Raptor9

That thing looks mean.

No mocking here. Another interesting fact: the Soviet space station "Salyut 3" was armed with a 23mm cannon. But I digress from the original thread topic.

Meh, if you run out of ablator, I'm sure the Kerbals have cockpit fans mounted inside the capsule like the Russians mount in their helicopters.

The Kerbals look like they're unwrapping a late Christmas present, ha ha. "How did you know? It's exactly what I wanted!"

As a clarification to some changes in the past hour to some of the recent posts in this thread, the OP has been updated with some new craft file designations: LV-3B cargo lander redesignated LV-3C LV-3C research lander redesignated LV-3BL All LV-3-series craft files have been updated on KerbalX as well (again). For anyone familiar with my LV-1 'Frog' landers, the LV-1A was the early generation Mun lander, and the LV-1B was a redesign to carry a rover on board the descent stage. I've created a derivative of the LV-3A crew lander in similar fashion, with a redesigned descent stage to carry a rover. This will be the new LV-3B. To summarize the LV-3 line-up, which is rapidly growing to become my lander workhorse: LV-3A Crew lander LV-3B Crew lander with rover on board LV-3BL Research lander with rover on board (used for on-site research not requiring a full-outpost or permanent habitiation) LV-3C Cargo lander (as seen a few posts above, used to ferry equipment, rovers, surface modules to the Mun surface) This is all (BM-series modules, mining rovers, SRD system) really geared toward 1.1 optimizations I'm afraid. But really, any large base anybody makes is most likely going to be high in part count no matter what you do. I would love for Kerbal Planetary Base Systems to become stock so we could have awesome looking part modules and a lower part count in general, but it is what it is I guess. Ultimately, if you want to keep part count low, just send a LV-3A/LV-3BL combo for Mun surface science research.

The LV-3C un-crewed Mun cargo lander with preloaded Base Mobules (BM-series) is now published on KerbalX, links available in the OP. The base modules themselves come in five flavors: Processing Lab, Habitation, Utilities, Passageway, and Airlock. To place the modules on the surface from the LV-3C cargo platform, the BM assemblies "jump" off the lander via mono-powered thrusters. The smaller modules are lifted two at a time via a deployment rack, whereas the lab and hab modules have their own integrated RCS thrusters and O-10 'Puff' engines. In the case of the BM-H and BM-PL, these provide a secondary purpose; when moving around on the surface on the wheels, the BM-H and especially the BM-PL are very top heavy. The RCS thrusters can provide stability control, and if necessary to move the modules a significant distance, the O-10 engines can "hover-taxi" the modules quite effortlessly. Aside from that, the wheeled modules provide an easy solution to outpost assembly, but use rover inputs gently in the low-gravity environment of the Mun otherwise they may go toppling. As with the updated version of the LV-3A, the LV-3C can be plugged into my upcoming Surface Resource Distribution system, as can the BM-U module. The BM-U module has two small docking ports on either side for this purpose. Depending on landing procedures and location, you may elect to use the LV-3C for multiple sorties to and from the Mun surface. Replacing the docking port in the VAB with a different size to accommodate player-specific payloads or missions takes seconds. In the words of Scott Manley: "Fly Safe" SRD network and Mining/ISRU rover family are still being tweaked slightly, but they're coming. Additionally, I'm working on a comms tower, as well as a small hub BM assembly for docking several BM-P, BM-A, or BM-U's together by themselves.

My observations in my own personal build style is if you have low TWR, you need a good overall lift/weight ratio; or vice versa. Example: if you have a spaceplane with relatively low total lift rating, you will spend most of your flight with the nose at a high AoA. This increases the drag on the spaceplane since the entire underbelly is impacting the relative wind. This may not be an issue if you have a high TWR, overcoming the drag with enough raw thrust to accelerate through the atmosphere. On the flipside, if you have a low TWR, you will want a lot of lift (and CoM not too far forward of course) to ensure the nose is as close to the flight path vector, low AoA and less drag. The other significant factor for me is ascent profile. I usually put the throttle to full and adjust ascent angle to what works best through a series of tests. Too shallow and my spaceplanes overheat before getting into the thin upper atmosphere where speed isn't an issue; too steep and my airbreathing engines flameout before I get enough speed, requiring a much longer rocket burn.

The first craft file published to support extended Mun surface operations is the LV-3A 'Bullfrog' lander. The LV-3A has been on KerbalX for a while, but this new version adds a couple of new features. The most important feature is the simplest one, a small docking port mounted at the base of the descent stage opposite the crew access ladder for connecting a fuel transport rover, or plugging the descent stage into the Surface Resource Distribution (SRD) system. While testing this new feature, I ended up rebuilding the entire descent stage (was able to shave off a few parts from the total count in the process), and even making a few refinements to the ascent stage. Now that it's feasible to use the left-behind descent stage in the future for propellant storage or power generation, I needed to prevent the ascent engine from damaging it on lift off. The new LV-3A now launches from the Mun surface using a "Cold Launch" method. A quad of Sepratrons propel the ascent stage 20 to 30 meters in altitude before the LV-909 ascent engine ignites, keeping the rocket plume from firing directly into the descent stage. The next ones up for publishing should be a series of LV-3C cargo landers, each preloaded with surface modules like in the post above. Real-life job has me pretty busy this week, but I should have plenty of time to get them pushed out the door this weekend at the latest.

That's a good observation. I'll need to give this plan some more thought I guess.

I'll probably do it one more time after my 1.1 career restart. My idea is to use a Class E as a space station anchor just inside the orbit altitude of Minmus for staging interplanetary expeditions. After undocking, the ship can make a short burn to start a long gravity fall and slingshot around Kerbin, saving a lot of delta-V. Unfortunately, the low orbit velocity that far out can cause orbit drift by simple, gentle docking maneuvers by large interplanetary ships, hence the need for a large anchor mass. Plus the potato can be mined while the ship is away so when it gets back to Kerbin it can refuel before the next expedition. That's the plan anyway. It'll be awhile before I find out if this concept will work, but it seems like a solid plan in my head.

@Cupcake... Some of your designs, like the "Fury" there, remind me of the Recognizer from "Tron"

I captured a Class E asteroid into a high Kerbin orbit once (somewhere between Mun and Minmus)...definitely a process I would prefer not to experience again.

While I would personally prefer planes to start out with, like doing rocket-powered plane tests similar to the real-life X-planes (ie X-1, X-15, etc), I believe starting out with basic rockets would be better for gameplay. It requires the least amount of KSP "design" knowledge. Select capsule, put parachute on top, a fuel tank and rocket engine on the bottom, add some fins for flavor (or stability ) and push launch. With airplanes you need to balance all the different force vectors, worry about control surface placement and assignment, enough lift vs weight, intakes, landing gear, etc etc. I can see planes frustrating new players* more easily than rockets. *Assuming the new player doesn't have any prior knowledge in aerospace mechanics.

@1greywind Huge props. The concept of a floating base on Laythe with landing pads has been something I've been wanting to do for a long time. I just haven't really gone beyond Duna yet. That base looks not only looks good, it has a futuristic feel to it. Awesome job!.

Now that I'm mostly satisfied with how the parts and pieces work on the Mun surface, now I just need to worry about getting it all there. The LV-3C cargo lander on top of the Titan 3M rocket is still the best option so far, tested to safely carry up to 8 tons of cargo to the Mun surface. That means it can handle the laboratory module, which is around 7.8 tons and the largest outpost piece thus far. I haven't calculated the empty weight of any of the mining/ISRU rovers, but I doubt any of them are that heavy. PHOTO: Un-crewed LV-3C carrying a utility module and crew passageway module from a 50km parking orbit to the surface outpost test site.

So because a mod existed that provided feature X in game (which provides no guarantee of compatibility after an update or perpetual author support), you don't consider a stock feature that provides the same basic gameplay elements a big deal. Ok...fairly subjective, but ok. Such a feature integrated in stock ensures feature QA and possibly even development of feature X beyond it's current scope. Why does buoyancy matter? I could think of a big reason: Laythe is primarily oceanic, players could make floating research bases or seaplanes for biome exploration. Same could be said for Eve I suppose, but Eve scares me. (To quote Admiral Akbar: "It's a TRAP!" ) As for aeroplane parts, I believe @Red Iron Crown and @Choctofliatrio2.0 were referring to the aerodynamics model, not the aeroplane parts specifically. The aero model affected the rockets and/or spacecraft as much as aircraft/spaceplanes, or more. More realistic launch trajectories, aerobraking, cargo bay drag occlusion, fairings were now necessary (or helpful at least). That is a significant change in gameplay. Regarding the airplane/spaceplane parts themselves, I would say they provide a significant amount of gameplay to a lot of players. This is why I have this theory: I host a lot of craft files on KerbalX, clocking in almost 100 individual craft. My list is fairly evenly split between rockets/capsules/landers, etc and aircraft/spaceplanes. Each day I check the downloads, and the majority of the downloads players on that site download are aircraft, not even spaceplanes. Just air-breathing atmo planes. Statistically, there may be flaws in my observations, but when more people download aircraft each day than rockets, I would say the airplane parts are in huge demand for one reason or another.

Spoken like a true engineer, lol

At the risk of beating a dead horse, another thing that I don't understand is how belligerent and hostile people get when Squad changes plans (ie: this thread topic) or when updates take longer than expected. Why are people so critical of Squad when they encounter unforeseen delays or unexpected issues? They are human after all, and sometimes development (like Unity 5 update) takes longer than expected. It's just a game...doesn't mean the forums should be lit on fire. Welcome to a day at Squad... Decision A: Hold update from release until development time can be allocated to ensure new comms system can be properly QA'ed and implemented in KSP 1.1 --> People complain update is delayed or is taking to long. Decision B: Release KSP 1.1 update in accordance with internal deadline but remove new comms system feature from implementation due to time constraints --> People complain the new comms system isn't in update. Decision C: Release KSP 1.1 update in accordance with internal deadline and include hastily QA'ed and possibly buggy new comms feature in update --> People complain the new comms system doesn't work right and/or buggy. EDIT: (I forgot one) Decision D: Become even more tight-lipped about development progress or future plans to avoid above three outcomes in the future...

I don't understand what freezes, CTD's, save corruption, etc you're talking about. My KSP install runs beautifully; the only issues I encounter are when I install mods (which is few and far between, usually just to test them out).

Each has at least two, going opposite ways. This allows fuel to go both ways to feed fuel cells or distribute ISRU-produced propellant if a convertor is plugged in. Most of the rover chassis are built using long or short I-beams, none of which are crossfeed capable. Obviously, if this is all one "vessel" a player can manually transfer resources, but that won't work for long-duration fuel refining or fuel cell power during darkness.

They're a bunch of parts, rovers technically. There are ten in that photo, each connecting to the other via small docking ports. Some docking ports are mounted low, facing up; others are mounted high, facing down. This allows them to link together at multiple angles, allowing more flexibility.

Speaking of high part counts...here is the latest iteration of module tests for a Munar outpost. Part count in this picture is 746; but this is mainly just to demonstrate how the surface resource distribution system works. It's modular with fuel line connections, fuel plugs for attaching to landers/fuel transports/utility modules, a hub to make multiple branches, and an adapter (not shown) for integrating the ISRU and mining rovers (also not shown, but can be seen above). They went through several redesigns, the most significant of which was rotating the small docking ports on each end parallel to the ground so you have anywhere from 150 to 180 degree range of attachment angles (depending on component variant). This also shows how the LV-3A descent stage was originally envisioned as a dual purpose module, so it wasn't just useless debris after the ascent stage departed. Again, these are still a significant piece of time from publishing for download, but I've made a lot of progress this weekend. EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention. Every single component of the distribution system has an external command seat mounted somewhere on it. I deliberately avoided probe cores for three reasons: a) probes are expensive parts, b) probes require a constant power supply, slowly siphoning off more juice the more fuel connections you add, and c) I wanted to give more purpose to Kerbal EVA's, make them more involved in actually building a surface outpost.

I already made a KSP-analogue to this mars lander concept by Boeing...just need the heatshield now But yeah, no clue how big the base mount will be. As it stands, the 3.75m heatshield is just barely wide enough to cover my lander diameter, not that Duna really has much atmosphere though.

That's an extremely nice-looking design. Does it break the smell-barrier?

Ha ha, well played.