Atimed

One mystery solved.. Now the easy part, making rockets that go to the planets, if possible even back.. Keep up the good work guys.. But please hurry..

Pick one at random.. When you get bored pick another one.. Just keep the game fresh, and fun to play.. Accelerando did a nice choice..

By my understanding its not you can use from all 4 stacks by simply connecting it with fuel lines.. But not independently.. If you scenario would be possible id would help, 1t is a small burden but burden non the less..

Okay, i think you have auto staging set to 0, set it to 1.. i think this should solve the problem.. atm i'm testing some parameters and stats so that it will fly the way i fly it manually.. [ATTACH=CONFIG]31199[/ATTACH] Here are the parameters that fly almost the same way i do it in the video.. Hope it helps

Glad u like it, i have around 30 or so in orbit atm.. Mostly Testing scrap.. p.s. a bigger brother is coming up soon..

Here's my, all stock.. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/16114-Xenon-Research-Station-Stock

I have a strict naming convention that can support around ~50'000 different crafts.. Gen-Number / Element From the Periodical Table of Elements / Tipe (Pod,Lander,Spacecraft,Airplane..) Mk (variation number) Example:Gen-III Helium Pod Mk-2

So what orbital velocity is 10m/s? Nice.. . Do we have weak enough engines or should it be just RCS?

So its only use will be for "jumping" to other star systems.. But wouldn't it be odd that you go from chemical rockets go to warp drives, and noting in between? Me to, i wanna do a Apollo style mission.. Just for comparison the FT-909 is around 400, a average ion engine would have around 3000 or more..

Well not Realy, for short mun landing you wouldn't use something 10x advanced/expensive.. You'll use the good old chemical rockets.. We might keep Chemical rockets with, i don't know D instead of H for fuel.. A lot heavier fuel, but bulkier engines with high thrust and relative lower consumption..If we get ion engines, thy will be very low thrust and very low fuel consumption.. With solar panels necessary on board.. only work in vacuum.. Nuclear thermal rockets.. might be used for boosters.. i don't know.. All have its advantages, but also disadvantages.. I personally root for Bipropelant tech..

Well we will need something to propel the ships into deep space... Efichent engines, and new fuel perhaps.. My best gess is: 4 Tanks(1x1,1x2,2x1,2x2), 4 engines(1m, vectoring/nonvectoring 2m, vectoring/nonectoring), capsule, solar panes... Think this is the bare minimum..

Ur not the only one, im stealing it just so u know..

Daam, this it a BIG rocket, got 8 times more fuel than my orbiter, but your looks nicer..

In short Read only Save games.. Thx mate..

Any one got any idea how "Quick Flight Scenarios" will look like? * Quick Flight Scenarios: Start flights from pre-set conditions, without interfering with your persistent sandbox save, and also save your own scenarios from your main game. Assigned to: HarvesteR Status: Under Development Will this just be a background for the tutorial missions or will will we be able to use it..Example run simulations of a craft directly from orbit.. etc.. What are your thoughts?

Just a quick note, i noticed some promotion from ING.. (laught so hard when they launched the wacky rockets..)

Now here's a challenge i like.. Fill the hotel at full capacity.. if i don't go insane sooner..

Still, Bright Vibrant and Intense colors are the core of "Cartoon" stile that are the devs going for.. Keep up the good work..

Hope I'm not late.. Well here's a simple orbiter, just on the way back don't forget to turn on the parachute like i did.. P.s. its fuel bug proof i was always at 100% or at 0% thrust.. .....Ascend........Gravity Turn....Orbit Height....Curricular Orbit.....Landing.....[ATTACH=CONFIG]30904[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]30905[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]30906[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]30907[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]30908[/ATTACH] Keep up the good work..

That are oddly shaped tanks u jettisoned.. They must make the ship unmanageable.. Are you playing with our minds, those are just 3 small SRBs.. Stuck to a decoupler.. Possibly a FL-T200 in the middle.. Nice touch with the fuel lines.. [ATTACH=CONFIG]30882[/ATTACH] Keep up the good work..

Honestly, While i was teaching my 8 year younger brother how to play.. Mostly building ICBM.. but enjoying the explosions.. I noticed that he used a lot of spaceplane parts.. Nothing special.. A few days later i woke up dreaming about being in a war zone, but that was just him making a new rocket.. After i Shouted at him for 10-15min i noticed this.. [ATTACH=CONFIG]30881[/ATTACH] And BAM it hit me... Well he hit me with a pillow.. So i stole his idea refined it a bit, and made a space station from it.. In short i'm a Thief, and i let him play the game as much as he likes now.. You never know..

Now a bit of Self Promotion if you want go even more minimalistic... Here's my 3 Kerbal Lander.. [ATTACH=CONFIG]30874[/ATTACH]

Found it, Ship is to heavy and its center of mass is pretty high, at 30+ tons ASAS and the capsules gyroscope cant compensate for that.. Mowing the outside stacks 2m (3200l) stacks 2-4 meters lower solves this Issue, also fuel lines are a bit off center so that causes some spin.. When you reenter atmosphere the same thing happens, this can be solved so that when your at 50km you turn of ASAS and spin your ship clockwise or counterclockwise.. The centrifugal force keeps the ship in a +-5° stable direction.. Also you can strip apart 18'000l of fuel, making the ship more responsive and increasing its power.. Hope this helps..P.S With a few minor changes you can refit your lander to carry the same amount of fuel while having consumption of 44l/s(old 65) with the thrust of 800 from the old 455, while still keeping the look.. [ATTACH=CONFIG]30872[/ATTACH]

Its not hard to make a big rocket fly, it just needs to be big enough its just not a chalange..Try making a craft as small as possible.. make it efichent, have it just enough to do it and... its easy doing something when you have 1000l of fuel.. Try and make the same thing with just 100l.. Also the smaller the craft Efective,cheepre and more agile it is that a big craft.. therefore better in every way..

So you mean powered descent, yes it is a option but is extremely inefective, the gravity is stronger by 10% and the atmosphere is 10 ticker.. To land you need more fuel than you need to lansd on Kerbin and after that even more to get back up.. while you can land 10x heavier ships with the same parachutes.. when it comes to alternatives.. why not use lift to guide you and slow you down.. no need to use fuel, just proper flight..