adammada

Changed part to Chip version. And i have no idea about adding multiple parts.

I've been waiting for that, and waiting. Where can i find it? Ive added ejection angle.

Ok, added ejection angle.

I'm trying to add that.

Phase Angle Show Plugin: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/21111-PLUGIN-0-17-AdamKSP-Show-Phase-Angle-v0-1

Hi, this is my first plugin, i wrote it basing on wiki tutorial... It adds part "AdamKSP". Plugin shows ejection angle and phase angles (those angles needed here: http://ksp.olex.biz/ ) of all planets / moons based on what your ship orbits. (if you orbit Kerbin, it will show planets. If you orbit Mun, it will show Minimus etc). Also new 0.6 version shows lines on map which are connecting your orbit and selected Planet / Moon orbit in the same time. You can see how your approach will look like! Its fist iteration, and i hope that i will polish it and incorporate in some other Phase Angle mod. Download: http://www.sendspace.com/file/dur6ie Edit: Added information about closest approach to other body while you are on current orbit (you can check if you are getting closer or not while burning). This is experimental. Edit: fixed ejection angle bad displaying sometimes. Edit: modified Ejection Angle Display, changed part to Chip ( Thanks MrPwner! )

But what if we dont want to wait until planets will rich calculated angle? Lets say, that on we send mission to another planet, and plan to get back after about 6 months - but waiting untill best angle would be 3 years... Is there way to make phase angle an argument here?

@ako I'm impressed. Mine design has less weight, but i do use turbojets. Good job.

Wouldn that take pretty long time( without timewarp on this altitude ).

I will try to learn how to fly efficent on that ship. But it is not loading, i get info about missing part "Engineer", and it is on craft save file.

Recently mechjeb gives me strange results. I order him to end at 3 or 20 km periapsis over mun, but he ends with -199 (hit the mun). I assume, that circularizing orbit, not direct descent, cost less fuel? I also think that Nao's lander could be quite usefull. Bigger tank would go on top and could would be decoupled after emptying. I just don't know how he managed to connect those tanks.

Yes, you are really good pilot. Can you make a movie? Also, you could try this one:

I try to make that lander and can't connect top fuel tank with bottom fuel tank (fuel line ends at decoupler) - how to do it? Maybe attach your craft I ja pozdrawiam.

Nomination: MK-1-2 Command Pod Ship Name: Potrojny Start mass: 53.9 tons Stages: 4 KSP: 0.16 Screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/pfwEI Thank you Apotheosist. Yes, i also was thinking about something like "mandatory parachute", or even landing legs.

Nomination: Command Pod MK1 Ship name: Nowy Start mass: 15.4 Tons stages: 4 KSP: 0.16 Screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/loIWm I'm aware that this design can be beaten - for example hard landing without parachute, cause there is lots of fuel left. I also created once ship without aerospike stage, and I almost returned (but ship didn't had parachute and i wasted too much fuel on retrograde, so he hit Kerbin too hard), but it needs really good piloting skills to use. So i'm proud of this - it has less weight than Apotheosist's and it forgives mistakes .

I see that this still is more piloting thant construction challenge. I tried to use your construction and eneded with 6L of fuel when trying to break to land on Kerbin... So what is most efficient way?

Oh, ****. I assumed that i have to USE that fuel bug, not that i have to use "Fuel consumption bug" FIX. Sorry.

Nomination: Command Pod MK1 Ship name: Wyzyskiwacz Start mass:4.2 Tons stages: 2 KSP: 0.16 Landed at KSC Screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/ErWks

So, i assume that 'warp x2' works on basis delta_t x 2 on all physics calculations. I wonder, would it be possible to make some tradeoff like 'leave delta_t x1 , but make as many calculations per second as you can, even lowering FPS\'. You know, something like TURBO mode. So the actual TURBO speed up would depend on computer speed, without changing physics.

I think that it may be using fuel flow bug. Its hard to avoid it in more compex designs.

Big. Turbojet uses much less fuel and gets the same thrust (200) like liquid engine. I think about 1/6 of liquid engine fuel consumption. Of course its best below 10 km, but in mine design six 0.5 fuel tanks are feeding 18 turbojets and they are lifting whole rocket to 10 km. Disadvantage - rocket cannot 'stand' on turbojets. Edit: Liquid: Mass 2 , Burn rate 8, Thrust: 200, Vectoring: NO Turbojet: Mass 1.2 Burn rate 0.4, Thrust 200, Vectoring: YES So 20 times less fuel consumption, almost half weight + vectoring.

I wanted to beat your record, and this is mine super efficient lifter (yes, TurboJet engines rules) 1. 28 FUELS Payload - just like yours. 2. Uses 33 FUELS + 7 0.5 FUELS = 36.5 in TOTAL 3. It can get to 75 km orbit easily, with 3 fuel tanks still full. 3. Rocket is very stable and pretty easy in handling. 4. Not debrisless...

Just tried to reach orbit speed. It is doable, but around 150 m/s wheels are starting to wooble and rocket can crash. With Jeb\'s help (Surf mode) in keeping rocket straight it goes directly from surfrace into orbit speed - RCS only.

I think that some more RCS Tanks and i could get orbital speed on that lake...