Nich

nefrums mind sharing the craft file? Also mind if I use it in another challange? Sorry Goslash your craft has been replaced

wow never noticed that. Ya your basically paying .04t for .35 wing area which is .005t more then added wings to the MK1 and tweak scaled wings. To save 3 parts and a mod I would say it is worth it.

Last I checked the biggest ore tanks are more efficient at storing LF then any LF tank (i think it is 8.75:1). I believe it is the same for LFO and Mono. And it is a 1:1 per mass too it doesn't get any lighter after refining it.

Are there any mods that address the pod issues? Or that allow you to put stuff inside a pods?

There must be something slightly different with our versions of KSP or our computer set ups because as long as I'm locked on retrograde hold I have never had any horizontal velocity when I touch down . I do have to concede though that if you're flying by hand RCS might be useful but my problem would be getting it to only work in direction and not rotation. I am also probably just as likely to increase horizontal velocity rather than stop it

After searching for the arch forever I finally gave up and then one day randomly found it. It was definitely a feeling of accomplishment find it without looking it up but kind of disappointing that I found it by accident

I recently had four contracts station above Kerbal station above minimus base on minimus and station around the Mun. I did all four in one lanch at Lko it had three of the largest tanks full of fuel

I won hundred percent agree although I do see KSP having 2 generations of gameplay in my life the first three months without the forms and everything after I joined the forms there was a night and day difference in the enjoyment of the game

I don't know if I would call the OP a newbie with 6 million funds and enough science to have the surface scanner he probably has at least five landings on the mun and minimus. Also when people are looking for advice they generally don't want a redesign. They generally have a specific mission plan or astatic look that they're going for. To be fair though I really should've asked The OP the mission and what he wanted to include in the design before I picked apart other people's suggestion On an interesting sidenote while lowering the gear does allow more impact tolerance it does sacrifice on slope because it raises the CG this craft does look nice and wide so it should be able to handle most of the slopes on the mun

Fair enough I can agree with that but there are so many other things that I would like to see implemented before this Actually I think this is a fantastic idea to let the users decide what they want to have added. The only drawback is that not everyone who plays KSP is on the forms

I apologize I assumed that the OP wanted to use the two mainlander Can and the parts that he did. I also assumed that the op was happy with his mods. I also assumed that the OP wanted to go to the moon and come straight back without having to visit a station. In that case my suggestions would be to lose the two mainlander can all the fuel tanks the engines landing gear and use a one man can and a lawnchair strap a rhino to the back and an Oscar b tank. Turn on infinite fuel in the cheat menu . Target the moon and burn until you're halfway there then point away from the moon and burn until you're at a slow enough speed you're not worried about crashing. Another option is To install hyperedit and just teleport your lander to the surface of the moon.or rather than sending to kerbals you could send one kerbal and a probe core so you don't need a pilot then just send the scientist. Or you should just make an SSTO Space plane that can go to the moon and come back you should also put ISRU equipment on So you return for a net profit. The reason I suggest you not using asparagus staging is because it creates different moment of inertia is around different axis this can do things that can make landing quite challenging for example if you're 45° to the different moment of inertia and you tip forward The craft will tip left or right which can be very difficult to fight on a landing at a critical moment. In addition this craft has enough extra DV that it doesn't need asparagus staging to get that last little bit of efficiency

No no-no no-no no-no no no other than the suggestion to move the landing gear down most of the other people here are trying to optimize your design. Also don't asparagus stage it looks like this is set up to Deorbit and you need all four gear to land so there no benefit to ditching two tanks halfway through the burn. Lights facing down are nice if you plan on doing a Darkside of the moon landing but in that case you might need a little more battery too. RCS is completely unnecessary for a lander so make sure you remove it out of the two-man pod. I don't know what you have your heat shield set it but I would suspect a quarter or less is all that's needed

I thought the abort button was meant for toggling solar panels LOL

What body? Make sure you can use your science Junior it looks tough to access

Just a quick clarification is it possible to make a Kerbal habitat that is also a shuttle? All it needs is six kerbals A science lab and the ability to orbit Duna Ike land on Duna Ike and takeoff? And on that note can you move the same habitat to the five areas and get credit or do they have to be five different habitats

Sorry guess I should've said the ability to open parachutes without destroying them.

Just food for thought but most of my calculations with tac life-support show that expedited transfers reduce the mass of the ship by quite a bit although they require more D V the supply savings are very significant if you can take a three-year round-trip and turn it into a six-month round-trip. I am interested in this challenge but I have to play around with some of the additional mods to see how they work and then wrap my head around the scoring which is incredibly complex

Can someone explain to me why parachutes do not work at high altitude? In theory as long as the dynamic pressure is low enough the force on parachutes should be extremely low. I can see that if you open parachutes before PE you could theoretically have too much dynamic pressure as the orbit decays and speed increases as you get closer to kerbin and into denser atmosphere. My big problem are parachutes on duna. With 20 times less atmospheric pressure at the surface you should be able to open parachutes when you're going Square root of 20 times faster yes it gets more complicated when you are going supersonic but I couldn't imagine it's that much of a difference

I never use the three man capsule or the two man Lander can as there are just way too heavy compared to the one seat counterparts. Personally I would love to see customizable command pods where a one-man pod has 10 units open to put science experiments batteries and mono or supplies if you're playing with life support and the three men pods have more room for more stuff but you can also leave it empty and get very close to the weight per Kerbal of the one man pods empty or possibly less if you want to argue the efficiency of volume. Also the lander cans need to have something done so they can't do atmospheric entry unfortunately if you drop the heat tolerance too much it makes Moho impossible but that might be valid as any Lander from Moho he would probably require insulation

I'm sorry kerbal alarm system already does this and so much more this just feels like a stock implementation of something a mod does perfectly fine or better

I forgot what the limit is on a level 2 launch pad but I think its 142 tons. If that's the case I don't think it is possible to get an orange tank into orbit much less to the moon. If I remember correctly 26% payload fraction is really good for a rocket but requires the top tier engines. That would be 36 tons or less is about all you can put on orbit. I'm with the other guys whenever I send a crew rotation I send the biggest crew rotation vehicle possible with way too much fuel to refuel of the station

My major problem with career is the contracts are way too easy to make a profit on but the profit is so small that upgrades to facilities are an enormous cost. I would much prefer that contracts are much more challenging to do profitably and facility upgrades are cheaper or given / accomplishment in space gives a new launch pad orbit gives a new Control Center mun a new tracking center and minimus a new command center

Every test I did showed that running an upper stage engine at an inefficient time leaves more DV in orbit I am guessing this is due to lower gravity losses being greater than inefficient engines. You also have to remember that most of the vacuum engines have 90% of their ISP by 10000 meters Has anyone limited their speed at any point in their launch? That is other than of course to keep ap at 80 km

Yeah look at the EQ2 it was terrible

Thanks for the info. Is it just me or are the lifting engines better? Yes lower ISP means more fuel but more thrust means you can get more payload and fuel (for more potential dv) from one engine. Not to mention a more efficient launch profile as there TWR will increase more than the more efficient engines. I think I am going to try a twin boar build.