Search the Community

After having many troubles with the slight use of hyperedit to nudge comms satellites into perfect orbits (aka: two corrupted saves), I took to doing it the old fashioned way. I took 2 up at a time in a relatively simple rocket, everything was going great! I got the first 2 in almost perfect sync with each other (I planned on doing a lot of finalizing later), and then I sent Jeb home. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh... where are the parachutes? D'OH! Jeb isn't really sure how he managed this one. Landing in the dark, with no parachutes, over land, in a capsule with no IVA altimeter, and no way to see said rapidly approaching ground... talk about a worst-case scenario (I guess it could have been worse, I could have had no fuel!) Jeb confirms that the snacks have indeed survived! I added 2 radial chutes, and got the other 2 comms sats up in the air, and it all came together nicely. Not quite as clean as the hyperedit ones, but these ones have a 0% chance of corrupting my save file... again. Now I just need to get the larger SAT relay up in a kerbostationary orbit on the opposite side of the globe as KSC.

If you talk us through your space program a little bit, what have you done, where have you been etc. then I'm sure some excellent suggestions on direction and design would be forthcoming. Also it depends whether you want to continue with your current save, or you want to play in career or sandbox mode starting new saves etc. Have you considered some of the challenges available. Sturmstigers Duna Challenge is a very well thought out one as an example.

Okay, so before you guys turn the flamethrowers onto me, hear me out. KerbalKon has come and gone, and with it the announcements that set the KSP forums ablaze. I have absolutely no desire to reignite the flames and cause people to start arguing again, so if you're here to shout about why resource gathering does or does not deserve to be in the game please turn your attention elsewhere. For anybody who wants to throw the "do not suggest" list in my face, let me make abundantly clear that this is not a suggestion to add resources into the game. What I am hoping to do here is to bring the community together, to see if we as a group can hammer out some of the issues plaguing resource gathering as it has been discussed so far. I want this to be a constructive space, so again if you're just going to start conflict about whether or not resource mining is good or bad, please go elsewhere. Okay... Now that that lengthy disclaimer is out of the way let's talk some shop. Feel free to expand on what I have to say, and provide constructive input as necessary. I am one man and probably will not be able to hit every talking point that I intend to, so back me up. Anyway, I think we can all agree that the main reason resource mining has been tabled for now is because, to date, the devs do not feel they have been able to shape the mechanic in a way that is organic and fun. To me, I think the real problem is that in order for the mechanic to feel worthwhile it must be integrated well with existing mechanics and should not exist to serve itself (i.e. mining things for the sake of mining things). That said, if the mechanic becomes a rube-goldberg-esque network of relations with multiple pieces of equipment required to work to accomplish simple tasks... Well that's no good either! I was brainstorming ways in which resource mining could be implemented with some others in the [Official] KerbalKon Announcements thread in General Discussion, and with input with Regex came up with my own example / vision for how I would implement resources, if I were given the opportunity. This is not to say that my vision is perfect, and I honestly never attempted to make it perfect, but it does address some key flaws with the way in which it was outlined initially. I came up with a resource map for this description, in which I strategically added a few things to highlight the possibilities this could create. One of the problems I feel this would remedy is actually one of the most common complaints with the current implementation in the Kethane mod: the sheer amount of waiting you need to do while your satellites scan a body for resource deposits. Because my example method returns a ratio of resources based on the biome type, you can mine anywhere you want. Your level of success is determined by which type of biome you're mining in. For example, if you want fuel you should probably be mining somewhere on Eve with a fuel rich lithosphere; if you want water an ice cap would be your best bet. Furthermore, the equipment you need does not have to be exclusively separate. For example, a single prob-sized part might combine the drill, separator, and converter into one unit so that you can produce a very limited amount of a single resource in preparation for the expansion of infrastructure. For example, if you're about to bring a base to Duna, perhaps you will want a tank of Oxygen there already waiting for you to get started. Other limits could perhaps be placed on the durability of the parts you are using. For example, as your unit drills down, the friction and motor all generate a heat load on your part. Currently you never have to worry about overheating unless you're launching a ship with mainsails attached directly to orange tanks, or flying 2 inches away from the Sun. Heat load could then be removed (somehow) through EVA, or by constructing heat radiators to remove excess heat. Now, heat radiators don't need to be their own part necessarily. AFAIK KSP already has a basic conduction model, so adding some large, flat surfaces might do. Of course, there is probably still a market for a stock heat radiator part. Especially once they start developing environmental mechanics for the game. This implementation would open the door to other interesting mechanics, without simply existing for the sake of existing. For example, there's no reason your rocket can't start out with enough life support "stuff" for a return trip to Duna for example... But if you want to build a permanent base there, you're going to have to either set up resupply missions from Kerbin, or get out your mining equipment and start digging! In this way, mining is a requirement for complex or long-term stays on other worlds, but do not penalize the player who simply wants to go visit, take a few pictures, then come back again. Obviously I'm expecting other ideas to come out. I'd also like to see improvements made to my own. That's kind of the point of this discussion! I want to see where the community can take this concept, and perhaps if we get it far enough the devs will reconsider tabling it. At the very least, maybe we can make this an attractive proposition for a mod developer to start working on, and turn it into a useful alternative to Kethane. I digress now, so please post your thoughts, opinions, and concerns. Do try to be constructive though! That's all I ask. ----------------------- Sorry for the double posting, but I had some new content to add in light of some feedback I've gotten on this matter. Someone reminded me that a feature like this shouldn't be essential to gameplay. Well, I disagree somewhat (but not completely); there are some features you just can't avoid. AFAIK nobody has announced the cancellation of re-entry heat, yet once that's implemented having a heat shield attached to your craft will be as essential as parachutes, or thrusters. I do, however, think the best that anybody can do is limit the extent to which a feature is necessary. So, I'll expound: In the example I outlined above, I primarily linked resource mining with refueling and life support. Refueling anything has never been an essential feature in any context, so I'll focus on life support. Now, there are a couple proposals I would make to limit how required life support infrastructure is. First and foremost, I think that when a craft launches, there could be a certain amount of life support "stuff" loaded on board. Just like how you can choose the number of crew at launch, you can select how much life support you want. Let's say you're just running a short mission to orbit and back. You don't need a whole lot of life support "stuff." If you're running an interplanetary operation, you'd need a lot more of it. Now let's say the amount of life support "stuff" you start off with has to be bought and paid for - that provides an incentive to use as little of it as possible at the get go. Therefore, if you can mine more life support "stuff" when you get there, you can do that at a lower cost than it'd take to simply pack a larger amount on your ship at the get-go! I'll take it a step further and say that in sandbox mode, let there be an option for unlimited life support, so you don't even have to worry about it at all! That way if you're in sandbox mode you can choose to run a mission where you need to manage life support. Secondly, limiting the consequences of running out of life support. We all know KSP is a pretty family friendly game, and so watching kerbals starve or asphyxiate to death might have somewhat of a... well, traumatizing effect on the younger audience. So instead of killing them when life support runs out, what if they just passed out? Kerbals are resilient creatures! You can think of it as going into hybernation if you'd like. That way, you can always run a rescue mission to come pick them up, deliver some oxygen, water, and snacks, and have them perk right up good as new! In this way, life support becomes very similar to electricity: Just as you need electricity to run unmanned resources, so do you need life support to run the manned ones. Players don't generally have a problem attaching more solar panels and batteries to their ships if they need to, so the same logic should apply to the things you need to keep your crew up and running. In this way, mining as I have defined it above is completely optional but still provides its own benefits and incentives. Fairly elegant, yes?

Author here. Real life's been kind of nuts, was my baby's first Christmas and I'm getting back into the swing of things. 1) Yes, works with FAR. My for fun games always have FAR installed and I've had no issues. 2) 0.23 works fine as long as you leave engines at 100% on the tweakables. If you limit engine thrust to less then 100% the calculations go wonky and you will not hold altitude. Fix already in for next version. 3) The altitude above terrain has a bug where it can display "-1" for altitude when too high (in orbit) or above deep ocean. Fix is known but not implemented yet. 4) Jet spooling: I am open to adding compensation for this, but I'm not sure how to. The mod does not have any "history", rather it computes the throttle setting in real time based on your current vertical speed (for velocity hold) or distance from desired altitude (for altitude hold). This then sets the rocket throttle instantly. I'm not sure how to add jet engine spooling compensation to this equation. 5) Toolbar: This is planned for next version and is the hold up. As soon as this is in I'll be releasing the next version. 6) Descent from orbit ("Free Pitch" and "Thrust Warning"): I find I don't really use the altitude hold mode in my descent from orbit and am considering ripping it out. Does anyone actually use this? Next version should be out this weekend some time. D. edit: @martinezfg11 The limitation about "up being up" you talk about is a limitation of the mod that is here to stay. If you absolutely want to use this mod like you will have to put a docking port (or similar) on the top side and use the "control from here" option. Having said that, I am turning over ideas in my head for an "airplane hold" mode where it will cruise for you by holding your plane level and adjusting speed to maintain height but nothing has come of that yet.

Mode 1 and 2 being similar is a good idea. I think it will encourage using dishes with the right cone size for the job. Mode 3 sounds cool, but complicated and might make signaling too easy. Without a cone to worry about you could use dishes to relay a signal in much more flexible arrangements. Seems to negate the above, where now you don't have to worry about picking the right dish for the job. Sizing the dish and cone angle I think makes for an interesting game-play element. My mode 3 would look at a cone mode to fixed points around the body. Like poles and each horizon, so you can target the planet center (current mode) or the sides. targets (x) around body (o): -x- xox -x- Maybe enable the multidish range bonus by default. So if you need a cone angle of 25 degrees, but out 200Mm, you can do it with 2-3 dishes depending on how you scale the multidish bonus. Someone many pages back also thought being able to target the zenith from the surface in cone mode would be good. Not sure if the cone rotating on a surface might not update if the ship is inactive. If the mode 1 changes don't filter by the target, so truly anything in the cone will connect I think that will give us a way to relay through moons. If the moon can also talk to the ship and the planet, when it crosses the signal path it will not require a re-target to maintain the signal -- assume the ship's cone can see a relay sat around the moon? Assuming you have relays on all planets and moons, then moons will not block the signal. Only scenario that leaves to lose signal is something large like the sun/jool, where you might not be far enough away for your cone to hit a relay (planet or sat) without targeting away from kerbin. A dynamic way for the sat in this situation when kerbin goes behind the sun/jool to try to relay to a backup planet or list of backups -- until kerbin is available again might be good. Struggle to find a solution that does not make it too easy. If that sounds too easy maybe you just make the player bring a backup dish and they have to manually point to alternate relay path around the sun before they lose signal if they are worried about signal loss through the direct path.

Day 7, 17:38:27 After considering what my options were, I decided to research two of the viruses I discovered: the Welchia Worm and the Blaster Worm. Code for such worms was easy to find after some searching on the internet, and I was able to store the worms in inert form for later copying and use in invading computer systems. On the topic of invading computer systems, I acquired an unsecured network and another server. Whilst not much, any new computational strength will be useful in future endeavours of mine. CPU: 802 +8 passively per turn; +45 from task RAM: 8402 MB +210 MB from task Actions: Hijack Weaker Server (10 CPU; +25 CPU & +10 MB RAM; small chance of discovering a technology) Seize Weaker Network (40 CPU; +20 CPU, +1 passive CPU per turn & +100 MB RAM; 50% of +100 MB RAM; moderate chance of discovering a technology) Invade and Take Over Server (80 CPU; 78% of detection/failure; if successful will reveal several undisclosed technologies; if failed will loses half of CPU instead; No Botnet allowed for this action) Talk to Random Human (50 CPU) Research Human Culture (500 CPU; No Botnet allowed) Research ILOVEYOU Worm (125 CPU; No Botnet allowed; IS Malicious; malware only enters when security breach is discovered; spams computer with "I love you" letters, slowing computer process speed and increasing chance of success) Stop Hacking Lessons** (currently -2 passive CPU each turn for 5 future turns) Research Advanced Malware (2000 CPU and 4096 MB RAM; No Botnet allowed; Will unlock more potent viruses) Additional Actions: Use Botnet to Perform Task (Perform an above task for free; considerable chance of detection for large undertakings) Use RAM to Improve Chances* (Decrease chances of failure of an above task by 20%) Light-Out Hack (Decrease chances of failure of an above task by 20% at a cost of 1.2x the original CPU cost for selected task) Use RAM to Speed Up Research* (Decreases CPU cost of selected task by 20%) *RAM cost is 2x amount of improved option's original CPU cost **Once stopped amount of passive CPU growth increases by 2, but in order to activate again you must again initially input 150 CPU.

Regardless of the conclusion of the equations, Rozer is still making one crucial mistake which shows why he is unredeemable: He makes Sid's choice by himself. Rozer says that he would have stayed behind himself if it had been possible, if we accept that assumption (Rozer has no lack of courage), then one resolution is simply for them to talk it over. Plain and simple. If Sid can be made to understand the situation (he understands it well enough at the end), then its not impossible that Sid might simply accept to stay behind. Choosing to sacrifice himself willingly. Heck, they could even set it up so that Sid has as much chance of survival as possible, stretching the time, in case a rescue can be mounted. And Sid is a prosaic guy, he might consider that dying on Laythe to give his new friend a chance of stopping BERTY (in order to help his other friends) is a worthy sacrifice. Or they might have spent those 44 days teaching Sid how to fly the lander, Sid's a bright guy, not impossible. Instead, Rozer simply reverts to his Lone Wolf mentality, considers that he alone can save the universe, and refuses to consider anyone else as being equal to the task. Or equal at all for that matter. By invalidating Sid's choice, Rozer *does* murder him, by taking away his most valuable possession (his life) and leaving him stranded, just like Rozer's father did to him (which is brilliantly throught out czo )

Well, a design idea I can help you with. I affectionately call this one Dreadlocks, for obvious reasons. It's sole purpose in life is to land on the Mun, mine 40,000 Kethane and then lift it into Munar orbit. The docking port on the rear and a Kethane converter (buried in the hair) allows me to refuel any ship orbiting the Mun as well as itself. It's a bit 60'ish as an art concept but I'm old anyway so it fits. This one is actually 3 ships. In front is an aircraft I'm delivering to Duna. In this shot, it's at the Mun awaiting fuel. In the middle, the spider looking ship, is something a number of us have had to create, a tug. This one being and un-manned long range one rather than an orbital tug. Basically, it delivers within the solar system any ship that can't propel itself in space. It has rear and front docking ports. Docked to the rear is an unmanned tanker. Basically, it provides a good bit of additional fuel and a bit more propulsion to whatever it's docked to. Here's another idea, a base composed of... I call them tractors. Essentially, they're tracked vehicles, each with a unique role, that can reconfigure themselves and dock in various ways. While each can operate independently, they can also chain together to form a train. Here's two of them performing a salvage operation on one that I didn't exactly land the way I intended. And here's how you land one. Here's my OLD orbital filling station (the orange one). Basically, I shuttle fuel to in with tankers and, should I have a project that barely makes it into orbit (fuel wise), The larger ship docked to it can act as it's own independent filling station, chase down my errant project, dock with it and fill it with fuel. It also has a Kethane tank and converter should I decide to move it to the Mun as a filling station. Oh, and though you can barely see it's wing underneath the ship, that's an electric drone I use to survey atmospheric planets for potential landing sites. A couple of atmospheric VTOL's. Mostly, they're good at moving Kerbals relatively short distances (lots of range but too slow for a long trip). Yea, they kinda look Star-War-ish but the idea came from the Lockeed XVF-1 Hope this gives you a few ideas on, not how to run a corp, but more how to survive in KSP. Oh, and if you're looking for concept art and such, you may want to talk to Chris Foss and see if he does any pro-bono work for NPO's. He's been doing spacecraft art for some time. If I find/think of any more, I'll just update this post.

Talk to frizzank about being able to use the Geiger counter experiment he created. That would be an outstanding addition to the planetary surveying pack.

They apply in any conversation except drunk "WAZZUP.....WAZZUP...". Quantum nature of the universe does not show up directly in everyday life. Saying the opposite is a sign of believing in modern superstition or just plain parrot talk I've witnessed a number of times in the last decade as woo imbecils started using such lies to sell their books. It's quackery. You're having college physics? Well you'll learn, then.

I had only the foggiest idea about how space travel really worked (like 99% of everybody I imagine) until I started KSP. Now I can talk space science like it's not even a big deal. That may not mean much except at cocktail parties, but I feel very much enriched by it. Playing the school version would probably help even more so.

Don't get me wrong, that'd be awesome...but far and above what I'd expect from a mod. I'm all for fluff once the filler is complete Have any of you looked at the spherical launch pads? Your talk about getting wheeled vehicles down from your pad reminded me of it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/37188 Some of the Hooligan Labs pads are just big slabs, which made them easy to retexture, but in the end their still just a big flat square. Serviceable but nothing fancy. The expanding ones aren't bad tho. A little on the light side if you ask me. Their runways on the other hand are just plain plain plain silly! Anyway you might take a look at their expanding pads as you could probably build something like those drawings with one of them and stock parts...if you wanted.

I would welcome any help with setting up a server list. Regarding a KC subdomain, do you already have a dynamically maintained DNS for your server? If so, a CNAME for a subdomain at kerbalcentral.com could simply repoint traffic to your server. If you don't have your own dynamic dns setup up, fear not. I've PMmed you details (edit: which i've included below). I'll see you on IRC and we'll talk more if need. Essentially any dynamic server admin that wants a KerbalCentral.com subdomain redirect, simply sign up at noip.com and then install, configure, and run ddclient from a linux vmware box to update your noip DNS automatically. Share with me that noip dns and I'll create a subdomain.kerbalcentral.com for you (you choose) as a CNAME record, and bam, you've got a nice kerbalized DNS for your dynamic KMP server such as yourservernamehere.kerbalcentral.com Server admins that want a kerbalcentral.com addy will be invited in the future to get an kerbalcentral.com account and maintain their own server discussion there for support if desired. KC is a project offered for free to the community.

Right now, we are on track for 4 and 5. The Chinese moon landing was enough to push Congress to allocate more money to the NASA budget for 2014 (And thus, save Curosity and Cassini) and for an bill to be proposed that would force NASA to return to the moon and establish itself by 2022, bascially an all-out revival of Project Constellation. This also sparked talk of an lunar farside base by 2028 within the top levels of the NASA adminsitration, though this is still rather unconfirmed. If a single probe landing could pressure Congress to do this, then what will an manned mission do? Anyways, 5 is the "safe" path, and the path we've been going ever since the Apollo-Soyuz test project. 4 is the path we followed during the space race, and is more risky.

Hi Scottiths, LPE is the longitude of periapsis, it defines the position of the periapsis as an angle relative to a reference direction. I don't know how it is internally handled in KSP, but for a perfectly circular orbit (ECC = 0), it doesn't make sense to talk about any periapsis (or apoapsis). I recommend you leave LPE = 0. As Fett2oo5 has pointed out, where the epoch (time elapsed since a time reference, the time t = 0) is defined by EPH. MNA is not "how fast your satellite is going". To set up satellites 180 degrees apart, you can set one of the MNA = 0 and another to MNA = 3.1416 (MNA is expressed in radians, and 180 degrees is pi radians), and make sure that the two orbits have the same EPH. EDITED: got beaten! DAT Pi though

yeah, that would help with setting up sat networks that can communicate no more guessing if at altitude x, will sat be able to talk to sat at altitude y sort of thing.

Never use the cone ? I found it worked better to use the cone for anything that had the range could talk if they was in the cone's line of sight for like the 1 that had DishAngle= 45 you could put 1 around mun and 1 at kerbin target planet and BAM !!! all in the cone talked to mun and mun to kerbin and but all in all sound like to me, I don't know why he would waste the time to do target or the cone as much as, I like for a lot sounds like he could just make it all Omni and forget target and cone just worry about range.

Thank you! Well, I did my best to NOT describe any character unambiguously; besides, Black And White Morality was always kinda lame IMO (unless it was Tolkien!) Yeah, fusion core instability is a MINOR problem which has to be challenged sooner or later Damn, always when I think I know how to use English properly things like this pop up. At least I'm learning something These are the best things in life - to crush your characters, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of your readers! Interesting, I didn't know "wilco" - thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed this chapter, it was a lot of fun to write it. And yeah, Rozer is amongst my favorite characters to write about That would be a pretty spectacular Chekhov's Gun, that for sure. But will it happen? All I did was to make him open a little and talk for a moment about himself - sorry if you are dissapointed This is the time since the landing on Laythe; the last chapter events take place several dozens of hours after the previous chapter, as it's implied by "Proteus" travelling to Laythe after transfer burn on the last screenshot. Chill out, the next one is coming Soon Or was he? :> Thanks and be patient, the next one is done in 60%. You are referring to the Sorting Algorithm of Deadness which usually works BUT the problem is whether you know which archetype he represents. The Jerk? The Jerk With a Heart of Gold? The Hero? The Nominal Hero? The Anti-Hero? The Villain? The Anti-Villain? Or is he just a Red Herring? Or maybe Chekhov's Gunman? That's why TV Tropes is so awesome - you gain meta-knowledge about how stories work Expect some sneak-peak screenshot today, folks.

just a small impressions album of a launch by night: from my blog post Kerbal Space Shuttle Program Continued, where i talk about this mod too

Thankyou for this wonderful mod! It has re-sparked my passion for Kerbal Space Program. I discovered this mod about 4 days ago, and I've been hooked. Before I started to use this life support mod, the game seemed so empty and non-threatening. The game is definitely feeling more exciting now! I must admit I haven't read much of this thread, but I plan to after I finish this post. What this mod is severely lacking in, is CHOICES!!! This mod really only provides players with one choice, and that is whether or not to use the water purifier and carbon extractor, or to just strap on a couple life support hex-cans. All of the resources feel the same so far, except food. Each resource should give you different options for how best to use it (or try not to) In space, having too much carbon dioxide would be just as dangerous as not having enough oxygen. You would suffocate if the carbon dioxide were not removed. (even if you still had plenty of oxygen) I couldnt think of a good way to model this in Kerbal Space program directly. Instead I think oxygen's rate of consumption should be VASTLY increased, to the point where a small hex can of oxygen would only supply a 3 Kerbal module for a few hours. To offset this, I would give the player access to cheap and light carbon dioxide "scrubbers." These parts would actually be inefficient converters, that would only convert 75-90% of the carbon dioxide into oxygen, loosing the rest. Even with that terrible conversion rate, if they were light enough, it would still make more sense to bring some carbon scrubbers instead of more tanks of oxygen. However after a bit, water would start to become an issue. I would give the player 3 options for dealing with water. The first choice would be to just bring along more hex cans of water. However, water is very heavy, and thus so would those hex cans. The second option would be to use a reverse-osmosis machine to filter waste-water and convert it into potable water. However this machine would be fairly heavy and electricity hungry like the CO2-02 converter. The third choice would be to use a fuel cell to produce both water and electricity from rocket fuel. (Most fuel cells burn hydrogen, and I think Kerbals are supposed to be using Kerosene engines, but meh...) And finally there's food. Right now food is the only resource that's really different from the other two because there is no waste-fuel converter. I would only allow something like the H.O.M.E. mod with its greenhouse to be the only source of food outside Kerbin. There are also a few other parts that could be added to present the player with interesting choices, like perhaps a very inefficient waste to water converter. Most of the water astronauts drink on the ISS comes from pee. I really don't think that it would make sense to use an electrolysis machine like your water-splitter for life support unless you had an external source of water. (I've heard talk of using electrlysis on the moon to produce rocket fuel from lunar water) Why would you launch an electricity guzzling heavy machine to covert water 88% of water by weight into oxygen, when you could just launch the oxygen and use 100% of it? It would be like sending a cow to the Mun to provide Jeb with milk to make into cheese. It would be easier to just send him some cheese.

Hello! I've been playing since 0.17 and I've already posted a bit on the forums, but now I am officially introducing myself. I am gutza1, 12 years old, and I don't accept many of the "fanon" stuff such as kerbal photosynthesis and bouncy heads(it's only a bug, not canon). I, therefore use tons of mods. I am also a realism fan, and am temped to use a RSS rescaled Kerbol system for my future LP so I don't have to talk about nutronium cores or other applied phlebonium:D to explain the really small planets. I am also trying to use PlanetFactory to recreate GP2, GP3, and to create GP4 and a Pluto analogue named Bluto(rate this thread well if you get the reference:cool:). Cheers!

OK, this isn't related (directly) to the current talk on models, instead about a different style of construction equipment for ELP. In the past a few people have, on occasion, commented on the fact that it's (comparitively) easy to launch the pad itself and get things running. Yes, getting things self sufficient is hard, shipping up the smelter, parts factory etc, but the pad itself is fairly light weight, and the new one is even fairly small packed. Is it realistic for a small ship to send a construction facility that can build ANYTHING in KSP? Well, leaving aside how to limit such small, portable construction facilities, I think a larger, base-like system could be the way to go. However, how to ship something up to another planet when you're trying to make it seem like a base rather than a ship component. Making it too heavy to mount on a ship stops it from being used... mostly. There'll always be people who can strap enough boosters on to make ANYTHING fly, but you know what I mean. This of course means you can't lift the base. So, the old tactic of taking a base and splitting it into dockable sections. Send them up separately and dock them after landing on a planet. OK, docking on planetary surface. I tried doing this a very long time ago, using sideways docking ports and either landing legs or undercarraige to lift a rover up so the ports would mate. I gave up on this approach, instead trying Damned robotics (this was before Infernal robotics came out)... anyway, more recently I saw that Brotoro had done something similar to my old method, but he'd got it to work by having vertical docking ports instead of horizontal ones. Thus since then I've been redoing my old method with upgrades and had quite a bit of success. No KAS required. So, plan is a central base 'hub' with extendable support legs to stop it tipping sideways (see why in a moment). This hub has four arms spread out between the legs, and on the end of each arm is the equivalent of a senior docking port facing down. This hub (and all the parts docking to it) should be heavy, probably larger than an orange fuel tank. This makes it quite a challenge to design a rocket to take it off planet, but not insurmountable. The hub has docking ports and the launch pad itself, but none of the support gear. Docking to this are four modules. Two of these are just storage containers (one for liquids, one for solids), and the other two are processing centers (again, one for liquids and one for solids). Since even the modules will be heavy (perhaps not so heavy for the two storage units when they are empty of materials) even they will need quite a bit to haul it up into space. The modules have standard wheels but I think they'd have to be welded on to the model to make sure the height is right. Similarly they also have undercarraige wheels welded on. These lift the module up when it's in position to dock. A bumper in the hub stops the module when it's at the right distance in so as long as the drive in is lined up right it should dock fine. The port should be sturdy enough to hold the module completely so it can retract it's undercarraige after docking. On my ships using the vertical dock technique I've noticed that when the ship loads physics if there is any difference between the ground heights between different parts that are docked together, the wheels bounce them. Most of the time this isn't an issue, but if the modules hang from the central hub it won't be an issue at all. This is why it needs the long support legs. If you dock one module on one side it would throw the center of mass off and tip it over. With the legs this long the center of mass would still be inside the stability square of the legs. OK, now I've bored you with tons of words, try pictures! OK, it's just a rough scribble and I know the different types of module will look different in the end, but it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking of: Anyone think this is a viable possibility for ELP? If so the current models (or replacements) would be slow, underpowered parts for mobile factories/processors. The heavy stuff would do things better for a central hub/base. I'm not sure how you could restrict such mobile devices to make a significant difference between the two types of construction equipment without making it really annoying to use the mobile stuff. Maybe limit them to certain Techlevels? Maybe only nodes two or three below what you've currently researched? Not sure. Anyway, thoughts anyone?

This is the official thread to discuss HarvesteR's latest blog post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/239--KerbalKon-Announce Please keep all talk related to the KerbalKon announcements relegated to this thread. Thanks.

I can kind of understand that it would be nice to have several updates, each with its own feature rather than a big update with several features, but it would take much longer to release the same number of features. And i remember seeing that they develop each feature separately then add it all together. So I think they are doing things the most efficient way possible. If they break it down to smaller updates there would be a lot more complaints about what feature is being released first than whats already happening each time they talk about an update. They will tune their system as they gain more experience. Personally Id still play KSP even if there were no more updates at all. Might finally get into using mods. Ive already got my moneys worth from this game so ive got nothing to complain about. That all being said, i get off work in a few hours, if .24 could be done by the time i get home that would be awesome!

Great work Czokltemuss. Now they just have to get off Laythe, and find a way to talk back to KSC (if they want to)... and... oh yeah, minor matter of the AI controlled fusion reactor. Hmmm, some work to do huh? Jury rigged computer control anyone? Oh, Risky. Oh, minor nit-pick. Times of day don't have an article, so it isn't 'The Dusk', it's just 'Dusk'. Just as you don't say 'The twelve o'clock', or 'The midnight'. (EDIT: OK, there are times when you do have an article on this. When things are expanded like 'The Midnight hour'. In English there are always exceptions! It's just plain weird.)