So, Surface Bases

[AbacusWizard]

What I've done recently is use a rocket-crane (with docking clamps) to gently place a few monolithic (in the sense of "built in the VAB and launched in one piece") buildings on the ground, then connect them with KIS/KAS parts and add on smaller peripherals manually.

 

Example: my refueling base on a plateau on Minmus. I'm especially proud of the solar farm.

[FlyingPete]

Mun bases seem to be more hassle than they're worth. Getting fuel there is relatively cheap, so I just build an orbital station and have a reusable lander go explore all the biomes and bring back science.

Minmus, on the other hand, is good for a surface base in the right location. The science lab will research with higher efficiency on the surface, so have it crewed with some scientists and you can go off and hit all the nearby biomes. A landing craft (or even a Kerbal on EVA can do longer hops to places further afield. When the lab is full of science, let them sit and do research for a while to convert data into science points. Meanwhile you go do something else. It's particularly useful during interplanetary missions, as you can time warp to your destination and the research still goes on in the background.

Edited May 4, 2016 by FlyingPete

[DenChetto]

Minmus stock base (wip).

[RizzoTheRat]

I built a tall lander with space underneath to carry base modules, and then a crane rover using Infernal Robotics to move the modules around and dock them together.  All modules use the same legs, with the docking port mounted at the same height as the leg so I can put in vertical components too if I want.  VErtical is harder to land though as the lander was designed for a horizontal 2.5m part with a docking port on top

 

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by RizzoTheRat

[monophonic]

8 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

I built a tall lander with space underneath to carry base modules, and then a crane rover using Infernal Robotics to move the modules around and dock them together.

I think I saw some of those around just the other day... Okay, they were stock, that makes them a little clumsier looking. 

By MattiPaavola (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

[Majorjim!]

Just now, RizzoTheRat said:

I built a tall lander with space underneath to carry base modules, and then a crane rover using Infernal Robotics to move the modules around and dock them together.  All modules use the same legs, with the docking port mounted at the same height as the leg so I can put in vertical components too if I want.  VErtical is harder to land though as the lander was designed for a horizontal 2.5m part with a docking port on top

 

 

That's the way NASA plan on doing surface base building. It also allows you to keep them looking realistic. If I where to make one it would have no legs at all on any of the modules and each section would be moved into place by something like you have above and seen in these pics:

 

Pressurized rovers would, and should form a large part of any surface base.

 

 

[RizzoTheRat]

25 minutes ago, monophonic said:

I think I saw some of those around just the other day... Okay, they were stock, that makes them a little clumsier looking. 

That was pretty much what I had in mind when I built it, although the advantage of infernal robotics is the legs fold in and it's no wider than a 2.5 meter tank for launch.  I'd previously played around with designs like a TEL, and a flatbed/crane but not a lot of success...

 

I did wonder about trying with no landing gear to save on part count but if you're uneven ground the suspension on the landing gear hopefully means less stress on the docking ports, plus using cylindrical parts there's a danger they'll roll away.

The problem with bases has always been that the high number of parts causes big lag problems, once I had all 4 modules (lab/habitation, drill/refine, fuel and Life support) I had to use mechjeb to land craft near it because the lag meant a big risk of crashes.  Hopefully unity 4 should mean that's not an issue in 1.1.x

Edited May 4, 2016 by RizzoTheRat

[Majorjim!]

11 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

I did wonder about trying with no landing gear to save on part count but if you're uneven ground the suspension on the landing gear hopefully means less stress on the docking ports, plus using cylindrical parts there's a danger they'll roll away.

There are always flat spots, you just need to find them. Also do what NASA would and make the bottoms of the modules flat.

 Also, a little trick is to attach a port to an ant engine as this allows the port to move which makes docking possible even on uneven ground.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Majorjim

[RizzoTheRat]

But to make the bottom of the modules flat would, in many cases, mean attaching additional parts, and I didn't really have many radially mounted bits I could have used for it.  Plus it makes docking easier if the crane can dock the module and then lower it's landing gear rather than having to drop it on the ground in the right place.

Interesting that that NASA concept seems to slide the crane underneath to lift the modules (looks like the right hand module on your second pic is on one) so not sure how they get them on and off.

Not heard of that Ant trick before, I can see that being useful for docking on the ground, but tricker for towing them to orbit.  I launched my station/crane/lander in 3 launches and docked it in Kerbin orbit for the lander to tow to Mun/Minmus orbit, it was very wobbly and I'd consider using Clampotron Seniors next time rather than standard, although that might mean having the base in one long line as I don't know how well they'd work mounted on the side of a tank, and I don't really want to have to add extra joining modules.

Edited May 4, 2016 by RizzoTheRat

[Majorjim!]

Just now, RizzoTheRat said:

But to make the bottom of the modules flat would, in many cases, mean attaching additional parts, and I didn't really have many radially mounted bits I could have used for it.  Plus it makes docking easier if the crane can dock the module and then lower it's landing gear rather than having to drop it on the ground in the right place.

Interesting that that NASA concept seems to slide the crane underneath to lift the modules (looks like the right hand module on your second pic is on one) so not sure how they get them on and off.

Not heard of that Ant trick before, I can see that being useful for docking on the ground, but tricker for towing them to orbit.  I launched my station/crane/lander in 3 launches and docked it in Kerbin orbit for the lander to tow to Mun/Minmus orbit, it was very wobbly and I'd consider using Clampotron Seniors next time rather than standard, although that might mean having the base in one long line as I don't know how well they'd work mounted on the side of a tank, and I don't really want to have to add extra joining modules.

Just surface attach a part to the bottom to make it flat. Two Ibeams or a rovermate for example .

 And for transporting the modules just attach somewhere else. Either add another docking port or a stack separator somewhere.

[TopHeavy11]

If you want simple and easy, here's how it's done.

1. Determine what side of your base is going to be facing the ground.

2. DO NOT put any solar panels on that side.

3. Make sure your landing gear's "feet" are touching the ground.

4. Develop launcher.

5. Add landing engines.

6. Fly to destination.

7. Land.

8. ?????

9. PROFIT!

The Nine Steps to Successful Surface Ops*!

 

 

*0. Tailor your base to the body it's going to be landing on.

 

I would recommend the use of stock gadgets. My smaller bases look a lot like NASA's early base designs, and they worked spectacularly well!

Edited May 4, 2016 by TopHeavy11

[Skorpychan]

 That's how.

[Brofessional]

Here's an old shot of my gantry crane from 2013.  It worked fine, but the site was so laggy with multiple landers around that I never did much with it.

[DChurchill]

55 minutes ago, Brofessional said:

Here's an old shot of my gantry crane from 2013.  It worked fine, but the site was so laggy with multiple landers around that I never did much with it.

Yoiks! That looks like a lot of work. Cool, but a lot of work. I think I'm just going to end up going small. Village type bases with no real connection except for maybe KAS fuel lines and such. AbacusWizard's solar farm looks cool. What I don't want to have happen is put a ton of time into a surface base and then have the Kraken devour it in bit size pieces.

[LameLefty]

This was my MKS base on Minmus back around 0.90 or so, I think. I was playing around with it in a Sandbox save and no life-support mods. Man it was pretty! Might have to get back to these mods again, come to think of it. 

 

[Xyphos]

Surface Bases are overrated imho. You're better off putting a refinery in orbit and a drilling shuttle on the surface; that way, you can keep it 100% stock, dock with the orbital refinery to refuel and off you go.

[AbacusWizard]

It can be done--a while back I did an all-stock mine/refinery on the surface of Minmus. Big cluster of drills and converters and solar panels on big wheels, and a big tanker with landing gear that could roll right up to its side and dock. (The pillar in the middle of all those solar panels is the "engineering bay" where a couple of engineers hang out to boost efficiency; it can also detach and move around on its own to seek out better ore deposits.)

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by AbacusWizard

[Xyphos]

sure, it can be done in stock, but it's definiately not practical.

[TrooperCooper]

 

My MKS Mun mining colony over a year ago:

 

Colonization process (in order) can be re-viewed in the "what did you do in KSP today?" - thread at the following links:

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by TrooperCooper

[AbacusWizard]

2 hours ago, Xyphos said:

sure, it can be done in stock, but it's definiately not practical.

I found it extremely practical. Land the tanker near the Mobile Combine, point its nose towards the docking port, use RCS to nudge it gently forward, dock. Turn on drills and converters, go do something else for a while (or fast-forward), and come back to find a full tanker (capable of taking off from a horizontal start) ready to launch. The only problem was that it had a lot of parts and lagged a bit.

[Jetski]

19 hours ago, RizzoTheRat said:

That was pretty much what I had in mind when I built it, although the advantage of infernal robotics is the legs fold in and it's no wider than a 2.5 meter tank for launch.  I'd previously played around with designs like a TEL, and a flatbed/crane but not a lot of success...

 

I did wonder about trying with no landing gear to save on part count but if you're uneven ground the suspension on the landing gear hopefully means less stress on the docking ports, plus using cylindrical parts there's a danger they'll roll away.

The problem with bases has always been that the high number of parts causes big lag problems, once I had all 4 modules (lab/habitation, drill/refine, fuel and Life support) I had to use mechjeb to land craft near it because the lag meant a big risk of crashes.  Hopefully unity 4 should mean that's not an issue in 1.1.x

Add a service bay to the stack, and when the doors are open it's a low-part-count landing leg solution that prevents base roll.

 

 Here are a few of my surface bases - I mainly use Klaws to connect, and decouplers to get rid of extra parts once the connection is made.  

Also, here are a few mining bases that use the same general idea.  Notice on a few of the rigs there is no fuel storage on the drilling rig itself.  Allowing the fuel tank to be on a separate module than the mining/ISRU/Ore module is very efficient - you can keep the fuel tankage and landing engines as a separate lifter to get fuel into orbit, or a fuel truck to drive around and dock with landed spacecraft or SSTOs on high-grav planets.  Just Klaw on to the drill section and start making fuel between visits.

I've tried hard to make surface bases useful, but honestly most of these are for the Jool-500 challenge or some contract or other.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Jetski

[Xyphos]

55 minutes ago, AbacusWizard said:

I found it extremely practical. Land the tanker near the Mobile Combine, point its nose towards the docking port, use RCS to nudge it gently forward, dock. Turn on drills and converters, go do something else for a while (or fast-forward), and come back to find a full tanker (capable of taking off from a horizontal start) ready to launch. The only problem was that it had a lot of parts and lagged a bit.

 

I meant, practical as in reusable, not every vessel will be able to dock with that on the ground, but every vessel can dock in orbit.

[Jetski]

9 hours ago, Xyphos said:

 

I meant, practical as in reusable, not every vessel will be able to dock with that on the ground, but every vessel can dock in orbit.

Klaw.  Always Klaw.

[Jhawk1099]

On 5/4/2016 at 6:13 PM, Majorjim said:

I would check this in 1.1.2 as we can no longer lock suspension.

Why? Just why? Was it causing bugs? You have a large number of posts @Majorjim Perhaps you know the answer.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Jhawk1099 said:

Why? Just why? Was it causing bugs? You have a large number of posts @Majorjim Perhaps you know the answer.

The legs are now wheels due to the major changes Squad had to make when KSP was moved to unity 5. It is no doubt a quick fix for phantom forces caused by the new wheel module. It will most likely be added back in one the wheels/legs get fixed.