DrMonte

Balloons definitely gives no help for the Eve lifter

Passing near Tylo or other big Jools moon is enough to get you in to the Jools orbit without additional burn or need just some small corrections. That's not so simple to explain as aerobraking. Anyway that's an idea of ideal flight Aerobraking is always an option if something goes wrong. If you'll think of a tug as a part of a lander then everything will get clear. For probes you wouldn't need that as they are not designed to return. You might think of splitting the mothership before circularizing around the Jool. For example lowering a probe to Laythe or Tylo will require quite much dV but if you'll face them from outer space you'll be able to use your slowdown to Jool dV to lower your probe to Laythe or Tylo.

- The idea would be to use Tylo for breaking instead of aerobreaking and leave mothership in near Tylo orbit. Circular might be better for docking. Returning home wouldn't cost much as lots of mass will be left here. - Launch Ion probes from there (they cost almost nothing compared to all mission weight). - Send separate landers with tug to each planet. One tug, multiple specialized landers. The main challenge here is to prepare lander for each planet.

Not yet but I have scheduled mannedkerballed mission to land on each moon of Jool.

I don't think that graphics card is an issue for KSP. Physics is modeled in single core of CPU and there is no way to speed it up only by adding more Hz. All up to date CPUs runs 2-4GHZ that's way all players have issues with similar number of parts unless RAM plays it's role.

If you don't wan'a travel far you can think of a rover like a local support vehicle around your base. On Duna I've traveled more than 100km over the mountains. Why? You can easily fly on the mountain peak with some mini lander but try to get there with the car (and down)

That's just a design issue I think all landing on EVE should be handled by parachutes. They should be enough to keep the right end down. Landing on EVE is the least thing I would worry.

So it seems smaller fuel tanks have additional rings to harden them.

Yes it will. Depending on appoapsis height it might be even in one turn. You can safely switch to timewarp as game returns to x1 automatically when entering atmosphere.

I would still use legs as they are good shock absorbers. You just need 1.7x more of them than on Kerbin. Slowing down to 3m/s near the surface would be good too. Could suggest wings for control instead of SAS as they are much lighter and EVE atmosphere goes very high. Oh, and adding more struts does not always help. More struts can even break your ship instead of keeping it harder. I had plans to build an EVE sea level launcher just selected Jool first. It would be interesting to see how your craft is doing.

Send it to another planet

Should I start a new thread or could someone just answer - what is a "proper encounter window"? I launch whenever I want, I can reach any planet I want, I don't have any problems with dV performance and I have no idea about astronomical terms.

This game got me at once not because of it's space simulation but because of it's LEGO style Hmm. I think VTOL Jet would be my choice - with rotating Jet engines mounted on robotic parts (I think called "hinge").

I've almost finished stock career mode (missing few hundred point) and don't find it boring. If you play sandbox mode first and then switch to career then you'll get the same just with limited resources. I might not be quite satisfied about science points awards but that is not about boring or not. For example returning Kerbals home should be rewarded much more (x5-10 times) than just leaving them die and transmitting science data.

Good for you. Here is 9 a.m. and I'm at work

I don't see the issue. You answered your question yourself - (Tiny/0.625m, Small/1.25m, Large/2.5m) - take any part or number of parts you would like to measure and attach to the T, S or L tank end. I think you will do the rest of the math like 7 decouplers equals one Large fuel tank end. If you need a hint how to attach use "Cubic Octagonal Strut" attached on the fuel tank side in this way: |--Fuel tank. Side attachment. | | | | |--Any part. Center attachment.

My testing runs in similar way. My Duna lander got to Kerbin orbit then I sliced all in twice. Two times less fuel, less engines. Also modification led to ladders on different side of the cockpits door which I noticed only after landing Good thing that Duna gravity was suitable for jetpack usage.

So why you are not making them equal?

If you already saved the game, then it's done. If not, then find the missing parts: - did you use some mod? - did you upgrade?

I'm not so good at physics but good at math So if fuel consumption constants at wiki are correct http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts 48-7S - 0.0087 t/s LV-909 - 0.0131 t/s I have quite simple answer. Compared by power we need 5:3 engines ... ok it's an equation So you have to burn 9,357t (+1t for 48-7S) of fuel per every 5:3 (48-7S vs LV-909) engines for 48-7S become not effective. That is going to 2.5m fuel tanks scale - More than "Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank" That will be almost 12min burn.

Poor Kerbal. Are you sure that engines are not rotated and are not producing vertical trust? The same question might go for the sledgeweb for his last design.

I think usually people does not evaluate that getting to Moho might require the same dV as getting to the Jools moon. It's difficult to get gravity or aerobreaking assist in the way to Moho. So if you'll have a craft capable to get to Jool it will do for Moho too.

You definitely need FAR mod installed. I saw planes build from structural plates. Default aerodynamics physics are awful.

Sorry for the rover in the front. I don't take much images and this one was for the rovers thread. Landed with one rover without counter-mass I like to use more parachutes which makes no need for engine burn when landing. Asparagus quite fast drops legs and parachutes attached to the outer-side. I would just change Poodle engine to 48-7S. Just use it - "48-7S". Somewhat 5x"48-7S" engines will be capable of lifting your lander even in Kerbin and that will weight only 0.5t.

You know - legs do nice for liftoff not only for landing. Pulling them up and lowering down in low gravity when landed will throw you up quite high. Depends on craft to leg ratio you could reach first 100m just with legs jump. Hmm, I didn't thought of travelling this way over the terrain that would be a design. I'll have to build a "jumper" and send it to Minmus.