shand

What version of the game are you playing? it isn't 0.21 thats for sure. Just a quick of the top of my head: theres the radial xenon tank now too. also 3 sizes of RCS tank including the narrowest size (is that 0.675m?) Large fins can be made by putting control surfaces on the back of delta wings. easy. therse the radar altemetre in landing can cockpits if you care to use them. The larger probe body (RC-L01) exists and satisfies your request except it doesnt have a large battery - try using it with the large battery (z-4k) if you want more electric storage The mk2-to-size-1 adapter will help you fit the mk2 cockpit to a mk2 stack. propellers and parachutes and other aero requests will be sorted after the next aero improvement (in the works, eventually)

Tanya - be careful, you may be hitting the limitation of accuracy that KSP allows.

they were working on a toolbox and assosiated system a while back - i presume it got shelved for career mode to take centre stage. but fundamentally it would do just that - the kerbal would be able to hold one item, use it, return it, then pick up another. possibly with limited bits in the toolbox to start with.

Charzy: we use metric in the UK for practically everything except distance (and even then only for road distances). so practically the only imperial units i have any concept of are miles and yards. i knew they were different, and how. i just wasnt aware what pounds were measuring. and it sounds like pounds doesnt even know half the time! To be fair, i think it IS a measure of weight, considering you have pounds thrust - which makes it a completely useless unit which would be much better off not existing EDIT: follow up question why isnt there a metric time unit if its so useful?

I was going to ask what pounds where - i'd never thought about it. arent they just an old equivilent to kg (as in, rather then N)? EDIT: Wiki shows it as a unit of mass - so much like kg. So don't know how that means "espeically" in america?

actually the problem here ISNT the misuse of units. its the misuse of TERMS. when the diet says "lose x kg of weight" they really mean losing xkg, what they DONT mean is weight. they mean mass. (otherwise they'd tell you to climb a hill) think of ALL coloquial uses of the term "weight" (or weighs) and how many of them really mean mass. An aircraft weighs this much - oh really, tarmac or cruising altitude? this oxygen cylinder weighs this much - at the bottom of the ocean? sealevel? top of mount everest? The only way you can define the "weight" of a thing that changes location is by refering to the mass. the problem is mass is really hard to measure (unless you know the gravitational force at your exact location)

hehe agreed with that last bit. perhaps best would be the ability to turn on gravity in the VAB (with unbreakables and without the ability to edit while its on)? that way when it spawns on the launchpad its already at full gravity. thinking about your suggestion, what would it do to other loaded parts if the gravity changed wildly (instantaneously going to 0 for example), gravity cant be applied to one craft different to another (as far as i know). try having a rover near the launchpad and hacking gravity in your new vessel. the rover goes flying (or at least up a bit) and then crashes into the ground. so that really isn't a viable solution.

agreed Awaras. the way i think of it is: the mass is a property of a thing that effects how it is affected by other things. (acceleration is force/mass) Weight is the property of a thing that effects how it effects things. (somethings weight is in newtons, force. so the weight is how much effort to raise/resist an object for example) this obviously has flaws, but from a conceptual POV i find it helpful

The problem isnt the gravity of the situation per se. the problem is interactions between parts, must unplanned launchpad disassembly is due to part on part interaction. in other words physics is the problem. unity doesn't allow physics to be "slightly on" its an all or nothing response. a gravity tweak may reduce explosions a tad, but thats really masking issues. a "better" response perhaps would be to enable unbreakable joints and parts until the spacebar is hit - but again, should the game be making up for design errors on your part? if your ship cant be held by just 2 clamps, why havent you put another higher up the rocket?

Bang on Sir. The important question is how cheap would launch have to be to make this a viable economic solution. If we focus on the value that isnt just due to rarity, would skylon make it worthwhile bringing it back from orbit? what is valued at more than £650 a kg? EDIT: in todays economic climate the 'idiums' are about the only things worth it. That said you may be launching empty (or combining with satalite launches) which would reduce the cost of launching, so that might make silver worth getting. All this is assuming that the materials magically appear in LEO and there are no maintaince costs to mining. so in other words, we are a long way off needing to.

I've heard that a good way to reduce veering is to accelerate slowly (low throttle) up to 60m/s before bringing it right up. No idea if its true or just a placebo effect, but seems to work

OP: could you not land your kethane miner on the mun and launch to RV with tanker? this seems to be what you are planning anyway? why not do it now? cost of 1400 deltaV, only 200 more then correcting the tanker. otherwise you can correct very easily by leaving mun SOI. if you had noticed this problem just as you entered SOI you could've corrected for around 20 deltaV. So long the miner, or raise the Ap of the tanker as high as you feel like, wait til Ap and then correct the orbit.

Thats not how centrifuges work, its kinda the opposite. I think you'll find its a gravity density causation. But yes, the main advantage of asteroids would be the lack of needing to drill through a planet and the deposits MAY be a lot purer. Once we have a cheap launch vehicle (Skylon, looking at you), and mega efficent engines (nuke reactor based ones i imagine, for longetivity and generating power) we should be well away.

ooo i like that technique! know if it survives a trip to subassembly manager?

Greys: my experience with struts is its not a two point so much as a point and a vector. this doesnt change what you are saying but making sure the OP gets the right info I would like to see a second "docking port" type module that could solve this. maybe something like all attachment points are considered docking ports upon physics initalisation but switch to static attachment points upon launch (or docking ports unable to undock, or dock)? that would be a very messy way of doing it, but it could work. (second to that, if each large tank had 3 of these types of temporary docking port type nodes then you could get a 4 point attachment between large tanks - completely eliminating wobble. Again a messy solution - but a solution non-the-less.

there are some tricks that might help. if you can somehow align the docking ports they will bind on physics takeover. so if the two tanks are attached by some other method first (perhaps a radial decoupler or similar) they will attach by docking ports and you can lose the bit you dont want. Its all about what you want. it is do-able.

I wont post photos as my entries aren't valid (using stretchy tanks) but my launch vehicle can carry a 25t payload to 100x100 orbit (plus a lil bit) If that payload is just liquid fuel - 20.4% if that payload is biprop - 11.4% other than stretchy tanks it fits the bill though. no functioning fuel-lines and otherwise stock.

the way its working is struts Gijs you have one connection point between one decoupler and the triadapter below it, and the rest of the connections are struts. the other 2 decouplers are for aesthetic purposes only. this is KSP, so if it works keep it, but making sure you understand the mechanics will help in the long run should you want to do something else in a similar fashion. thats a very pretty craft! in case you hadnt noticed, the doughnut tanks have a lower fuel:mass ratio - so you'd be more efficent if you used other tanks... equally one nerva would be sufficent. but i like the design and styling as is! Whats the plan, just get there? get there and come back? land?

its a lot more efficent to aim straight for kerbin rather then circularise and then deorbit. Otherwise sepretrons work just as well for deorbiting a capsule (havent compared ISP/weight) and finally you'll find it easier to deorbit with your rockets still facing thrust towards the rest of the rocket, no need to move around the rest of the core before firing, just have retrograde when you decouple the core. And by all means use SRB's whereever you like, just be aware you cant throttle them (im sure you are) and you may be wasting deltaV if you are accelerating too hard (throttle down the liquid engine and save it for later)

Personally i'm using the procedural fairings mod, so my whole payload is in a fairing on launch - makes things a lot stronger, and looks so - i try not to use struts between bits of my vehicles that arent likely to be physically wielded together. on a side note i also use procedural tanks and subassembly manager to make standardised launch vehicles.

on a small note: from memory skylon is looking to reduce payload costs to around £200 per kilo - well down from the current *from memory* £1,800 or was it £18,000. hmmm i cant remember. But point is - we could be able to see cheap transport of goods to LEO, which would really really help!

hehe awesome i'll be sure to check it out! rover below the ship works if you replace the central engine with it. (and maybe the RCS if you need a bit more room), so you'd have the outer rockets for power, staging can just be tacked onto the bottom of the rover simples - just strut around it! I'm OCD symmetrical -but i've just downloaded the gimble balancing mod so i may give things like your design a go sometime!

Scott manley is the booombb. Gijs, i like you. great lateral thinking! have you tried a apollo style mission - leaving a support/command module in orbit around mun and docking back with it. I managed one that was either "perfect" or "not enough fuel" depending on if you think using RCS for final circularisation - intercept and docking is "not enough"

I practised bumping noses the day before the update and docked the day after. some things come easier to some people.. OP - why dont you try a more vertical payload loading. the one man return vessel could easily sit atop the other one. the rover could be below the main vessel - you probably dont need that central rocket. and the amount of RCS may be more then you need. Of course the only benefit of this is it will look prettier Try Duna next (some people say try ike first, but lets face it, go big or go home). i prefered to design a complete new vessel, but tweaking that one would also work as SDIR says

you guys still too closed minded to discuss the gameplay elements? i think (cba to check) i said a few posts back that the real life companies aspect was probably a no starter - too many privacy issues would come up, then financal ones and finally immersion issues. So stop quoting me and saying i've missed the point and then saying points i've made/agreed with in the not too distant past! (yes, i have changed my mind over the course of this discussion - that happens in discussions if someone makes a good point that you hadn't thought of before)