Excl

No, the whole station starts violently shaking and it rips itself apart. You can see in the bottom left part of the last image, one of the modules has already torn off. Unfortunately, I haven't found a solution to this. The best thing I can do is make separate smaller stations, and they will generally keep together.

Adding some more to this ... So here's my base: I'm trying to add the half on the left to the main part on the right. I've got a number of auto-guidance units, but I've turned all of the Reaction Wheels to "Pilot-Only", the Reaction Wheels to "0" and the Toggle Torque to "disabled". I've also put most of the units into Hibernation, except a select few. There's also several legs and such, but I've activated only 10 legs so that most of the base is off of the wheels and not using many of the legs. I plug the left into the right and BOOM, Instant Tacoma Narrows Bridge: I tried auto-strutting a bit too, but that didn't help. The more irritating part is that this was working fine in previous version, but now if you get too big, your station goes into auto-destruct mode.

Auto-strutted? What do you mean by that?

This may already be a topic, but after a quick search I couldn't find anything related. Is anyone else having a problem with extreme instability with docked space-stations and bases? Much more so than any previous version? I currently have a space station around Duna and am trying to piece together bases on Ike and Duna. I first really started seeing this issue with the Space station. If I try to use SAS to hold the station in a specific position, the base would soon start to oscillate back and forth until it eventually ripped itself apart. I tried to disable most of the SAS modules on the various remote guidance units I had on each station piece, but it still seems to wobble out of control. I then built a base on Ike. Put down a ISU converter piece and a driller piece and docked them with a few fuel pipes and a main communication battery. It seemed stable at first, but when I returned to the base after a few days, the station wobbled completely out of control and ripped itself apart in about 3 seconds. I was able to "fast-forward" and resume over and over to keep the station long enough for me to disable all the drills, retract them and undock the drill unit from the rest of the station, but it was a really frustrating process. Is anyone else having problems with really unstable docked stations? Any way of avoiding/getting around this? Thanks!

I convinced my friend, and avid gamer and Youtuber to try out Kerbal Space Program last year. He's had very little exposure to the game and I convinced him to avoid any sort of tutorials on how to play. Those expecting Scott Manley level type information from Youtube videos may need to look away. This could be cringe worthy for a few. Language warning too for those who may be under-age! Here's episode two for those that survived watching the entire first one:

Thank you percy! That's exactly what I'm looking for! Still interested in any other ideas people have, but I'll mark as answered for now.

I've been able to assemble quite a few space stations with no problem, so I understand the basics of creating smaller modules and lining things up with docking ports to assemble them. I've been trying to do the same for Mun bases and I've always run into problems. I was hoping for some advice on good designs for rovers and maybe even the base modules themselves that would allow me simple assembly. Now I suppose I could just slap wheels on everything, rove parts around the Mun, and connect things on a whim, but I'm looking for something a little more sightly. I'd like to have docking parts on the ends of compartments, and be able to move/connect things with the rover being the only real "wheeled" device. If the base parts can be elevated on struts, even better. But the main problems I'm running into are as follows: 1) Getting things to line up in Mun's gravity, versus Kerbin's. A Rover that I create and test with a docking port at a certain height on Kerbin doesn't seem to want to match up as nicely when I do it on the Mun. The wheels and lander legs all seem to sink to different heights depending on where you are. 2) Sliding things around on the ground without them breaking. Now I suppose the easiest way to alleviate Problem #1 is to just throw my docking port at the very bottom of everything. However, then I just have issues with the Rover/module dragging along the ground and breaking on things. Even when I get the Rover's body up off the ground, dragging the module itself seems to have issues as well, since there no wheels under the base to pull it along. Which leads to ... 3) I've tried designs where I make a "trailer" with a docking port facing up, that I can slide under a module elevated from landing struts and connect it from the bottom with wheels, but even that has issues. The biggest being, it's really difficult making a wheeled "trailer" that can actually fit two docking ports-worth of height under a module and not knock it over or be sturdy enough to support the load. So, I'm just curious if anybody has good designs or concepts for their own rover base-assemblers, because mine aren't really doing the job. And please "Vanilla" suggestions only.

Is it possible that the contract is expiring? I know they have time limitations of a few of them. I've never really missed one, but I suppose if you accept one late and then take a long time getting there, it could expire.

I think each planet/moon has a multiplier that goes with it.

I believe you need to to upgrade mission control to level 2 in addition to the tracking station.

I saw this on another thread, as I was looking for the exact same thing: That's for each Kerbal too ... so you can repeat the exact same mission 3 times with 3 different Kerbals and they will all earn the same xp. However, the same Kerbal cannot get credit for doing the same mission again. I also don't know the difference between "Flight" and "Fly By".

A couple simple things that I've found that helped ... - Make sure you strut as much as possible! Tie the top and bottom of everything down to whatever is next to it. The parts seem to rattle really easily, and it will throw your control way out of whack during a launch. I think there should be a more sturdy general connection between parts, but that's another conversation. Just try to get everything tied down. If you notice your ship flexing a lot during launch (like you have your SAS locked, but the ship direction still wobbles back and forth), then it's probably because you need to tie your parts down more - Make sure you've balanced the items on top of your ship, because the drag will kill you! If you find your ship pulling hard to one side during launch, it's probably because of the drag. I used to have several ladder pieces that ran down the one side of my lander. The weight is nothing, but the drag on even small parts is .2 ... and that adds up quick! Especially at the top of your ship. I started putting mirrored ladders on the other side of the ship, even if they led up to nowhere, and it balanced the ship much better during launch. On a recent launch I had with a huge staging system. I had one light and a few instruments on one side of the top capsule, and it pulled hard to the side during launch. I threw up a second light on the other side, and moved one of the instruments over, and the ship flew up straight as an arrow the next time. - You shouldn't need to do anything complicated like asparagus staging to get to the Mun, but do make sure you're shedding stages as you go up. You should be able to land on the Mun with nothing more than a single engine and standard tank with some struts and instruments. That should also be enough to get off the Mun and back, as you really don't need a whole lot to get back into Kerbin gravity. - Also make sure you have enough wing fins on your early stages, and RCS on your upper stages. The wings won't do much once you get out of the atmosphere, but they're going to provide you a lot of control during those early, hectic stages.

Not only an observatory, I'd love to have some sort of "telescope" tech. Not only could we build an observatory on Kerbin, but we could eventually put up a "Kubble" telescope into space.

The thing about earlier "unmanned" flights ... it was all about testing out rocket hardware, as this was all new technology. There was no rocket control or science research involved. It was about shooting a rocket up and hoping it didn't blow up. It's pretty hard to do that in-game, as we're assuming all career-start parts are 100% functional. I suppose if you want, you could have an uncontrollable probe that you can place on top of rocket, and launch up for your first science point, which would unlock the current set of "starting" hardware, but what's really the point of that? The "starting" tech is sort of implying they've done all the unmanned test flights up to this point, to get you that starter tech. Now, you're moving on to manned flights where actual research takes place. By the way, I absolutely love this new career mode. I haven't played KSP in months, but this new career mode has me playing again non-stop. Trying to find new ways of gathering science points, and trying to achieve objectives with a limited part set has made the game wildly challenging and fun again! I've already landed fully instrumented probes on Duna and Eve as well as both moons. I actually landed a 5th probe on Dres, before realizing I forgot to put any science or communication equipment on it! So much for the science payday there! I guess my only complaint about career so far is that there doesn't seem to be much of a payoff for successful plane flights. It's by far more challenging, yet you can't really get any big science research that you can't get far easier with a rocket.

I did the same thing ... I put the drag and weight of everything down to zero. Ended up bouncing off the launchpad and doing the Kessel run in around 12 parsecs.

How fast did you end up going? I editted a capsule, ASAS, tank and engine to have no drag, large collision value and minimal weight. I made the tank have a huge capacity, and the engine to have a small burn rate and HUGE output. (Note: If you keep the actual thrust to 1000, the engine won't rip itself apart, it's the other numbers that need to be huge). I got up to around 30,000 km/s, before I got bored looking at it, and stopped. It wobbled all over the place, but was able to mostly point itself in the right direction. I tried using winglets to control the steering once in space, but they would always seem to shred the ship apart in the lower atmoshere. Still, it's pretty cool putting your ship on the lowest throttle setting, and still watching it hit 100k in about 7 seconds.

I've actually been able to land on the Mun in the demo version 2 or 3 times now, which is really tricky as there is no auto-save "do-overs". The RCS helps immensly, as it keeps you from toppling over.

Yeah, I actually had him added to the video tags. Was going to make a nametag for the desk but forgot.

I saw a lot of great videos the last few days, so I decided to give it a whirl myself. Sorry for the poor quality of the video, I need to work on some things, and I was going for speed of delivery over quality. Anybody want to help me out on getting better stationary pictures from outside the craft? I used the camera attachments plug-in, but I can\'t really get good distance from the craft, and I can\'t angle it very well. If you can\'t understand it ... I added some CC captions to translate the Kerbal language. This also pretty accurately depicts how my first Mun landing actually went. KBS Broadcast of the first steps on the Mun

Is that From the Earth to the Moon soundtrack? Nice job! I should really get back into movie making myself.

I was able to hit the moon within a few hours of .16 release ... but haven\'t been able to post about it, because the forums haven\'t worked for me for days. I haven\'t been able to get the three-man capsule working either. I always seem to spin out of control with my designs, or just run out of gas. I\'ll have to play around with the designs a little more. Here\'s the one man landing on Mun (I think) ... I did a Minimus landing shortly after as well! I also did an in-flight EVA, but I couldn\'t figure out how the jet packs work (if they even do), and my guy floated off into permanent orbit.

This is about as minimalistic as you can get for a single engine here. You can see in the flight screencap, just how wobbly it was. Still managed to bring it to a stop one time out of 20 or so. Single Engine 347 m/s

This is more commonly known as 'Kill the Wabbit'.

The heat doesn\'t affect it, but you can crash into it. I tried to crash into it one time, but ran out of fuel, and actually orbited pretty dang close to it with no damage or melted Kerbals. Second time, I managed the fuel better, and was able to get an impact.

And I guess while we\'re at it ... go for the gold, er, platnium! 9 engines: 446 m/s I could probably do a lot better on this one, but I think I\'m done for now. Was having problems adding engines on this one. If I put them too close in the middle, they would overheat and blow up. If I put any on an outside wing, the ship would rip itself apart.