RoninFrog

Eve is the hardest stock planet to return from, and so any full-scale (manned) Eve mission is going to involve some sort of either gigantic or glitchy lander design. Sending a gigantic lander through interplanetary space in turn requires an even bigger launch system. I've found it can get out of hand really fast, often surpassing the stock part diameters tank sizes into gigantic tangles of asparagus staging. I'm just wondering what y'all's launch systems look like for Eve. Do you go for aesthetics? Over-engineered dV budgets? Low mass? SSTO? I personally tried to go for an aesthetically pleasing rocket: What are y'all's designs?

The only change I'd make would be to make Dres orbit the other way around. It would provide the planet with a unique challenge that it otherwise lacks.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, but I don't think it's going to matter in the end. I loaded the crafts to try some things, but one of them was apparently saved in the flying state, and flying crafts and landed crafts don't really mix well.

Just used a RAPIER engine for the first time, haha. And yep, they're pretty overpowered. I used it to make a small SSTO which I then used to launch a small science rover to Duna. I part-clipped an RA-2 and a dumpling into the nose cone, but it's purely for aesthetic purposes to make the rover capsule look more like the Perseverance rover's capsule. I didn't need the nose cone for aerodynamics since it was already in a cargo bay. I forgot to stage off my Duna transfer stage (the two donuts) but it ablated off during Duna entry anyway. Sorry there's no sound, macOS is finnicky.

How do I detach the decoupler my kerbal is standing on?? It's offset from the crew cabin above the kerbal. I used it to attach the control probe sitting underneath but I re-rooted to the probe to fix symmetry before I launched (which is why it detached the wrong way), and now I think the craft thinks that the decoupler is the root part, and thus would have part attachments. Is there any easy way to just get rid of the part? Any cheats are fine. Things that don't work: There are no other part attachments preventing me from detaching; the decoupler went straight from the crew cabin to the radial attachment. Lowering gravity doesn't allow the kerbal to pick it up. I'm on a Mac with no mouse, so I don't have a middle mouse button for object thrower. I'm not comfortable modifying any save file information as the craft states are pretty precarious (they are physics landed-suspended). At this point I'm going to be working on creating some sort of acetylene welder type rig to burn the part off with overheating, but if anyone knows an easier way please let me know.

I finally made the flying runway I've dreamt of for years. Used the "landed-anchoring" type of thing that stratzenblitz and I think other KSP-tubers have used to fly inside Jool, but instead used it to anchor a gigantic helicarrier-type thing in the sky to land planes on. Kerbals can walk on it, it doesn't despawn out of loading distance, and the game can exit directly to the tracking station/KSC. Yes, I used infinite fuel and ec to set it up because I couldn't be bothered to make a launch vehicle for a 800 ton literal aircraft carrier that needs to land within centimeters of a target. This is fully possible without cheats, just unimaginably painful to set up. I already wanted to bite my own fingers off after the four hours it took with them. The one issue is you have to quicksave/exit when the text is white (not orange) or the entire craft will detonate, piece from piece, when you next load it. Haven't really figured out why this sometimes happens, but at least there's a way to prevent it.

I made a helicarrier . Been wanting to make one like this for a long time now, finally got a design that will remain stable long enough to exit to tracking station. However, reloading it currently explodes the vessel due to too much stress on the supporting "landed-anchored" parts. I might try again using more structural fuselages to support, currently looking for solutions.

I usually get a good mental estimate by checking the TWR and then kinda toggle throttle a couple times to see how much my Pe moves and then adjust based off that. Kinda ghetto but I've gotten used to it. I don't remember ever doing captures any other way.

For plane changes I always do three separate burns: capture, plane change, and then circularize. I don't usually use nodes for any of those, although occasionally for the plane change if I don't have a good reference point with ascending and descending nodes. I believe it's more efficient this way, but I could be wrong. I was shocked when the tutorial had me try to circularize and change planes at the same time; I had never considered doing that before (as usually Pe is not near An or Dn).

I wasn't aware this was a thing people did until recently. I just flew through the tutorials for the first time yesterday and was surprised that they used maneuver nodes to circularize orbits. Is this a common practice? I almost never use a maneuver to circularize unless I'm flying a craft with a super low TWR that will need a burn over 2 minutes or so. I usually just pressure the Ap/Pe with throttle to see how it moves, and then fly the burn manually. I've found it's much easier to get a circular orbit (within ~200m) that way. Is this standard procedure? Have I been living under a rock for the last four years?

They eat mushroom stew.

Made a manned rover that fits in a 1.25m cargo bay: Also wrote a Mun tutorial for some reason.

When I first went to the Mun a long long time ago, I believe I was following some sort of tutorial (maybe the wiki one). The tutorial eventually got me there and back, but my rocket was really poorly designed, about 4-5 times bigger than it needed to be, and lacking in some basic functionalities that and as a result I put more effort into struggling to overcome technical difficulties and mistakes than I put into learning spaceflight. In the end, the mission was really fun, but I do think the process could have been more fun and less painful. So I decided to make the rocket that I would have wanted back in the day. Here is the design I came up with: KerbalX Link: http://kerbalx.com/RoninFrog/The-Kerbal-Experience Here's a list of reasons this rocket is infinitely better for a beginner than the one I made for my first Mun trip: No direct WASQE control required. (Except for a brief moment during Munar ascent) No specific craft altitude timings. Pretty much everything is done based on Ap and Pe positions. It's not super overbuilt. Although a ridiculous margin of error can make it easier for a new player to get to the Mun and back, an overbuilt rocket doesn't really (imo) demonstrate a proper Mun mission. Demonstrates a really basic docking maneuver, with the option to learn a more complicated rendezvous later on. It has a rover. I really wanted to bring a rover on my first Mun mission but couldn't figure it out. PHASE 1: Launchpad to LKO PHASE 2: Mun transfer PHASE 3: The Mun There are two ways to land this craft on the Mun: You can land Apollo-style with only the lander, but you will have much tighter fuel restrictions and you will have to perform a rendezvous with the service module to get home. I do the apollo-style in the video below, but I mess up the ascent and run out of fuel too early, having to go full Mark Watney to get back to the Service Module. You can also land with the service module. The mission won't be as fun (IMO) and you won't have the rover but you will have much looser fuel restrictions and you can skip the rendezvous. Both sets of instructions are listed here. I think a new player is probably capable of either, but take your pick. I'd recommend at least trying the Apollo, and if that doesn't work then you can always fall back on your Mun orbit quicksave for the rendezvous-skip method. The two hardest things about Apollo-style are fuel management and setting up a rendezvous maneuver. Rendezvous-Skip (easy): Apollo-Style (hard): PHASE 3: Return to Kerbin Here's a video of how the mission should go, except for how I made a mistake on my Mun ascent and didn't have enough fuel to do a full dock with the service module. Sorry about any audio cuts.

Well it's super hairy but doable.

http://kerbalx.com/RoninFrog/Omnicycle Edit: Not entirely sure the rover will survive the Dres plunge. I haven't made a rover yet that survived when I tested it. Edit 2: Just tested it and the rover was in one piece but both wheels broke and the pilot fell out and almost died.

I've started another Vall run. Journey: Roving progress: I'm about 1/6 of the way around. Vall has some of the best air time of all the planets I've been on. It's small enough that you can jump high, big enough that you can gain speed, and smooth enough that you don't die when you land. The main problem I'm having is that the ground looks really boring. The devs kinda skimped on Vall's texturing imo. Craft

It turns out it's also an absolute pleasure to fly with the kerbal chute. Super fine control, low (<30m/s) flying speeds, very stable and thoughtlessly easy to take off and land. Very relaxing. Sorry the vid was taken at night lol.

This rover is a combination of the various aspects of rover design I've worked with/discovered. Elastic hinge-based suspension Adjustable SAS position holding Transforms into hydrofoil for water Single wheel/full RTG power It's really fast, really durable, really compact, and can go anywhere. Stable up to 70 m/s on land, 100 m/s on water, and 30 m/s on extreme terrain (e.g. Mun crater jumps or Moho mountains). 200m jumps on the Mun are safe.

I really hate games that are fully functional and fun and yet the dev teams keep adding random new features and tidbits just for the sake of keeping the game "updated" and keep re-interesting existing playerbases and new players with "here, come back and try this new fun tidbit!" (Looking at you, Minecraft) For this reason I from KSP2's first trailer only saw it as a potentially good thing at least for my own gameplay experience in KSP1. Although I'm not super invested in the game right now, I really enjoy the gameplay and the true unlimited-size sandbox feel it has. I really disliked the last update that added a bunch of inventory revamps such as the EVA repair kits and the mass-specific inventories and all that. I don't really think that there's much to be improved in the base game of KSP1 that can't be added with mods, with the exception of maybe performance improvements. And now that KSP2 has probably killed any more random bs updates, I feel free to enjoy the game for what it is and not feel like I'm being constantly pummeled in the face with random bs updates like a lot of other games are prone to do. (*cough* Minecraft) I'm really happy with where the game is currently at, and as long as it keeps running I'll remain a happy (although occasional) player. Edit: One more thought which has probably already been shared before: The steam charts certainly indicate a drop in players, but given that many more long-term KSP-ers don't use steam to launch the game, it might not be super telling of the more long-term player base. While KSP2's crash almost certainly affected KSP1 sales and probably had a big effect on the playerbase, I don't think it's going to have really any affect at all on my own personal gameplay.

Let's me hold a yaw heading with SAS while still being able to adjust pitch for slopes. If I hold surface prograde it sort of auto-steers along the equator while still aiming up and down hills, kind of like an autopilot.

I haven't really had the time to do a full Elcano but boy do I love designing long-range rovers. Here's the latest design I made: It's got elastic suspension on each tire, with a hinge-mounted docking port for long-range navigation. It's probably the sturdiest rover I've ever built that actually looks like a normal rover and also works well in a vacuum. craft file

I pulled off an incredible Vall landing. Came within 100m of the mountains at 900 m/s while descending, and then ran out of fuel right before touching down and ended up lithobraking away everything up to the payload fairing. Rover was unharmed.

Lol didn't know about that glitch. I'd say it's fine. The main thing is that the piston still has to check for available electric capacity, where the alt+f12 menu bypasses that. On my attempt, I used a Dawn engine underclocked so much that it filled my batteries in two game ticks, so I think the two are functionally identical. I also "changed" the rules to specifically allow some craft file editing. I don't believe its results will drastically differ from overclocking, but I could be wrong. I kind of hope I am.

Overclocking, yes, but not the "unlimited electricity" in the cheat menu.

I don't know if the tutorial mentions this but this is pretty easy to fix with the thrust limiter. P.S. If you want to make the intercept more exciting, forget to put the thrust back to 100.