Best way to build a stock base?

[Stearpike]

I have been playing KSP for a long time and have never built a stock base (always used mods). So what is the best way to build a stock expandable base? I have built a base in orbit and then landed it on Mun, but i need to be able to expand a base while landed, for career mode.

[Goro san]

Bulit it out of rovers and dock em togever.

[Ogre420]

This might help...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN_e2Kfv0Pc&list=PLKoQn-aggf88KJjB8ai1XVklHN5LNE84k

[Ogre420]

These tools might help...

Vertical and horizontal alignment....

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127378-13-editor-extensions-redux-released-with-selectroot-merge-stripsymmetry-nooffsetlimits/

Default Keybindings

V- Vertically center a part. Place the part, hover over it with the mouse, and press the hotkey.
H- Horizontally center the part. Place the part, hover over it with the mouse, and press the hotkey.
U- Place the strut, then hover over the base/start of the strut (the first end placed) with the mouse, and press the hotkey.
X, Shift+X- Increase/Decrease symmetry level (Based on KSP's key map)
Alt+X- Reset symmetry level (Based on KSP's key map)
C, Shift+C- Increase/Decrease angle snap (Based on KSP's key map)
Alt+C- Reset angle snap (Based on KSP's key map)
T- Attachment mode: Toggle between surface and node attachment modes for all parts, and when a part is selected, will toggle surface attachment even when that part's config usually does not allow it.
Alt+Z- Toggle part clipping (CAUTION: This is a cheat option)
Space- When no part is selected, resets camera pitch and heading (straight ahead and level)

X/Y/Z alignment...

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/132775-121-130-hangar-grid-zero-deviation-v040-2016-oct-12/

[RoofCat]

stock bases are quite useless.
You may eventually build some transit hubs on orbits for tourists, science stations and leveling, probably even better attached to some large asteroid for cheap fuel supply.
But on surface it just doesn't make sense, except that's on Kerbin other side to complete all those local contracts with plane stationed somewhere around Badlands there. So you don't have to fly for 1h every time. Though in the long run Kerbin contracts are a waste of time anyway.

Landing is expensive on most worlds and driving around on surface takes extreme amounts of time. Which makes pure bases on surface rather boring and bad.

And then there is nothing wrong with ship "bases" (with mining onboard). As they can do both the base and ship part and can be easily repositioned, reused, returned to orbit or Kerbin.


As for technical difficulties, keep in mind there is only one completely flat surface in KSP afaik - around KSC (plus poles on Kerbin of course). Every other spot on every planet isn't. That makes connecting large bases often challenging. Also keep in mind gravity differences and all ships changing mass due to fuel usage and mining. Which may invalidate your Kerbin docking adjustments.
Multiple landing gears and wheels will make it go crazy with Kraken on reload. And even if you don't have those, internal strain may make the base jump and explode anyway during sudden physics recalculation if it is lond enough.

[Technicalfool]

RoofCat eredeti hozzászólása:

stock bases are quite useless.

OP mentioned career mode, where base (and space station) expansion contracts are a thing.

The "make everything a rover" approach mentioned by Goro san can work. The tricky part is perfectly aligning docking ports. You may want to design some kind of common chassis and test it around Kerbin with various utility parts (crew, mining, research etc) attached to it. Keep the chassis as a subassembly and use it for any future expansions, and you know that the docking ports attached to it will always be around the same height.

Another option that may help is to use docking struts/pipes. This can be an arrangement of scaffolding or an SRB emptied of its fuel, and a docking port at each end (and perhaps a couple along the length of the rocket). With some fuel and creative attachment of thrusters, you can get the ability to adjust the height of the strut for docking purposes.

And of course, while it's a horribly cheesy abuse of game mechanics, the claw has a pivot and will "dock" to near-enough anything.

[andylaugel]

There are a couple of ways to build your stock base.

1.) Use a standardized wheel/docking port assembly, so all you need to do is find somewhere even and drive into each other's port. connected--which I don't always recommend. You can get contracts to expand the same base. And if you disconnect them, the specs can be the same and require no new parts.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=918647606
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=652040406
There are mods which make this option more appealing, like Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. (I know the OP is talking stock, not modded.) Here is an example of a base made from multiple sections in that system.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=651597197
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=652039629
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=652039804

2.) Use the Klaw and have a flattish vertical surface to drive into. It's a pretty easy system, especially if the parts don't need to stay together indefinately.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=740871806
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=740205994
Personally I like ground-based docking. Parts used to make fuel are heavy, such as an ISRU (4.25t), drills (1.25t), and fuel cell arrays (0.24t). It's convienent to just have them there once you land, but if you're reasonably good at precision driving and don't mind a short drive that's 7+ tons of dead weight you don't need to constantly put into orbit.

3.) I've also heard of people who use a standardized base, which drops onto a rover (retracting the legs) and docks vertically. The rover then can handle moving them around and getting the horizonal connections to work. No pictures of that though. :/

[RoofCat]

Technicalfool eredeti hozzászólása:

RoofCat eredeti hozzászólása:

stock bases are quite useless.

OP mentioned career mode, where base (and space station) expansion contracts are a thing.

there are easier ways to create useless "debris" :)

I have built larger Mun orbital station and base in my first career ordered by contracts, extended later on because of other contracts until I got annoyed by them wasting space in my flight list and wasting space (and PC resources) in general, destroyed all and never took that type of contract again. All the rest of landed "bases" were actually landers with tourists doing both 5 men base and 4 tourist missions while also recovering science from different Mun biomes.

I think it is a general misconception you "have to" do contracts.
You have to choose what you want to do right now, have fun with and then pick up contracts that support that path with money. Contracts are really flexible and adapt to your own preferences.

Contracts will ask you to deliver ore from Eve to Gilly too. With a reward that doesn't cover anything there. Doesn't mean you have to take it.
Surface base is almost as useless in stock. They probably do make more sense with life support, planetary shipyards and extra resources. Unfortunatelly without them they are just empty and dead debris. Better make real infrastructure that supports your play. Not just sits there unused.

[Synavix]

I like doing a single orbital station around planets or moons (mostly as a docking hub for transferring kerbals/fuel/science between missions) and occasionally a moon/planet base on the easier places (usually the smaller moons) just for the fun of it, but I agree the contracts to do either of those are usually pretty bad. I only accept the ones I am planning to do anyway. The ones to start the initial base usually aren't to bad (but at most you really only ever need to do one of those or else it's just too much clutter around a place) but most of the ones for expanding are just crazy. Nothing I've ever done in the game would reasonably require me to expand my space station from 15 kerbal capacity up to 50. Others like expanding its ore storage are kinda silly because I can complete those just by docking a mining lander temporarily but that always feels kinda cheap.

I think part of the problem is that there just aren't really any good base building parts. You can add a mobile lab and some cupolas for looks. But after that it's just like...more fuel tanks and solar panels. Unless you go for really expensive and time consuming designs it's basically just putting a large rocket in orbit.

[Technicalfool]

RoofCat eredeti hozzászólása:

I think it is a general misconception you "have to" do contracts.

Oh indeed. Also what some people may not know is that the contracts system weights itself toward the types of contracts you do. If you do a bunch of base contracts, the random generator will generate more base contracts. This can be reset in the alt+f12 debug menu if you want to go back to default weights (or you can contracts.cfg-hack certain types of contract right out of the game).

Base and station contracts can be a really quite nice money-spinner during the early-mid game though, depending on the reward vs what you're supposed to deliver. Beware the contracts that also want thousands of units of liquid fuel or monoprop on a base when you haven't yet unlocked ISRU.

[Chibbity]

Best way to build a stock base? As simple as possible.

Since they serve no other practical purpose than completeing contract requirements. Build them as cheaply and as barebones as possible. (Low part count is always a plus anyways for performance reasons.)

Also keep in mind that most contracts don't actually require any Kerbals on board, just capacity for Kerbals. Dump your ground station off empty and abandon it immediately unless you have some personal use/plan for it.

[Astronaut]

Check this out
This one is a series
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN_e2Kfv0Pc
---Epic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svE9Bkdo1AM
Once more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HRdZgTFq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwnwZA-Zq5c
Best video in terms of creativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jd2ahmpCF4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6sGE09pBy4
We will go far to build a base- as far as Eeloo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctkCQztz4Y0
Make sure to check out some videos of jool stations, etc. And spaceplanes.

[Stearpike]

Thank you for all your comments. so to land a base do you prefer skycrane, having rocket parts as part of your base (VTOL) or discard/decouple thrusters once landed?

[Astronaut]

drop them off with skycrane, then decouple

[Ambitious Dreamsickle]

this brings back memories, multiple carefully planned and simultanious launches are a really great way to do this. in the case of lunar bodies it is much easier to plan a deorbit however dealing with an atmosphere has it's own series of complecations involved with entry.
often the method I use and preffer is to assemble the entire base in the vab and deploy the base while seporating the stages on entry, this way all the components land roughly in the same area and then i use a rover to "push" the components into place once landed all safe and sound..
on the moon, you can simply use reaction wheels to shimmy the parts into place and then switch to dock mode. regardless it all needs careful planning

[Ambitious Dreamsickle]

if i may... one of the hardest methods for constructing a base is via aircraft using tow ropes (modded ksp) lifting and hauling segments into place takes extreme care and can be potentially hours of work to successfully drop the base segments on the LZ and detach.
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/827944538485276914/338AAE2124B6D112802C62A9386116A09EBB02F1/