Uberdude9001

Its been a while since I've played KSP, but this was one of my favorite mods back in the day. I'm curious how it interacts with the new aerodynamics model. Will conical tanks act as nosecones or are nosecones required?

Perhaps the KAS struts could do this too?

R-1: This is a medium rover with a two man crew. It can hit 22.5 m/s. Its low profile prevents it from flipping over at high speed, but it can still do so if you aren't careful. It can easily carry mission specific equipment on its upper frontal and rear plates, you can also cram things into the front. Most important systems are armor plated. The crew sit laying backwards on sponsons. It is highly unlikely that the crew will be killed if the rover flips, but possible. .craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw0h00rcg8fbezj/R-1.craft R-2: This is a light rover with a two man crew. It can hit only 9.4m/s, but it is extremely light. Really, its too light and slow to damage itself or its crew. You can probably mount mission specific equipment on the edge of the battery. .craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vt5mry33g6p8r4w/R-2.craft R-3: This is a heavy rover with a four man crew. It can hit 21.5m/s. Despite being a "heavy" rover, it only weighs 2.7 tons so shouldn't be too hard to transport. Both the crew and important components are armored, so it is likely to survive any crashes. It has a massive amount of area to mount mission specific equipment. .craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hh54hpgax6uhlb/R-3.craft Thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77895-R-Rover-Series

The R-#s are a series of durable, lightweight, and efficient rovers. All of them are designed to be modular, easily deployable by skycrane, and safe for their occupants. They range from 0.55 to 2.7 tons. Despite the rovers themselves being completely stock, they are best used with mods like KAS or Infernal Robotics. R-1: This is a medium rover with a two man crew. It can hit 22.5 m/s. Its low profile prevents it from flipping over at high speed, but it can still do so if you aren't careful. It can easily carry mission specific equipment on its upper frontal and rear plates, you can also cram things into the front. Most important systems are armor plated. The crew sit laying backwards on sponsons. It is highly unlikely that the crew will be killed if the rover flips, but possible. .craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw0h00rcg8fbezj/R-1.craft R-2: This is a light rover with a two man crew. It can hit only 9.4m/s, but it is extremely light. Really, its too light and slow to damage itself or its crew. You can probably mount mission specific equipment on the edge of the battery. .craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vt5mry33g6p8r4w/R-2.craft R-3: This is a heavy rover with a four man crew. It can hit 21.5m/s. Despite being a "heavy" rover, it only weighs 2.7 tons so shouldn't be too hard to transport. Both the crew and important components are armored, so it is likely to survive any crashes. It has a massive amount of area to mount mission specific equipment. .craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hh54hpgax6uhlb/R-3.craft

My Masterpiece, the SS-1. It is VTOL and interplanetary capable, while weighing only 18 tons.

After building many SSTOs I've finally constructed this. It has 4800m/s of delta-V and is VTOL so in theory it can takeoff and land nearly anywhere. It weighs only 18 tons. It has moderately good handling even in atmosphere. Due to its instability I would reccomend keeping SAS on at all times and not exceeding a 45 degree angle of attack. A docking port is mounted inline with its center of mass so that it can be easily mounted on an interplanetary transfer stage for bodies it would normally be unable to reach. To get into orbit fly up to around 26km using the RAPIERs at 40 degrees upwards pitch. Once you get this high you should level out and accelerate as high and as fast as you can (generally around 1600m/s) before switching to rocket mode and raising your apoapsis out of the atmosphere. Once it is out, turn off the RAPIERs and take advantage of the NERVA's efficiency. Action Groups: 1: Toggle RAPIER engines 2: Toggle RAPIER mode 3: Toggle NERVA .craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kc20h62njbomqgf/SS-1.craft Mods Used: Procedural Parts, Procedural Wings,Mechjeb, FTmN Nuclear Rockets, KW Rocketry, Infernal Robotics.

Are there problems loading craft that have already been launched and had their robotics used? If so, are they known? I was testing a rover with a robotic arm and KAS magnet for assembling bases on the surface of moons, it worked fine. I then came back to it from the tracking station and the arm had deformed into an odd shape with pistons floating midair and hinges facing in odd directions. Upon activation of the robotics parts they would spazz out in and face directions they definitely shouldn't be. If there's any way I can help with this other than simply posting here I'll do it. EDIT: looking back a page I guess they are, ignore my post.

Is there a reason conical xenon tanks don't exist?

How does one get this to work? It's missing ProceduralParts.dll and KSPAPIextensions.dll.

10,000 part ships aren't practical with KSP's engine. This mod has much more important issues that need dealing with, like the mass update issue.

OP already said there would be no hollow shapes. Oval tanks already exist, just use two bezier cones. I'd like to see different decoupler shapes/skins. The current ones don't look good when combined with the tanks.

I'm not sure how Kerbal's engine or your mod handles this, but I assume it is similar to Source's. I remember a mod for Garry's Mod that had a similar goal as your mod, and suffered from similar hit detection issues until the modders added a trace between the current position of a projectile and the next to prevent them from phasing through objects. Is this possible with Unity? If you don't feel like doing the math required to perform a trace between the projectile's current position and its next position, simply perform a trace between the projectile's current position and its last.

Is it just me, or do shells normally phase through parts/the ground? Edit: It seems a lot like a problem I've witnessed on other games. I'm not quite sure how your mod works, but perhaps there should be a trace between the projectile's position every tick to determine if it hits something that it would normally phase through.

Is there a particular trick to getting the afterburners to work? Any particular placement? Mine just dump fuel.

I like it, it looks more aesthetically pleasing then most spaceplanes you see. I don't have any of the mods associated with it except KW though so I can't fly it.

I'm considering using RCS or a group of low power but vectoring engines at the bottom. How much RCS and mono propellant would I need to keep a 1000 ton rocket stable during all stages of ascent?

I've been trying to design a more powerful heavy lifter for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that it would be most efficient to place radial engines on the top of the first stage. This would allow me to run a large number of stages with only one set of engines. I'm having difficulty with this design because the engines vector their thrust in the wrong direction. This causes ASAS to stop working, making the rocket difficult to fly. I have seen people get away with similar designs. How do they do it? Optimally this is done without disabling thrust vectoring.

I've strengthened the hull of the SSTO significantly since my previous attempt without reducing its performance. It can now safely withstand landings with a downwards velocity of up to 25m/s without there being a high risk of important components falling off. I am going to attempt another Duna landing with this upgraded SSTO and if that fails I will attempt to use various types of legs. Thanks for the help everyone, I think this thread is finished.

I have indeed landed on the mun both in a conventional lander and using my SSTO. In my previous attempt I could reach the ground and I retained enough control via RCS and thrust vectoring to reduce my velocity to as low as 50m/s and remain airborne. Sadly my landing gear require that I hit the ground at less than 5-10m/s. I am planning on fitting the plane with landing legs instead, but it is 18.3 tons and I don't know which legs to use.

I hadn't considered using multiple PB-NUKs. Using my current designs I can achieve 300m/s of delta V per battery charge on my current probes which carry a single PB-NUK, however I'm not sure how well this will scale up to a manned craft. Another problem I encountered was placing the large solar arrays in a way that would allow all of come into contact with the sun's light.

I attempted it in my spaceplane and the atmosphere was thinner than I expected, after repeated attempts my SSTO slammed into the ground and exploded. Despite this failure I will probably take a modified SSTO with landing legs to Duna in a few days. What landing legs would be optimal for an 18.3 ton craft?

I've been trying to create an ion propelled interplanetary ship for some time now. I can't seem to get them to work in a satisfactory manner. Should I use a large amount of batteries for energy storage and a single PB-NUK to perform my maneuvers or should I attempt to power them the entire time using solar panels? I've tested both concepts using small probes and can't decide which method is better for a manned vessel that is being sent on an interplanetary mission. Not being able to fire your engines on the dark side of a planet is unacceptable because that may be needed to transfer between planets. At the same time being unable to achieve the required delta V due to low charge is also unacceptable.

I'm going to start off by saying this is my first interplanetary mission that didn't involve landing a probe and leaving it on a planet. The method I am using might seem unnecessarily convoluted and complex but I am doing it because I feel more comfortable flying my SSTO spaceplane than I do flying a conventional lander. My plan is to launch a spaceplane and an "interplanetary drive"(basically a nuclear engine and a big fuel tank with docking ports) up to a station in a 250km orbit of Kerbin. Once at the station the interplanetary drive and the spaceplane will both refuel. Once fueled up the spaceplane and drive will dock together and using the nuclear engine fly to Duna. Once they reach Duna I will use the interplanetary drive to get them both into a 60km orbit. The spaceplane will then reduce its periapsis to around 30km and let air friction take it down to the surface slowly for a landing. My main concern is whether or not my spaceplane has enough delta V to return to a stable orbit. It can get into a 250km orbit of Kerbin with 2/3 of its fuel remaining;however, it can't use its jet engines on Duna because of the lack of air. Is 3000m/s Delta V enough to reach a stable orbit of Duna and what trajectory should I take to get to it efficiently?