Ferigad

Could try that... well but after 3 hours of crashing deuterium refiners i will take a break xD thanks for the idear.

no, the tanks comes empty. Well tryed it with the splashdown and reignition, it ends mostly in a catastrophic event. The tank itself is small enough but i would still need some kind of rocket attached to the splashdown lab, then i would need to get it into a launch position and hope that the small tank with a robot-control reaches a stable orbit around kerbin. It would be hard (and from what i tested at the moment not possible for me, at least my ocean close to my KSC is now fuel of debris... ) to get a lander with enough thrust and fuel that can first lift the lab+reactor+generator+fuel and fly it safe to a ocean, splash down there without any parts gettin broken and then launch it again to get into a stable orbit around kerbin without any kind of booster rocket. It could be possible, but there must be a more easy solution? I mean it´s mutch more easy to get a AM-Rocket to run, even with a docked lab+reactor at a startplatform that produces the first 5 days AM and after that launches the rocket, so... i rlly dont get it how to use that fusion drive without to put mutch greater effort in obtaining it´s fuel then you would have with AM, as example. If you think that AM fuel is mutch more easyer to obtain it feels a little bit wrong. Or i did miss some other deuterium sources that can be obtained?

You know, that might be a stupid question (or not) but at the moment i am just use your plugin to play. Well, i played a bit around and thought, that DT Vista Fusion Engine looks nice. So i finally, after focusing all science into it, i was able to obtain it, only to question myself now from where the hell i get the deuterium. Yes, i can splash down a lab in the ocean, but i cannot get it up again in that case. So i´m a little bit stucked there at the moment. Is the only way to fly a tanker or somethin like that to duna, get deuterium from the soil and then fly it allll back to kerbal for a fueling manouver with a ship that has a Fusion engine?

Lower left corner, there you got 3 buttons (Green Box around on pic). The First one looks like a rocket, thats the regular flymode you are in. The second one looks like a soccer ball, thats the docking mode, the third is the starmap. Docking only needs some training, but in dockmode and a good RCS thruster arrangement you got complete XYZ control of your vessel, if you dont panic in that mode and only use short bursts it´s like parking a car in a nice big parking slot. If you got this good position i would say go into docking mode and just train a bit with them, get use to the controls and the possibilitys. That helps. Good luck! I am off to sleep now ^^ (GMT +1 here)

Well from what i see that should work fine for docking. Technicly it´s like the rest say it. Just to be sure to get it again, first you get closer, that you are allready. Then you switch to dockmode with RCS (and deactivated SAS, otherwise your RCS could beginn to compensate when you try to manouver in docking mode) and then only slowly approach the dock-port. (Hint: An easy way to get in a good line with your vehicle you want to dock is, you switch over to your target and rotate it in a perfect position to your other vehicle. Then you deactivate the RCS on it and lock it with SAS ) When you are in docking mode and you have the propper module selected to command from (As example the 1 man module you got there would be the right one to control from or the front-docking port) and "Set Target" on the other dockingport, you simply use W for Forward, S for Backward, A for Left, R for right, STRG/CTRL for down i think and SHIFT for Up. It could be the other way around with CTRL and SHIFT, not sure atm. But with this RCS configuration and only 10 meters away it should be quit easy to dock it. (Dont forget, WASD CTRL SHIFT only works when you are in Docking mode, when you use WASD in normal mode it will rotate your ship or let it spin)

It may be a stupid question, but what kind of RCS are you using and how they are excatly arranged? Could you upload a screen of the part you wanna try to dock? (i mean the ship/module you control with a good view on at least half of the mounted RCS on it.) Maybe it gives some insight. It could be a designflaw in the arrangement of the RCS Thrusters, as example. Hard to tell without to see the ship itself. But from the behaviour you describe, i would really need to see your ship with this RCS first. Then i, and the rest, can tell you if it´s a design error or a pilot error. Best piloting does nothing if the RCS are placed wrong and disables full XYZ control in docking mode.

Well, the easyst way to get the stress out of the docking clamps would be to put the thruster at the backend of your Tug. I guess thats a reason why rocketage spaceship has there drives always at the back. Dont forget, the gravity on mun isnt the same as the Kerbal Gravity. Mun gravity is 0.166 from Kerbal, dont wanna do complicate math so... if you calculcated the 30t payload at landing on a planet with 1G you can land, if you round it up to 0.2 at the mun gravity, a tottal mass of 150 tons with a drive that was made for 30t payload at Kerbal Gravitation. I still think the wabble could be mutch better, even with this drive, if you turn the rockets around so that they are the back of the complete "ship" and not the front. It would also decrease the pressure at your clamps. My Stock-Spaceship has atm 130 tons of mass and uses 2 stock Nuclear Engines at the back. All clamps holding perfectly so far. No stress, no real wabbling. Only long acceleration times. ^^

Congrats ^^ Next time you can just send a forward scout, little robotdrone or so, let it land and seek out the nicest spot. Or use some fancy mod to get the best surface to build a base Try Edit your first post, and check in the edit if you can change topic name or if there is a advance option, there should be the dropdown menue für answer status.

Dude, 8 Nuclear Engines for 40 tons of payload? Thats a little bit mutch to be honest. The reason why everybody thinks you dont use nuclear engines is, there are no nuclear engines on your screenshot. Only normal rocketthrusters. Or you use some kind of mod? You could also try to get the center of mass more in the middle be rearanging the fueltanks and get the thrusters more in the middle of your long structure. Could reduce the wabble. But for a 40 tons payload, when i would play it stock, i wouldnt use not more then 2 nuclear engines max. Depending on where you would go i would only use between 1 or 2 large orange fueltanks. Should be enough to get 40 tons from A to B in the Kerbal Solarsystem without gettin to mutch wabble or ripping appart the pieces.

Since you are landing on duna you can get some more breaking force by using parachutes in conjunction with the Lander. I always try to use a parachute system where a atmosphere exist. If you got enough parachutes it could work with nuclear engines in landing. The lander(Base) will need struts too i think, for better connection of the side-pods. Always a question of how mutch fuel u use. And if you burn off your fuel at the landing with your lander, it will get leigther very quickly in the descend. 1 Nuclear engine can handle the job, but as more mass your ship has, the longer the acceleration process will take. If you get a good window, you can use the gravity of Duna to break you a bit down in a long travel trajectory. The shorter your traveltime, the higher will be the end speed at duna approach and you will need more fuel for a break manouver. You could also use the airbreak technic at duna, but i didnt use it myself. Dont wanna use it until real heatdamage is in. Atm it feels more like cheating for myself when i use that way to get my main-ship slower at the approach. And because you dont wanna go back, you will actually only need the fuel of the nuclearstage for acceleration and deceleration. Hardest part will be breaking out of kerbal orbit, but it can be easy done when you use a support-rocket, like the leftovers from your launch-stage when you get into the orbit of kerbal. So yes, 1 can work, but you will need some descent skills in planning your route to duna. So actually if you use parachutes as support for landing, you can even use some of the fuel from your lander for the final deceleration. You will deffinitly need more then 1 parachute, thats for sure with that mass. But if you can reduce your mass by use up mostly all of the lander fuel before the parachutes get active, it would be a quit easy landing with parachute support.

yeah sorry, it´s always not easy if you dont write in your foreign language. Got not even a grammacheck for that ^^ p.s. got now a tool for it, hope i found all nasty little errors.

To be continued...

Duna has a thin atmosphere, i think a airbrake manouver by graze the atmosphere would be not as fatal, mutch of the heat would be give back to the surounding space, specialy on the night-side. A airbreake manouver at Eve... dont get me wrong, the last time i checked my pressure meter it was around 3x or 4x times over normal. I imagine your ship would get crisped like a sausage in a oresmelter, maybe even if you just graze the atmosphere. Eve is a bit closer to the Kerbal-Sun and it´s atmosphere is mutch hoter and thicker. No mutch room for heat to go, except your nice little Spaceship. And i tottaly agree to the rest of the people who talked about the adventure. My first Duna Flight was with 0.16 - 0.17. A single bulky rocket, some stages, a eager crew of kerbals and a atomic drive at the back of the rocket. Took me a week to get it done, even when i got frustrated when my first landing went tottaly into the trashbin when i imagined that some of my landerparts couldnt handle a parachute-break and where simply torn appart xD It´s about the adventure, to try it again and again and to get it done, for my part at least. It feels mutch better then just to put somethin together, has no difficulty at all, fly there, back and done with it. I look forward for re-entry heat. And for the campaign-mode where you rlly have to work with your money and kerbalnouts and to get the maximum potential out of your designs. p.s. because you asked, orbiter 102 (Columbia) had roughly 11% of it´s mass made up of the heatisolation called TPS (Thermal Protection System). Half of that weight was the silicade plates under the shuttle. The rest where parts all over the shuttle itself, covering it from every side. I guess the Dev´s will find a clever solution to the heatshield issue

Yeah i realise it could be the fuel-module. i didnt wanted a bulky one so i used the clipping with the small tanks, 4 ond a med and it is compact with the size of a large big tank. Technicly the fuelmodule there are 2 large oranges. In the past clipping wasnt a big issue but after i searched a bit in the forum, i think that it could be source of the problem. But it really only occures random. Nothing that can save/load fix at the moment. As a matter of fact it was rebuilded from scratch with 0.20. But i assume that the clipping issue is a bug, i mean that it can implode then and not that you can clipping different items together, as far as i rembered that was part of the original idear and design in KSB, to clipp some parts together so that they look better. Well, i also uploaded the module parts )and the lander for atmospheric landings, still prototype, redesignt with the new 1-seat capsule) with my own carriersystem. Feel free to use your own if you want to shoot them up and mount them together. For the fuel-module you just need a low orbit and you will maybe have to transfer fuel from the module to the carrier rocket. I could have designed a better carrier system but it worked cheaper and quicker that way. You can still refuel in a final prepare mission. When you got the fueltank to a low orbit, you can simply attach the Drive-Module and bring it up to 120-240K , depends on what orbit you want to work to assemble the rest of the parts.

Hey hey, Since my account was one of the deleted once, (thanks nasty backupbug) i wanted to poste my little round the clock project. It´s my interplanetary exploration vessel. It was first designed when docking came up, and since then i made some adjustments to the modulated sections. It is build from 4 modules. Cockpit, Support, Fuel, Engine. As a example, i can just easy snatch in another fuel-module of the same constructiontype between the first fuelmodule and the support module (the long strut with the monopropellent tanks). It´s highly flexible and carrys normaly 2 landers. But they are still in redesign, thanks to the new 1-man lander that allows some new possibilitys. I call it K.S.S. Buzz Aldrin Took me a week back then to bring it together when Docking came out, and it´s ofc builded only with stock, no special mod´s or else where used for docking or transport the modules into orbit. Thank god that we got still unlimited kerbalnaut supplies. This version uses some 0.20 controlrooms, the spacestation observer room at the fuelmodule. Makes some good auxiliry commandrooms too. Well it worked 4 months ago for the Duna-Mission, but since then i didnt tryed any new mission. Time to do some more for.... science and bouncing kerbals! Oh yeah and for some reasons since 0.20 they scream like hell in the Ship. And sometimes when i change the control to a close by ship and switch back to the Aldrin, it simply implodes. Funny bug, but no idear what couses it. xD Aldrin-Command-Module.craft Aldrin-Drive-Module.craft Aldrin-Fuel-Module.craft Aldrin-Support-Module.craft Armstrong-Lander.craft

I had to do it....