LordKael

I'm going to say that yes, it's doable, simply because if something is "impossible", then somebody on the forums will reply "I did that, and here's my imgur album" to show the highlights.

Why oh why did you engineer those? Is the efficiency absolutely incredible? Or do you have a phenomenal payload fraction?

You've raised a lot of really good points about the Thud being a less-than-economical option on the pad, but I'm not sure that that is it's intended use. For example: I use them for small stages to get payloads from a cargo bay into a higher orbit; the radial attachment allows me to maximize my cargobay space. Now, I know the thread is supposed to be about using the Thud on a launcher, so here's my two cents: Building a launcher that isn't perfectly efficient in the first stage isn't a huge deal. The first stage is primarily fuel weight anyways, so if you lose a dozen or so dV for aesthetics, who cares? Secondly, using them to offer gimbal on the higher thrust, but gimbal-less Reliant engine (1.25m) is a great way to boost TWR and save on the control surface fins.

Approximately where is this pyramid? There is a pyramid on the list (haven't been there personally).

I add either a KAS port or a Docking port Jr. to every vessel that has a Kerbal on it, for emergency resupplies. Likewise, no Kerbaled vehicle can be Klawed to.

Well, the way to make killer acronyms is to figure out what you want to have it spell, and then make up words that vaguely describe what you want. for example: Any Contrived Randomly Ordered Nomenclature (for) Your Message (A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.)

I use Ions to cart Kerbals around outposts on Minmus, as well as to my Orbital Station and back

This is embarrassing... I had everything installed, I just was sloppy about putting stuff into the correct folders.

@RoverDude As requested, here's the list of stuff not showing up in SPH/VAB: - smallest radially attached Supplies, Mulch, Fertilizer tanks - Nom-o-matics, both sizes -Still no use for Dirt, -Also, tons of other resources are available to scan for, but not to mine for. Doesn't really make much sense to me. I can log a Github if you'd like!

There's some interesting physics as to why pushers will almost always work better than pullers, which somebody who has a firmer grasp of them can explain. If we were to think of this problem as a free body diagram, then it actually becomes very simple. Take the CoM of the asteroid, and attach the drive section so that it provides a force straight through the CoM. Then, to allow the drive section to do a useful amount of work, attach an ISRU unit and several drills somewhere that the CoM won't be moved. Ideally, you will want the CoT going straight through not only the CoM, but also the approximate center of volume (CoV) so that when you aerobrake at the target body, the asteroid doesn't flip around nearly as much. Now, this suggests putting the entire assembly on in a single taller vessel, so that everything is protected by the asteroid's mass and bulk during reentry, but that is, in fact, the wrong way to do this. The best (in my opinion) way to wrangle an asteroid is to attach a series of very short modules to the surface all on one side of the asteroid, such that you can align the CoT, CoM, and CoV, which will translate roughly to having the CoL/CoD in that same line during an aerobraking maneuver. Having all of the components in a single rocket will increase the likelihood of the rocket flexing under the thrust, even when using the relatively low thrust of a NERVA cluster. My solution prevents that as much as possible. One can even have a drive section made up of only a Klaw, probe core, and the engines, as the asteroid will cross-feed between tanks clawed to any other part of it, which allows for some truly low profile Asteroid Wrangling modules. TL;DR: build a bunch of shorter modules and attach them closer together, because taller rockets get all wobbly, which runs the risk of an escalating procession, and a lack of controllability to the massive space rock.

You know, I agree that it would be super tedious, but if they all rendezvoused with the asteroid as a single craft, then split up and enveloped the asteroid, then it's much more doable. Also, your anecdote seems to prove why a long craft is the wrong design for the job...

I'd just like to clarify a point: you're offering a contracted development firm that will provide efficient and timely solutions to players' problems, or design a vehicle/payload to meet the mission parameters of a client player? If so, I would be happy to join in on any stock rover/sat payload type jobs.

I feel like the best way to do this would be to launch a series of modular chunks of rocket up, so that you can use RCS to simply move the thrusters, ISRU/drills, and fuel tanks around to adjust the CoM vs CoT relationship.

In the stock game, the ore tank, a fuel tank of the type you're attempting to produce, and the ISRU unit all have to be on the same vessel. To make it more efficient, you could dock two or more crafts together, or do a Martian style set up where a lower stage has the ISRU, drills, and ore tanks, and the upper stage has the fuel tanks, and when your ascent stage decouples, the unneeded mass is left on the surface. A variety of mods will allow you to connect the ships without docking, or allow you to transfer resources between two vessels without them even being connected (KAS/KIS, or MKS).

My first (manual) docking was a module onto the rest of my station, running at around 5 fps. The module had a terribly unbalanced RCS system, and was 50tons or so.

Considering that this is an Indie game, I just assume that most parts of the code could use an "elegance pass" to make things run more smoothly. However, a similar system is what I was recommending, not just a copy/paste job.

I think the only way to do this that will make everybody happy would be to use the same logic as the Subassemblies folders. Have a list of a dozen or so symbols that can represent a variety of types of vessels, and let the player assign the text string that goes with the given icon.

Having watched this part of the stream, I can confirm that A) EJ does not use any mods, though he does use the Asteroid Day pack, and B) that depending on what sort of decoupling it was (launch clamps vs. SRBs or a first stage) the was varying amounts of lag, sometimes almost 10secs worth.

As shown by the math done above, it isn't possible to reach lightspeed KSP, and to reach 1% of light speed is equally impossible, if one uses only fuel. My personal record is just shy of 100kms per second, using cheats and a dozen aerospikes at about 150km from Kerbol.

Something on a crazy polar orbit around Kerbol that you can't get to without infinite fuel for a crazy inefficient transfer, or a slingshot from different planets depending on where in it's orbit it is. Essentially, a simpler Planet X analogue that doesn't slingshot other small planets around every couple thousand years.

The text reads "you used to call me on my cell phone" Considering it's Spanish played backwards, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish in this thread. Care to explain?

Ran out of fuel on my powered return to KSC. 0 LF/O at 45m above the terrain, still going a little to fast even if the terrain had been right there. Only the pod survived.

You could of course leave the Kerbal in orbit with a return stage, saving his life. To get the science, send down an unmanned probe with all your experiments

I refuse to take the time to launch a ground base in multiple launches... Especially when I want to transfer to a Joolian moon, or even to the Mun. So, I build them in a single piece, strap it to the top of my rocket, and strut like crazy. Low TWR keeps things from exploding on the way up, and gratuitous parachutes keeps it together while landing.

If you give the Minmus destined piece a transfer stage with enough dV to make the plane change & transfer, or circularize and time the transfer for the AN, then it should work.