AHHans

I totally agree. In RL you can adjust the thrust of an SRB by forming the solid fuel so that the surface that actually burns is smaller or larger. You can even generate thrust curves by forming the fuel the right way. But once the SRB is lit you cannot change it anymore! You can just watch it and pray you did everything right. Hmmmm... So IMHO it would be O.K. to use a KAL-1000 to "program" a thrust curve - keeping the thrust between 10% and 100% - that starts when you light the SRB and runs until burn-out. As long as you specify the thrust curve in the hangar and don't modify it after launch.

I just gave it a test, and indeed if I disengage the drive in the VAB then the lock is marked as not set when going to the launchpad. But in the quick test I did the hinge didn't behave as I would expect a not-locked and not-powered hinge to behave: it didn't flop around or fold down under the force of gravity. It kind of behaved as if disengaging the engine automatically locked the hinge. P.S. For me personally this hasn't been a problem (yet?), I haven't had the need to use robotic parts with an engine installed but have that engine disengaged. I.e. I either remove the engine in the editor (if I want it unpowered) or I leave the engine engaged.

Look for your savefiles-folder(*), in there is a folder called "Backup" which contains five (the last five?) autosaves. Copy or move a file to the savefiles-folder and then you can load it from KSP. (*) It is wherever KSP is installed in the "saves" subfolder of the KSP directory. E.g. if you have Steam somewhere like: <your_Path_here>/SteamLibrary/steamapps/common/Kerbal Space Program/saves/<name_of_save_here>

Hi @spacemarc, welcome to the Forums! Do you have a relay network set up that gives CommNet connection even when there is no direct line-of-sight between the station and Kerbin? [Edit:] You wrote that you don't have relay satellites. .oO(*grrr* Hans! Read the full text next time! ) So, yes! You do need a relay network for the deployed science to work reliably. But now that the experiments are finished you can actually "just" pick up the results with a Kerbal.[/Edit] Have a look at what I wrote in this thread for an explanation why that matters and what I think happened to you.

Use a strut to connect the two parts. The way KSP internally represents the craft means that craft cannot have "loops". Every part of a craft has exactly one "parent" (if you don't re-root then that's the part it was connected to when building the craft), and following the parents you get to the root part of the craft. (I computer science this kind of data structure is called a "tree".) And, btw., the struts and the fuel-dutcs are actually more a variation of that theme than an exception. They "are" on one side and then point in a direction, saying "I connect to something in that direction".

Well, assuming that you "only" use docking ports that point more or less straight up or down then you can use SAS to keep your craft from spinning out of control even in pure stock: if you select "control from here" from a downward facing docking port and put SAS in surface mode to "radial in", then SAS will docking port pointing straight down (choose "radial out" for an upward facing docking port). Then you can set the "main" engines to give just enough thrust to compensate for the gravity which makes the craft to nearly hover (nearly because you'll never the the thrust 100% right and because the weight of your craft changes with fuel burn). This in turn allows you to navigate around with RCS. This works better in lower gravity than in higher gravity: you'll need to hover quite a while (many minutes) on engine thrust (bring enough fuel!) and in lower gravity the acceleration is lower so you have more time to react. Just today I docked a crew shuttle to the underside of my hanging Mun base, which I believe is kind of the same thing just in the other direction. So it is possible but it is fiddly work, so be prepared for frustration and several reloads. [Edit:] P.S. In case it wasn't clear: it can be done, but I don't recommend it. Except if you want to prove that you can do it.

The Hook! Not the hanger! Fine. At its first position (on imgur the image where it hang at 98m elevation) it started to slide, but I moved it to the right (thus the change to 103m elevation) to a more flat section of the Arch, and there it hangs and just swings gently in the breeze. (Yes, good thing that there are no storms on the Mun.) But that would cover up all the windows! (And do you have a good way to make fabric in KSP?)

Well, anyhow, no matter if you want a place for your scientists to study the underside of a Mun Arch or if you want a special place for your tourists where they have something to look up to every morning, when you want to have a base suspended from a Mun Arch then look no further, AHTech Industries has the solution for you: The Hanging Optimized Observation Karavansary also known as The Hook This fantastic piece of engineering does not need hinges or pistons or other newfangled, unstable, and Kraken-baity parts. Just good old fashioned rocketry, structural engineering, and precision piloting. And maybe now Jeb has a place that is grand enough to hang his ego. So, yes, this craft was designed to not need any DLC. The full voyage of this from the launchpad to the Mun can be found on imgur: https://imgur.com/a/chJSXxG As you can imagine getting this onto the Mun Arch is a bit tricky and it took me a few tries to get it done. But with the rocket engine set to compensate gravity you can use RCS to maneuver it into position. [Edit:] The craft is now also available on Kerbalx: The Hook

IMHO this adds little extra challenge to the task. If I can build it in the VAB and cost or speed is not an issue, then I can also get it from the launchpad to any place on the Mun. Just add an oversized booster, climb slowly out of Kerbin's atmosphere, accelerate into orbit, transfer to the Mun, and land. If you run out of fuel or whatever then add a bigger booster. So I would suggest that you change that to allow people to start close to the Mun-Arch with the cheat menu. (But in the end it's up to you.)

Well, I interpret these values as "If you click here then so many more reports will be displayed."

Jupp. I just tested, one OKTO2 plus one (many for the small, lightwheigt ones) SRB gives the following vacuum dV: 9*Flea: 1937 m/s 9xHammer: 2971 m/s 17xMite: 3264 m/s 1xThumper: 3312 m/s 9xShrimp: 3544 m/s 1xKickbac: 3596 m/s 1xPollux: 4100 m/s 1xThoroughbred: 4381 m/s 1xClydesdale: 4433 m/s So, yes, bigger is better. And you won't get much farther than Kerbin orbit with SRB "SSTOs". But it also says that a Shrimp only SSTO would in theory be possible. (Maybe not as a horizontal take-off.)

Ah, yes, I also noticed that. The thing is that the SRBs have a fixed fuel to dry-mass ratio. So once the total mass of your craft is dominated by SRBs then adding more of the same SRBs will not noticeably increase your dV.

Yessss!!! Well, I did that trip already yesterday and when I saw that you were also working on a cargo version I interrupted my weekend chores(*) to hack together my report. (No, I'm totally not competitive.) Well, you did manage to get your Kerbals safely back to the ground! That does have to count for something, doesn't it? Thanks for starting this fun and interesting challenge. Although I think I'll stick to liquid-fueled SSTO spaceplanes for my career games, they are just more capable and easier to fly. P.S. The price for my craft can be seen in the screenshots from the editor. The Stonewhale costs 50,707 and the Stonewhale 2f (including the satellite) costs 52,903 (Without the satellite and decoupler it is 47,113 but it would be unstable to fly until the Thoroughbred booster has burned out because the CoM would be too far back.) P.P.S. (*) Yes, I do some of them on the Sunday. In contrast to what some people (here) think that's not actually illegal, even in Germany.

Yes, I had also seen the discussion earlier in this thread. But my earlier landings wen well and I added a strut for extra strength, so I thought it would be fine. My original trip was all done in one go without loading a (quick-)save, the second attempt was after loading a savefile. And my original landings weren't all that soft, so I think the act of saving and loading might also compromise the strength... Anyhow, I improved my design (with an extra, empty fuel tank ) and can now present you the Stonewhale 2f: As you can see this is the cargo version. It does have space for a mission specialist in the cockpit, but AHTech Industries suggests that you contact your local spacefarers union representative before leaving them in orbit. The full documentation can be found on here: https://imgur.com/a/A5bTtb9 Some selected highlights are: Deploying the cargo: The orbits during aerobraking: "Jeb!?! The runway in in the other direction!" "Jeb!!! That is not the runway in front of us!" "Meh! Who needs runways?" P.S. Do I get my Caesium-137 medal now?

Short answer: the ones that give you the best dV at an acceptable TWR. Long(er) answer: It's complicated. a start would be to look at the discussion in this thread.

You cannot. The root part of a decoupled section will be the part in this section that was "closest" to the root part of the ship before the decoupling. Or in other words it will be the part that is/was directly connected to the fired decoupler. So in your example, when you fire decoupler-1a then fairing-1a will be the root part of the decoupled section. [Edit:] So the recommended way to deal with this situation is to do what @Superfluous J suggested: fire the decoupler and then use "[" or "]" to switch to the vessel that you want to control. (And since a recent patch (1.9.0 I believe) "[]" will not switch to "debris" - i.e. parts without a control point - anymore.)

Well, my approach in a similar situation (it was a landed plane, not a base) was to <R-Shift> - <F12> (yes, I use Linux) and to activate essentially all the cheats before switching to that plane. Then when it was done jumping around and was again standing on the ground I deactivated all the cheats.

O.K. So here is my (first?) entry, the Stonewhale (here still with the preliminary project title): As you can see, this is not a contender for the cheapest entry, but it will carry one primary pilot and four or five - depending on whether you need a copilot on the trip back - to space. Some shots of the round trip, the full album is available here: https://imgur.com/a/8W4Nslp Takeoff: In orbit: Aerobraking: At the parking position:

Interesting indeed! In particular as I saw lots of people hanging out in the sun during a trip through the city on Thursday afternoon. And one should keep in mind that low risk is not the same as no risk. (AKA I'm really curious how Germany will fare now that our politicians are in a race to lower restrictions.)

Hmmm... If I find a crazy spot to land at the KSC, will I get one made of Caesium-137? (*) On a related note: did the mission with screenshots, but uploading will have to wait till tomorrow. (It's pretty late around here, and I still need to come up with a good name for the plane.) P.S. Did you know that the ground / roadway between the SPH and the mission control building isn't completely flat? There is a kind of "step" in there. (That makes my plane wobble when taxiing over it.) Same between the astronaut complex and the science buildings. P.P.S. Did you know that two pairs of sepratrons (so 4 in total) is not enough to do a U-turn at the science building and taxi back to the SPH? [Edit:] (*) I guess the widest lane would be between the astronaut complex and the SPH, trying to miss the VAB on the left. Or turn around and land on the crawlerway from the east. Well, I'll look into it tomorrow. .oO(It would probably be easier if that damn thing wouldn't be so unstable on the ground.)

Well, I did it. Without using the reaction wheels after landing and even with two sets of "taxi-engines" unused: Now I "only" have to do it again and document it properly. P.S. You wrote "Please keep off the grass while taxiing." So running over the apron in front of the SPH during landing in a desperate scramble to find the runway is O.K., yes? I wasn't taxiing at that time!

Your Kerbal has to stand at certain positions relative to the sandstone. Walk around it and on top of it, and at some point you should get the option to pick it up.

Just to be clear: is taxiing with reaction wheels and a steerable front wheel O.K.? Or is that considered cheating?

A) I haven't noticed the issue myself, so my guess is that this has to do with one or more of the mods. B) I believe that the struts work in the way that the first end is where the strut actually "lives" (I.e. also where the weight and drag of the strut is applied.), and from there the strut points into a direction saying "I connect to something in that direction". So whenever the craft is loaded the game checks which part is the first part that is hit there and attaches the strut there. So to resolve a "stuck strut" issue you need to trigger a re-evaluation of the strut. One way to do this in the editor is to remove and <CRTL>-<Z> the part it was attached to, another way is to switch the editor between the VAB and the SPH (and back). I can't say which is faster but it might be worth a try.

Hmmm... Let me check the changelog for KSP 1.8.0: * Implement ability to edit Action Groups in flight. (Yes, that means you don't need a mod anymore to edit action groups during flight!)