Raptor9

Sure can. It has an OKTO2 core allowing autonomous operations if necessary. I wouldn't go that far. The ramps I use are gravity-powered so once they drop, you can't raise them again in case you want to reposition the lander. There are obviously ways to make ramps powered using landing gear or airbrakes and such, however even then it's not a full solution. A lot of times, especially after the latest update, that when physics load for a lander with a dropped ramp, the ramp doesn't load quite back into it's original spot and drops to the ground. I've tried using "Physics ease in" on and off, but neither seems to be a consistent solution. Then, when you throw things in to the ring like landing on a slope for instance...there's just a lot of headaches when trying to make decent ramps that don't look like crap and aren't a bunch of additional parts. I'm no programmer, but I do hope we get them sometime. But honestly, there's other things I would rather have if given a choice between one or the other.

It actually states "Maximum orbital altitude is 300km". The HG-5 antenna can go further than 300km, but you have to remember that if it's communicating with another NavComm or a ship on the edge of the line-of-sight horizon, the slant range may be several times that range. And if that ship doesn't have a very powerful antenna, or just the receive-only antenna of stock pods/cores, it may not be enough. I originally tested a small constellation of NavComms at 500km orbits, but was getting orange- and sometimes red-colored signal quality with other satellites in the constellation. You could push the NavComms higher than 300km, but you would need a greater density of them to ensure high signal quality, or rely on KeoSats or other higher-power relays. There are a lot of ways to skin the cat to increase global satellite coverage/quality, but if one was to rely solely on a NavComm constellation of "reasonable" quantity, 32 NavComm satellites at 300km orbits is what I personally assess to be a good set up, but you could probably get away with less, especially if you didn't worry about coverage around the polar regions. ____________________________ [Not going to quote all of the stuff @Biggen & @Majorjim! already discussed] Yeah, pretty much what Majorjim pointed out, I place a docking port somewhere on the craft, and then attach the ramp to it by one of the ramp nodes, and then use the offset/rotate gizmos to ensure that the ramp is placed within the "retaining pegs" (antennas) when it's released (decoupled by action group). This allows me to get rid of the unsightly docking clamps everywhere, and keep them out of the way of the rover, so the rover doesn't have to drive over it to get out for instance. @Biggen, what I recommend is just panning/zooming the camera into the rover bay to replace/remove parts and components, unless you're comfortable getting the ramp back to it's original position. But that will probably be easier than moving the ramps. Getting the ramps placed just right is a pain in it's own right.

I apologize, I might've used the wrong wording on my question. What I meant to ask was if there was a real-world (or fictional) design or concept that the Mk4-1 was based on?

@Nertea, I just wanna say that the latest NF Spacecraft is awesome! I like those SD aerodynamic engine pods, very sleek. I can see them making their way onto an ascent vehicle of some sort. I hadn't messed with NF Construction very much recently, but when I started looking through it yesterday, I was amazed. The amount of options you have with all the different configurations is awesome! Quick question though, and I apologize if this has been answered already; but what was your inspiration for the Mk4-1 pod? Looks like an orbital command capsule, landing can, station module all rolled into one.

Motivation? More like addiction. I wish I had more time, I'd be a lot further in the Kerbol system than I am. I'm just now starting to gain proficiency at sending expeditions to Duna. I've only seen Jool in pictures...I've heard it's a magical place...like T.A.H.I.T.I. My favorites are the SVR-10 'Thunderbird' and HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers. Just so much fun to fly.

Those are some sleek lines there. Just like the real Blackbird. Nice job you two.

The EV-4 Block 3 is capable (and designed) to go elsewhere besides Duna. I've tested the EV-4 Blk3 to low Dres orbit and back, and high Eve orbit and back. I've also been doing some concept study on how to bring back the Block 4 version. Using KER, I came up with the following delta-V budgets for the EV-4 Block 4: Configuration 1: 8357 dV, but costs 629,713 funds per mission Configuration 2: 8060 dV, but costs 243,204 funds per mission Configuration 3: 7858 dV, but costs 386,509 funds per mission Configuration 4: 7561 dV, but costs 0 funds per mission (assuming the ship is refueled by some form of ISRU infrastructure) The original EV-4 Blk4 costed a lot more to assemble than the Blk3, but offered a relatively small amount of additional dV to justify it all, which is why I removed it from my catalog. I created the template from scratch on MS Paint for my first graphic; and when I want to make a new one, I just copy one of the existing graphics and edit on top of it. This way the original layout carries over.

@Biggen, thanks for your compliments. ...and here comes a novel, ha ha. To answer your first question, the early version of the EV-4 was built when the LV-N's still needed oxidizer as you assumed, but that's not why I kept the large Kerbodyne tanks. Originally, the EV-4 was built to emulate the function of the Mars Transfer Vehicle in NASA's Constellation expedition to Mars, which can be seen in this "old" video HERE (I should also note that my HLV-6 'Warthog' landers were modeled after the Cargo and Habitat landers in that same video). However, upon doing research into some of the systems and design decisions in the actual documents, I started seeing ways I could expand the EV-4 series into a modular system that could be reconfigured for multiple missions. Namely, THIS DOCUMENT provided a lot of inspiration into the various components of the EV-4 'Longship' Modular Exploration Vehicle, and the growth into different Block configurations. While I haven't tried the EV-4 craft in all it's potential, such as transporting Mun/Minmus landers or conducting asteroid rendezvous's, they can easily be adapted to such purposes (which is why there are discreet docking ports in the 'Saddle' Truss bulkheads and such). The actual reasons behind keeping the Kerbodyne tanks in lieu of swapping them out with the Mk3 tanks are this: 1) The Mk3 tanks didn't give me the build options I was looking for to get the "Constellation" NTR-STS look to it, or the physical profile I was looking for. 2) The real-life NTR-STS would have used hydrogen for fuel for it's NTR engines, which has a very low density and high volume. "Pretending" that the liquid fuel in those Kerbodyne tanks actually occupied that much volume normally shared with oxidizer was how I further justified keeping the designs as you see. @Rune famously pointed this out to me a while back that the modules had horrible tank ratios. I couldn't argue with it. To answer your second question: No, the EV-4's weren't designed with aerobraking in mind. Which is why the EV-4 Block 2 has the additional in-line tank to provide the additional propellant to slow down back into Kerbin orbit for refuel/reuse. The EV-4 Block 1 lacked enough propellant to do this, which is why it's labeled as expendable. Regarding the drop tanks, I can't take credit for them as these craft were based on NASA documents. I will note that the drop tanks weren't meant to be "jettisoned" while under acceleration (if you do they'll probably bust some antennas or solar panels on the aft modules). They're simply undocked and the EV-4 fires a few short RCS puffs to translate clear. An example of use would be the EV-4 Block 3 would burn enough fuel to empty a pair of the 'Star' truss tanks during it's initial burn away from Kerbin into a high elliptical orbit. It decouples two of the tanks at the completion of the burn, and when it comes back around for it's second burn at the periapsis using the Oberth effect, it empties out the second pair of tanks while burning to gain enough velocity to escape from the Kerbin SOI.

Best thread ever. I'm looking forward to getting to the point in my career save where I can turn the Dres SOI into an asteroid-mining hub similar to how Ceres is in The Expanse. Are you suggesting NASA hasn't been to Dres either?...

My Duna rover/skycrane is finished and available for download on KerbalX. Like the HLV-6A, some Control From Here action is required to ensure the proper control axis during launch and during orbital maneuvers. The root part is on the sideways-mounted QBE core on the rover, to ensure the game maintains focus on the rover and not the skycrane after release. The skycrane is obviously inspired from the "Curiosity" rover delivery method, but the rover itself is closer in appearance to "Pathfinder". This craft can be found in the VAB>Satellites & Probes section.

I assume it would have been done using conventional chemical rockets since the Mars Direct was supposed to be used with the current "off-the-shelf" technology of the time. Whether that ended up being a large rocket launched directly from the Earth or orbitally-assembled, who knows. Regardless of how the Mars Direct study would have turned out had it come to fruition, I think the running consensus among the various public and private space agencies nowadays is any spacecraft capable of carrying enough payload to Mars to support a manned expedition would be large enough that orbital assembly would be necessary; even with SLS Block 2. EDIT: Also, I've finished a new graphic that hopefully should provide some key understanding of how to set up a self-sustaining propellant and transportation economy in "cisMunar space". These have been inserted on the applicable KerbalX craft download pages as well; the 'Lightning' rocket, HLV-5 landers, and 'Camel Hump' depots (not for the ISRU hardware since those aren't necessarily designed solely for cisMunar in mind). They'll also be searchable using the tag by typing "cismunar economy", or even just "cismunar". For more real-world inspiration, you can watch United Launch Alliance's "CisLunar 1000" concept video.

In that case, throw as many modules as you can on a 'Titan' rocket and SPACE!

There in lies the conundrum of KSP. I think it comes down to what your highest concern is. How much it will cost, and/or how easy will it be on you, the player. A handful of small, inexpensive rockets may be about the same price as a larger rocket, or maybe not. If you only want to deal with a single Mun transfer, then sending them all at once may offset the cost concerns you may have. If you already have a self-sustaining propellant economy set up with HLV-5B's, LITE reusable upper stages, and propellant depots...you may only have to spend money on a few cheap/throw-away 'Thunder 1' rockets to insert the payloads in to LKO. Which reminds me, I really should generate a graphic to demonstrate how to set up such a system with the applicable craft. I'll get to work on that.

The H-IIA would probably end up looking very similar to my 'Thunder' family of rockets, themselves based on the ULA Delta family; so it wouldn't really be necessary to have two virtually identical rockets in my craft list. And I really don't make "true replicas". More station modules aren't really on my priority list right now, so I wouldn't count on Tiangong-inspired modules any time soon, but I might get into it in the future. As for the Hayabusa, the function of that craft really isn't useful in KSP since the only "parts" that could retrieve an asteroid sample are EVA'ed Kerbals themselves. The optimal orbit for the AKOS (or any probe core) is really based on what you want to look at and how close you want to see it. I myself have three AKOS in staggered orbits around Kerbin like in the graph, at relatively low altitude (about 110km IIRC). 105km is the absolute lowest I permit myself to place any satellites since my ISS-inspired 'Pioneer Station' is at 100km, and I use 70-90km region for my "on-ramp/off-ramp" region. A lot of traffic going up from the surface or coming down in the 70-90km region. The inclination of your orbits will be driven on what latitudes you want to look at, and how often. The altitude of where you place your satellites will be driven by several factors: how close do you want to view what's in your KerbNet window and the FOV (zoom capabilities) of your probe core. As for the NavComm satellites, I recommend no further than a few hundred kilometers due to the signal strength of their HG-5 antennas. I have mine at 300km orbits (32 NavComm's total ). 300km is well within the range of the HG-5 to go straight down, but you also need to account for the slant distance of the other satellites in the constellation, or objects on the surface near the LOS horizon, which may be several times further than the orbit altitude value itself. The KeoSat's are easy, and the orbit value is stated in the graphic. Not really, it was simply based on following image of Boeing's lander, or in this video.

@Tau137 I've experienced this same bug in my stock KSP save with my ISRU rigs. IIRC, I believe this behavior is on Squad's radar as a bug, but no clue where I read that or if they've found a fix or not. But it does happen in vanilla KSP as well. @Nertea I've had to do this very thing you suggested above to avoid parts of my ISRU rig from blowing up on vessel re-load. Shut down the converter and drills and let the radiators cool them down before switching to another vessel outside physics range or back to the Space Center.

Six new craft available on KerbalX, which also marks my first establishment of publicly-available satellites and probes. Even though all of these can be used across the Kerbol system, the first three were designed for Kerbin SOI operations. Further, if you want to send the 'Prospector' or 'Surveyor' beyond the Kerbin SOI, you'll need to get a bigger rocket. The 'Pathfinder' is pre-mounted on the 'Titan 3P' rocket, which has been verified to reach a stable low Duna orbit. It "should" also be able to reach the Eve SOI, but this hasn't been tested and I am not sure of the final orbit that it can reach. A solution to this will be coming in the near future... These craft are available in the OP in the VAB drop down section, between the Robotics and Rocket Market sections. Look for Satellites & Probes.

@Majorjim! & @eloquentJane, I appreciate the compliments. That's what I strive for the most! While a lot of my craft have a very distinct and singular purpose in their design, later craft were designed to be as flexible and versatile as possible, even retroactively like some of the landers (being modified with a large docking port mounting plate so they can be mated to interplanetary transport stages right out of the box). If I can have a set up like my HLV-5 landers that can be used/reused an unlimited amount of times around the Mun, Ike, Dres, etc, than that's what I love about achieving those objectives. Speaking of the HLV-5's, they're all updated just now; as well as the 'Lightning' medium rocket and the PD-32/64 orbital propellant depots. They all received adjustments to their Vernor thruster powers and the HLV-5A & B had updated modules. The HLV-5A's crew module is now purely LF+O based, removing the need for monopropellant RCS reliance, and the HLV-5B's forward propellant hopper is changed slightly with an additional dorsal docking port and reduced solar panel footprint. I'm also working on a new version of the 'Titan' rocket, the 'Titan 4N'...and no, the "N" doesn't stand for nuclear ...more to come on this later.

@chlbutterworth, while we're on the topic of the ACES, Griffin, and Lightning, I just completed my first space station in Munar orbit...with components transported entirely from LKO by reused LITE upper stages and fuel refined from the Mun surface. I of course had refueled my LITE upper stages and 'Camel Hump' propellant depots in Munar orbit during early test missions and a few proof-of-concept logistics deliveries to my surface outpost, but I had never taken this concept to this scale in KSP before. Long version: I had two LITE upper stages in Munar orbit docked to my my orbital propellant depot after dropping off some surface-bound rovers to my HLV-5C cargo lander. After transporting fuel from the surface to the 'Camel Hump' with a pair of HLV-5B's, I topped off the LITE's and sent them back to an 80x80km Kerbin orbit. I would launch a couple station components on a cheap 'Thunder 1' rocket in the vicinity of one of the LITE upper stages in LKO, which would dock with it. The LITE stage would transport the components to low Munar orbit to be assembled, then rendezvous with the 'Camel Hump' to top off again before returning to LKO for more station pieces. So aside from the three 'Thunder 1' rockets I used and the price of the station modules themselves, everything was reused from in-space infrastructure reused from earlier missions and refueled from Munar propellant. In the above screenshot, I have the propulsion module of my HLV-5C docked (far right), waiting for any more surface cargo arrivals; one of the LITE upper stages (far left), and the PD-64 propellant depot (center, behind the truss) repositioned to the station to consolidate the fuel supplies. There are still plenty of empty "parking spots" for more LITE upper stages or HLV-5 landers, not to mention additional docking ports for crew modules or other ships. This is rapidly turning into my main shipping hub, if I can keep part counts low. I know some of you reading this are probably thinking "big deal Raptor, I've done this before...around Ike"; well sometimes I get so caught up in designing or updating my craft I don't get a chance to try them in my career to this level.

@Nils277, another amazing mod you've put together. I'm amazed at the thoroughness of your work, just like KPBS. Very stockalike parts, kerbal-style IVA's, KSPedia entries, the whole nine yards. Well done, downloading now.

@Nertea, you wonderful human being! Thanks for going to all this work. It is certainly appreciated.

My favorite shot was the Navball just prior to launch, like the INU system was aligning or something.

I would much rather inspire other players, than put limits on creation in KSP. If anything, it helps the community grow.

It is fairly derivative, unfortunately. As long as the stuff isn't plagiarizing directly from my craft and/or graphics. I didn't, no. The graphic layout of his "Griffin" series is like my 'Thunder' rocket family graphic, and the Griffin's upper stage is fairly close to my LITE upper stage on the 'Lightning' medium launcher, but then again, my 'Lightning' is based on ULA's "Vulcan"/ACES rocket. So really, who's copying who here?

Yeah, I struggled with that for a long time (still do sometimes). But testing helps out a lot when using the Hack Gravity in Alt-F12; it allows me to test the stuff on the KSC runway to ensure wheel suspension settings are set properly and the docking ports are all the correct height. The one thing to watch out for is the different "resting heights" of rovers and landers when they're full of fuel or empty. That can sometimes throw the docking ports out of alignment enough, but not usually. KAS/KIS is definitely an awesome mod that gives a lot more functionality to surface bases and EVA's. I'm also a huge fan of Kerbal Planetary Base Systems by Nils277, amazing IVA's in that one. Thanks for the compliment too. Yeah, ha ha. @chlbutterworth has been fairly busy lately.

Not available for download, didn't think it was necessary. If you take either the EV-2C/LV-2A or EV-2C/LV-2B craft files, remove the lander from inside the fairing, and replace it with whatever payload you want. Service modules, station modules, etc. The service module in the 'Wernher Station' graphic is just a service bay with a bunch of monoprop jammed in like you said, to refuel the LV-2A for another landing or two. Whenever I send another expedition to the station, it brings another service module along with it to fuel the lander for that expeditions' series of landings.