Krugz

Getting back is truly an insane idea. And I\'ll get around to it right after the leprechauns in my head are sated with the blood of kermen sacrificed to the lyncanthropic gods of the mun. Translation: For now, the crash landing on the mun will be enough, but I\'ll see if anything more is possible afterwards. So far, creating a stable orbit around the planet has been difficult due to the amount of expansion the orbit gets when using an SRB outside of the atmosphere... But I\'ve got ideas for how to overcome all the individual steps.

Check out the Honeycomb II in the spacecraft exchange forum. It\'s pretty intense, and I\'m working on another design to get an SRB-only ship to the mun. The mun SRB ship already has ~3km/s at around 57km launching and is significantly less lag-inducing than the Honeycomb II.

The craft file isn\'t the original ship that was consistently exploding, sadly. It\'s the same parts in the same configuration, but the voodoo that had it exploding is now gone, if that makes any sense. Basically I had it exploding, added some stuff, removed them in order to get the exploding version again, and saved the craft file you\'re now using. It hasn\'t been exploding since then, I think I had it happen a couple times but it\'s way more rare. Yes that\'s probably it, but the way it was happening was very odd. The parts that broke were no where near the command pod at the time, but maybe I\'m underestimating the range of the heat when things explode, or maybe it was a chain reaction. Either way, since I can\'t reproduce the craft, I guess you can call this problem solved/non-existent. 3km/s re-entry not fun? Sounds like your fun... 8) sped away. Yowwwwwwww

Fantastic! I really thought this was good, well done. I\'ll give it a shot some time, using your ship to land on the mun. I\'m attempting that, basically. It\'s going to take a lot of SRBs just to get out of orbit. If you plan to land on the mun (rather than just crash into it), you\'d need to do some clever tricks or else use RCS. I have any idea for how to land with an SRB, but it would require doing some math and experiments ahead of time.

The Honeycomb II was getting 23 Gs, and I\'ve definitely seen 26 Gs earlier. Maybe I\'ll make a ship to test how far I can push the G force up... I\'m not sure if this is what you meant, but you may have jinxed me into: And now we play the waiting game... By the way, if you\'re wondering, I\'m not releasing the new design till I\'ve crashed into the mun successfully. Wouldn\'t want my friend to get any ideas, you know? At this rate, it\'s just a matter of time till I finish though.

Why thank you! Stay tuned, I have been challenged to 'first to the moon via SRBs' and intend to win. Edit: An update on my status, the new ship is way less laggy to look at and packs just as much punch. It\'s not done yet, but it\'s already too strong and overshoots the moon. The good thing about that is, it\'s strong enough to carve straight into the mun if I shoot it off at the right time. Which brings me to my first attempt 8) (and my accidental planetary orbit collision :-[): Wondering how that happened? the mun was like a slingshot, I was close to hitting it but not close enough... Soon... soon...

Thank you, thank you. Actually, the truth of the matter is I really don\'t have enough boosters. It\'s really not actually a death trap, all fuel can be expended without loss of life, and the command pod has a parachute so... But it would make a pretty decent drag racer if I can say so myself. I need to experiment with radial decouplers again, but last time I tried them they were falling off due to overheating even though they weren\'t even remotely in contact/proximity with any engines/explosions. If only there was some way to cram even more in... hmm...

So I posted in the general forum earlier with a question about exploding command pods, and when I mentioned I was going around 2.2km/s by 30km from launch, some people seemed to be interested in the design. It seems to me, from glancing around the kerbal forums, few people are as heavily invested into SRB research as I am.. maybe because people already decided they\'re not worth looking at anymore? Personally, I have a great deal of fun trying to push them to compete with the liquid engine designs (as impossible as that it is for long distance travel). I\'m even considering trying to make it to the moon with SRBs! But that\'s far from now, for now I\'m just tinkering with how to cram a lot of them in a small space effectively. There\'s a few techniques that I had to come up with to overcome overheating and drastic shifts in speed, as well as weight limits (I\'ll leave you to figure those out from the craft file or on your own if you\'re interested at all). There\'s a few more things I want to try, and then I\'ll move onto Honeycomb III, which basically will be made from scratch with what I\'ve learned in mind. Well, either way I\'ve decided to share the fruits of my SRB experiments: the Honeycomb II Some stats about the Honeycomb II: It caps out at around 3km/s @ ~56km depending on how well you can time the first to second stage transition. The time says 1mins, 20 Secs, but that\'s after I floated around a bit.. it\'s probably closer to 1 minute. Is it a bug that my Gee Force was 23.7G? That seems pretty high, or is that not all that much? Attached is the Honeycomb II craft file, I warn you now that if you have a slow computer: this is not the craft file you were looking for. My computer is pretty good though it\'s starting to get dated, but I can still run games like Starcraft at Ultra high settings with clear framerates; even so, I get maybe 3 fps during the first stage of Honeycomb II. On a side note: will Kerbal ever come with a 'don\'t show particles' option? I\'m guessing rendering all the particles this thing makes, along with all the shadows on the parts, really kills the frame rates.

Personally I\'m not a big fan of using tools made by other people, I\'ll probably do some spreadsheets/calculations to decide the optimal configuration ???

My idea is to have a massive stage early on that can support the weight of a large/medium sized ship with liquid engines. I guess my thought process is 'the more liquid fuel I get into space without spending any, the easier it is to go wherever I want later.' So this was one approach on how to achieve that, I basically figured if I can super fast with a large ship, it can probably support a lot of weight and get out into space slowly? Something like that... According to Tiberion, it\'s probably just my engines overheating/colliding. The weird thing is, by the look of things, they never collide with the command pod.. but if you look at the report images, they may have been colliding into the decoupler which then exploded and overheated the command pod? I\'m not sure.

Sure, I don\'t mind. The idea I had (in a stage of development way later than the attachment) didn\'t really pan out, I didn\'t factor in the fact that my computer is a few years old now, despite being a monster PC when I first got it. I lag too much to properly separate the stages of my current product. Anyhow, the craft file should be attached to this post, if I did it right. Make sure you turn on SAS before you launch.. The crash report, ~2.3km/s @ ~31k : (strangely only had 2.0 Gee Force, but I\'ve definitely had it report like 26.4 once... maybe that was a bug?) I kindly assist in getting them to kerbhalla, where the kermanliest kermen go. Better start praying, then.

Hmm, that\'s weird, then.. I don\'t know how that was happening, there were other parts breaking but they weren\'t colliding with the command pod yet, nor was it directly next to/in the exhaust of any engines. I should have taken screenshots before I changed things, now I can\'t get it to explode anymore even when I get back to the same speed/distance. I think when I was originally doing it, I was at a much straighter angle directly up. Like I said, I\'ve been having a hard time forcing it to replicate what I was doing before. I\'ll finish up my ship and then come back to the exploding version and see if I can duplicate it + screenshot/stream it. @killing kerbals: Oh, that might be a problem, but I\'m still determined to make something insanely fast ;D . You have to break a few kerbals to make an omelet, or a silly spaceship.

I\'m not using any modded parts, I swear. As for overkill, ya it is! I\'m trying to get a base platform for getting into space as fast as possible, then I\'ll add a ton of longer-duration stuff on top, so I can have optimal fuel/control in space as well. It\'s just kind of my way of having fun, anyways =P . Can\'t, it\'s all boosters right now :-[

;D thanks, I think I solved the problem, sort of... I added a second decoupler before the command pod, somehow this has solved the problem? I can\'t quite get to 2.2k now though, getting to 2.0k instead. If you have any better ideas, I\'m still working on this.. I might revert to the one that was exploding at 2.2k and save it just as a souvenir. Edit: Ok so, I deleted the since-added parts, and it\'s not overheating at 2.2km/s @ 30~34km height anymore... maybe it was just a bug? It\'s hard to reproduce the flight because the early stages slowwwww down my computer and even though I spam the spacebar, the stages don\'t separate fast enough to not lose some of my speed.

oops sorry, I should mention that I\'m -launching- my ship, it\'s not on re-entry!