Nori

Basically, some mods have parts that have more than two attachment points. A cube with 6 points for instance (the DSM pack). However, there doesn't seem to be a way to create a square and have a part attach to the connection point on both sides. Or is there something I'm missing? I've seen some stock space stations that seem to have circular or square designs and attach all the way around though. If it isn't possible I'd like to suggest the feature.

Are you referring to the topic creator's lander?

You can't change it on a existing ship sadly. You have to create a new ship and then bit a different pod.

Now it all makes sense. That is why the Kerbals really want to go to space. Green icecream!

Sorry don't know off the top of my head. It is probably very similar to his original weight, maybe a wee bit more. Like I said in my prior post I ran out of time designing last night, so I didn't get a chance to get screenshots or put in more info. If I get time tonight I'll probably tweak it a bit more and I still want to look at your two designs. Just looked at the pics; that is a nice looking lander!

Yep, I've had this issue. I restarted KSP and it seemed to be working again...

That would be pretty sweet. It could affect Ion engines as well, since technically they still use fuel (if I understand right), just a whole lot less. Fuel consumption of 0.1 or something.

Well I'm hoping they will decrease the weight of decouplers to give incentive for more stages... 0.5 for the large decoupler is crazy heavy... @liorg1993: So I played around with your lander quite a bit and got a design I like. It is still very similar to your initial one however. I also managed to launch it into a 75k orbit while barely touching the lander's fuel. It isn't quite perfect yet though. I ran out of time to finish tweaking it, for instance I am thinking about replacing the first SRBs with the larger 400 thrust ones as that first stage has a low thrust to weight ratio... So this design mostly meets your criteria. On my computer the first two stages do kill the FPS a bit, but those are discarded before you get to 5k anyway, so shouldn't be a issue. The rocket is very symmetrical and stable, so you can just hit "T" and full throttle ahead. I tested it and I can get to the Mun and land (well I didn't have time to land, but I sort of crash landed and had enough fuel) before the outer lander tanks run empty. Then you dump those on take off, orbit the Mun, transfer to Minmus, land there (notice the second set of lander legs?) and you should have plenty of fuel to take off and land on Kerbin. Lemme know what you think and if you have any ideas for tweaking the stages to be a bit more efficient.

Okay, so I have a crazy thought. I was looking at some Ion RCS systems. They use large amounts of power for a smallish amount of thrust. The upside is they use next to no RCS fuel. Would it be possible to make a item with your plugin that uses energy and fuel (or RCS in this case)?

What!?! That is awesome... How did I not know about this? Thanks for telling me, I'm gonna have to go edit some configs now.. Now if only I could group them better in the game...

It is true that less stages are easier and sometimes more optimal (especially considering the game doesn't like big rockets). I think that might change in future versions though. Probably by making decouplers weigh less and empty tanks more. Not trying to sound overcritical of your design or anything (hopefully you didn't take my comments the wrong way). I'm just curious how it would work with more decouplers and a higher center of thrust. Everyone has different design philosophies; I personally dislike carrying around empty tanks any longer than I have to. But like you said, the game in its current state does favor lesser stages. But in any case I'm gonna download your craft file and see if a few more stages ends up making it more efficient or not, just for fun. I do really like your lander design and I don't know if I ever would have thought of SRBs that late in the game. Definitely different thinking which is cool! Man, so many things to try out when I get home now.

You might be interested to know that the flat radial decoupler isn't worth using over the regular one unless you edit the config. The reason is that it weighs 16x more but is only marginally stronger. They really should change it to weigh less and be stronger, but I digress...

There is a lot of rocket designs in the Spacecraft Exchange http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/20-The-Spacecraft-Exchange Here is one I made: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/18278-First-Mun-Minmus-landings-Mostly-stock-rocket You need the truss pack and mechjeb though. If you want a completely stock ship check out one of these: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/16526-0-16-STOCK-Munitaur-II http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/18062-First-multi-moon-landing?p=246529&viewfull=1#post246529 However, it is funnest if you just use these designs as a basis or for ideas to make your own. There is nothing quite like using your own design to get to the Mun and back. And like Tauge said above, you should post screenshots of your current designs. Then we could probably help out.

Basically what he said. Those tanks are 2 mass per when empty. You have 16 of them, so by the time the last of the fuel is out you are carrying around 32 mass worth of empty tanks. If you setup staging to get rid of 4 of them each time they empty you could get a bit more thrust out of the engines. It is a bit of a design problem though as it can be hard to mount the engines on the side. Just a thought on something to try. @ liorg1993: I'm going to download your lander and see if I can't figure out a way to launch it. Sadly can't do that till I get home though. Are you set in stone to use your lander exactly as configured or could I try tweaking it a bit (assuming it is still rather similar)?

Noticed this in the VTOL config: // --Group for Engine Toggle group = VTOL Engines start = false Does that group the engines together so you can toggle them on off independent of the main engine? I didn't know something like that existed.

I'd love some sort of updated tutorial as well. I was thinking about trying to make something but wouldn't know how to start without a tutorial.

Not a bad design, but you end up carrying around a lot of dead weight when the tanks empty. You could try mounting the engines on the side and stage the lower tanks when they empty. Would probably save you a bit. Yeah the Aerospikes will probably get nerfed, sadly... I hope to make up for it they lower the weight of staging equipment. They are much to heavy IMHO. To the topic creator. I like your lander, but I think you could design it a bit more efficiently which would make it easier to launch it. The landing gear for instance. Do you really need eight of them? Couldn't you mount four on the inner tanks? You seem to like having a lot of power, but that many engines ends up being wasteful. You'd probably be better off halving the amount of engines, which would still get you plenty of power. I just can't help but think that the small fuel tanks with the engines under them is wasteful. 200 fuel isn't going to go far for each engine and do you really need 2000 thrust? Remember that as you use fuel your weight goes down and you won't need as much thrust to land as to take off. If you want a weight to thrust ratio of 2 (more than that is wasteful) than you would only need 800 thrust for the weight of this rocket. Remove four engines and change the small tanks to large ones..... Just some thoughts.

Thanks for that information. It'd be great to see stuff like that on the wiki.

But but, it's not automagical! I mean how can you expect mere Kerbals to multitask like this? Anywho, thanks for the advice. I really want to perform a rendezvous (for orbital mechanic) but I always seem to get screwed up inclinations..

The Kethane mod is looking pretty awesome. Nice work guys!

That just points you in a direction right? So I guess I'll still have to do some work in applying the proper thrust.

Hmm, well that's not a nice thing to say... I just don't get the hostility on youtube. I mean do these people just sit at their computers all day waiting for videos to post so they can say hateful things? (not to get off topic or anything)

One of the easiest ways to add some stability is to make sure you have a AdvSAS module and then to put on control surfaces (Canard or Winglets). Here is a rocket I made recently that was able to do a Mun/Minmus landing and still make it back to Kerbin with fuel left: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/18278-First-Mun-Minmus-landings-Mostly-stock-rocket Notice the excessive amount of Winglets I use. I don't really need that many, but what the heck.. Here is another design worth looking at: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/18062-First-multi-moon-landing?p=246499#post246499 Notice the Pyramid sort of shape? You want the rocket to be smallest at the top and largest at the bottom, unless you add a lot of control pieces. I would post a pic of a crazy satellite I somehow managed to get into space, which was top heavy, but I'm not at my home computer. It is important to realize where the center of gravity is, and that it will change as you use fuel. Also like people said, a thrust vectoring (gimbaling) engine is rather important, especially early. You can get around it with a lot of control surfaces and SAS, but usually thrust vectoring engines are easiest. There are other great designs in the spacecraft exchange. You don't need to copy them, just look to get some ideas on general design concepts.

I like that! Nice work. Don't know if you've used the Deep Space Mission pack but they have a cube truss thingy that has connection points on all sides. It is rather nice to use to connect things together and as a bonus you can attach things inside it (not sure if that was intended though). So I put my AdvSas, RCS tanks and SAS modules in them and it works great. Anywho, love the parts you have made, I use em all the time.

Unless I'm missing something it isn't possible to change orbital inclination using mechjeb right? Is that something that could be added?