so I don't know if its just a SPH/runway related thing or not.

I tried installing manually, and can't get it to work, and like I said before, it doesn't show up on CKAN.

I can't find this on CKAN. Anyone else having the same problem?

That's what I was thinking. Also, is it wrong that I now want to build asteroid cairns on the North Pole?

"Running out of planet". My new favorite phrase to come out of this thread.