BagelRabbit

After much careful deliberation on what to do next with the big turbofans, I slapped two of them onto the front of a slightly larger craft. After a few seconds debating where to put the wings, I eventually decided that I didn't need any: the thing would have enough musclepower to get into the air just fine without 'em. All it needed were parachutes for the landing. The result is surprisingly good-looking, not very flight-worthy, and most definitely a bad idea. Here, have a picture! ...and, if you still doubt the validity of this design (Oh, ye of little faith!), here's a video as well. As always, yet more insane ideas are coming soon... so stay tuned! -Upsilon

As the Christmas Holidays draw near, I don't have nearly the amount of stuff to do as I did earlier. So let me show off my latest creations! First off: Fly a Moai! Yes, I made a replica of Easter Island's most famous inhabitants. And it flies. It's actually well-balanced, has parachutes if you don't want to land it with the two Juno jet engines, and has a surprisingly low part-count (21 parts). It adds atmosphere to any Kerbal tiki party, and at only 1.9 tons without fuel, you can take that tiki party anywhere in the Solar System! Here, have a video: (Sorry for the low resolution. Curse you, Large Video Format!)</grumble> ~~~ Next up, I present to you the BB-8 droid I actually showcased in another thread! BB-8! Now, even though some people got their BB-8's to roll, I think mine was probably the most accurate-looking to come out yet. That being said, it can't do much. A single Juno jet engine on the back (sensing a trend here?) can propel it to speeds of nearly 15 m/s on level ground, but the moment the BB-8 encounters an incline at high speeds, the results are... er... impressive. Nevertheless, I liked some of the things I did with this guy. It has a mere 40 parts, it's difficult to tell how it moves if you don't examine it closely, and it uses some parts in unconventional ways (the head-body connection, for example, is made out of a barely-visible Vector engine). Have a picture! ...and, if you so choose, have a video as well! (Yes, I did just use the above image as the thumbnail for the video. Sorry.) ~~~ And I'll end off the showcase today with a smashing version of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, possibly the best reindeer ever constructed in KSP. Rudolph! Rudolph is one of the craft I'm proudest of this holiday season. He's made out of a bunch of really interesting parts (his legs are Vernor RCS ports; his famous nose is a Surface Scanning Module). He VTOLs better than you would expect a reindeer to fly (which isn't really saying much, actually). Rudolph only weighs 2.7t fueled and has a partcount of just 50 parts. Perhaps best of all, though, this version of Rudolph seems to have a real spunk, a real personality, and I really enjoy that in craft like these. Behold, yet another picture! ...and my sincere apologies for continuing to plug my YouTube channel, but I suppose I must include this video as well, for those who want to see it. ...and even though the video thumbnail was taken on a completely different flight of Rudolph, the two images still look exactly the same. Ah well. ~~~ Anyway, that's all for now. Let me know which of these three craft you liked the most, I suppose! Also, I'll try to post craft regularly in the future, instead of the "wait-for-a-little-while-and-then-dump-everything" method that I seem to have fallen into. Thanks, and see you later! -Upsilon

Alright. I tried to make a BB-8 droid yesterday. After a lot of unsuccessful testing, I present to you the best result I ended up achieving: This BB-8 can move (it has hidden wheels on the bottom) but it doesn't like inclines or braking too quickly. Nevertheless, it's completely stock and I think it's a suitable representation of the droid. If yeh like it, I could probably deliver a .craft file (though not right now; I can't access KSP at the moment). -Upsilon

So far as I know (and I may be wrong here. Please let me know if this is the case!), the UB40 descends by taking in water into cargo bays but ascends by burning a jet engine or dumping Ore. To briefly reiterate, the Perfect Submarine must be capable of ascending and descending without using or dumping any fuel. Parts shouldn't be dropped either. This ensures that the submarine is theoretically capable of an infinite number of journeys to the bottom of the sea. If the UB-40 does what I think it does, this isn't the case. Again, the ballast tanks are only truly useful if they can be filled with air at the bottom of the ocean. Can someone please let me know whether this is possible? I can't access Kerbal Space Program at the moment... Thanks! It will be interesting to see what everyone will come up with. -Upsilon

It was my understanding that cargo bays became "filled" with water once they sank, increasing their density; however, I don't know if it is possible to "empty" them and decrease density while underwater. I haven't tested this, though, so please let me know whether I'm correct here. @PhylumCnidaria: Sorry for not quoting you! I still have to adapt to the new Forum somewhat. I don't know whether service bays do the same thing as cargo bays. The Mk2 cargo bays, at least initially (before you fill them with water), are extremely buoyant. I think that once filled with water, it may be possible to close the bay and then deploy solar panels in there, thus controlling buoyancy. But again, I don't know. This is a very new field for me (and I suspect not a lot of people have put much thought or effort into this in general), so I suppose the best thing to do at this point is to test things For Science... -Upsilon

Hello everyone! I'm Upsilon. Submarines in KSP 1.0.5 are easy. The hard part, to put it simply, is making good submarines. Now, I know what you're thinking, namely: "But I've created some submarines that go up and down nicely, and I think they're pretty good!" Well, even though these subs work, I know it's possible to do better. See, the thing is, submarines in the real world don't rely on rocket engines or jet engines for propulsion. Rather, they rely on methods of controlling buoyancy: adding air or water to a particular tank, for example. But is this possible in Kerbal Space Program? Well, no. But I think I've found the closest alternative. See, the thing is, some parts have an "open" and "closed" state: think solar panels, radiator panels, antennas, and the like. When these parts are opened, the game thinks they have a larger volume with the same mass as before... meaning their density, according to the game's mechanics, drops dramatically. Quick example: I sent a negatively-buoyant submarine to the bottom of the ocean, then opened up a Gigantor on top. The submarine promptly started ascending after the solar panel was opened, eventually reaching the surface of the ocean. I'll post a picture here. You can also watch the video link below, although you certainly don't have to: ...and the video: https://youtu.be/DR5rl24PrCI So. This submarine became the first to ascend and descend without using any fuel or dumping any mass (so far as I know). But, of course, it's sorta impractical: you can't move around at great speeds unless you like solar panel shards. There's a great deal of improvement to be made. That's where you come in! My humble goal is to create a practical, fuel-less submarine in the Kerbal Space Program: capable of controlled descent and ascent, quick sub-nautical navigation, and maybe even having a crew or looking aesthetically nice! And I'd love your help as I strive to reach this goal. So, a couple of questions: Does the large communications antenna have any effect on crafts' buoyancy when deployed or retracted? Is it possible to "hide" these buoyant parts inside fairings or cargo bays? Could some sort of purely-electric motor be used for horizontal movement (with bearings and rover wheels or SAS, for example)? I want the answers to these questions, and hopefully you do too! Together, let us innovate like mad, test things that probably won't work, and embark on a quest: The Quest for the Perfect Submarine! -Upsilon

I know Hanukkah is over, but have this Bad Idea anyway! With everyone gearing up for a KSP Christmas, I wanted to try something a little... different. So I made the most absurd Hanukkah-inspired plane possible! So the plane is shaped like a Star of David, complete with the traditional blue color (like on Israel's flag). It has a menorah-like back end, with a single shamash (the 'helper candle,' in this case the Wheesley) at the rear and eight other candles (the Juno engines) at the same level. This means that this plane would be considered a kosher menorah if jet engines count as candles. I don't know if they do though. This plane doesn't fly very well at all, but the very fact that it can fly makes it a better design than I had anticipated... Here's an image for you: ...is the image coming through for you guys? It just says I've taken a wrong turn. Hopefully this will resolve itself soon. [Edit: Nope, not resolved yet. Here's a direct link: http://i.imgur.com/UWxhwGG.png] Anyways, more Absurd Ideas coming soon. -Upsilon

At long last, I present a video to you about the two craft I've showcased so far! Coming soon: Undersea moai, Frisbees, star-shaped planes, and other atrocities. Stay tuned! -Upsilon

Thanks, SpaceplaneAddict! I appreciate the support. This would actually be perfect for the Mission Control building! Thanks for the suggestion. I had to quote your post to get the video to work, though. Ah well; I'm sure I'll be able to get this to work in the future. Thanks, katateochi! Glad you enjoyed it. I don't have a Soundcloud at the moment, though I'll probably end up getting one soon... especially if I continue to make music. I'll probably have the audio file out by tomorrow, if y'all don't mind. -Upsilon

Free +Replikes to all who get the reference. Hi everyone! I'm Upsilon. So, I made some music a long time ago, and a lot of people seem to like it. But eventually, I stopped: I had too much other stuff to do, I suppose, and I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the music I was making. Well, after a long hiatus, I'm back. Here, have a song! It's called "A Day at the KSC." Done in much the same style as the jazzy rhythms that are so popular in-game, this song also has an interesting interlude that's almost sad: for all of the Kerbals killed in rocket launches gone awry, I suppose. [Edit: Copying and pasting is no fun.] Anyways, audio file is coming soon! Something weird happened with the audio during transfer that knocked the sounds off-balance and messed with my groovy violin playing. Maybe you've noticed. I need to try to fix this before I'm perfectly satisfied with this song. ~~~ Feel free to use this in whatever you want! Just let me know beforehand. Thanks for checking this out, and please let me know what you think! -Upsilon

I would heartily recommend bringing back the "Forum Rules" sticky at the top of (almost) every subforum. For people who have been on here for a while, the change was hardly noticeable. For new users, however, it's quite important to be able to access the laws of this land at any time. -Upsilon

Nope. I just got back to my machine. Hi, @Avera9eJoe ! Yo, @Starwhip ! You there?

Wow, that's actually a really great link! I'll put it in the OP, if you don't mind. Thanks! -Upsilon

For your viewing convenience and pleasure: the Unofficial Poorly-Drawn Bart Avatar! ...I really should have spent more time on this. Ah well. -Upsilon

Before we get any further, regex, Hobbes Novakoff was absolutely correct. I've read most of the xkcd strips in existence, and he mentions KSP by name at least five separate times. Rather, I'm happy that his book was inspired by KSP. Without passing judgement, it would have been nice if you had read my entire post before replying. I'll also take this opportunity to point out that just because this forum has "upgraded" doesn't mean that you should make all-caps posts. Very neat! I'll probably check the book out of the library when it becomes available, as I am poor and libraries are wonderful places. Thanks for the sneak peek, and also for grasping the gist of my post! Thanks for posting that! I might want to add it to the OP, might I not? ...and I'll end this post with the two KSP comics done by Munroe, mentioned by Hobbes, and now embedded by me: Cool stuff. -Upsilon

Okay, just a quick post here. Randall Munroe, the guy who does xkcd, recently released a book called Thing Explainer. I haven't checked it out yet, but it's basically a book in which he explains complex things using the 1,000 most commonly used words in the English language. ...guess where he got the idea? I don't know whether others have discussed this, as Munroe has probably told this story in other places as well. But I just got my latest copy of the magazine New Scientist, where I found the following: Douglas Heaven: "How did you get the idea of explaining complex things using only the 1,000 most common words?" Munroe: "The idea actually grew out of an xkcd comic I did. I was playing a computer game in which you have to design rockets and successfully launch them. My spaceships would always blow up, so every launch I needed to find a new name. I quickly got tired of giving them majestic names like 'The Falcon' and I started giving them stupid names like 'The Flying Space Boat.' The dumbest thing I could come up with was 'Up Goer.' Then I started thinking, 'Hey, what if I did a whole diagram where I labelled everything using really dumb words?'" Given the amount of times Randall mentioned KSP in other xkcd strips, I really doubt that "computer game" is anything other than the one we know and love. So to make a long story short, the KSP team unintentionally inspired an entire book that's now on the New York Times bestseller list. My friends, I have no words to describe how awesome this is. That is all. -Upsilon [EDIT 1 (given, this came after the edit below. I'm just putting it here for the sake of formatting.) Forumer fourfa linked an absolutely fantastic article which confirms that the Up Goer Five idea came from KSP! You can find it here: http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/12/a-brief-chat-with-xkcds-randall-munroe-the-thing-explainer-explainer/ ...Thanks, fourfa!] [EDIT 1.1: r4pt0r had a great idea. Presenting the original Up-Goer Five post. Caution: it's a bit of a large image...]

I'm too lazy to post everything about my latest project tonight, so let me just present a Teaser Image! This is, once again, my take on the Largest Plane Possible using the Smallest Engine Possible. This one worked better than expected too... though let's just say it's underpowered enough to take four minutes to go from 0 m/s to 100 m/s in level flight. Fun stuff! This plane is large enough to almost land around the helipad on the VAB, by the way. What a great time to be an engineer! ...hopefully, I'll get around to posting more tomorrow. -Upsilon

Thanks, you two! I'm currently working on the converse of this idea: making the largest plane possible with a single Juno engine. Current size is 6.3 x 34.3 x 23.3 m, though I'm sure I can make it bigger. It's made completely out of wings and stalls at about 15 m/s. In all seriousness, I feel like this'll be a fun thread to maintain. The number of bad ideas I have is simply staggering, and most of them either work gloriously or fail spectacularly, both of which are exceedingly fun to watch... -Upsilon

Hello everyone! I'm UpsilonAerospace. Now, over the years, I've had some astoundingly awful ideas about craft. I suppose I need to showcase some of these bad ideas, because their results are often... in-ter-esting. So here goes nothing: Upsilon's Bad Ideas! ~~~ Idea #1 Premise: Y'know, I've been having too much fun with the tiny 0.625m jet engines. Why don't I create the smallest plane possible using the largest engine possible? Instead of putting the engine at the back of the plane (or even at the front), I'll build the plane around a Goliath engine. It'll be fun, and stuff! After some careful deliberation, I randomly slapped parts together in the hope that the result would be marginally successful. The result? The BTF-1! [big turbo-fan 1] ~~~ Build time: 20 Minutes Partcount: 17(!) Mass: 9.7t (of which roughly half is the engine) Crew: 1 The BTF-1 can reach speeds of up to 500 m/s in level flight before the engine overheats and explodes. Weirdly, its stall speed is unusually low: the plane can take off at a scant 35 m/s or so. Because of the incredible efficiency of the turbojet engine, this aircraft can fly across entire continents without needing to refuel. In other words, the BTF-1 is better than any other plane I've built in 1.0.5, in spite of it being deliberately constructed in a stupid way. I really need to rethink my design process. Overall Status Successful! ~~~ So I'll be posting other ideas here in the future. Many of them will probably be quite bad compared to this one, but hopefully they'll serve as an inspiration for what not to build. Thanks for stopping by! -Upsilon

After some careful consideration regarding the Forum, the only thing I can really think to say is "meh." I personally find the new Forum a bit harder on the eyes than the previous one, for one thing. A big part of my time here is spent looking at text. For some reason, I found that reading things on the old Forum was much easier than reading things here. I'm not entirely sure why - contrast, maybe? - but I feel as if this should be improved when possible. I like the system that alerts you to new posts (though I think the sound should probably be removed). There was at least one time I created a post on vBulletin, refreshed the page to see if anyone else had posted, and lost a good chunk of it by forgetting to copy it beforehand. (I don't know if there's a "restore saved post" option here, but I certainly hope so. Maybe I shouldn't pass judgement on that just yet.) I'm sure there's a way to embed YouTube videos, but I haven't found it yet. There may also be a way to embed Sketchfab models, coubs, and the other things one could embed on the old Forum... but somehow I slightly doubt it. Given, I used the Coub-embedding feature exactly twice and haven't even downloaded the Sketchfab program... but I know there's people out there who have used both more than I have. There's been a bit of unhappiness about the "Like this" button, but personally I... well... like it. It's much, much clearer than the Reputation button on the old Forum, for one thing: gone are the days when new arrivals have to ask how to give Reputation. I wish the button didn't show the world who "liked" the post, though I honestly don't mind much; I often said that I was giving out Reputation in my posts before this upgrade. The term "like this" does hearken to Facebook, but again, you could easily argue that it's more intuitive for the newbies than the whole "give Reputation" system. I'm sure there'll be more things that come to mind as time passes, but these are my thoughts for now. The new Forum has its ups and downs, but I think I'll certainly be able to live with it. I do wonder why the KSP team decided to upgrade, though: I would have thought that the new and improved Forum would have had a distinct advantage over the old one, but I can't really see it at the moment... -Upsilon

Hoorah! The Forum isn't 502'ing anymore. Welcome back, everyone. Just testing the forum software. bold italicized underlined struck-out Green! Oh good, they have the font 'Georgia!' Can I embed YouTube videos? Maybe. How's my Reputation looking? Edit: Oh, just four dark pips. That's okay. Well, this'll take some getting used to... but hey! It's good to be back.

I don't know whether I'm using the new jumbo-sized engines correctly; please advise. [img]http://i.imgur.com/3ePIQip.jpg[/img] -Upsilon

As you make your way into whatever the future holds, Maxmaps... I'd like to thank you for all you have done with KSP. I hope you realize how incredible this game has been, and how many people have been inspired and amazed by what it has to offer. This is a great game, and it wouldn't have been a great game without you. Stay awesome. I wish you the best of luck on whatever you decide to do next. And once again, thank you so much. -Upsilon

KSP's gimbal system isn't slow. Rather, it's practically instantaneous... which is where the problems happen. Sanic's exactly right when he says, Basically, here's the scoop. Engines' gimbals are like Hobbes: they have no setting between 'off' and 'high.' So when the rocket is slightly off vertical, the engine gimbals to the side instantaneously to try to correct the problem. With higher-gimbal engines, though, the gimbal overcorrects, pushing the craft over to the other side. As soon as the rocket passes vertical in the other direction, the same problem happens. And the larger the gimbal, the greater chance that these vibrations intensify until the craft shakes itself apart, as you described. This problem would still occur with slower-gimbal engines, but it wouldn't happen as spontaneously, if my mind-physics is working properly today. Another way to fix this problem is simply to add fins, which do a good job of damping the vibrations. I think that while a SAS rework may be needed, it might be better to implement a slower gimbal (for realism's sake and to perhaps reduce the risk of the rocket shaking itself apart.) I also think that if you design craft carefully, the problem of things shaking apart is completely avoidable. Hope this helps... -Upsilon

1.0 fixed this (hooray!) You can even get a plane to fly with structural panels providing lift, if you're careful. As for the Type D wing's counterpart, I agree that it would be nice, but I'd much rather have wing textures that were more suitable for being turned about. That way, you wouldn't need those extra wing parts for mounting wings at various angles. You could make the exact same craft with fewer parts in the game, which is a definite win-win. (It would probably break older saves though.) -Upsilon