annallia

They are not active yet, they are final stage just being used to deliver the payload to the station. AEIS, Nova Punch, Orbital Construction are the ones in play here. Can't do a screenshot right this minute as I have work to do.

So with the opening of my new space station it was time to stock it with snacks...well parts but Bill eats them (orbital construction mod). Rather than make several trips launching 2 or 3 of the 25 part containers into orbit I decided to make a super snack delivery vehicle. This one capable of lifting 500 tons of snacks into orbit. Now however I have the issue of my nuke engines falling off for no apparent reason. First attempt I figured was a fluke, after all one of the snack containers popped off on the launchpad, which shouldn't have happened. I launched got to 36,000 m and saw an explosion. At 42,000m I saw another explosion. It was at this point I realized I was down two of my LV-Ns. Second attempt I took it back to the VAB added a few more struts to the part containers and just for good measure added another strut to the final stage fuel tanks and to the LV-Ns. No cargo drop on the launchpad, got her up to 36,000m and BOOM engine fell off, and again at 42,000m. Third attempt went back to VAB, added more struts to the engines and attempted to launch again. 36,000m BOOM... revert. Fourth attempted I dumped the whole thing and redesigned it. Slightly lower payload (400 tons) and added a fourth LV-N. I figured if I lost one again I could just shut down the engine on the opposing side and fly on two. Get it up to 36,000m and BOOM. Revert. Add more struts, Fith attempt, 36,000m BOOM. For the sixth attempt I changed some parts around. I dumped the tanks from nova punch and used some from AEIS, strutted them and the engines to hell and back. 36,000m BOOM Seventh attempt I rebuilt the entire rocket. Aside from the part containers this one was completely stock. I even ditched the super heavy struts from NovaPunch and went back to the basic strut. In the end I wound up with a 653 part monstrosity. As soon as I passed the 36,000m mark BOOM... Essentially what I am asking is there some bug/glitch that I am unaware of that is keeping these engines from staying super glued to the tanks? If so how do I fix it? And before anyone asks on the few flights I let time warp back down to kerbin the first thing in the report was structural failure between LV-N and the tank it was on. They simply dropped. If nothing else at least going stock had one redeeming feature. In all of the previous designs the engine struck a fuel tank, but never made them go boom. In stock however... Well lets just say there was an explosion big enough to see from Jool...

FWIW I agree, however this was for the benefits of dual core over the far more expensive quad core.

The kind of people who are broke? That and quad cores are really only a must if you play the latest greatest biggest prettiest copy of last years hit game on the shelves.

I think you are missing the part where he did it from outside the ship. Doesn't really have to be useful to be an ah-ha moment.

I am half tempted to ask you for the craft file for that thing... But it appears to me that you use some mods that I do not and well... Even with my pruning of unused parts (like the half dozen antenna in AEIS or the landing struts in nova punch) I am still at the limits of what I can use for mods ><

Depends on purpose and design of ship that said: Standard for all vessels is regular clamp o tron, if more are needed then get into the x2 x3 and x4 Standard for refuelers is the senior so my space stations use both.

You know... I knew you could do this (thanks to tutorials) but I completely forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder.

I completed my first truly space built station. By that I mean I built a small station that was mostly storage tanks from orbital construction, then I built a new station with it. 4 standard docking ports, 3 senior ports, 1 dual port, 1 tri port and one quad port. Houses 16 kerbals, 17 if you don't mind one living in the command module. Capable of storing 1600 parts for future constructions. I am calling it complete but I do want to add a kethane tank or two and refinery to it. This way I can refuel it from my mun/minmus drilling sites instead of Kerbin.

It has been my experience that CPU power is the determining factor. Which is why my old PC runs KSP better than my new one. While my new one runs most games far easier thanks to its quad core the old PC has a single core that is faster and since KSP only utilizes a single core... Ram doesn't really matter beyond 4GB, that is to say after whatever your backround stuff is using.

Still better than what mine was.. If I remember correctly I was only getting around 150-200 LF depending on how well I did in optimizing my rendezvous path. Not really worth doing... Though I did still use them somewhat so I could scale down my landers and land near the drilling probes and refuel directly from them rather than running it up to the station. That is the plan.

Thanks deadweasel I will give that one a try and see which one I like more. Though from an aesthetic aspect I suspect I will like the lazer one better (plus nice that its a standalone so I don't have to get the whole system). BahamutoD I had a similar function (no where near as creative/nice looking design) lander for the Mun. I noticed however that it used up a bunch of fuel getting back to the station and back down to the planet and think I figured it was around 70% of the kethane it carried being used for that purpose, as such it was scrapped. Then again my station was in a much higher orbit, and didn't launch it as the station passed overhead like you do.

I agree, though there is nothing wrong with voicing concerns over changes or pointing out flaws. Its not what you say, its how you say it. There is no reason to say something like "Oh you made this change that I don't like so I am going to blow up your HQ!" Just say you don't like whatever change it is you are upset about.

Make sure docking ports are both on the right way, if one is upside down it wont work. Since you are using a mod part only someone familiar with the mod can tell you if it requires power though I would think that like the stock ports it does not. You said you bumped them? How fast? If you hit too hard they will not lock, and if that is the case you will have to move at least 5m away for the ports to remagnetize. Edit- Rhomphaia Are you sure about that? As recent as last night I lost the ability to do anything with one of my single use tugs because I forgot to put panels on it and couldn't even use RCS to deorbit it anymore.

BahamutoD first of all let me say, freakin awesome design! I love it even though it makes me want to swat my screen... Secondly: I would have given you more than +5 for the double backflip. Thirdly: Does that little kethane tank hold enough to convert into fuel/oxidizer to make up for the fuel you use landing/taking off? Finally: What mod is that for the docking camera?

Use the PPD-1 or whatever it is called cupola module, add in some batteries (don't want it runnin out of power now do you?) Toss in a hitchhiker can + solar panels (I suggest putting the panels on the lower end of the can so you don't obstruct your view). Then under that the multi-connector port with a clamp-o-tron port added to every side of it. Your command module has windows all over the place, your living quarters (hitchhiker can) has small windows in it that you can see kerbin from, and thanks to the multi-connector that you put on the bottom and mad into a 5 way docking node you can now expand whichever way you choose.

Because Ion engines suck the batteries completely dry even with mass solar panel spam if you mod the engine to be more powerful.

Wonderful little chart on the wiki page: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin

Still 21... Just like the one three weeks ago.

Its not perfect, its not pretty (actually compared to some of my rovers its down right gorgeous) but it gets the job done... That 1 job being carrying command pods that landed more than 1km away from KSC back.

I go 100% When I see the needle going up near 200 (not sure what it is... m/s?) I throttle back until it stops gaining speed. When I hit 6500 I throttle up a little as I start my gravity turn. When I hit 10,000m I throttle all the way up.

To a point I agree. I think it would be fun to occasionally have my ship peppered my micrometeoroids or have life support failure. Extremely rare but having a chance with every launch of something to go horribly wrong would add a bit of fun for me. However as I said, I agree with you to a point which is why I would prefer if it were to be added for it to be completely optional.

If it helps I will be more than happy to blow up your fancy super rocket and leave you dangling around KSP in an escape pod.

I wouldn't mind a scenario with it. Or even a harder career mode (when they release it) that leaves for a chance at system failure. But as a part of the game as a whole it would be a horrible idea.

I like the idea, could lead to actual building of things in orbit, or building an interconnected Mun base without the need of docking ports and precision flying/user made forklifts/cranes.