Zacspace

I'm a known advocate of huge rovers, but I have an alternative strategy: It has 12 drills and two large converters, it's able to run 2 processes on each converter for a total of 4 and it's able to operate indefinitely with a max level engineer. I don't remember how many fuel cells, but it's something like 20. For cooling it has 4 medium thermal control systems and 2 of the curved radiator panels. I'm telling you all this because this dropship has pretty close to the ideal ratios for these parts given a max level engineer aboard. The dropship was designed to make just sort trips, the idea being that whatever it's refueling will land nearby and the dropship will just get itself into position. (In practice it has a lot more range than it needs. no complaints though.) Doing it this way means that every piece of your system can focus on doing what it's best at. The dropship makes fuel and fast as it can, and the big lander behind it lifts fuel as efficiently as it can. Ore storage beyond just the one smallest tank is useless in an ISRU setup whenever the mining and processing are being done by the same vehicle. And they should always be (if you care about playing optimally), because mining and refining share so many systems in common that aren't typically required on any other kinds of vessel. This sort of system overlap also means that rover wheels are a natural companion of ISRU equipment, since all these things require robust EC generation, which brings us back to rovers. They don't have to be huge though. The small converter really isn't that bad if it's properly fed and cooled. I usually use it with 4 of the large drills, which I've found to be most consistent with a max level engineer. This rover takes a few days to re-fuel the plane that brought it to Duna Of course I also have a colossal refueling rover, here's how I land it: Basically two rockets on either side. There' s vector engines in the service bays to soften the landing after I tip it over with RCS or robotics. After that the rockets are staged away. The launcher that carried all this to Moho was just your standard KSP-class gigabooster which was refueled on Minmus using actually the dropship from my first screenshot. EDIT: One final Tip: use docking ports to secure robotics parts that don't need to be in motion. If your part never needs to move again after it's deployed, consider designing it so that the robotic parts are staged away and it;s just docking ports holding it all together. Autostruts can cross docking port connections, but not robotics.

You can also just have a balloon filled with vacuum. It might seem counterintuitive, but vacuum is lighter than helium/hydrogen since it's literally/ideally nothing. It's theoretically more efficient than a gas filled balloon for lifting. I'm pretty sure such a thing has seen real-world development despite the obvious challenges. Maybe in some sci-fi world, a vacuum airship could be made that uses magnetic or static fields in place of pressurized gas to rigid-ize the hull without needing to rely on a heavy internal structure.

The problem with that is that you need to be in control of your plane as it lands or KSP will just delete it and say it crashed, meanwhile you also need to be in control of your spacecraft as it burns to orbit, or else it'll just fall back into the atmosphere and suffer the same fate as your plane. There are ways to do it, of course, but it's more trouble than it's worth if you're just looking to improve efficiency.

I think they're going for a reusable flyback booster type thing, just with the booster being on another planet. It's doable. I've seen it done from Kerbin at least. It's hard to make it work without KSP deleting one craft or the other though, since you can only fly one at a time. Probably the more KSP friendly version of this would be to use a conventional heavy-lift SSTO to bring a nerv or ion powered spacecraft to low orbit and then then release it, landing the SSTO after.

I decided to take another crack at Eeloo. I was able find out how to reliably reproduce the bug I encountered and, crucially, how to not encounter it. I also learned some interesting things about the large rover wheels I was using as well as rover wheels in general Here's the mission: And here's the TL;DR for those interested in weird overly specific KSP tech and glitches: The bug that caused my rover to stop working was related to traction control. specifically values below 1.1 seemed to cause it. I also experienced this bug on Dres during testing with traction control set to default value, so I suspect somehow local gravity factors into it or something else about the planet. I haven't reproduced the bug on any other planet so far. The RoveMax model 3 wheels, while steering with the throttle limiter turned off, seem to behave as perfect flywheels. Their RPM increases seemingly without limit and the wheels have enough inertia that this can flip/launch you if they encounter the ground after "charging" up for a little while. I suspect this could be exploited to make a rover wheel powered thing-launcher/railgun. When expecting to travel at high speeds, high spring and damper settings are the strat. Traction control stops wheels from running when not in contact with the ground. Huge EC/fuel saving potential in leaving it enabled.

The features they've shown off so far suggest to me that the build spaceship -> fly spaceship gameplay loop will return. There will probably be a sandbox mode still, since the longevity of KSP has shown that sandbox is an experience that a decent number of people will pay for. But the base building elements they've shown off, the complex resource management stuff, talk about automated missions; all this suggests to me that KSP2 will have a stronger emphasis on the space program management aspect that OGKSP almost completely ignores. I further suspect KSP2 will have some Factorio DNA, bu that's based on a hunch and no evidence. All it needs to get my money is to be less janky than the original. Or more janky as long as it's the fun, exploitable kind instead of the "whoops your carefully constructed vehicle is now a pretzel or just doesn't work for no reason" kind

Well done! Looks like you've taken my advice. You're getting the hang of this pretty quickly. To improve your SSTOs further try to reach as high a speed as you can within the atmosphere using the rapiers' air breathing mode. This will get you to orbit using less fuel leaving you more for orbital maneuvers.

Is this your first SSTO? Regardless, I think you'll have more success if you limit your scope for now. It looks to me like you're trying to make an SSTO than can refuel itself and fly anywhere, which is a pretty tall order. SSTAs, as the KSP community likes to call them, are pretty extreme designs generally. You'll need a detailed understanding of KSP's physics and aerodynamics (and especially where they deviate from real life) and a fair amount of experience to pull it off. If you've never built an SSTO before, I'd suggest skipping the NERVs and the drills/converters and just trying to build a mk2 based plane that can fly to orbit and back with 1 or 2 rapiers and no other engines. If you've been to orbit with an SSTO before, Try building one with a NERV on it and some extra liquid fuel, See if you can make it to Minmus. Once you can make it that far, build an SSTO that can do it with some cargo, then maybe stick some small refueling gear in the cargo bay. Edit: I had a look at your pictures. You keep attaching things to the end of your NERV engines. That will block them from producing thrust. They'll still show rocket exhaust, but all that will happen is your nosecones or whiplash engines will be heated up by them. If you want to occlude the rear attach node for better drag you have to offset whatever part you use out of the way after or decouple it before firing the engine.

Had an idea for a low part count ballast. Requires some .cfg editing, I've seen an editor bug where someone was able to put this fuel tank into a kerbal's inventory allowing them to walk around on the seafloor. I don't know how to do that bug and i don't remember where I saw it , but I wonder if it could make a less egregious version of this legitimately buildable. I tried to make one full of full ore tanks, but it didn't work. probably for the best. What I have here is already comically heavy

In earlier versions of the game the terrain of Duna was different. The main thing i remember about it is that it had some relatively flat low-lying regions that were suitable for landing planes. I miss being able to land my SSTOs on Duna aerodynamically.

Honestly it never occurred to me, but now that you mention it I might just send a new rover and finish this. Glad to know it's not just me. A little distressing though to know that it's a possibility and seemingly without a better workaround.

You guys ever run into the issue where your wheels just stop working? Like for instance, after driving halfway around a planet? asking for a friend. Anyway, I'll treat you to a classic tragedy in however many parts this is: I'm not really that bent out of shape about it. This was supposed to be a test-mission for my new rover, and I guess I did test it. Would have been nice to complete the trip though. I made it halfway around Eeloo while mostly doing other things. This rover's SAS is sufficient to keep it pointed mostly the right direction and upright enough of the time that I was able to set it driving and then go make myself a snack or watch a video or something and then come back and slightly adjust course. It cruises around 60m/s on Eeloo and can drive at 2x timewarp. I didn't test higher warp and mostly drove at 1x since it needed less babysitting that way.

had an idea for a new rover. It's the sort of thing I would have built when I was first starting the game, but with the experience of the me that's now. It's fast, easy to drive, and very durable. I'm using the RoveMax wheels for their incredible glitch speed and also for their huge superstructure which on this rover acts as a highly effective rollcage. It's got 2 of the large reaction wheels which it needs in order to steer and also keep it pointed the right direction practically no matter what, allowing it to cruise around at ridiculous speed without any care in the world. It seats 6, 2 in the command pod up front and 4 in seats in the center section. It's got every experiment and the ability to refuel itself. On the runway I got it up to 85m/s, but on most other bodies I've tried it on it gets to 60-70m/s. Under physics warp, the speed drops to about half, so You're better off at 1x driving long distances.

I'm definitely not trying to offend or tell you what you're doing is wrong. I'm just trying to leave some extra rover wisdom in the rover questions thread for passers by. I meant my "you" to be more the royal you than you specifically but that's just poor communication on my part. I also appear to have overstated the degree to which having separate controls requires two hands. It mostly just lets the player leave SAS on all the time while driving normally. For me it solved the problem of tipping while accelerating or driving up steep hills on low gravity planets like the Mun. I guess you solve that by turning the reaction wheels off, but I find it helpful to have them help me keep my rover pointed true while I'm sliding around trying to find grip. I also have at least one useful rover that just can't be driven on a lot of planets with the controls bound together because it'll just flip over forward.

I think what you're asking for is effectively this: Which I gotta agree with in a big way. I personally use the arrow keys for rovers, but regardless having strong SAS on your rover becomes much more useful when you can control it independently from steering. It also lets accelerate without doing a front flip or losing rear wheel traction Makes driving a two-handed experience, but realistically your other hand was hovering over f9 anyway. Oh! and while I'm at it, I'm going to advocate for putting landing thrusters on your rovers. Makes it way easier to survive high jumps and falls. They don't need enough dV to actually land from orbit, just enough to get control in the air and land softly.

The magic boulder around Ike. It had the absolute nerve to be removed from the game before I could get good enough at the game to visit it myself.

KSP Ride, a mobile game released in April 2025 to middling reception by Take Two. KSP Ride is a management sim in which players collect unique and powerful rocket parts by participating in community events and spending the "Funds" in game currency. The game received criticism upon release from many industry outlets such as IGN which noted that the game had strayed "far from the initial premise of Kerbal Space Program". Despite this, KSP Ride went on to become Take Two's fifth best preforming property for the year and is considered the predecessor of GTA Ride. Metascore: 74 userscore: 58

As someone who builds a lot of rovers, I usually send landers and dropships with high RCS thrust when I want to move things around the surface of a place like Minmus, Rovers are obviously doable, but the low gravity means that your performance is severely limited, probably beyond the point that they'd be any fun to drive. At least I don't find it fun, you do you. Related to that, some combination of the third person view, the low detail terrain, and the fact that your speedometer reads out in m/s makes KSP rovers seem like they're quite a lot slower than they actually are, so it's extra painful when you hit a bump at only 15m/s (54km/h , 33mph) and get flung into the nonexistent stratosphere.

1. Stack fuel tanks to make a longer fuselage 2. Make the fuselage wider by using larger parts 3. Make a composite fuselage from multiple tanks clipped together. It's practically the same thing as having multiple fuselages, but it might look cooler 4. Clip a bunch of fuel tanks into a fairing 5. Use KAL overclocking to reduce or eliminate the fuel consumption of your engines so that you can have whatever fuselage you want with the desired performance 6. Literally just edit either the part .cfg files or craft files in notepad to put as much fuel as you want in your craft without needing to add more parts.

The physics joints created when you attach the ant engine to something/attach something to the ant engine are known to be pretty weak and bendy. Rover suspensions and occasionally even hinges were made this way in older versions of the game before wheels were improved. I think I once saw a player make a crossbow where the string was a bunch of ant engines attached to each other and stretched out. Edit: I guess that's not strictly better, might be less buggy though due to fewer robotics. I guess the point is, all KSP part attachments are a little springy (some more than others) and that has a long history of being abused to make neat stuff.

Hah! Will do, but I was secretly hoping somebody who'd been down this road before would chime in and save me the trouble. I don't know how far you've looked into submersible stuff in KSP already, but in case it's "not at all" I'll let you know that the way to make things sink efficiently is to pack them into a fairing or cargo bay. It'll be considered by the game to have the volume of only the containing part, but the mass of all parts combined. You add a dash of part clipping and it's easy to see how you can get some very high density. If you open/deploy your containing part all your parts get their volume back, so you can control buoyancy that way. The reason I'm experimenting with it despite knowing how it works already is because I want to do it without having to add a bunch of parts just for buoyancy control, and instead use stuff the vessel was already going to need on it like fuel cells (in the screenshot, one of those service bays has 40 large fuel cells. they work great) and I also want to keep it looking reasonably good. "The vessel" in this case being an as-yet-unbuilt one, not the rover I showed off. That rover can stay ugly.

A while ago I posted a picture of an exploded vehicle deep underwater and mentioned that I was building an ornithopter. It was this vehicle which is designed to test stuff underwater. I thought that maybe flapping wings could be viable as underwater propulsion (it's not. it explodes instantly). In this picture I'm using it to test tech for controlling buoyancy and hopefully recreating a bug I once summoned which allowed me to stretch a piston limitlessly. The pistons have their force % turned to zero so that they extend when the thing they're attached to wants to float and retracts when it sinks. I'll have to do another run to seriously attempt to recreate the stretchy piston bug, probably with one of the weaker, skinnier pistons.

It super doesn't. Literally just go to the home page and drag a screenshot on to the green button in the top left of the page. You don't need an account or a cell phone. Such is the life of a gamer.

Granted, but the wisher instead becomes corrupted such that they may only wish for incredibly cursed things I wish for an announcement that KSP2 will be an NFT marketplace in the metaverse instead of a space game (AlamoVampire and their wish is to blame for this)

I wasn't going to mention it when you were just doing shapes, but the mod Editor Extensions Redux lets you do arbitrary symmetry and removes offset limits in the editor. I'm mentioning it now because I find the unlimited offset indispensable for any reasonably large or complicated build, and what you have here is both large and complicated (and very cool). You can radically reduce your part count, increase structural stability, and offset parts from one side of your mechanisms to the other to brace them against each other and fight off KSP's wobbly robotics a bit. Vessels that use it still count as stock on kerbalx and load perfectly in a stock client. This is an awesome rover chassis and I don't know that I've seen anyone else on here build such complicated steering mechanism. I can't wait to see what you build on top of it. Yeah, over the years KSP has gone from having a <4gb memory footprint to pushing (and regularly exceeding) the limit on my old pc with 8gb of ram. I'm surprised more people haven't complained about the increase in system requirements. The game as it is now absolutely would not run on the machine I originally bought it on.