KSP 1.0 stock bases

[harlikwin]

So I'm trying to play through 1.0 with as few mods as possible, but I'm having real issues with landed bases. How are people generally doing this? Currently I have a "mobile" base sections on rover wheels, that I can get docked while landed at kerbin, but getting these monstrosities to the mun has been largely disastrous. (Yay, rescue missions)

I'm currently using a top mounted "lander" with radially mounted engines to land/drop the base, which then starts rolling out of control since its on a slight slope, and when I try to brake that doesn't work, and if I try to apply reverse "thrust" using the wheels the whole contraption just flips over (high CG). The configuration I'm using is a simple coupla+PDP container on 4 rover wheels. I'm not really confident that attaching the science module would go over any better (and I haven't figured out a good way to get that monster into orbit yet).

In terms of plan B I've though about just using landing struts, but then I'm not sure how to upgrade/attach new modules. Should I try to build the whole thing in orbit using docking ports and try to land it (will the clamp-o-trons survive something like that?). Or perhaps I should try to just build some absurd monster base with integrated landing systems?

Anyhow, advice appreciated.

Edited June 22, 2015 by harlikwin

[Snark]

Yes, this is an eternal pain point in KSP, it keeps cropping up in the forums. Assembling surface bases in stock is just miserably difficult and frustrating. There are people who have managed it, but it's just a royal pain in the fundament.

There are three basic approaches you can take:

1. Brazen it out, grit your teeth, and just do it. There are people who have built surface bases in stock, and there are some design techniques that aim to help, but after much time futzing with it I have come to the conclusion that this is just far more trouble than it's worth. YMMV. I have found that I can do it, but it's tedious and frustrating and un-fun, which removes my reason for playing KSP.

2. Use the Claw. Advantage: this is easy. Disadvantage: The claw is notorious kraken-bait and has a tendency to destroy the universe. I avoid using it for any purpose ever. (Also, for me personally, it has a second disadvantage, which is that it feels like an unrealistic hack. It breaks the immersion that makes KSP so fun for me; suddenly it's just "I'm playing a game" rather than "I'm flying spaceships".)

3. Use Kerbal Attachment System. Yes, it's a mod, but it's a minimally intrusive one if you just deliberately ignore most of its features. There's a "connector port" part that you can add to your ships, either in the VAB/SPH or in the field by an engineer. All you have to do is land (or drive) your base components within a few dozen meters of each other. Then you just walk a kerbal up to a connector port, click on it and choose "start link", walk to another component, click on its connector port and choose "complete link", an there you go-- your base components are connected by a pipe that acts the same as if they were docked.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Each lander requires something different. Landing a mobile base is a fairly daunting task. [↠that coming from the one who landed a base bigger than the launchpad]

Without precision planning, experimentation is more or less required.

[harlikwin]

Well perhaps I'll look into getting KAS. I am running mods with the stock (MJ/KE). My philosophy is to make sure to be able to do things manually first a few times, and then I don't mind automating them, but in this case maybe Kerbal Attachment is the way to go. It would also let me refuel things if necessary (currently using an absurdo-miner/lander/ISRU combo that I've dubbed the crystal palace due to the fact its coated with solar panels) that I'm using to refuel my space stations. It would be more realistic to have the miner/ISRU on the surface and refuel ships at a base.

[cephalo]

Wheels are broken right now, so you want to use Claw's bugfix mod. Otherwise you will have no brakes.

[Prepper-Jack]

Well, I can share a bit of what I did.. maybe lend some ideas.

1. The base modules were mounted to the top of the lander, and not the bottom. I found that the fuel on top, which usually weighs more than the object being move, will make the entire assembly a bit top-heavy, and prone to tipping. So this was a good way to avoid that result.

2. Each module (MPL, crew bays, etc) was of the 2.5m variety, and went up sideways. This made the final "rover" much more stable, with a much longer wheel base and less mass on top. They had a radial mounting point at both top and bottom, with a docking port on the bottom. On top was all the odds and ends that would otherwise shift the center of mass.

3. Each module came stock with two large radial RCS tanks mounted near the bottom (but enough to give wheel clearance). This helped in giving it a low center of mass, and a plethora of thrusters allowed it to fly off the lander with ease.

4. For wheels, I added a pair on each side of the assembly via the mid-length I-beams connected at the bottom of the module. This gave it a decently wide stance.

5. On each end were structural fuselages connected to docking ports. Assembly was a remarkably simple process of driving one docking port into the other.

The end result was more like a train than a "base", but it had something like 18 cars all told, and could go at pretty good speeds. It was kind of fun to IVA-drive on the Minmus flats with the cupola module up front. Probably could have flown into Minmus orbit using RCS alone.