Worst place to build a base?

[rpayne88]

Kerbol. Every module I've sent there has blown up before landing.

[magnemoe]

I agree with Richy,

Gilly is the hardest place. I once tried to make a *base* on it, but It floats.. nvm... dat gravity kills you, If you accidently pressed WASD then it will begin ascending hahaha!

Btw, I once Landed a kerbal on gilly from my station ( 45kmX30km orbit ), I EVA'ed him, kept thrusting retro-grade and landed straight on gilly, then took off and rendezvoused with it! on 2% left btw. it was really hard..

BUT! ITS REALLY FUN!

Gilly is ridiculously easy to land on, only downside is that its very boring as you use an hour falling an km. Yes you might land in an hill, its not as you don't have dV to take off again.

Might be that anything I land on low gravity worlds is wider than its high.

Recommend using an probe or kerbal to recon landing spots and show where to land.

[geb]

I don't get how KSC is in a bad base location. It's pretty much in Kerbin's equator, which makes it easy to get into a stable, 0° inclination orbit around Kerbin, so it's actually in a great location.

This technically means that any base not in the equator is a bad base, unless you're in a planet with an inclined orbit, such as Eve.

The launchpad or the runway are the absolute worst places for a base. If you put a permanent station there, you can't launch without deleting it. Difficulty level zero. Inconvenience level infinite.

[KvickFlygarn87]

Gilly. You can't make a base there,

That's harder than ****ting without nipples!

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Why are you guys/girls (G²? ) going so far out?

My candidate is the Mun's exact Northern Pole:

Building a base on a Spike that is twisting the camera all the time, all the way and flipping things upside....left? Challenge accepted... not!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 24, 2013 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Asmayus]

I'd also vote for the KSC, because if you land a base anywhere else it's pretty safe once its down, but if you are near the ksc then sooner or later something will explode and spiral into it.

[Killerdude8]

Minmus, Gilly and Moho.

[panfish5]

I would say Eve because there is practically no use for a base there. Sure its easy to land on but what else are you gonna do Launch an orange fuel tank with 5000 ton lifter from your base?

[WalkingShadow89]

The sun would be the worst place because it has so much gravity, it blows your ships up, and you need a practically infinite amount of Delta-V to land/get off of it

[Overfloater]

I once played with Urania planet pack - THIS probably isn't a very good location:

[Skyhawk]

I've tried to land and put a base on K2. It's very frustrating because I like to try to use planes to get there, but it's effectively impossible to land with wheels, and its hard to go slow enough for parachutes if you use small wings. Takeoff is also hard, and there's not much distance to takeoff in. I've lost many aircraft on landing and takeoff there.

[G'th]

On a Class A asteroid in a beyond Eeloo orbit. With a 90 degree inclination.

If we want to get ridiculous anyway.

Otherwise, I'd probably say trying to do a floating base on Jool or building any kind of non-Kethane base on Kerbin would be the worst places. The former because it probably wouldn't last. The latter because why?

[Sof]

I'd say KSC. It's pointless, not hard at all and will just end up making all subsequent launches lag.

The other places are difficult to be sure, but not necessarily "bad"!

[Krosulhah]

On the surface of the sun!

[InterCity]

For me, Jool's surface.

Although it exists, most craft get destroyed or eaten by kraken

[samstarman5]

Maybe if you could clamp down on Pol, then it might be good for like a communications relay that needs a firm foundation

[NFUN]

Jool. Having to keep thrusters burning continuously to keep from sinking below the surface would be horribly inefficient and useless.

Also, I've had nightmares of sinking below a thick Joolian atmosphere, struggling to remain above.

Edited May 4, 2014 by NFUN

[cantab]

Depends what you want to do with it. For sending stuff up into orbit, anywhere on Kerbin is the worst place (because you already have KSC). Eve's also terrible. Even if you want to get to Eve orbit, in delta-V terms it's cheaper to launch from anywhere but Eve, even a launch from Moho or Eeloo's surface and no Eve aerobraking uses less.

On the other hand an Eve surface base is perfectly reasonable for exploring Eve itself. KSC is probably the most pointless location for surface exploration that's actually on a surface, though this may change when money is introduced.

If you count asteroids, then a base on an asteroid on an impact course with the Mun or Minmus, and no means to change that course, would be pretty terrible. All that effort and inevitable destruction.

[Clockwork13]

Kerbol. Every module I've sent there has blown up before landing.

But Kerbol doesn't have a solid surface.

[That guy who builds stuff]

Have you ever gone to the munar poles?

[LABHOUSE]

Bop the dead space kraken kills ya.

But really under the ocean of Laythe is much worse.

[RocketBlam]

Obviously Mun, minmus, laythe, duna and ike are great places to build bases, but considering what you've seen out there, what would be the worst/least useful/hardest place to put a modular base?

Pol would suck pretty bad, it's small, tricky to get to, and finding a flat surface there is like trying to find a leprechaun.

Pol is a great place to build a base. Its gravity is so low that getting back to orbit is easy.

The worst place in the game to build a base is easily Eve, followed by Tylo.

Eve: High gravity, dense atmosphere, very hard to get back to orbit.

Tylo: High gravity and no atmosphere, so no aerobraking. Takes a ton of fuel just to land, not to mention getting back to orbit.

[RocketBlam]

Jool. Having to keep thrusters burning continuously to keep from sinking below the surface would be horribly inefficient and useless.

Good point, and I love your avatar.

Embrace the Juffo-Wup.

[NFUN]

Well, aren't you a *happy camper*! You remind me that my *fingers* would also find it difficult to *party* on Falayalaralfali (yes, I had to Google that name).

Why have a problem with building a base at Tylo, or particularly Eve? Bases are usually permanent, so it being difficult to leave the body shouldn't be too much of an inhibitor. Small craft leaving the body would be probably the least important job of the base. I would hate building a base on Dres or maybe Eeloo, just because their surface isn't very interesting, and Kerbol is pretty small on Eeloo. At least Tylo has the Jool system to look at.

[RocketBlam]

Well, aren't you a *happy camper*! You remind me that my *fingers* would also find it difficult to *party* on Falayalaralfali (yes, I had to Google that name).

Why have a problem with building a base at Tylo, or particularly Eve? Bases are usually permanent, so it being difficult to leave the body shouldn't be too much of an inhibitor. Small craft leaving the body would be probably the least important job of the base. I would hate building a base on Dres or maybe Eeloo, just because their surface isn't very interesting, and Kerbol is pretty small on Eeloo. At least Tylo has the Jool system to look at.

Nnnnnngaaaa!!!! I am *squeezing* the *juice*!

On the basis of doing science, either of the Kerbal moons are the best place to build a base, due to there being many biomes.

I've built several bases... well, landed in several places with a task in mind, and getting back to orbit is usually a primary concern. So I guess it really depends on what the base is for. My bases have mostly been for Kethane rigs, so getting back to orbit with a minimal expenditure of fuel is always a high priority. These bases have been on Minmus, Mun, Vall and Pol.

Vall is a fairly good place for a Kethane base, but it has higher gravity than Pol or Bop.

If you're never planning to leave, I guess any body with an atmosphere is a good candidate, so you can use parachutes.

ETA: I just added this avatar, I was inspired by yours.