MisterKerman

@Jett_Quasar Um, wowthatscool.

Yeh. That was impressive @Stratzenblitz75

I prefer realism but I'm not ready to add mods that add an extra layer of realism like TAC Life Support. I suppose I prefer realism but need training wheels as of right now and I'm prefectly fine with KSP the way it is until they add a third survival career mode with parts that cater to the needs of astronauts similarly.

I don't know what's underneath or on the inside of that thing. Better let Doodle answer my question I guess, as well as yours. I realize you need fuel and an engine to hop. Sometimes people clip parts. He has multiple experiments of the same kind on that thing so they would be best used in multiple biomes seeing as it's an unmanned craft with no on board scientist to reset them. He has spent parachutes which means it touched down probably using those alone, which means if it was a hopper it would still have a full tank of fuel for a hop. Landing close enough to another biome might make the necessary fuel required reasonably low. I've done things like that before myself, just without part clipping generally.

Biome hopper?

I like Marching Minmus as well. It's not too tall or wide or heavily clipped. Looks industrial and functional.

Chill Kerik. He was just pointing out something the devs put in the game as is, and then defending why he chose the words he used to come to a conclusion based on that same flawed dev logic in regards to a gripe another user had with the validity of the observation of what's legitimately in the game. If you read all comments leading up to that, you'll realize he actually agrees with you.

Damn dude. I love asymmetrical too, but yeesh. Nice aircraft.

About that radially attached docking port not lining up correctly (pointing the dock at it's target when control is set to that radially attached port) when tracking a target using the Target function in SAS; I've experienced that too. It works about %80 of the time if I was forced to ballpark a figure.

Normally I hate the way canards look. You made a great looking design where they don't obliterate the craft aesthetics. OmO! Good job.

I just grandparent wobbly or fuselage parts generally. I've already had a unplanned rapid disassembly of a space station upon docking a fairly heavily autostrutted lander once. I'm a good boy now...

@scottadges That station is too cool. Symmetry is over rated and I try to avoid it whenever I can. Example: My last little failed project. Notice the docking port.

@Grogs Have you experimented with autostruts? They're basically free invisible struts that have no physics. You just need to enable them in one of the options menus. I'll never use a physical strut part again! (aside from wanting it to simply look reinforced.)

Other 4

He's choosing to ignore the clarifying footnote... that's all lol. Interesting take on it tho.

Will consider lol

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Navball#Prograde_and_retrograde ?

This! ^

Honestly a tutorial on YouTube would probably be pretty effective and easy to find. A visual aid will be more effective than an explanation. My process is to make either your AP or PE match one of your target's. Once one matches (doesn't matter which) make sure the ascending or descending node is tweaked in a way that the orbits lie flat with eachother so that they are as parallel as possible (your orbit as well as your target's.) A good indication of that is when they flip around the orbit because the descending/ascending angles have now reversed. Once your orbit is flat and either your AP or PE matches one of your targets (again it doesn't matter which. Just make sure one of the distances from the planets is exactly the same,and in the same location) you can now estimate when you will encounter your target. If your orbit is tighter on the one side than your target's, you will orbit quicker, catching up to it with each orbit. If it's further out, your target will begin to catch up with you. Once either you or your target is about to pass entirely, you can then adjust the orbit to match their's more closely. Doing so will match your target's closest location when it does pass. If you do it right you will simply drift beside eachother when that happens. You'll need to tweak the maneuver node in a way that the separation is as little as possible. This will take practice. Just fiddle with it until it's as close to 0.0km as possible. It's not necessary, but it will make docking easier if you're drifting closer to your target once you've reached the closest location your target will be at the time. Pay very close attention to your prograde and target locations and steer it using lateral movements paying attention to your relative speed to your target. You don't want to smash into it, so like I said: lateral movements while maintaining a slow approach is ideal. This will also take practice. - - - - Like I said a visual aid VIA Youtube tutorial might be easier to understand.

Made a low-grav lander. Will probably scrap it. The fuel tanks rob it of the raw/industrial look I was going for...

@RizzoTheRat Your RCS placement is a little strange looking to me. I guess the MK3 pod has built in thrusters or whatever that I've never utilized myself for docking, but your fuel tank/power-plant has them located on just the one end. Satisfy my curiosity? owo I might be missing something.

Finally finished up a harrowing 52 day mission (with essentially no fuel for adjustments) orbiting Kerbin running experiments for contracts. It was awful. During reentry my SSTO's nosecone overheated sending my unstable craft into a messed up spiral leveling off with just enough time and fuel to pull out of it at the last second and land on solid ground first attempt. That was the longest most boring thing I've ever done in KSP but at least the end was exciting and everything turned out okay. Orbital observations are officially more trouble than they're worth to me.

@Aeroboi I want to bring stuff with me just for fun. Relay satellites, rover, lander, maybe even a lightweight ion glider if I can find a good design to copy. Not for science or cash due to already having my tech-tree completed and about 6 Mil of fun money in the bank. I just want to have a full fleshed adventure. And yes, the motivation behind why I build a lot of things the way I do is for looks as well as novelty; however impractical. I'm slowly getting better at it and starting not to hate the way my crafts look/perform.

Ultimately I plan to build a 2.5m mothership of sorts. I feel like that's a good size depending where my destination is. I'm not sure how subjective craft size is or when it's deemed necessary to build large. Every Jool ship I've seen has been enormous.

I just want to see what people tend to do. I'll probably start small and fling a satellite at Duna attempting a capture. Not going to mess with Ion engines yet though. Seems less straightforward. If they give a great reason why they do it in the process I'd find that very helpful. Seems like aside from payload requirements it seems like the consensus is bigger is better.