Nurph

Best $18 I've ever spent.

You're not under time warp while you're doing this are you?

I've heard between 12-15 km is best for Duna. Don't forget to quicksave!

Reminds me of something I found before. Also fun with Alternis Kerbol and Hullcam.

Ho-lee potatos, Batman, this thread is old. I suggest you don't go around pulling up year-and-a-half old threads like this unless it's for a really, REALLY good reason; people tend to get angry and annoyed at you.

The .sfs is just a text file. Use Notepad.

Yes, shielded ports must always be opened before docking.

More video editing, just images/video from other sources edited together I assume. I am very certain you cannot get scenery like that in game, sorry.

It's all video editing and the effects were done in an external program. Your computer would probably die in a fire if tried rendering that in realtime anyway.

Your design can easily get to Duna. I was able to land on Duna and return to orbit with fuel still left in the Mk 55 stage, did not test Kerbin return but I'm sure there was enough dV left. I would however recommend that you: 1. Ditch the reaction wheels on the first stage. 2. Add a set of winglets to the first stage. 3. A couple more sets of struts between the first and second stage. 4. Struts between the second stage and lander. 5. Set an action group to disable the gimbals on the outer two rings of Skippers.

I see alot of fuel lines on that lower stage, you probably got some fuel imbalances.

You would most definatly not save fuel. More engines means more mass and both the LV-1R and 24-77 have lower ISP, which means you'll need even more fuel to accelerate the same amount. You're much better off sticking with your main engine or RCS if you have it. Saying you want better fuel efficency but are accepting dv losses is kind of an oxymoron, especially when your talking orbital mechanics where your velocity (speed and direction) is what defines the shape of your orbit.

Only the Mun and Kerbin have proper biomes currently. I think it's mentioned in the change log.

Huzzah! The rover is on the Mun! Pictures and info to come tomorrow, I need sleep.

As long as an intake can get airflow, any engines on the plane can use that air. Aerospikes are not jet engines. They are high effiecency rockets and there is no 'jet fuel' in the game, only the 'Liquid Fuel' resouce which both jets and rockets use. EDIT: The B9 pack has SABRE engines.

Okie dokie, finaly got it to load properly. Let's see. 1. It's definatly unbalanced, the boosters under the rover are not symetrical. The whole way up it wanted to yaw to the west. 2. The rover wont work anyway because some of the decouplers are placed upside down, so they will not decouple from the rover. 3. Stage 3 decoupled all the orange boosters, you can see how well that went. Not sure if that's how it was setup or if editing out the Mechjeb part from the craft file caused weirdness. 4. Suprisingly, no structural failures that were not my fault(forgetting to throttle up, staging things I shouldn't). Good work on the struts! 5. You have an excessive amount of monopropelent, you could do with much less. I'm going to try building my own launcher, or at least rebalancing yours. I'll post more results latter. We are here to help you!

Quite sure all you need is more struts. Clipping parts into one another does not create structural connections.

Looks like Fustek parts. They are quite nice. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35043-0-21-FusTek-Station-Parts-Expansion-(R0-03-5a)

Alot of the music is stuff by Kevin MacLeod, I don't now the specific track names though.

Have you considered using PNGs or TGAs for the textures? Those MBMs are huge, 24.4 mb is quite alot for just 2 parts. That like 1/4 the size of the whole B9 pack.

You must be in direct command of a craft to view resource levels or provide control inputs, but nearby Kerbals can extend solar panels and ladders or use command seats. Based on the picture I think you need to, um.. walk the Kerbal closer? PS: use bracket keys to switch between crafts [ ]

Did some testing with this ship and 498 units of fuel: From a 20 km circular Mun orbit I did 3 runs each of 'kill orbital V and drop', 'gradual arc to target', and 'low periapsis suicide burn'. For the straight drop from 20 km I got 227, 226, and 235 fuel units remaining and one failed landing after overestimating my TWR. From a gentle arc from 20 km: I got 267, 244, and 252 fuel units remaining. Of note there were no close calls or crashes with this method, probably the safer way to do a Mun landing. From 20 km to a periapsis between 4600m and 4700 to landing I got 281, 267, and 278 fuel units remaining despite having to do some evasive manuevers once or twice and one failed landing. I must say that low peri. landings are rather... exciting in 0.21. Oh and by the way, there is a ridge on the Mun that reaches nearly 6 km The failed landing: VERTICAL VELOCITY HOLY BEJEZZUS Passing by the 6 km peak: Note the shadow to the left of the Nav Ball: So in short: 1. Don't drop straight from orbit, it's inefficent and dangerous if you don't have a feel for your TWR. 2. An arcing landing is not the most efficent, but usually a safer choice if you have the delta v to spare. 3. Low peri. landings are !!superfun!!/dangerous if you don't anticipate the terrain but usually are the most efficent. BOOM SCIENCE IN ALL YO FACES

The only other thing I can think of is that the decoupler under the 909 is clipped into the engine weirdly. The decoupler and the engine fairing both come off when you eject that stage, right? Can we see a landing attempt pic?

If you're within 500m, what your orbit looks like is totally irrelevant. When you're that close the only thing you should be worrying about is where your target is and how you're moving relative to it. Ignore your orbit and don't touch the map view.

That lander should have more than enough thrust to land with a full tank. Is the engine on? Is it getting fuel?