Speeding Mullet

OK so I thought I was done but evidently not. Meet the newly upgraded A380 Stupor Krumbo Choad Goliath Beluga Guppy. Affectionately know as "Baron Von Kraken" in the inner circles. 1024 seats... 568.76t landed at the island runway. I believe I have now taken the Stupor Krumbo to the logical kerbal limit. The slightest wrong move results in, well let's just check out the mission report: As a point of order I'd like to recognise my computer for handling two of these things in the same vicinity without immediately collapsing in a wheezing mess. Maybe I'll stop entering this challenge (for) now. SM

I wouldn't get your hopes up - It's un-jumble central SM

Go for it, I trust your wrecking ability . P.S. check your island runway challenge SM

Additional to my last post, I completed investigation of whether the A380 Stupor Krumbo could handle even more passengers. Turns out I was under utilizing the air-frames vast capability. Meet the A380 Stupor Krumbo Beluga. An extra deck has been strutted on top, and a bogey wheel added to prevent tail strikes. 820 passengers. I'll just let that sink in a little. Sir Kraken was indeed a possibility. 441.97t Landed at the island runway Here's the mission report: I've attached the craft file here. The Stupor Krumbo Beluga is still perfectly flyable, indeed quite maneuverable, but Kraken help you dealing with anything but the softest landing! SM

Is this something that you want me to do so you can use it in your contract pack? Otherwise I probably won't bother as I'm currently doing a design review and overhaul of my Buran to increase range and improve capability - Results are promising! Also building a set of space station modules for the challenge in the hope of reaching "architect" status, although it's a really fine detail job as it needs to look awesome! SM

I just multiplied the number of seated modules by the individuals module capacity. Thanks also, I very loosely modeled it on the A380 (hence the name) so the wing profile apart from 6 engines not 4, and particularly the undercarriage were inspired by the A380. @inigma phew, thanks for not making me load up all the Kerbals! I'm investigating whether the Stupor Krumbo is capable of lifting more, but I highly doubt it!! I'm pretty sure there used to be a mod called Hooligan Labs party starter which one click filled all crew-able modules, but I believe it stopped being maintained around 0.21. I was trying to figure out whether crew manifest or similar had the function, but it's not immediately clear, and I'm running mod free until 1.1. I'm not actually a member of reddit, and haven't really ever really looked into (although aware of) that community. Is it worth signing up over say the forums here? This is a great challenge by the way - So simple in it's rules and encourages enormous creativity, and rather silly looking flying machines! SM

I sure can make a large aircraft, but this is the best boat I can come up with. It's not designed to move as it's a rescue mission, instead it's set up to heel slightly as if it were taking on water. Craft file here SM

I humbly present the A380 Stupor Krumbo 724 brave souls on a rather unlikely air-frame can gallabant off to the island runway at any time they please with this respectably handling brick. Weight is 393.04t landed back at the KSC runway (400 and something on loading) so I'm not going to win the weight category; but I think considering there's no soft landing rockets - only reverse thrusters and (air)brakes), and the plane can take off and land using less than the full runway at either site makes this not such a bad effort. Here's the mission report: Here's the craft file for anyone wanting to give it a go! I'll freely admit that I didn't fill all 724 seats as it would have taken another 4 hours on top of the 4 it took to build the thing! If that disqualifies me then I'm happy with a gatecrash entry, honorable mention, or just acknowledgement of a job well done SM

I had a pop at this, and buoy it was harder than I thought. I tried all sorts of overly complex typically Speeding Mullet million part designs and in the end settled on this. Funny thing is it works....Every time. It's small, basic tech, stack-able, and fits under the wing of a basic plane (also supplied) OK so it's not the best looking buoy ever, but it's functional and I think fits the brief! Here's the craft file. Obviously I can turn the stack into a craft file or sub assembly if it is selected as the winner, unless you feel like doing it yourself! I think each buoy is 7 parts. SM

This. For me (and please bear in mind this is only my personal opinion) multiplayer KSP is singularly unimportant. I would love to see so many other *what not to suggest* and *official planned features* as well as many hundreds of members suggestions on the forums, useful/beautiful mods built into the game, and stuff that hasn't been thought that turns out to be must have before I ever see multiplayer implemented. I respect that there is a reasonable demand for Multiplayer and implemented well I think it could be something interesting to have a go with, but maybe my imagination is limited in what I think multiplayer might be able to achieve for the game, when compared to say a large overhaul of the existing planets to make them more interesting, or additional base parts. SM

I've literally never experienced this mechanic until I read this thread and had to boot up KSP to test it for myself. I can see strong arguments for and points against, but on balance would definitely support removing the "cannot activate while stowed" mechanic. As a side note, and happy accident - while testing I just discovered for myself the FOV change ability with Alt+Mousewheel. That's awesome, this thread has been useful and my screenshots will be much improved. SM

2 sets of RCS thrusters balanced for COM's and action grouped to toggle would be an easy fix. Another solution would be to switch to radial tanks and place then around your COM. You could also try pressing caps lock which takes some of the steam out of the RCS, allowing the SAS module to keep up with the torque and possibly hold the craft steadier for slower, finer control. It sounds like what you are describing though is when the magnetism is taking effect between the docking ports, in which case one solution would be to use SAS hold instead of target. If you are using target then the ship can constantly over-correct and go into a wobbling motion much like you are describing. Couple of pictures of the ship empty and full with COM displayed would be useful to diagnose further, as would clarification of the exact conditions under which you are experiencing jellyship. Apart from that there is an RCS build aid mod kicking about which might help, and if memory serves another mod called fuel balancer or something, although citation needed on both those and whether they would help. SM

I think it's one of those suggestions where one thinks they have stumbled across the greatest solution to the worlds largest problem, then realises after a little thought that it's a non solution to a problem that only sort of exists. I'm happy to consign this to page 2 of despair, but if it's a genuinely good idea then it will take off. I can definitely see it as a niche mod, even if not part of the stock game. SM

I see your point here It would indeed be challenging. where as COM COL and COT are endlessly useful in designing a rocket or space-plane, a displacement indicator would have very limited applications, and perhaps a better suggestion would be a waterline indicator (thin line depicting the waterline maybe?). A displacement indicator would still make sense for limited applications such as submarines, underwater bases, and some specialised rovers, but yes, it's a limited requirement. I suspect this point of view will crop up in the game development suggestion thread I just made about the same topic. SM

As per this thread, an interesting discussion arose around methods of calculating displacement or buoyancy of a craft. This got me thinking, would it be possible or a good thing now we specifically have the ability to splash around to have a displacement or buoyancy indicator much like COM COL COT indicators in the VAB and SPH to tell whether a craft will be positively, neutral, or negatively buoyant as we build it, instead of having to repeatedly test or do the math. Edit: It's just been pointed out to me that apart from a few limited applications (subs, underwater bases, and highly specialised rovers) a buoyancy indicator is largely useless, and what actually matters is not whether something will float, but where the water line is. With this in mind I'm interested to find out what people think of either a water line indicator, or a buoyancy indicator, or both, and have edited the title of the thread. SM

Thanks, I think it's worthy of a suggestion so I will make it so in the appropriate forum. SM

As a point of order, New Horizons is the current record holder for the fastest (confirmed) object leaving earths gravity well (escape velocity). I say confirmed, as during the Pascal-B nuclear test as part of operation plumbbob in 1957 a 900kg manhole cover was blasted off the top of a test shaft, and subsequently observed by Dr Robert Brownlee as "going like a bat out of hell". Calculations based on video evidence clocked the manhole cover at more than 66km/s. The manhole cover was obviously never found, almost certainly vaporised by compression heating in the atmosphere, but I like to think somewhere out there there's a manhole cover floating through space . The fastest ever man made object is the Helios 2 probe which achieved a speed relative to the sun of over 70km/s. SM

This might sound like a really silly suggestion, but have you right clicked on the fuel cell and turned it on? SM Edit: Welcome to the forums!

Welcome to the forum Martian Music, proud or not you are among friends here, and there's no reason to justify anything to anyone, so just be yourself! I also enjoy spotting things in the sky and wondering amazing things, or simply giving a wave like you. You'll fit in well here, good luck! SM

Your displacement formulas float our boats!

I just found this post by @NathanKell which looks to be a highly accurate way of figuring out displacement. This spreadsheet in the same thread by @Pds314 also has some very useful information on buoyancy to check out. Hope that get's you started on your route to figuring this one out. EDIT: Wouldn't it be awesome if there was a buoyancy button in the SPH/VAB much like the COM COL etc to visually see how floaty or sinky your craft is. SM

Hi @Gelix Welcome to the forums and congratulations on 10 posts! I am also super keen for 1.1, but it might be worth familiarising yourself with the guidelines before posting content such as this. I really like a few of your ideas, especially the camera in VAB - I'd love to be able to shift-left click and move the view around like in the SPH to get better angles on building large rockets, or intricate components (please someone tell me we can already do this and I'm just a sub par VAB user!?) but there is a small amount of protocol to be aware of such as the aforementioned guidelines, including: Other posts to read: outside of the rules it is also good to keep up to date with the forums Good Conduct Guide, the official list of What not to suggest, List of Known Issues, unofficial Planned Features list and the relevant sticky topics in the many and varied sub-forums before posting. As mentioned, asking for release dates is very specifically classed as forbidden message. Have fun on the forums, it's a great place to be and an incredible source of information and knowledge. It really adds to my KSP enjoyment factor being a part of this community! SM

You are correct on both counts sir . SM

As per this post and sal_vager's subsequent answer: "yeah this one's tricky... Parts of the same craft do not have collisions with itself, this is deliberate to fix other issues but it means that legs and wheels don't work to support a vessel docked inside a bay. At one point I thought the new Cessna style wheels would work for this but it doesn't survive reloading. The only trick I and others have managed to make work is to have docking ports on the floor of the bay, a central medium port or a pair of small ports in the bay and on the base of the rover/payload will support it better than a single port on the end. It's an old problem, and just exacerbated by the ramp making rover carriers more feasible. Hopefully this helps." It's a tricky one but the thread also contains some solutions to try out. This thread also contains some good solutions to work the problem you are facing. Good luck! SM EDIT: Interestingly @sal_vager I discovered this and posted it in craft aesthetics the other day re: the Cessna style wheels!

One possible explanation: I believe if the craft you switch away from is out of physics range from the ship you switch to, and in the atmosphere below a certain altitude, then it vanishes, possibly to avoid a world ending on rails Kraken attack (citation needed). SM