Rockyfelle185

This needs to be longer to be posted lol

Good video, even though half the video was showing pretty much nothing

Will try, will try

This is unbelivable...

My rover is perfect for refueling Its holds a couple of linked tanks below the floor and is able to refuel via the front. That would actually be very nice, since we need something like a boat

Well, since electric is so operpowered, fuel to drive could be aswell

As said no one said against you...

I dont see anyone saying electric weights more...

Yes, but as said in my previous post before my previous post, what I now want to know is if I can put very many rockets in the middle of everything but none at the edges, which are very far away

YES! Exactly what I ment, I built a car allready that has fuel input and tanks below the car floor, its all wired together and would work perfectly if the decided to add this, and since it would give an advantage, its a good thing that its a bit more complicated

I dont really remember it currently, but for some reason I needed to do that, and it would be look nice only having engines in the middle.

Allright, my plan was to stick a [FLUFFY BUNNIESload of engines in the middle of everything, and have to ship really wide, so if you were at the edge you would be moving with the space ship, but you would not see the engines, if you had friction that would not work, but it does in space right? (The first question was sort of ment to be this one sorry for the confusion) [Moderation team note, please refrain from using profanity]

I was just randomly thinking about ksp, and since there is no friction in space, then should not one rocket be enough for a really wide space-craft if its in the middle? Of course the weight would come into account but then you could just put more rockets in the middle, right?

Damn, thanks all of you, 12 replies is just amazing My plan now is going up with a rocket carrying 4 parts, 2 identical on each other opposites sides, so it wont get unbalanced. All parts will have as many rcs thrusters that I sees fit, probably what the guy in the beggining said, it will also have a "steel part" with some rcs tanks on and will be connected via decoupler to the part. Once I get into orbit I will catch up with my station, drop every part and go away with my rocket to infinity, I will use the rcs on each part to dock with the station, and then I will decopule the rcs tank, and repeat until all parts are there. How does my idea sound? Ive planned it all on your suggestions, I wont use a mod though. And 1 more question, is there a good way to "explode" a part in space, cause I dont want the empty rcs tanks just flowing around

Well the thing is ita kinda hard for me to get into orbit, and I dont want to realise my mistales when its too late, therefore i, asking the ones who knows

I have a space station and plan on bringing up some parts to it, prefferebly multiple at once, my plan was to bring 4 parts up with one rocket, catch up with the space station, drop all 4 station parts, crash my rocket, and then dock up with all the parts using only rcs attached to them,mwill this work?

Yes pretty much. Thats pretty much like saying "why dont make everything infinite" the game is not supposed to be easy with unlimited and everything, this would add a new challenge to the game. Thats probably the best idea to do, maybe withut the cylinders since I have a feeling KSP team wont add that

Does this seem like a good idea to you? It does to me, I have built a kerbin jeep with liquid tanks in the engine and fuel wires running below the entire veichle, its also refualable Liquid running wheels would be good for realistic rovers, and would consume a bit over what ion engine takes from xenon, and would still require electricity, what do you think? WOuld this be good to have ingame?