Evanitis

It's Alien Space Programs, and yes it has Laythe too. Though the op specifically asked keeping KSC on it's place, so that's not what he's looking for. Extraplanetary Launchpads has everything what's needed to establish a functional Laythe base, though I guess you could limit yourself to only set up a runway (but as I recon it's not really long). Though if I were the op, I'd just use the ocean as runway. Landing on water is a breeze, and taking off from it isn't too difficult even on Kerbin - I bet it's much easier on Laythe.

I was expecting a lot more daunting mod-list. That looks all right. I'd only consider making a separate KSP install for having fun with BDA, as it adds a lot of parts that you won't need for space exploration. Though there was no sarcasm in my post. DTL noticeably increased KSP's performance on my potato. Even that would worth the barely noticeable editor lag and briefly appearing blurred textures there, not to mention if it could prevent some crashes. Though computers are different, so I can imagine that it doesn't help you much while causing serious performance drops. In that case I'm out of ideas.

Wait... did you just imply that the present system of science is imperfect? Are you suggesting that our definition of mass not necessarily fits perfectly the actual mechanic how the universe works? That was a tricky question - that's the very first thing they teach about the scientific method. That something doesn't become a universal truth, just because it's true in every observed case. Yet, in order to operate, study or construct in the scientific system, one needs to accept the axioms and unrefuted theories as 'truth'. I feel the difference between a 'universally existing property' and 'the 'best scientific definition for a property' is purely semantic. I should vacate this thread before someone thinks I disagree with him. I'm just a layman. And questioning if stuff exists or not is a nice way to get stoned.

Indeed. Though I believe control surfaces (or whatever) added to the payload should still count for the entry craft's mass and part-count. Otherwise I could just add all lift (or even the thrust) that the lifter vehicle needs besides lifting itself.

That two, for these very reasons. I somehow tend to find uses for the other stuff you listed. I have an unexplainable aversion towards fuel-cells. They make something without mass from something that has it. I don't feel comfortable when my ship does that (while I know they can be super-useful). Also ladders. Since kerbals can climb, I always feel that I didn't design well enough if I have to include the mass of mobility enhancers.

Ahh wait... it just hit me - my current favourite KSP genius Mr Alpaca used the cargoramp itself to put back the upside-attached rover. Well, it was a submarine-plane-thing, but that's irrelevant for the principle.

I'm a simple kerbal. I see spaceplanes - I press like. I'm especially fond of the wing mounted engines and the rating system. And are those gears in a cargobay? What a wonderfully glorious idea!

Also recent testing shown that closing intakes doesn't reduce the drag in 1.0.5. It was a surprisingly good tutorial - and I say that while being totally biased against videos compared to text.

Familiar feeling. I want a thermal camera since I saw this video. Probably I could find some cool uses for it. And lately I started to have a faint impression that ditching my decades old monochrome Nokia for a smartphone could signify my arrival to the XXIth century. But it soo cool I don't have to charge it every week..

I'm well aware of the existence of these mods, and I'm considering to change for a while. Mainly for it would spare me the excusing at each challenge that yes I used MJ, but only for the readouts. Though I have two daunting concerns (well, not daunting enough to look into it or even ask before). I wonder if TWP can calculate an interplanetary transfer from a munar orbit - that's what MJ does well, but Axelmoon's web-based planner lacks. And the author of the planner mod mentions that he used Axel's code. My second daunting question was answered to my satisfaction by a brief look at Precise Node's documentation. The time to ditch MJ is getting closer. Well, I did some flash before... customer was satisfied, I was still well payed for the time I spent figuring stuff out. kOS also has some nice documentation and tutorials. It looks -fun-.

I only built such craft once, but in a much smaller scale, as I didn't want to include an ISRU. I used the cargobay upside down, and the rover was attached to the top. It was really steady - though raising it to re-attach was another engineering challenge in stock. I'm not sure how would that work with a rover sized as yours, but my guess is that it would be still better than only attaching one side.

Dang. You are right again. Guess I should stop arguing about a part that I decided not to use ever again a long time ago.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Where did you get that information? I just checked wiki, this guide and another one, and a third one. None of them mentioned such. But the last linked post had this line:

Guess Mr Roger meant to process it on the surface of the Mun or Minmus.

That's kinda' normal. RCS thrusters or reaction wheels apply force to the spacecraft, and any force modifies your orbit.

Actually, I didn't want to put RCS on my payload, I was only asking if we are allowed to make it heavier by adding some utility to it. A nosecone is a good example for that - it's not needed if someone puts the whole thing into a cargobay, but externally mounting it would be a fun option.

Care to share your mod-list? Not that it would help as you already told that you won't remove any of it, I'm just curious.* Also... not that I'm suggesting anything, but I even -enjoy- having textures briefly blurred and causing editor lag, compared to crashes (not to mention abandoning KSP). *though if I'll see a mod with hundreds of megabytes of textures or dozens of parts, I'll go against of my principles, and tell you to uninstall it. Those are for high-end machines.

Can we add extra parts to the payload? We'll obviously need a docking port on it, that's for sure, but I was thinking about a nosecone if it's externally mounted. Or maybe an RCS system with a probe core.

Never did an Eve plane, but your logic sounds all right. At worst you'll need a few iterations before one works, but that's part of the fun. Never did a Duna plane either, but after taking a conventional one there, I could tell your impression are again right - it needs more wing area, and 'chutes (or retro-rockets) to stop as the place is really bumpy. (Where's the fun in knowing all that by only your smarts instead of trial-and-error? ) Laythe is a breeze. And getting planes to space unconventional ways is a joy. On a big enough (SSTO) rocket, you can just radially mount plane(s) on the bottom. That's indeed only works if you don't plan to jettison the lower parts before getting to orbit, but if the plane is small enough, this method doesn't need too high tech. I had a working design where I jettison the upper parts of the rocket - that's a bit tricky: you need to pitch away from prograde for a short while, so the debris doesn't hit anything. The higher you are, the easier it gets. A separatron or two could also help. But the easiest solution is to just radially attach boosters to a single plane. Than it's fins stay on the bottom, and it'll work as every staged rocket does. 8 tourists to orbit from 29 parts, combining all the above hints. Though I admit, a few 360° flips are calculated into the packed dV. Here's a high-tech solution, but I believe a considerably smaller variation would work with considerably lower tech. And while we're at it, let me include a few designs I tried but didn't work.

@ZooNamedGames I still don't get it. Since we have rotation and offset tools, I just can't picture the stock rover body -not- fitting comfortably where it should. I believe if you shown me a picture with that rover ontop of that engine you mention, I could point to a dozen other places where that engine (or the rover) could be mounted so it could dismantle easily.

Um... I'd disagree. A compact enough rover can fit in a service-bay. The one in the op -seems- it could fit in an Mk 3 cargobay - we even got a cargo ramp for that lately. Anything bigger than that can be included in the main fuselage of a staged rocket. EDIT: dang, ninjas.

If it's a command pod, it's pretty hard to -not- place a kerbal in it, as it's done automatically. But you can also do that manually in the VAB or the SPH. The icon for that is next to the action groups. If it's a command seat, you'll need a mod for that.

I also constantly think of ways to make a hard career game. Though I feel the stock 'hard' setting doesn't really make the game hard, just grindier, so I'm trying to be creative. In 1.0.4, I had a horizontal launch only career. That was pretty fun, though once I got to the Mun, unlocked turboramjets and made a design that could get a lander with 3.6k dV to orbit I felt I'm done with the hardest part and lost interest with the rest. But I wonder how would it be today with the Junos and Panthers around. The current career I'm playing is the very first one for me without reverts and quicksaves. Though I'm using KCT for it's simulation mode. I detailed the rest in another post:

I learned a lot from MJ, but these days I use it less and less. I'm tempted to change it to KER, but I'd really miss the Manuver Planner tool. Creating a circularization node, or one that zeroes relative velocity with one click is -so- much more convenient than fiddling with the stock axises. I also love having an ingame porkchop-plotter (that has more functionality than the most popular web-based one). I sometimes use it's ascent autopilot feature too, but not for making my job easy. I found that I can launch -anything- manually, but designing something that even MJ can get to orbit is an engineering challenge for me (maybe it can launch anything too, but I never figured out how to utilize it many settings). I'd also really like to get into kOS scripting one day, but with my zero~ish programming experience, that would require a week when I don't have anything else to do - and I don't think I'll have such luxury in the foreseeable future.

Distinction between spaceships and spacecrafts? Hell, I'm having a hard time drawing a line between 'spacecraft', 'module' and 'station'. My best definition is 'whatever I use the said piece for at any given moment'.