Helmetman

This is a rover suggestion. This is just in my head, I haven't made such a thing myself. It's thought through from a stock angle. It may be a bit technical to create, not sure how skilled you are. I would make 2 identical rovers. You'll use arms made from tanks or structural elements that curve around the asteroid 2x symmetrically positioned from the base of your rover with the largest sr docking ports on starboard and larboards end. The ends should extend to the radius of the asteroid. The rover has a reclined ramp that is angled with the bottom curve of the asteroid that nearly touches the surface so it can scoop the asteroid by driving towards it. On the aft edges of the ramp you put landing gear. Sufficient so that if you extend they can lift the asteroid from the ground. Make sure the largest rover wheels XL3 is heightened to the ramp (aft side) so that if the aft landing gears extend they still have traction to accelerate. The idea is to dock both identical rovers together curved around the asteroid with the ramp supporting them after docking both together and raising the asteroid by lowering the positioned landing gears. Then move wherever you like, undock both rovers and leave asteroid in place. At the ksc yes, or in the swimming pool if you so desire. Although I'm sure there are simpler options. Just in case you wanna get cool with this EDIT: If you didn't understand it. I figured this a idea for myself. So I may post a contraption if I get such a thing to work.

Well, the sls core stage is about 8.4 meters diameter or thereabout. So the argument that it should be a model for ksp parts is.... tell me? That said, I do like the looks though, I wouldn't discard this suggestion. Anyway, As argumented by Aziz, the white (latex) paint was heavy. So that's why NASA removed it on the SLS also. Otherwise those fancy tanks of yours on the pic would be white like my teeth. In KSP textures don't matter. You can have it added with a texture or part mod without changing it's mass. By all means, a orange cryogenic foam and spray on insulated ET tank is sufficient without the white spray. Hence why they left it orange on most STS missions. Adding to this, it's not really a thing in KSP. The ET and cryogenic SLS tanks come in said colours due to the insulation equipment required to cool the liquid hydrogen. In KSP, there is no freaking liquid hydrogen!! Unless you install the cryo tanks and engine mods by Nertea ofcourse, but that's a different story. By all means, you may ask yourself why the Jumbo 64 tank is orange in stock ksp. Probably because it is, but one may argument.

I don't get the Attitude control propellant was used on i.e. the Voyager spacecraft using Hydrazine for the 'necessary' course corrections to go from Jupiter, Saturn > > > Is this challenge a test to see what can be done in ksp as it has been done in real life? Okay. It hasn't been done in real life, thus. So it's pure a KSP challenge and impossible to execute when patched conics errors the ballistics of your vessel upon SOI change. Obviously the challenge is about testing the gravity assist skills of other players. I'm all for such a thing, just think of something differently. A thought from the top of my head is to create a pre specced vessel (of your making) with a set but very scarce amount of fuel and then see which player gets it the furthest. EDIT: by furthest I mean how many SOI changes each respective user can manage.

You attempted exceedingly well That plane looks like making sex with ksp parts. EDIT: And I seriously read "Makes planes sexier than your gf." after posting that^ ironic EDIT 2: My Gf does look sexier tbh, but that are fine details.

Well, even going 10, 20, 30 m/s you will still have considerable lift effect. Combined with vertical vectored engines and a pull up it is not remarkable that you will climb. It could also be due to the fact that you have spent most of your wet mass? And now the vertical engines are actually OP at full throttle. Using my own VTOL aircraft I generally use airbrakes/spoilers to decelerate. Then I lower the throttle to 33-66 percent when approaching close to the runway at the lowest airspeed. I don't quit the horizontal engines right of the bat, rather, I spool up the vertical engines at said throttle levels then I will start pitching up slowly and gently as speed keeps bleeding off. Then close to stall speed I maximise throttle while cutting the horizontal engines and immediately level off while keeping a slight pitch to bleed of the 10-30m/s horizontal speed that's left. Then gently sink down to the surface. Speed numbers are examples but can be much higher ofcourse. It depends per vessel. I use vernors for low airspeed rotational control. Usually by canceling gimbal on the vertical engines as they're often to close to the COM.

Taking into account the licensing issues, modders not being around 24/7 and the wide range of favourable wishes by each respective person I think the current CKAN method of compiling your own pack is already the best option. It's also easy. Just type what you want, checkbox dependencies and recommended plugins and head to the following mods. Apart from mod dependent issues, if you don't run into any you can setup your own compile of mods in half an hour using CKAN. If you click fast probably up to 40-50mods or thereabout. I like to watch videos of other people and try to setup my own list of mods that combines many and some other mods out of different playthroughs. Having some compiled mudpack for everyone is usually not necessarily the one to your liking when you get finicky. And finicky is what one gets when testing for the most favourable compilation. That's why you keep going to the forums to expand your already oversized gamedata folder This is a journey you should undertake on your own. Scott Manley is super great and all, and I love many of his videos. But that 'he' got his compiled mudpack distributed is only because he's popular, let's get straight here. There's definite certainty that someone else's mod pack will get the same bad attention. And after one version update of KSP we need to compile a new mudpack or wait very long till all the mods are updated. Off topic Suggestion : I purposely left the word "modpack" as "mudpack" and didn't correct. This is because I wanted to show what auto correct does to the word mudpack, heck, there it goes again. Can I file this somewhere? I can probably put it off in my profile. But this is only the 2nd time I had problem with auto correct so I haven't checked.

In Soviet Russia rocket pushes Kerbal.

Let me put it this way. If hundred billions of galaxies spawned just for drooling humans to walk upon a surface with the present practice to extend their imagination by animating green goblins on a monitor as substitute for potential but not yet found life beyond our making then either the Universe has done something wrong, or we are the first to animate things on lcd screens and put things into orbit. I lean towards thinking our toys are fun and all, a achievement, but ultimately toys in the grand scheme of things. And so far the galactic delegation has not readied for a first contact. As long as we throw bombs on each other I think many conscious aliens out there will circumvent our existence in the knowing we are here rather then meeting up. Hence the reason why we may not have contacted anybody as of yet. But who knows, maybe we have. After all, there might be a conspiracy, hehe, lol... I don't think SETI will accomplish anything. If there is technological life beyond 100 lightyears they either should have contacted us by now. Or they heard our radio signals, ignored us and thought... Alien Mom vs Alien Son + Alien crowd. Son: "They use radio signals, hey mom, should we bother to even look?" Mom: "how do we transmit radio signals again? We haven't used this in 4 million years? Do you know son?" Son: "Let's contact them" Alien crowd: "Ecstatically laughing for a short moment then getting back to work." Sad to say but that is how reality could be like. Sure it could be reversed, and we're the first and most developed species. I wouldn't be surprised if that picture was totally upside down to be honest. I have a clear faith in the principle of infinity. When things being infinite each slightly altered version of humanity is somewhere different but existent. Also meaning their are infinite amount of species out there. Nothing to be really bothered with but good for the mind to extend that far a few minutes before going to sleep (or any time)

Your real life age? On topic: Eve-ill The first syllable in the word 'Evil" is Eve....il Evil = Live (spelled backwards) because Evil is the polarity of Life. So if Eve's name is the first syllable in 'Evil' and its hot and crushing out there beyond any surface climate compared to any other planet then what do you figure?

This I'm all for. It's simple, will satisfy anyone. Aheum, but it's basically only a build in function to do what you do know by editing the parts cfg file. It would atleast make this part easier and many people want such functionality. I got a bottom belly feeling that the TS wouldn't have opened this thread if such a function was present. Playing a normal difficulty career mode with a mentality of getting to the end with intentional haste ASAP then generally that is how things go. Slacking however is what I'm doing now on hardmode. I got myself a collection of new mods and early tech parts and I'm going along at a easy fund/science pace doing surveys, tourism contracts and part testing. Part testing can be fun when you can combine 2 or more part test contracts at once. Can sometimes make very unorthodox contraptions whereby I test a solid rocket motor, parachutes, sepatrons in one mission. It's a bit grindy, but the new mod parts really added worthiness. If I had to do hardmode right now in stock I would succumb by boredom. Sad to say, ksc and Kerbin biome science on hard science mode doesn't deliver the 45 tech nodes I desire for the mun. Unless I intentionally harvest next to everything. But that is not my intended playstyle. I can get to the moon and back with only 15-20science nodes. But that is just getting a capsule there with one or two science parts and get back home. Not my playstyle. In stock KSP there is so much wiggle room to do more, sometimes many contracts all at once (like 7 contracts for one craft). That's what my playstyle is. Wait a little longer for that first Mun landing with a few extra nodes, and then do more. Bring a satellite along for a satellite contract. Or/and pack a extra Mk 1 capsule to save a Kerbonaut stranded in orbit (always wondered how they got there in the first place lol) Doing the flea, suborbital, orbital, mun fly by and mun landing sequence is probably what makes stock career extra boring to most people. This is often how the early career is beaten and why I like to make things intentionally difficult for myself to work around that sequence even when that sequence is obvious.

I can really relate to @Tyko Playing KSP when you first start and the current career is challenging in it's own way. In fact, it is fun. Not anymore, that time is gone. But I can still relate to this fact, and I know newbs are in the same boat nowadays. If it gets old for them, they start modding their career. Although I'm still disappointed about the options for career so far given with mods. However, I find the complexity of core elements in the game a bit on the lower end. The tiny solar system, lesser souposphere, comnet, part specs and career itself ofcourse. So I wouldn't call on Squad for greater career gameplay. Creating a 'gameplay' is different then coding some parts or system together, it requires great creativity and the free time endurance to set it up properly. This is also why it's hard to create a sound career overhaul for modders because inducing a 'best' gameplay is just as hard to construct then to program it. Then comes the fact that everyone wants something else out of career. Someone wants to start with probes, some with planes. So there can't be 'a' tech tree rebalance, because to which forum users criteria will it be optimized, yours, mine? So as long as we're not getting to a compromise but endlessly argue to what it should be we will always be suggesting that each gets their way. Which can only mean that the aftermath of such a discussion revolves around concluding we need a complete makeover, rather then just some persons likable rebalance. And having mentioned the lesser complexity of Squad design elements I wouldn't ask them to code it. The modding community does this better.

The link to USI catalog is broken. The link to GitHub Karboniteplus is broken, but the regular karbonite GitHub link does work https://github.com/BobPalmer/Karbonite/releases However that is not the link for KarbonitePlus. Haven't seen roverdude post a fixed link, can you check please?

@Terwin Yes, I also decided to use both USI and MKS for that after jade's suggestion. I started seriously playing 'career' again on a new stock revamp that is furthermore a heavily modded savegame. The USI and MKS stockish design will fit the game nicely. Ah, that is good to know. If these are the values then I probably forget making fertilizer using the ISRU altogether. Anyway, I'm on the 90 science nodes so it will take at least a little time before I get there, so for now I assume those figures are correct.

@JadeOfMaar Thanks

Does this mod also come with a part that restores used supplies? Or do I need to get resupplies from Kerbin all the way to i.e. Laythe? Personally I like something like a big greenhouse. Is there a mod that has this that works with USI? Something that I can deploy on the ground that refills the containers?

It isn' t necessarily uber duper difficult if you know what your doing. But landing there can be as equally difficult to designing the lander, aerobraking setup and lifter itself. So designing something that can glide (or pinpoint if your B, O double S) is one of those extra designer challenges and can be as difficult engineering wise as the launcher. In actual gaming time (rl time) you might be more efficient building a launcher that goes from 1-2km above msl rather then one that does it from 8km up. Otherwise you'll spent more time designing something that can get there (i.e. gliding) and testing said function. But rl time is usually not the criteria, funds and part count usually is, just saying. I have never done this but seen a few grand tour mission by people using Eve's peak for obvious reasons. Especially for grand tours I would advice this location as it will make the whole adventure a whole lot less complicated. I' ve also seen stratenblitz (whom is insane) make a TSTO contraption where the 2nd stage was used to rendezvous in sub orbit with a spent 1st stage that lifted from the mountain creating a actual reusable system. It are actually such kind of (ab) uses where I consider the altitude boost a actual asset. For some designs it allows you to create something to it' s limits and can get users to build things like stratenblitz did. In other scenarios it's just a boost that will only reduce the weight and complexity of a actual Eve mission while adding in design complexity and time spent to build it. So especially people running low end desktop rigs more in the ballpark of potato's will be able to create lighter and less complex Eve rigs using the peak, making Eve missions viable on potato's with less stutter. I don' t got a potato so I land at 1km + elevations usually having a higher part count.

This is the greatest idea I've seen in a while. It's good as it is, in most ways. My only critique is that objects that size should have gravity and I would not perse think in the type of volumes and mass reaching that of Gilly, no mind Vesta. When plopping modules to the asteroid covering it's surface as per the picture your in the over 9000+ part count even with the largest habitat modules one can find when I relativize to ksp. I'm not sure how you envision building inside a asteroid. You mentioned this briefly. Don't objects in KSP have specified colliders to them? Isn't the part mechanism that is applied to a asteroid the roadblock that prevents direct reconfiguration during simulation? I can't poke a hole in my Mk1 crew cabin to put my beer inside, can I? Meaning, if you have a asteroid in which you can build it must be hollow in it's default state. Would the idea behind this involve drilling it out while having a preconfigured chamber? And if possible though, wouldn't one need countless bitmaps to animate excavatable asteroids? The exacticality of building inside it said way is more my own idea ofcourse since I don't know how you envision this part. But this is what I think about when approaching a method of building inside a asteroid. I hope it can get done though, because it seems kinda cool. Also, what happens to the matter when hollowing out a asteroid? Gifts of fuel resources, gemstones, loads of heat and expelled particles from a chime of some sort is my bet. I think there are many ideas in this regard. But building inside a asteroid involves excavating it, period. Seems tricky! I also have a addition to your idea, hope you like it. Asteroid Merging. Something I would like to add is asteroid merging. Allow yourself to get 2, 3 or MOAR asteroids close to one another. When impacting at high enough velocity they will merge and loose some mass due to expelled debris (unpersistent debris a.k.a. fairing style). But if the impact is to high it will scatter into tinier class A, B asteroids. (or c,d depending on the sizes ofcourse) This way you can make a asteroid the size you want it while having to do something for it. By said means I expect someone be able to create a vesta sized asteroid, aheum aheum, I mean, Moon! (with a lot of grinding by becoming solitary in your basement if you don't already lol) You would probably still need to smash thousands of class "G" ...., "H" to get to Gilly sized dimensions, no mind Vesta. And asteroids that have the size of Gilly by default seems more planetoid to me then asteroid, even if it's still categorized as a asteroid on paper. By the way, how does a part behave when it is larger then the max physics range? Will the universe still hold? There should be a clear division in this game that divides flying rockets/planes and towing planetoids throughout the solar system. And I get your Sci-fi sentiment, and could be achieved in great extent. But the extent of towing gilly sized objects around even with interstellar propulsion systems seems a bit over Sci-fi'd if you catch my drift. Getting offtopic now... Some general offtopic insight/complaints to KSP asteroids. Asteroids don't go poof. What I don't like about asteroids is what they do when reaching max heat/impact values. To much heat which is not hard to achieve and it goes poof, they're gone. Silicates melt far below the heat tolerance number that asteroids can apparently survive. Assuming "K" in ksp stands for Kelvin and not Kervin. Knowing the composition of asteroids we can safely estimate the range to where heat tolerance should have a effect. When going over it the asteroid becomes glowy and melts, and doesn't go poof. Maybe loose actual gasses and thus mass while aerobraking or even explode. I want molten spheres of lava. I don't want it as it is, which is the kraken sitting in the background using his configuration notepad while noting "oh, your over 2500" let's remove this. These are probably all ideas of dynamic physics/animation that the KSP game doesn't support most likely. Because asteroids are "parts" so there's only a mechanism of being as in existent. So going over a specific value is always a matter of be or not to be. shakespearian touch lol? Personally I would like to add animations of fragmentation rather then poof when the impact limit is achieved. Only when the impact speed is many times greater does it disintegrate into a surface. A class "E" sack full of lead or a class "E" sack full of feathers? The point with asteroids ranging many meters in x, y and z is that they don't decelerate drastically through the atmosphere because of it's weight and momentum. Something which KSP asteroids should do and at higher speeds due to the momentum (not slow down to 200 m/s or thereabout) above the surface only because the atmosphere in KSP is still a lesser wall and asteroids being a sack of feathers. Asteroids ain't heatshields and shouldn't have a lot of drag. This unrealistic drag effect is greatly extended when mining the asteroid first before landing. Hey, it is good advice for getting a asteroid down in KSP. But it's just stupid and unrealistic. By any means, mining should shrink the asteroid, thereby reducing it's cross section and drag. So besides adding things in the realm of KSP asteroids I would make a few changes to them. Oh, and this isn't a hijack. But your giving a suggestion that I definitely like but on the basis of a game aspect (asteroids) that I find unfinished. Personally I would like those points being addressed as well, but nice suggestion nonetheless. If you feel any of the points albeit moot are worthwhile to add to the OT or be discussed, please do.

Spaceeee Planeeeee Spaceeee = vacuum Vacuum = no plane Planeeeee = air Vaccuum cleaner = Vaccuum cleaner.(forget this one:P) So a space.......plane is a vehicle that combines vacuum maneuvering with aerodynamic maneuvering. Hence the "plane" part in the naming of spaceplane. @topic description (meaning: everything written in the OT) The OT content makes no sense whatsoever. Even a non spaceplane vehicle would land said way. Only with retrorockets would you not have to point retrograde. Meaning you always turn retrograde for braking unless you have rockets pointing forward................ retro rockets..... Can be plane and rocket thus not applicable advice to spaceplane only. Most spaceplanes don't have them retro rocckets nor do 'most' rockets so you turn retrograde in many/most ways regardless of that particular situation. First I need to climb, then I need to point is your advice? The point in landing is not to climb.... So don't...... Just scrap the "climb" part and head to "point" Why climb and then point? Just point Darn it. To the ground please! That's where you wanna land.. Instead of climbing first and then pointing. What's the point of "climbing" when wanting to *land, I mean *point lol? I point immediately for landing, I don't even think "climb" "Climbing" = after launching my vessel wanting to go somewhere (when not being a rover or boat) "Climbing" = wanting to climb and not to land. So landing = not to climb ever. Do you climb while landing? Your doing it wrong = your not trying to land. In the vaguest sense of interpretation I estimate your will to climb is limited to the worlds where you can, meaning Kerbin, Duna or Eve (or Jool = Joke) But even landing on said worlds you still wanna "point" to land and still not "climb" So "climbing" while landing is never applicable. The polarity of climbing is sinking. The very word "sinking" would be better in the context of landing rather then climbing. That the word climbing is even part of any landing advice is beyond sanity in my POV. Just saying.. What are you telling us? Me? = not much. You = .......? Other forum user = ........... [a fill in[ I haven't learned anything from this, but I respect your apparent will to help. That will alone is prime in any advice. Just not very accurate if it's just that will alone. I'm full in words to tell you this But you are in no words to explain me something I didn't know. In fact, you give advice for landing by advising to climb. Doing it without words while saying things contradictory to landing. Let's bottom line this to a application that may be used for both rockets and spaceplanes. After all, that is where I can use this advice literarily as it is posted.

That quote On a Jool mission... means the first mission to Jool ever where you experienced this? Or it's your first mission to Jool ever? I never had this. Do you run any mods? If true to the above then, which ones? "x" implying there is a reproducible 'distance' step whereby the sun moves each time it does. Is that distance quantifiable to a specific number or a number within a range of numbers that is always similar? (like same distance travelled or same traversed timesteps) so, what can you tell us about that? This helps us know what we can tell you. You sure it's just the Sun? Have you attempted to track Jool or any other planet/body for similar behaviour? Does this only happen at high timewarp? Maybe the sun Sun moves said way when simply panning the camera, no mind timewarping. I'm not sure because I don't know whether you tried Did you?

You need oxygen to make them rot, the only places where this can happen is Kerbin and Laythe. All the other people are lying.

@Xander930 better to copy/paste the scoring system to the OT. That is what people read first glance. Good chance you'll be holding MOAR beer if you tidy things up said way.

AfriKa. Home continent looks like africa. The K is not at the front, good enough? If not, sorry for wasting thread space

That ^ MOAR boosters

Uni and Verse The proof is in the putting, isn't it? I personally think it will be a thing to port mods to consoles. At worst at the mercy of a extra service/management that will have a small fee. I don't mind paying a buck or 2 for the greater mods out there. Having mods on consoles drastically raised the incentive to own a console. So it's only good for ms or sony to go there if they still have further ambitions. I'm not saying this is easy to do. But we can, we just don't do.

It's pure speculation because we don't know what 0.38g does long term. But I don't think it matters much. I think the biological mechanisms of the body adapt to other magnitudes of gravity, always. I do think that the body will have a much harsher task re adapting to 1g if lower g environments are maintained for decade(s) If it's really damaging physiologically I can imagine there is a gravity ring in Mars orbit that rewires the body over the course of months by starting in 0.38g and slowly spinning up to 1g for spacefarers willing to go home. I'm pretty sure it's all about adaptation rather then 'actual' irrecoverable physiological damage during long term low g exposure. But we'll see what this science will further learn us in the future.