Raptor9

Kerbal boot-legging...only you @Cupcake... (shaking my head) lol

Current status of my Duna Test Base: Complete. There's a handful of more surface modules to test, but those will be tested at a separate ISRU Test Site. Also mated to the cargo lander for shipment to the surface will be the existing All-Terrain Survey Vehicle (ATSV), as well as the new All-Terrain Logistics Vehicle (ATLV); and three variants of the new LR-5 'Mule' remote-control logistics rovers. Both the ATSV and ATLV are capable of operations at night by fuel cells, and can plug into this surface module system to refuel their LF+O reservoirs between expeditions. Obviously this base configuration is just an example, and players can set up their surface outposts however they want, big or small, with as many combinations and layouts as long as their CPU can handle it. The part count of everything in this picture, including the communications tower, is 439. The second ring of solar arrays was unnecessary, and significantly added to the part count, but I really just wanted to see how it looked. I should note that the third habitation module on the far right didn't need to be located in such a way, I was just using it to test the extended passageway and adapter modules. If so desired, a node module could be placed there to enable multiple modules or additional passageway branches.

@Hans Kerman, and anyone else waiting for a 50% off sale: www.humblebundle.com/store/kerbal-space-program?partner=szyzyg&charity=61469 Courtesy of Scott Manley, but only 20 hours left as of this post.

I use the probe core control axis and land it like the HLV-5: Like a VTOL.

Nope. Several hundred km circular Kerbin orbit is the best the 'Titan 4+' can do with the HLV-6 landers.

Hellifino, never tested it.

You are correct, and it's been fixed and re-uploaded to KerbalX. Thanks for that!

It has none. The QBE probe core isn't equipped with RW's.

Glad to hear it...don't get it stuck in a ditch.

An update on the surface base modules. I have almost all of them packaged and fitted to the cargo lander, and I've started testing each cargo run into the Duna atmosphere to ensure attitude stability can be maintained. As I deliver another series of modules, I incorporate them into a test base (pictured below) to make sure they all still work as designed. So far, I've completed Phase 1 of the test base assembly, which brings the minimal required equipment to begin operations: power, communications, a research lab, and an airlock. Not much in the way of living space, but expanded habitation and continuous power generation will be the next steps for Phase 2. Although there is already a sizeable battery storage capacity, adding a supply of liquid fuel and oxidizer to feed the fuel cell array will help throughout the night.

I think this thread is going to turn into one of those where 90% of the posts are tongue-in-cheek responses.

Squad has been naming their version updates since 0.24 or 0.25. When they added a career mode, they called the update "Economic Boom", when they went from alpha to beta with version 0.90 it was "Beta than ever", etc.

While the orbital module, aeroshell, and skycrane were inspired by the Curiosity rover, the ER-4 rover itself was inspired by Sojourner. Just keep in mind you will need to send comm relay sats ahead to maintain a link back the KSC (if you're using CommNet enabled). KerbalX link

Not to get into semantics, but @HebaruSan did say "Is 1.4.0 going to be the first major release that doesn't need hotfixes?" (emphasis added by me) I think there would be many players that would argue the subjective nature on whether a version "needs" a hotfix or not, depending on what bugs are present and whether or not they affect that player's gameplay. If his argument was whether or not there would be a 1.4.x hotfix, then I suppose technically his graph and hypothesis would be correct...until the announcement/release of 1.4.1. And now I'll calmly walk away while you all throw tomatoes at me.

In this case, ISP efficiency is more important than TWR. But you could always re-engine the NITE if you wanted, but it may impact other performance aspects.

Another thing @redmonddkgamer pointed out on KerbalX, is using the 'Ike/Dres Logistics Kit' on/around the Mun. Not only would it only require a single launch to establish a propellant generation capability at the Mun, but the kit would provide 30% more in-orbit propellant storage capability in the NITE stage when compared to a PD-64 orbital depot, and the entire kit is 16% cheaper than launching an IV-1B, HLV-5B, and PD-64 separately using legacy configurations. Not to mention the time savings. ______________________________________________ In other news, I'd like to report that most of the previous projects mentioned recently are still being worked on. I've just been really busy with real-life stuff to preclude any substantial progress. But the current major project standings are as follows: 1) New surface base modules as previewed here are still a thing. Trying to package them up into a reasonable delivery method is taking more time than I wish. Right now, I'm planning on two delivery systems for placing these modules on the surface of Duna. The smaller modules and equipment like power generation, resource distribution lines, utlities, etc will be delivered by a reusable SSTO teased here. The larger modules will be delivered using an expendable cargo lander. As with all my other M3V-rated projects nowadays, these systems will be evaluated for feasibility on other planetary bodies...It's worth noting that the expendable lander has already been tested as suitable for landing equipment on the surface of Laythe. 2) Building on the EV-6 mission capabilities, notably a Long-Range Sortie configuration for Jool, along with additional M3V kits. One such example is a 'Pol Logistics Kit', with a new IV-2B 'Badger' ISRU rig for establishing an ISRU footprint in the Joolian SOI. 3) The EV-7 'Skipjack', teased here, is also showing versatility in application. Right now, 3 of the 4 modules from the 'EV-7 Mobile Mission Kit' can also be utilized by the EV-2L 'Runabout' to expand it's capabilities. More on this later as the EV-7 is closer to being finalized. 4) As mentioned here, a Kerbin-based expeditionary airstrip/refueling infrastructure. But I'm forcing myself not to commit to any of this until items 1, 2 and 3 are finished. 5) I'm wanting to do a re-vamp and expansion of my Satellites & Probes category. Ever since Cassini took it's death plunge into Saturn, I've been reading more about the various probe programs of the US, Russia, and other countries. I've never been much interested in the area of satellites or probes from a KSP gameplay perspective, so I was thankful that the KerbNet and CommNet features of 1.2 gave me an excuse to commit to the area. But as @Cupcake... continues to demonstrate, doing "more with less" is a challenge in itself in KSP, so this is a skill set I'm looking to develop after items 1 through 3 are finished. All these items are of course subject to change, but there are a lot of things to keep me busy when I have time to "KSP". At the very least, I would really like to have item 1 finished before the end of the year, but I'm hoping the holidays will give me time to accomplish more.

I also like incorporating standardized craft programs that can be improved upon and retired as necessary. Aside from the "space program role-play" aspect of it, when you're very familiar with the left and right limits of a craft's capabilities, you can select the right craft for the right mission with confidence. And it's interesting to see what craft you find yourself using down the road, and which designs you put in the corner to gather dust. That in itself is a strong indicator of solid engineering. Kinda like certain iconic aircraft in the world like the Piper Cub, Cessna 172, Huey, or Mi-8. Sometimes rugged and simple to use and maintain wins out over bells and whistles.

Pfff...you missed the VAB roof landing pad by several hundred meters....not impressed.

@Nertea, are those module legs of your design as well? For placing modules on the surface? They look like their "height" is tweakable or auto-leveling somehow.

Eve is more of a warm, retirement location than a temporary tourism or research site anyway.

Did Badie go to the Dark Side?! @Darth Badie, NOOOOOO!

There may be a few aircraft that I removed the action but didnt update the action group list on the graphic. In some cases I later discovered that, due to the airframe layout, the "flaps" had no positive effect or even an adverse effect on takeoff/landing. I'll do a aircraft review tonight when I get gome from work. Thanks. EDIT: @Crobal, I looked through my SPH aircraft, and there doesn't appear to be any aircraft that are labeled to have a "Flaps" action group and doesn't. Each one that does have it on the graphics has it in the craft action assignments; and those that shouldn't have it, don't have it. There are some craft that initially had it when published back in the day, like the X-5, but since have been removed after airframe redesign or further testing. Bottom line, if the action group list has no flaps assigned, the craft shouldn't have it. Having said that, if you want them, you can of course assign them as you wish. If you spot any inconsistencies in the future, please let me know.

It's been rectified; thanks for that prompt report. Last night I was placing a payload on a Titan 3P and noticed during a test launch the RCS ports on the payload fairing base weren't working due to being masked by the part's collider. I moved them up slightly to fix the issue, which required me to apply this fix to all the craft files pre-fitted on Titan 3P launchers. Needless to say, it was a flurry of rapid-fire KerbalX updates. Anyone that notices any other errors please let me know so I can correct them.

Anyone else reminded of the scene from Space Balls when they're flying down the ear canal of Mega-Maid?

Speaking of teasing...Another craft I'm currently testing, is the EV-7 'Skipjack', with the Dres and Jool regions in mind during the design process. Unlike the last couple EV series, from EV-3 through the EV-6 which have been huge interplanetary ships, the EV-7 is going smaller. If the EV-2 is a commuter car, and the EV-6 is a semi-truck, the EV-7 is like a cross between a jeep and a sports car. While it's not ideal for long-distance traveling, it is certainly capable of it with over 2,300 m/s dV. It's more aptly suited to in-SOI missions, such as traveling between the Joolian moons. It's completely reliant on LF+O for propulsion and attitude control, which makes it very maneuverable; and is able to hover or land itself under Ike- or Dres-levels of surface gravity. For higher gravity moon landings, the EV-7 Mobile Mission Kit comes in. The EV-7 can bring along a collection of mission modules and store them somewhere nearby. It can return and reconfigure itself accordingly. One such example is a module that allows it to land on "higher" gravity bodies than Dres, such as the Mun, Vall, or Eeloo. For landing on Bop, Pol, Minmus or Gilly, it can detach the forward half of the ship since landing the entire vessel would be overkill. It also has modules that allow it to moor itself to an asteroid, or mine and refine propellant from an asteroid and/or a moon surface. Some of the modules have built-in science equipment, such as the landing and asteroid mooring modules. Test flight through the Dres "Scar" valley, with it's array of floodlights illuminating the terrain around it.