I had 30+ hours of footage for this video, so it took me way longer than usual to put together. Let me know if you all want to see more stuff like this in the future. I have an idea for a single engine video that I think should be fun!
For future reference, if you want to find out what just exploded at a glance, F3 brings up the "results screen", aka the pop-up window that shows up when you've crashed. bringing it up before you've crashed gives you a good itemised list of what's went wrong so far.
F3 to identify what exploded. Also, to save fuel don't take off in a retrograde orbit... So you created two small landers that you didn't use (Glly, Bop or Pol could have been the place to do so...)
Your vocabulary during these challenges is always hilarious. Like the way you make understatements or say un-added just making me laugh every time. Keep going rc!
Exciting mission! I think there's a problem though: that forest of solar panels must have been occluding each other. 2 columns would be good if you can always turn them to face the sun, otherwise i think it would be good to have 3 columns like the 3 individual ones on the big lander. Maybe 4 columns. The Tylo landing was awesome! :D Ooh, all the planets? For Eve, propellors help a lot; it looks like they can more than halve the size of an SSTO, if I estimate right, and they make it possible to launch from sea level where a rocket-powered SSTO has to launch from a very high mountain. Or you could take a multi-stage lander. :) If you go with propellors, put them in service bays to control the drag. Open the bays to use the propellors, close the bays for rocket flight because propellor blades make insane amounts of drag at supersonic speeds. You could probably get 200m/s out of propellors which is not a whole lot, but at least they can get you above the majority of the thick atmosphere before you try to go supersonic.
not possible without any kind of engine you can get into a sub-orbital trajectory but then you need some sort of thrust to come once youre in this position and if you want to see how difficult that is without engines, check out stratzenblitz "Orbiting Kerbin using only Jet Engines", which is difficult enough with only jet engines, and since you cant use any engines at all, its really not possible, you could use sepratrons and decouplers but that will kill your computer
@@azzzertyy Im sure there'd be some kind of way to use motors and other things to create enough force to launch a craft, then give it enough sideways to start orbiting
I have been playing this game for years, watching guides and playing non stop on my old shitty laptop before getting a better pc and I cant even fathom getting a kerbal to the jool system yet here you are bringing one to every moon in one mission
Even though there's no mechanics for it, I always thought it would be cool to see a big multi-phase mission like this planned with a semi-realistic time constraint like 1 year or something. Might involve like pre-launching spare stages to each destination with drones before the Kerbal finally gets to make his voyage or something so you can trade efficiency for speed. Just something I've always thought about when seeing these hilarious 150 year long missions lol.
I think the changes in orbit/encouters happen because of time warp. This happens more if you use the mod where you get higher time warp modes. You can prevent it if you only time warp from the tracking station. I've started to set an alarm clock for just before I need to do something and then time warping from the tracking station. It takes a little more effort but saves you a lot of time in the end bc you don't have to reload saves as much.
It would be nice to see same thing with precursor's planet pack. The mod looks cool though, maybe also to watch some series as well Great stuff, keep up great content
those cool features on planets and moons are from the making history dlc and you need the special mining arm to get samples from it bc you cant use a kerbal or regular mining stuff to get a sample
I am at 4:00 in video -- my approach would be to make a stable station around every object, just create a small lunar module and go through all the "ISSs," replenish fuel, land, take photos, get back to station, replenish fuel, dock to rocket, get to another body's orbital station, deploy module, land, photos, back, rocket, ... rinse & repeat 🙂
One thing you can do instead of using ion engines is using the nuclear engines because they have much more thrust compared to ion engines, and are almost as effecient
A tip for you Reid Captain and you guys: Don't. Spam. Solar. Panels. They will add dead weight because as they are soo many, these cover up sunlight for other panels, and only about a third of those solar panels ACTUALLY get the light, is better using RTGs, (if you are not going for a 150 year mission like this guy did) also those fins only work on laythe for obvious reasons
Great work! Its always a good feeling to pull off these giant missions. I will say though that your design has a lot of room for improvement and I honestly felt frustrated for you at certain points. Your lander design is massive, very tall/tippy, and ultimately made the mission harder than it needed to be. The mothership could also be optimized for higher thrust/better engines if it didnt have to push such a heavy payload. That turtle slow ion transfer stage was painful to watch, I would have tried to optimize weight and implement staging long before considering using ions on a huge design like this. Remember that with the rocket equation every kg of weight you remove from the dry mass gives you more delta v than adding one kg of fuel. Staging helps this greatly, and being minimalistic with the payload pays off big time. I can even imagine this mission being possible without mining equipment with planning and clever piloting. Another thing is you could have piloted the ship in a way more efficient manner, you burned hard into Laythes atmosphere but you could have done a small burn and let the atmosphere and parachutes do the work. You also hard braked around Tylo and did the "drop straight down from orbit" technique which wasted a ton of fuel. Launching into a retrograde orbit (270 degrees opposed to 90) means you are working against the rotation of the planet/moon and again wasting precious fuel. In addition plotting a crash course to directly land from outside a moons SOI is far less efficient than capturing into an orbit first. This is because when falling in a vacuum the gravitational acceleration does not stop unless there is a force like atmospheric drag acting to slow you down. Coming in from far away and falling straight down just has you picking up a ton of extra speed that you'll have to burn off to land, while coming down with a shallow angle from a low orbit gives you less time to accelerate towards the ground, granting very good fuel savings. Here is how I have designed similar missions in the past: I have a multibody lander design I use that is basically a mk1 lander can, 8 oscar B fuel tanks, 2 retractable solar panels (or 1 RTG) and 2 spark engines, a full science instrument set up and some small rcs ports. With this tiny lander I have over 2,200m/s DV fully fueled, with thrust high enough to land on all but 2 of the moons and return science. If the LF/OX runs out the 15 units of monopropellant provides something like 300m/s of delta V, more than enough to rendezvous and dock with the mothership. I do not add batteries, 50 units is more than enough as long as you are careful with dark side maneuvering and the solar panels are honestly enough even as far out as Jool. With such a low fuel mass requirement the refueling tanker can be even smaller as well, making the whole design easier to get into orbit and granting quicker burns with more conventional engines. Of course this can't land on Tylo, and would not have the thrust to get you back from Laythe even if you saved fuel with parachutes. To use this design for a Tylo landing you need to dock the lander to a larger descent stage with good thrust (I put my docking port on the bottom of the lander can so it can be used as a sort of reusable decoupler.) One aerospike is all you need, with a few drop tanks coupled radially around this stage with fuel lines feeding them into the core. If you stage this right you can use up the fuel in the drop tanks and land on Tylo, keeping the aerospike and enough fuel to get you back to an altitude where the tiny lander now has enough thrust to complete orbital insertion. For Laythe you dont even need a rocket powered lower stage. I have used the tiny lander docked to an ascent stage powered by a whiplash engine, with some landing legs and parachutes added for quality of life. From a low stating orbit you can undock from the mothership, use RCS to dip your periapsis into the atmosphere and use the drag and parachutes to land without using any liquid fuel. With a good ascent angle you can run the whiplash flat out, getting you just past the atmosphere on a suborbital arc. From that point you can drop the jet engine and the sparks can carry you the rest of the way to orbit. I still find spaceplanes more ideal for landing on Laythe. Of course all of that takes precious time to test and its often more fun to just make a wild design and yeet it into orbit using a bunch of boosters hoping for the best and overcoming the problems as they arise. These missions are always more memorable.
i dont know if you would do this but, can you make a guide on how to make besiege engines? ive recently gotten the game and would love to learn how to make engines
There's a trick for landing on bodies with no atmosphere: when you are on a suborbital trajectory, create a maneuver node at the point you intersect the surface. Then, increase the retrograde vector of the maneuver until your surface velocity will be 0. Start the burn the same as usual: when the time until the maneuver node is equal to half the time of the total burn, start your burn. This is a good rule of thumb for planning landing burns. I also solved the kinematics problem for what time/altitude to turn on your engines if you are falling vertically so that you do a suicide burn (I assumed the vessel is a particle with unchanging mass though). I found that solution to be a bit inaccurate though, but it gives a good estimation.
if you want max thrust from ions, you actually want the electrical system to be inadequate, ions operate in a lower ISP state, but with more thrust if the ion motor's flow exceeds the electrical demand. Also crossfeed, that's what's killing your fps.
Mr Reid Captain, could you check out the games or make a video on "Homebrew" and "Stormworks" or "Space Engineers" as all of thease games i would believe you would love, also massively looking forward to you're next video, i love you're videos.
Игры
![NOSFERATU - Official Teaser Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b59rxDB_JRg/mqdefault.jpg)
I had 30+ hours of footage for this video, so it took me way longer than usual to put together. Let me know if you all want to see more stuff like this in the future. I have an idea for a single engine video that I think should be fun!
Hi Reid! Love ya vids! Try a game cslled Stormworks, its amazing.
@Mitchell Formolo Reid Captain explained that stormworks never "clicked" with him.
Also, take a look at people playground. It has alot of destruction mechanics, but it also has a lot of space for creating machines
Im suprised you could upload 2 times in 4 days or so.
Do Eve and back with less than whatever Bradley Whistance had
Props to the makers of the Mk1 command pod because they were able to store 147+ years of food for Valentina
Or designed a machine which could recycle.....waste
@@shufflecat3334 "The Suit" (the comic) vibes are coming from your comment🥶
@@PizzayaWasTaken oh god I know that one 💀 it's an amazing comic but freaky af.
And keep her alive for 147+ years.
@@mikezhou7901 That's the only difference from it being The Suit
One thing is certain. Even when humanity traverses space and reaches far and wide. They will still go out of their way to look for a "cool rock" 8:42
What do you think the space mission of humanity is about .
@@genericyoutubeusername6462 landing on massive rocks
@@wut1727 And hopefully escaping large rocks
kerbality*
@@wut1727and picking up cool small rocks
I love how reid makes the game harder for himself, and STILL complete his objectives.
Even the game/simulation as well is hard
For future reference, if you want to find out what just exploded at a glance, F3 brings up the "results screen", aka the pop-up window that shows up when you've crashed. bringing it up before you've crashed gives you a good itemised list of what's went wrong so far.
Is this possible on playstation?
@@BritishGrenadier69 ...people play this on playerstation..?
On console press pause and go to the "Flight Report" option.
@@railx2005 I play on xbox
@@normalhuman9260 flight report is definitely the better name for it.
F3 to identify what exploded. Also, to save fuel don't take off in a retrograde orbit...
So you created two small landers that you didn't use (Glly, Bop or Pol could have been the place to do so...)
shhhh... dont interrupt the genius
Your vocabulary during these challenges is always hilarious. Like the way you make understatements or say un-added just making me laugh every time. Keep going rc!
My favorite was the “after a trillion years” bit
I like how he makes big brain play seem accessable. (Doesnt come across as a superhuman. Just, a nice *intelligent* dude. :) )
As soon as i saw those xenon tanks I wanted to cry
I love it how the small landers weren’t used at all.
OH THEY WERNT 💀💀💀
I love these videos there so fun to watch how hard it is to do getting to all moon's in the games
only true gamers remember that the title used to be "Can You Land On Every Moon In Kerbal Space Program With One Kerbal?"
@Isaiah Teng fr fr
@@AlterExo_What
@@RailsofForney obviously i replied to someone and either their comment was deleted, their account was deleted, or banned. idk
Thanks for all the work you put in to make these, truly your content is wonderful.
Exciting mission! I think there's a problem though: that forest of solar panels must have been occluding each other. 2 columns would be good if you can always turn them to face the sun, otherwise i think it would be good to have 3 columns like the 3 individual ones on the big lander. Maybe 4 columns.
The Tylo landing was awesome! :D
Ooh, all the planets? For Eve, propellors help a lot; it looks like they can more than halve the size of an SSTO, if I estimate right, and they make it possible to launch from sea level where a rocket-powered SSTO has to launch from a very high mountain. Or you could take a multi-stage lander. :) If you go with propellors, put them in service bays to control the drag. Open the bays to use the propellors, close the bays for rocket flight because propellor blades make insane amounts of drag at supersonic speeds. You could probably get 200m/s out of propellors which is not a whole lot, but at least they can get you above the majority of the thick atmosphere before you try to go supersonic.
"Now it turned out to just be a rock, but it was a cool rock." -Reid Captain, 2022
Edit: since when did quoting make you famous?
-When astronomers find a moon
reid captain the average cool rock enjoyer
Scientists talking about the asteroid Oumuamua
me as a kid:
That one kerbal will be very happy lol.
The journey of a lifetime
@@ReidCaptain judging from the Kerbal's face and childlike clapping, I'd say so
Thanks for the video, a lot of work there! I am excitedly waiting for every planet challenge.
Hey how about triyng to get in orbit eithout engines? You could use props to get high and use some sort of catapult or to store energy.
flywheel
not possible without any kind of engine
you can get into a sub-orbital trajectory but then you need some sort of thrust to come once youre in this position
and
if you want to see how difficult that is without engines, check out stratzenblitz "Orbiting Kerbin using only Jet Engines", which is difficult enough with only jet engines, and since you cant use any engines at all, its really not possible, you could use sepratrons and decouplers but that will kill your computer
@@azzzertyy Im sure there'd be some kind of way to use motors and other things to create enough force to launch a craft, then give it enough sideways to start orbiting
@@hmmyou2544 There is always the need to circularise in the vacuum of space (unless using a glitch or using a very advanced assist from Mun).
@@russc788 Im saying a catapult being launched by a catapult
the game is now free on epic games
can we get an “I ended up” count?
I've been watching you since I was pretty young man, how time flies! Glad to see you still uploading and are doing well
I have been playing this game for years, watching guides and playing non stop on my old shitty laptop before getting a better pc and I cant even fathom getting a kerbal to the jool system yet here you are bringing one to every moon in one mission
This is amazing. Please more!
KSP my beloved.
Even though there's no mechanics for it, I always thought it would be cool to see a big multi-phase mission like this planned with a semi-realistic time constraint like 1 year or something. Might involve like pre-launching spare stages to each destination with drones before the Kerbal finally gets to make his voyage or something so you can trade efficiency for speed. Just something I've always thought about when seeing these hilarious 150 year long missions lol.
Omg I found a video "landing on every body in one launch". It was amazing the way they planned it. So cool and well thought out.
get a life support mod like USI, TAC or Kerbalism and you're forced to have time constraints just like that
Have you ever heard of auto strut?
Everytime this guy posts a video I get so exited, I don’t know much about it but good luck on your engineering degree!
Bro i watched till the fairing i cant stand this mans voice wtf
Love the video keep it going.
All the planets and moons sounds like a beast of a challenge... YOU SHOULD TOTALLY DO IT!
I like your ksp videos:)
You can use Tylo's massive gravity to get a orbit around Jool, hope this helps.
I think the changes in orbit/encouters happen because of time warp. This happens more if you use the mod where you get higher time warp modes. You can prevent it if you only time warp from the tracking station. I've started to set an alarm clock for just before I need to do something and then time warping from the tracking station. It takes a little more effort but saves you a lot of time in the end bc you don't have to reload saves as much.
Now, The Grand Tour is upon you, Reid.
This Kerbal was in space for over 147 years after launch, mustve been a little lonely
This was very good. It's crazy to think that it would take years to do that if you didn't warp. This game is so in-depth 🔥
and here i am just violently yeeting multiple ships into space with no plans for a return trip
It's good that kerbals are long living so 147 years is nothing for them, they are still young after long flight.
It would be nice to see same thing with precursor's planet pack. The mod looks cool though, maybe also to watch some series as well
Great stuff, keep up great content
Him *hits atmosphere at twice the speed of sound and explodes* " as you can see I hit the atmosphere a little bit fast"
13:55 I love how scientific everything is and then he just goes “after about a trillion years I managed to fill up my tanks” made me laugh.
Going to everything would be sick
Now do the same thing with life support mod installed, keep that Kerbal fed and breathing
those cool features on planets and moons are from the making history dlc and you need the special mining arm to get samples from it bc you cant use a kerbal or regular mining stuff to get a sample
On the mun you can launch straight verticle to save fuel when going for an escape
I like how you didn't used the small landers once
2:01 everything looking good
meanwhile the ship lookin like a 🦔 😂
I am at 4:00 in video -- my approach would be to make a stable station around every object, just create a small lunar module and go through all the "ISSs," replenish fuel, land, take photos, get back to station, replenish fuel, dock to rocket, get to another body's orbital station, deploy module, land, photos, back, rocket, ... rinse & repeat 🙂
Better yet, have a station AND a surface base
One thing you can do instead of using ion engines is using the nuclear engines because they have much more thrust compared to ion engines, and are almost as effecient
with all the inventory updates you could bring spare parts for when things like solar panels break
this man has done alot of things so i hope you get 1m subs
Youve heard of the Jool Five, now get ready for... *_The Kerbol Nine!_*
YES, do all the planets and moons!
Now land on every planet, even Jool.
It's like listening to a NileRed video
Drink every time he says “with that done”
Thank god I can watch this - Don't learn this myself - Still get the experience
Reid: Shows an unholy abomination of a solar panel porcupine
Reid: "So with the main ship finally looking good..."
Me: spits coffee
A tip for you Reid Captain and you guys: Don't. Spam. Solar. Panels. They will add dead weight because as they are soo many, these cover up sunlight for other panels, and only about a third of those solar panels ACTUALLY get the light, is better using RTGs, (if you are not going for a 150 year mission like this guy did)
also those fins only work on laythe for obvious reasons
Great work! Its always a good feeling to pull off these giant missions. I will say though that your design has a lot of room for improvement and I honestly felt frustrated for you at certain points.
Your lander design is massive, very tall/tippy, and ultimately made the mission harder than it needed to be. The mothership could also be optimized for higher thrust/better engines if it didnt have to push such a heavy payload. That turtle slow ion transfer stage was painful to watch, I would have tried to optimize weight and implement staging long before considering using ions on a huge design like this. Remember that with the rocket equation every kg of weight you remove from the dry mass gives you more delta v than adding one kg of fuel. Staging helps this greatly, and being minimalistic with the payload pays off big time. I can even imagine this mission being possible without mining equipment with planning and clever piloting.
Another thing is you could have piloted the ship in a way more efficient manner, you burned hard into Laythes atmosphere but you could have done a small burn and let the atmosphere and parachutes do the work. You also hard braked around Tylo and did the "drop straight down from orbit" technique which wasted a ton of fuel. Launching into a retrograde orbit (270 degrees opposed to 90) means you are working against the rotation of the planet/moon and again wasting precious fuel. In addition plotting a crash course to directly land from outside a moons SOI is far less efficient than capturing into an orbit first. This is because when falling in a vacuum the gravitational acceleration does not stop unless there is a force like atmospheric drag acting to slow you down. Coming in from far away and falling straight down just has you picking up a ton of extra speed that you'll have to burn off to land, while coming down with a shallow angle from a low orbit gives you less time to accelerate towards the ground, granting very good fuel savings.
Here is how I have designed similar missions in the past:
I have a multibody lander design I use that is basically a mk1 lander can, 8 oscar B fuel tanks, 2 retractable solar panels (or 1 RTG) and 2 spark engines, a full science instrument set up and some small rcs ports. With this tiny lander I have over 2,200m/s DV fully fueled, with thrust high enough to land on all but 2 of the moons and return science. If the LF/OX runs out the 15 units of monopropellant provides something like 300m/s of delta V, more than enough to rendezvous and dock with the mothership. I do not add batteries, 50 units is more than enough as long as you are careful with dark side maneuvering and the solar panels are honestly enough even as far out as Jool. With such a low fuel mass requirement the refueling tanker can be even smaller as well, making the whole design easier to get into orbit and granting quicker burns with more conventional engines.
Of course this can't land on Tylo, and would not have the thrust to get you back from Laythe even if you saved fuel with parachutes. To use this design for a Tylo landing you need to dock the lander to a larger descent stage with good thrust (I put my docking port on the bottom of the lander can so it can be used as a sort of reusable decoupler.) One aerospike is all you need, with a few drop tanks coupled radially around this stage with fuel lines feeding them into the core. If you stage this right you can use up the fuel in the drop tanks and land on Tylo, keeping the aerospike and enough fuel to get you back to an altitude where the tiny lander now has enough thrust to complete orbital insertion.
For Laythe you dont even need a rocket powered lower stage. I have used the tiny lander docked to an ascent stage powered by a whiplash engine, with some landing legs and parachutes added for quality of life. From a low stating orbit you can undock from the mothership, use RCS to dip your periapsis into the atmosphere and use the drag and parachutes to land without using any liquid fuel. With a good ascent angle you can run the whiplash flat out, getting you just past the atmosphere on a suborbital arc. From that point you can drop the jet engine and the sparks can carry you the rest of the way to orbit. I still find spaceplanes more ideal for landing on Laythe.
Of course all of that takes precious time to test and its often more fun to just make a wild design and yeet it into orbit using a bunch of boosters hoping for the best and overcoming the problems as they arise. These missions are always more memorable.
I'm thinking every planet with some kind of multi rocket, but that would be hell
Congratulations, you did a Jool 5!
fun drinking game to play is when he says “when thats done” take a drink
you should try getting to orbit using only sepratron engines
nice job!
take a shot every time he says the phrase "put down"
No return flight, but very impressive. As I struggle with Munn. You did them all like a master.
The only other planet (outside of mun and minimus is Eve. One way 💀
I still can't wait for reidcaptain to play space engineers
8:11 oh my god you hit the ground so slowly you can almost think it was intentional
12:24 you can press F3 to show to show flight statistics, which show what parts exploded
150 years in space. Valentina should feel very lonely.
Im watching this guy while im not even to pass orbit 😭✋️
I've onky played kerbal a few times and don't think I ever successfully landed on anything and came back to earth. Pretty impressive.
The first thing I thought of was: Damn that Kerbal gonna be old
Who needs to be an astronaut when we have reid captain to do it for us :D
you should turn up ambient light boost a little not just for our sake but yours too
I loved the video!
I can’t even get my damn rocket to the mun and back
bro this man is different
your speaking Delta vocal range is ridiculous
Can you make an solar orbiter in ksp?
"Ill put some RCS for manouvering in the AIR"... The air? In space? Right. O_O
The amount of time and effort required to do this is unfathomable to me.
Ah yes the mini landers “totally” being used for its purpose
Reed, if your booster fall off, it means you need more.
In 25 minutes, RC says "I wanted to" 30 times. People love a man who knows what he wants
i dont know if you would do this but, can you make a guide on how to make besiege engines? ive recently
gotten the game and would love to learn how to make engines
I just got this game a few days ago and the amount of stuff that I dont know already just in this video concerns me...
( 12 science awarded... )
19:25 With one of the solar panels broken off, the lander looks like a plane.
You should do every solid body next
Somone making a actual rocket makes me happy
There's a trick for landing on bodies with no atmosphere: when you are on a suborbital trajectory, create a maneuver node at the point you intersect the surface. Then, increase the retrograde vector of the maneuver until your surface velocity will be 0. Start the burn the same as usual: when the time until the maneuver node is equal to half the time of the total burn, start your burn. This is a good rule of thumb for planning landing burns.
I also solved the kinematics problem for what time/altitude to turn on your engines if you are falling vertically so that you do a suicide burn (I assumed the vessel is a particle with unchanging mass though). I found that solution to be a bit inaccurate though, but it gives a good estimation.
if you want max thrust from ions, you actually want the electrical system to be inadequate, ions operate in a lower ISP state, but with more thrust if the ion motor's flow exceeds the electrical demand.
Also crossfeed, that's what's killing your fps.
nice. the jool V mission
Mr Reid Captain, could you check out the games or make a video on "Homebrew" and "Stormworks" or "Space Engineers" as all of thease games i would believe you would love, also massively looking forward to you're next video, i love you're videos.
love how you didnt use either of the mini landers lol.
Now, land on every planet AND moon
its awesome! For me hardest thing i ever do in KSP is make the rocket to the moon...
Stratzenblitz is gonna come in here and complete this same mission in less than 10 parts somehow
If any what mods do you recommend?