TheHengeProphet

I have tried shorter, wider rockets, and they never turn out well for me -- especially since they either barely fit on the launch pad, or force me to launch on the runway. I tried less fuel per engine, and it requires wider rockets to fly higher. This is the only combination I have found practical to reach orbit with a load as heavy as the one I am carrying (despite my current inconveniance). It's either launch heads down, or land heads down. Landing heads down is not an option, as I would like to EVA, and the above-pod decouplers don't work right if they are arranged differently. Also, the sky crane is heavy, which makes having it lower much better for take-off. The whole sky-crane setup is part of a two-fold experiment: if I can get something so heavy into space and to another planet; if I can get such a pod to land on a planet AND return. Also, I made a sky-crane so I could use it to land on Duna, in tribute to Curiosity. Also, can anybody explain why any SAS WANTS this thing to spin horribly? Below is an example of what ASAS tells this thing to do, in addtion to the rapid, jerky movements it instructs to the engines. Oh, also, the wings in the middle you guys asked about are to provide "footholds" for vertical supports, because otherwise it wobbles terribly, as the individual parts seem unable to take the strain.

If the large engines weren't gimbaled, ASAS and canards would be an option, but as it is, the constant overcorrection of ASAS literally tears the ship apart... violently. RCS has never really helped me with ships this large, when in atmosphere, and this thing starts spinning around 10km. Thinking about it now, canards might be useful at the time when this rotation is its most dangerous...

I would say that liquid water on Laythe could be possible if tidal forces and heat from Jool were a factor; however, judging by that one can "safely" land on Jool... heat from the planet does not look like a possible factor. I am going to assume that all of Kerbal Space is a pleasant 15 degrees centigrade, though, as a low flight by Kerbol itself will not bake you - as would be expected.

Took the SAS off, and it still really wants to go into a spin, though it isn't a guaranteed clockwise anymore.

I have a rocket, which took an unwanted amount of strutting to stabilise from wobbling; however, the rocket invariably starts into a clockwise roll that makes it virtually uncontrollable. I cannot stop this roll from happening, nor can I counteract it once it has started. I am looking for advice on how to stop this from happening. Also, ASAS will tear the ship apart if used, so I will not be using it. Pictures: Ascent stages: Interplanetary and lander stages:

Actually, I just tested to see if it can still get into space in 0.17 and it is more than capable, though I need to test if it is still capable of performing the K-Prize challenge! I was quite surprised. It is actually much more flyable now, which I assume is attributable to a change in fuel-drain, but landing is still a challenge (I have not succeeded on an empty tank), so I think I can do it without much, if any, modifications.

I made it! My last hoorah of 0.16 was a success, discounting the re-load, due to the Kraken... I present the flight of the pig! http://imgur.com/a/UJ9NG#0 The O1-NKR (Orbital 1 - Newtonian Kerbal Rocket) really does fly like a pregnant pig at times. What looks like a recharge in fuel, along with a little fishiness with the flight log is attributable to re-load behaviour... The craft file is presented in my previous post.

This should be fun! Realising my ship is now obsolete, I'll try one last hoorah to make the voyage in 0.16 before moving over to 0.17!

I've been trying my newest space plane, and it has been very difficult. Aside from that it flies like a pregnant pig, for some reason, the aeronautics package decides that the ship wants to fly backwards on re-entry and will give no mercy on its sudden kick into an uncontrollable spin. Re-entry without the SAS on is a nightmare, but possible, as I have landed twice, but not on KSP terrain, so my weels sank in and I lost a single control surface each time. Does anybody know a janky way to kill throttle on radial rockets? I would like to have my jet engine operatable on re-entry, while sharing a fuel pool. I have attached an image and the craft file to show. Notes about flying it: Do not yaw in atmosphere; if trying to reach space, maintain a 45 degree angle until your apoapsis reaches 70,000 m; do not go below full thrust (that's cheating); you might want to use a joystick, because this thing is tempermental. I will get this thing to land safely after an orbit!

Sorry! I really need to think about how what I type sounds. XD I did see it, but was confused why I wasn't on the list. I was planning on making a plane for this challenge that used the hacky fuel bug fix, so I didn't feel like I was cheating to get this done! A few smileys can go a long way, when text seems so very serious.

Hmm, I seem to not be on the list... Well, looks like it's time to build a space plane that doesn't focus on the fuel glitch!

Finally, I got around to doing what I said I would: documenting the flight of the SF-1 for the K Prize! I waited until dawn, so that the important bits would be in the daylight (if not for the sake of documentation, for the sake of not landing in the dark without lights). The flight can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/pkHkG The idea behind the craft's construction was built around thrust vectoring in a strange way that doesn't actually work in KSP, but I enjoy it. I have attatched the SF-1, if you want to look over it, or give her a try. I warn whoever wants to fly this thing that they might want to use a joystick; she won't lift off without dropping off the end of the runway; she tumbles something fierce in space without the SAS on; manage your staging and fuel carefully.

Wait, you approve of using the fuel bug for the purposes of this challenge? I just completed this with a starfighter design I had, modified to do this utilising the bug, just to see if I could... Well, I guess my next run, I'll have to take screen shots and properly document it!

I am quite sure that several of my failed K-Prize craft are quite capable of this challenge, and none of them require a "mothership", or utilise the fuel bug.

I would say the Kraken has nothing to do with this. This is very much an issue involved with the large stack decouplers. The small ones are fairly robust, for the weight they are made to hold, but the large ones seem to be made to hold the same as the small ones (strength and impact tolerances are identical). The only real difference is how much they weigh and their ejection force. As it is now, you could literally use a small stack decoupler wherever you use a large one and you would be saving yourself .45 tons per. Not only are struts your friend, but their placement really matters (don't attatch struts to decouplers).

I think you might get better results if you place your decouplers more toward center mass of your discardable tanks. This is very similar to a design I use for the ascent stages of my Munar missions.

The control surfaces on the front edge of your wings are fairly counter-productive, as when you pull up, they are trying to drag your plane down. I've never personally had good things come from using a vertical launch ASAS on space-planes... There may be a way to tag an aeronautics package on there without rebuilding it, but with the current design, I'm not sure an ASAS is even neccessary. Also, as for the video, I believe you could have achieved orbit if you cut the engines near 55 km as there really isn't enough atmosphere at that point to affect your apoapsis. This is a very neat design, but I think a few adjustments and this could be quite good.

Interesting graphical issue under the engine there, in the beginning of the first video. [edit] Also, that\'s a very strong engine you have there; you clipped the tip of it at just over 44 m/s. Your cockpit also hit the hitch in the terrain there at around 35 m/s. [/edit]

Even during manual flight, engines in this pack seem to cause unwanted rotation, and when I decouple my second to final stage on a rather simple rocket, I get launched into an irreversable vertical flip until I drop the section. This is both with and without any version of SAS. I\'ll run more tests and take notes on exactly which parts cause these issues.

Not wanting to read through a flame war to find out if what I\'m about to say has already been said, here goes. The pack is quite good (having just looked into the pack, myself), but I have a problem with nearly every engine being gimbaled, as this causes the ships to shake apart on launch if the SAS is engaged. I also wonder if the maximum angle of allowed vectoring is too severe, seeing as any adjustments made in flight shake parts loose and over-adjust consistantly. It seems that many of the engines are not even at their base, seeing as many of them will rock when on the pad (particularly Large Bertha). Excellent mod! I love most of the parts, but ships just tend to shake themselves apart or destroy themselves completely, all too often.