kahlzun

It has occured to me that the disposable, replaceable, nature of the Kerbs in this game must be how generals feel ordering troops to battle: You see their names, and laud their successes, but when they inevitably die, you just send another in their place...

The cupola is a nice-looking part. I would like to get some use out of it. However, it is WAY too heavy for me to even consider using it, especially as it only seats the one kerb. Comparisons: As you can see, while the Cupola performs slightly better in power/ton than some of the pods, it is by far the poorest of the kerb/ton ratio. Interestingly, the lightest pod (the Mk1 lander-can) has the best stats in kerbs/ton and power/ton (ignoring the seat) Am i missing something, or is there no real point to this over-weight lump?

Def the poodle. I'm getting a lot of love from the Ant and 24-77 in low-weight situations: because they're so light they fully leverage the tsilkovsky equation. For example, in an absolute minimum setup, (OKTO2 probe, 2 OX-STAT a T200 tank and the engine/s) an Ant engine will get 5039 dV, (admittedly at 0.13 twr) while a pair of 24-77's (for balance of course) will achieve 3942 dV, and also have a TWR of 3.01 -which means its safe to land on Tylo.-

..which means I have no idea what you need to do to 'win' the level, as the 'tutorial' isn't coming up..

If it's an engineering challenge, then why can't we use "computer assisted piloting" (which i assume means mechjeb) ?

Sorry dude, you didn't land safely: says 'catastrophic failure' and 'patzor kerman was killed'

I tend to call it Kerbol.

Try explaining the math behind it to your teacher, they'll probably have no clue what you're talking about..

That might explain why my planes keep spazzing out, in the SPH they're shown as 0.5T, and i tend to use them to balance my places a little..

I currently have three omni-landers. One rover, one probe, and one return-capable. I'll provide photos, showing they are Tylo capable. behold: 1. "Regent_IIb" the one-way colonising rover The tanks are designed to eject once you have landed. The TWR of 0.66 is for Kerbin, Tylo only has 0.8 G, and this thing can easily land safely from a 100km orbit. The chute will land it safely on atmospheric bodies, it is recommended to eject the tanks for all atmo bodies except Duna. 2. "Science Probe XV" I never got around to naming this properly. Note that the one shown is version XIV, the current one uses a T400 tank, and has sepratrons to allow tank ejection. It's actually capable of a land-and-orbit-and-land-again on Duna. 3. "Soothsayer V" This one is manned (using the seats), and is return-capable from Eve, as well as Tylo.

Link pls, as NOONE else would still have a version that was older than the old demo just sitting around (apart from the devs maybe)

Hi, just making sure you know: the pack doesn't seem to work in 0.20+, the scenario loads, but the 'communication' thing doesn't show up at all..

The way I do it, the skycrane is the lander: It might not look it, but this thing can easily land on Tylo. The tanks are attached to decouplers so they will eject after landing. Just stick a decoupler on the bottom, and a rocket under that, and you've got a lander for anywhere* (* May not have return capability on all worlds)

Note that when using Hyperedit to enter Eve's atmosphere, entering below about 45km is likely to cause death and explosions

That download link isn't working. Also, you've built a massive rocket there!

lol, not until you pointed it out! well done.

Hi all, just designed a new lander and wanted to share it with you. I present the "Kerbal Safety"! Designed when I noticed how much longer the LV-N was than a standard T400 tank, it compactly contains fuel, engine and pod in one small package. The radioactive exhaust is passed straight through the centre of the pod, eliminating the need for expensive heating! Our test pilots have stated they start to glow in the dark after a short period of exposure, allowing further savings in expensive lightbulbs! Capable of a Munshot (and return), this is the go-to lander for all your Kerbal landing needs. Weighing in at a little under 6T, and costing 6220 Kredits, available from all disreputable retailers now! https://www.dropbox.com/s/msdrz17cdrjuc4o/Kerbal%20Safety.craft (Note that the thrust is very slightly off-centre. SAS will compensate, but keep an eye on it. Made without 'clipping', taking advantage of a known bug using the 'BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point')

Some engines won't provide thrust if you have something in their exhaust stream, even if it survives the heat. I can't tell too well from the picture, but if the engine pods are all in a vertical line, try rearranging them so the lower ones are a little closer to the craft..

I'd like to second the 'action group' request, sometimes I don't want every lifting envelope on the ship inflating. Here are some 'eve ascent' pics: ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO-CIRRUS.

You've way overbuilt that.. if you're having issues with docking wobble, quantum struts are probably your best bet.

To summarise some of the above (which was well explained Specialist290): Higher Isp is ALWAYS ALWAYS better to have, as long as the rocket can lift itself against the forces acting on it. also, regarding TWR: When landing/taking off, you will always need at least 10kN for each T of mass (less if you're landing on lower gravity worlds, multiply the '10kN' by local gravity: on Gilly for example, (which has 0.05 m/s gravity) you only need 0.05 kN/T, whereas Eve (16.7ms) needs 16.7 kN/T (preferably MUCH higher)

like firerider says, they get longer when you use them, and are more space-efficient at the cost of weight.

Interestingly, the 'later' you send your ship, the earlier it will arrive and vice versa. So, if you send a ship one hour before the window, and one hour after, the second one will arrive hours or days before the other!

Was just looking at your old 'launch video': Whatever happened to the 'Mega'? I am fully curious now!