Search the Community

How would you make a reusable shuttle from LEO to LLO? Where does the fuel come from? You need 4 km/s of delta-v to go from LEO to LLO; assuming an Isp of 400, that's at most 1/3 of your shuttle's mass being usable payload, probably less accounting for structure, engines and empty tanks. And that's one way. If you also wanted to go back the other way without refueling, you would need a shuttle at least 10 times bigger than your payload. If it carries people, it needs life-support and other systems. The Orion crew capsule is 9 tons, its service module is 12 tons and it's capable of 1.6 km/s delta-v. It has enough room for 6 people to LEO, but probably fewer than that to LLO. So if you scale it up to a shuttle capable of carrying 6 people from LEO to LLO and back, it would have to be around 200 tons! And that's not including a lander. So I'm not really sure what you mean by a reusable "Moon shuttle". For cargo, you could use high-efficiency low-thrust propulsion, but the transit times are too long to take up crew the same way. A Mars transfer vehicle would probably be something like an ISS module, a little bigger to support 6 crew. The food needed is not that much, something like half a ton per person per year. So maybe 5 tons for the journey to Mars and back, with the habitat weighing another 30 tons or so. A way to make it partially reusable would be to use an Aldrin cycler along with crew-carrying spacecraft to go to and from it. The habitat would therefore not need any fuel except for course corrections. If you use an Orion-like spacecraft like with the lunar shuttle (carrying the crew and the provisions), you would need around a 60 ton rocket in LEO to get the ~4 km/s required to rendezvous with the habitat. Landing on Mars takes around 1 km/s delta-v. Taking off from Mars and rendezvousing with the habitat again takes around 6.5 km/s. So that part would probably not be reusable. Anyway, there's a lot of possible architectures for both a Moon shuttle and a Mars shuttle. If you only do a single long-duration mission to the Moon or to Mars, the mass in LEO requirements would not be too far off between the two.

Already 3 pages of responses, but I've got a station around Kerbin, not even finished due to part lag, but it was done in separate launch windows as the station orbits and passes over KSP (assuming you left it on a roughly equatorial orbit. Technically if you're doing it piece by piece I think you have to do it in more than one window, as the station orbits, at least if it's in Kerbin orbit I guess. If you're talking about other planets then yeah, that's a different story. You could get multiple launches in one window. I started a small fuel station in Munar orbit made up of ascent stages that still had fuel in them when I took my kethane miners to the Mun. Built them with Sr docking ports where the engine attached so I could smash the engine into the Munar surface then used that to dock the two ends. They were launched in separate windows, not that far apart, maybe a few kerbin days between launches, partly because I was testing the first miner out to make sure it'd work. I think if I were planning on a station in orbit around say Duna, I might do multiple launches, sort of put it together in kerbin orbit, maybe either as a long "space train" or maybe using some sort of + arm shaped thing to attach sections for transport, then likely use some sort of RCS or LV-N tug to position everything where it goes. Haven't gotten to the point of doing that though as I just recently decided to start Kethane mining, plus as I mentioned before my laptop doesn't handle much over 200 parts very well. lol

While working on an update for the Chimera-class and a liquid fuel version of the Firefly Fighter, I was thinking of making a unified classification/designation system for ships that fall under this thread or any ship in KSP in general that works within the parameters of KSP. I was also thinking that this could be used by the KIDA crew though I'll leave it to them to decide on it. Kerbal Space Program Ship Designation Scheme [Organization/Role][Ship Structure][Weight class][Theater of Operation]-[Specialization][Series Number][Special Designation] Organization/Role M – Military (All military aligned craft fall under this category) G – Government (All government aligned craft fall under this category) S – Scientific/Research (All Scientific/Research and Exploration vessels fall under this category) T – Transport (All Civilian shuttles and Commercial cargo falls under this category) L – Logistical (All infrastructural and logistical craft fall under this category) R – Recreational (All Luxury craft fall under this category) C – Commercial (All commerce related non-transport craft fall under this category) Ship Structure M – Modular (All ships which have detachable components that are critical to the ship’s design. May include up to multiple Senior docking ports for the modularity of the ship. Does not include craft with detachable components that are not critical to the ship’s design) S – Singular (All ships which have no detachable components whatsoever that are critical to the ship’s design. May include docking ports only up to regular docking ports for logistical or transport purposes only. Does not include craft with any detachable critical components.) D – Discarding (All ships which have detachable components that are not critical to the ships design. May include up to senior docking ports for the purposes of logistics, transport, or mission-critical operations. Does not include craft which have detachable components that are critical to the ship’s design) Weight class S – Super Heavy (All ships above 250 tons falls under this category) H – Heavy (All ships between 150 and 250 tons falls under this category) M – Medium (All ships between 50 and 150 tons falls under this category) L – Light (All ships below 50 tons falls under this category) Theater of Operation A – Atmospheric (All atmosphere bounded craft fall under this category) I – Interplanetary (All craft capable of exiting and re-entering planetary orbits fall under this category) L – Terrestrial (All craft bound to the surface of a planetary body fall under this category O – Orbital (All craft bounded by the orbit of a planetary body fall under this category) T – Trans-operational (All craft capable of self-contained transfer between any of the above mentioned theatres of operation.) Specialization Military A – Cruiser (All ‘Heavy’ ships that engage in direct combat with other ships that fall below 500 parts.) B – Battleship (All ‘Super Heavy’ ships that engage in direct combat with other ships between 500 and 700 parts fall under this category.) C – Carrier (All ships that carry other craft that engage in direct or indirect combat with other ships fall under this category.) D – Destroyer (All ‘Medium’ ships that engage in direct combat with other ships below 500 parts.) E – Frigate (All ‘Light’ ships that engage in direct combat with other ships between 200 and 500 parts fall under this category.) F – Strikecraft (All ‘Light’ ships that engage in direct combat with other ships below 200 parts fall under this category.) L – Engineering and Logistics (All ships that perform non-combat support roles in the maintenance and operation of military assets falls under this category.) T – Transport (All ships that carry other craft that do not engage in combat with other ships fall under this category.) V – Multirole (All ships that perform significantly varied roles fall under this category.) X – Prototype (All experimental ships fall under this category.) BA – Battlecruiser (All ‘Heavy’ ships that engage in direct combat with other ships between 500 and 700 parts.) BB – Dreadnaught (All ‘Super Heavy’ ships that engage direct combat with other ships above 700 parts fall under this category.) Government Scientific/Research Transport Logistical Recreational Commercial Series Number [Self-explanatory] Special Designation [Optional. Internally determined by fielding organization] Military Engine type IE – Ion Engine (All Ships with Ion Engines as a primary propulsion system fall under this category) LE – Liquid Engine (All Ships with Liquid Fuel Engines as a primary propulsion system fall under this category) AE – Atmospheric Engine (All Ships with Liquid Fuel Air-breathing Engines as a primary propulsion system fall under this category) H – Hybrid (All Ships with a hybrid engine setup fall under this category) Following this system, the baseline Chimera would be designated MMHI-V01 being a modular interplanetary military ship which happens to also fill multiple roles (Direct combat ship and Carrier) and is the first ship of the series. The Firefly on the other hand would be MMLO-F01IE being an orbital light strikecraft with the capability to mount additional modules that is the first in its series. Of note the [Special Designation] for this is for the type of engine used by the original Firefly with IE denoting Ion Engine Propulsion as I'm also developing an LE variant. All of this of course is just a suggestion and in many ways, is still WIP so I'm also sharing this so that it can be improved upon and modified if necessary.

The main thing that makes getting to orbit on Earth take so long isn't going through the atmosphere, it's the high speeds that are needed to achieve orbit. Satellites in LEO orbit at over 8,000 m/s, which would take four times as long to reach as the 2,200 m/s needed to attain orbit on Kerbin. And you can't just accelerate faster, if you're going for realism (and you probably are if you want the planets realistically sized), because that would put more g-loads on your pilots. The space shuttle peaked at 8 g's; 2 g's is the maximum humans can withstand for a prolonged period of time, while fighter pilots and astronauts can briefly take up to 9 g's before blacking out. To fly this four times faster, you'd peak at 32 g's, which is not survivable.

Lifting over 200 tons in one piece is difficult, but not impossible... try sending it up with some empty tanks maybe?

If you just want something to play games on, don't get a laptop. You spend more and get less. Unless you really want or need the mobility a laptop offers, there's no reason to impose those limitations on yourself. Instead, get a desktop. KSP needs a fast CPU, and seems to scale best with single threaded performance. That means you want an Intel processor. Since you don't seem to care about other games, you could probably get away with the integrated GPU on Haswell. This means you can get the top of the line CPU, even on your restricted budget. Spend $200 on the CPU, $80 on the motherboard, $40 on the memory, $100 on a HDD, $40 on a PSU and $25 on a case will get you a pretty nice computer, starring the Intel Core i5-4570, and fit within your budget. Of course, you have to build it yourself, and Windows is going to cost you another $60-$80 unless you can get a copy cheaper (students can often get it cheap or free through their university).

Here's a link to my Wings mission pack, which starts with the first powered flight and proceeds to high altitude research. link Here's a link to the current - incomplete - version of the Space Race pack: link This early version of the Space Race pack goes from the first satellite launch to manned landings on the Mun and Minmus. I intend to keep writing more missions for this pack, leading all the way up to colonizing the outer planets and moons. I'd love some feedback on this one... especially on the reward amounts for a successful mission, since those are just blind guesses at the moment. The Space Race itself was PD TV's idea, and Ryan Turner has also been participating. We three agreed to play on Mission Controller's default medium difficulty, 50,000 krone kerbal insurance per crew member, and a starting budget of 200,000 krones. I'd love to see some more people participate! Whoever gets to the Mun and Minmus and back with the best budget wins! Or... maybe the winner is whoever does it in the least number of launches. Or the shortest total time played in the savefile. Or whoever has the most elegant designs. You see what I'm getting at? I personally love that there is no explicit victory condition specified in this race; thus is the true sandbox nature of KSP exemplified.

Here is mine 200,139m flown in 26 min 10 sec:

After much deliberation by the PR and engineering teams to come up with an agreeable name for the new heavy launcher, Verolan Space & Aeronautics Ltd. hereby announces the official entry into service of the Jool II-200 heavy launcher. This payload lifter has yet to be rated for crewed purposes, however it will enter service as the heavy launcher for all Verolan Space & Aeronautics payloads. It was named both to be memorable, and be in and of itself a means of easily remembering the weight to orbit capability of the lifter, with a 200 tons to Low Kerbin Orbit capability, enabling much longer range missions for commercial payloads. On an aditional note, we have decided that CEO Vasquez Kerman will be making an appearance on the Kerbal Show to answer questions about Verolan Space & Aeronautics Ltd.

Edit: sorry, 3 meters. I was trying to get novapunch to work, but it seems to make me crash with all the other mods. It is about 200 Parts.

The combination of your comment coupled with the one made in katateochi's Duna video has given me an idea though. Katateochi mentions editing the .cfg for the KAS winch from 100 - 200 metres. That, with the ability to up your draw distance with Lazor's pack makes me wonder, how long could you make that winch before the game breaks? I've got a few ideas for the next time I load up KSP... Hopefully I don't come up empty-handed, because this could be great... EDIT: Long story short; I am disappoint... I guess it defaults back to 50m if it doesn't like the number you put in. Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Your lander is very heavy, and you're packing WAY more RCS than you really need. Once you encounter the mun, burn retrograde until you got sub-orbital, then flick the speed indicator to 'surface' by clicking on it. Then burn retrograde until your orbit path goes nice and vertical. Cut thrust. Time warp down to about 10k meters up, and apply a little thrust to start decelerating. Lower the landing legs nice and early, point the camera towards the surface, and get to a speed of about 200 m/s for now. Slow more as you get closer, so you're going about 10 m/s as you get close. Keep it that way until you get REALLY close, then slow further. Try not to hover, and cut thrust just before impact. RCS and ASAS will cancel out the last bit of horizontal velocity once you're down.

Yes, but since they aren't simulated by the physic engine, it can have only half the parts to simulate. That takes a lot of calculations off the CPU, which is much needed with KSP. A ship made of 400 parts with 300 struts will be a lot better for your computer than a 200 part ships without struts.

Huh. I just tried to launch the Saturn IX launch vehicle, and I was unable to due to the EPIC lag it caused. I have 36 flights active, and over 2 thousand parts, and this thing took me out. Do you mind if I use, for the company Verolan Space & Aeronautics Ltd. in my AAR, the conceptual design, and give it a similar name? Fox62 should name it, as it would be part of his/her cannon. The issue is that with all the mods I use on the AAR, it is rather... Difficult to make super-high-part-designs, so I utilized the principles of your launcher to build something similar. I call it the MX launcher, and the tank it is pushing into orbit has a mas of 130 tons, and pushing it into a munar orbit (no pictures for that one, but it happened). It can get 200 tons into LKO. Pictures! Circ. Burn @ 90 km. Final push stage Discharging Payload Re-entering atmosphere in accordance with clean space laws Powered landing Balancing on engines- ready for recovery by ground teams, with half fuel left. This design was based off of your rather brilliant Saturn IX design, and I used it to put that massive tank into orbit. It is part-minimized, for maximum efficiency, and all the extraneous parts are cut out, so it looks a bit bare-bones. Thanks for the concept- It will streamline part of my upcoming story.

You can start small like I did. This is my first Laythe exploration ship. One man lander ( with smallest possible rover ) attached to command module, strapped on single orange tank tug, powered by one atomic engine. It uses single atomic LVN 240 kN. If you dont want to use mods just use a number of stock LVNs. Its all about TWR ( Thrust to weight ratio ). Well, its all about available delta V, TWR is 2nd of importance. if it is bellow 0.3 your burns will take forever. If it is bellow 0.1 its hard to make a burn in one PE pass. Ideally the higher you can keep your TWR WHILE keeping desired delta V the better. On my 2nd trip I added two boosters powered by 4x 200kN chemical rockets. It was wasteful but bumped my TWR close to 1.0 for initial burn. Stack shown with docked refueling shuttle ...during Kerbal escape burn ( took only 3 min ) detaching used up boosters, finishing the burn with LVN with just 200 m/s to go. All my screenshots contain MechJeb windows so its easy to find out what is my available delta V, thrust, TWR and mass of the ship. Hi, Its my first post on the forums, I absolutely love the game!!!! I want to say thank you to developers, modders, and the community.

Because in some countries (Hungary for instance) you don't earn even 10% of the standard wage of the UK/US/Australia/Germany so the "cost" of KSP is something like buying a $200 game for us. If OP is Polish, Hungarian even Greek now or any of the other non g8 countries, chances are your "$20 USD" is infact a hell of a lot of money to them.

The most fuel efficient way to land would be to make a low circular orbit first (at around 5km altitude) and then slow down before target while slowly descending, so you could stop the ship just above ground. The advantage of such method is also that if you start your burn too late you just overshoot your target instead of lithobraking on the Mun. But if you want to make a "suicide burn" or maybe just stop orbit at higher altitude and slowly descent vertically, you can use simple maths to judge how late you can start to slow down and not waste fuel hovering at high altitudes. For example: You have a ship capable of Mun TWR of 3.1 Firstly determine what is its actual acceleration capability. To switch TWR for accelaration: mun gravity 1,63 * TWR 3.1 = 5 [m/s^2]. Let's assume the ship is on Munar landing approach with 200m/s vertical velocity. To get minimum height required for safe landing we subtract mun gravity from ships acceleration (5 - 1,63 =~ 3,4 available "maneuver acceleration" [m/s^2]) (a constant that can be counted before flight) Then assuming 100% thrust: 200m/s divided by 3,4m/s^2 =~ 60s burn time to stop from 200m/s To get desired minimum altitude simply divide time by 2 and multiply by vertical speed 60/2*200 = 6000m

Well tbh I havent been playing Kerbal for a month whilst I have been waiting for something substantial to be added into the game after playing 200+ hours on it. This patch may well get me another 50 or so hours on it I suspect. I was playing Crusader Kings 2 which I got in a Steam sale and it is a great little game. After that the trading cards came out so I started playing Half Life 2 again after years of having not playing it when I got stuck in the Nova Prospekt jail. And over the last few days I have started playing Wargame: Airland Battle which is another superb game. So at the moment I have an Ireland CK2 game hanging in the balance because I will probably next have to fight Scotland, I am trying to get off the Half Life 2 secure compound roof near the end of the game I presume, and I am busy playing through the fantastic W:AB tutorials trying to stop my motorised infantry getting slaughtered by Russian tanks! Just dont have enough time for all these great games!

I ask this because I seem to be unable to land on a target on the Mun while saving fuel. I just put down a lander with 2000 delta-v and 3.1 TWR on the Mun's surface (yes I know it's over-engineered, but it had to carry two rovers and five kerbals). I landed on target but ended up with 449 dv, not enough to get back to orbit. Now I know my flying isn't perfect and this will probably get better with practice, but I think the descent profile I'm using is bad. Here it is: @ 20km: -200 m/s vertical @ 15km: -100 m/s vertical @ 5km: -50 m/s vertical @ 1km: -20 m/s vertical @ 500m: -10 m/s vertical @ 50m: -1 m/s vertical Thing is, that was just a guess which has a ton of safety room built in. I'd be very interested to know how to calculate the most fuel-efficient descent profile based on the body and the craft's TWR. I'm trying to think how to calculate that, must be something simple, but it's not coming to me... Till then I'll try to get an emergency refueling mission together.

Well I have to say that I agree with rules 1, 6, and 9 but the other rules that you have set for yourself are logically inconsistent and crippling to yourself. For example, in rule 9, you have forbidden yourself from using aerocapture on ships that would not survive such a maneuver in real life. The rule is good, but you know what else wouldn't happen in real life? NASA saying "Let's go to Mars using ONLY the technology that we had in 1965. NO NEW TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS MEANT TO BE DONE." This is essentially the logic that you use in rule 10, where you forbid the use of modification parts, as if to say that using only the parts that Squad has gotten around to using are legitimate, and helpful. Implementing rule 6 in search of realism, then implementing rule 10, shirking that realism in favor of moral elitism is logically inconsistency. You also use the justification "that's how the developers intended for the game to be played" for many of your rules. The assertion is incorrect. My evidence? A modding API for the game, and the community manager for the game personally inviting Majiir, the current maintainer of Kethane, onto his livestream, effectively endorsing him. As well, the developers have gone on record saying that the performance issue caused by vessels containing more that 200 or so parts is caused by Unity, and not much can be done about it. This is an unintended behavior of the game. Also, this is a videogame. If you agree that staring at your spacecraft for 9 hours on its way to a trans-munar insertion is fun, then don't use timewarp. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and use timewarp In my analysis I have tried to be as objective as possible, only attacking logical inconsistencies, and not personal opinions. As a veteran, Your ruleset is goodwilled, but ultimately adds artificial difficulty to the game. Using a more natural and logically consistent set of rules will avoid this, and add alot of fun to your game. Hope this helps!

I have one that can go in a couple of classes. It's 25 parts, weighs 5.33T, accelerates 0-200m/s in under 6 seconds and decelerates 200-0m/s in 9 seconds, Top speed is 264m/s. It uses Sceppies mini-pack, TT Wheels/MK4 jet engine and FS Air-brakes. It looks like: Skunk Mode - Tier 2 - (500 + (55*10) + (94*2)) = 1238 Austerity Mode - Tier 1 - (1000 + (25*40) + (94*6)) = 2846 Funky Mode - Tier 1 - (1000 + (55*20) + (64*4)) = 2356 Insane Mode - The minimalist, The Fly By (2500 + 2500) = 5000 The total is 11440, Insane mode seems to have a couple of easy large point'ers. I have a vid of the flyby if you want to see it - the short way over not the long way.

Introduction Hi there, this is a straightforward but challenging, uhh, challenge! The goal of the challenge is to make a rover go as fast as possible while maintaining enough stability to make sure your Kerbals survive (the fatality rate for employees at KSC is high enough as it is, don't you think?). I have spent a couple of hours this evening to test how far I could push my rovers, and it is possible to go quite fast. Check post number 2 by the way for some of my own designs! Rules Although wings may be used, your craft is never allowed to lift from the ground! Parts are allowed to fall off (**** happens), but only one (1) stage is allowed. You are not allowed to decouple parts of your craft. Your rover must be able to travel at the minimum speed described in the Challenge Mode for at least 10 seconds. Your rover must be able to come to a complete halt in a safe manner as to allow the Kerbals to survive. The challenge must be attempted near the KSC grounds! Challenge Modes All wonderful mods the community creates can somewhat tip the favour in an unwanted direction in some challenges. Therefore I will make a note of who has used mods or not. No mods are restricted except for those that are obviously game-breaking (engines that don't require fuel for example). I have divided the challenges into different modes and tiers. The mode sets the general challenge while tiers are simply different levels of difficulty. The harder ones might yield rewards. Skunk Mode Description: Everything goes. No restrictions in parts count or number of engines used. Want to use 10000 RCS thrusters? Go ahead, may your Kerbal die in a blazing ball of glory and fame. Tier 1 Reach a minimum speed of at least 340 m/s, roughly equivalent of Mach 1. Tier 2 Reach a minimum speed of at least 255 m/s. Tier 3 Reach a minimum speed of at least 170 m/s. Austerity Mode Description: KSC has had its funding cut by congress. As a result, most of the available funds goes to Jeb's boosters. You are now restricted in how many parts you can use. Tier 1 Reach a minimum speed of at least 240 m/s while having no more than 20 parts, only one (1) engine allowed and no RCS. Tier 2 Reach a minimum speed of at least 160 m/s while having no more than 40 parts and only one (1) engine for propulsion. Tier 3 Reach a minimum speed of at least 160 m/s m/s while having no more than 40 parts. Funky Mode Description: The factory making Funky Chunky Banana-Rama Ice Cream has exploded. Since all Kerbals, except you, are exceptionally addicted to it they are now experiencing extremely dangerous withdrawal symptoms. You are the only Kerbal on KSC grounds able to race to the next town over, get some fresh bananas and then synthesize an antidote. Time is essential, the whole future of the Kerbal Space Program depends on you! Tier 1 Accelerate from 0 m/s to 240 m/s in under 6 seconds, maintain a minimum of 240 m/s for 30 seconds and then decelerate to 0 m/s in under 6 seconds. Tier 2 Accelerate from 0 m/s to 160 m/s in under 8 seconds, maintain a minimum of 160 m/s for 30 seconds and then decelerate to 0 m/s in under 8 seconds. Tier 3 Accelerate from 0 m/s to 120 m/s in under 10 seconds, maintain a minimum of 120 m/s for 30 seconds and then decelerate to 0 m/s in under 10 seconds. Insane Mode Description: Various extremely difficult challenges. The Fly-by Without using any parts with lift, jump over the rocket launch pad by using one of the sloped edges as a ramp. You must at some time during your "flight" be over the central elevated part of the launch pad, and travel the long way over it. Your rover is allowed to crash after it has cleared the other edge, just make sure your Kerbal survives somehow. Perhaps pillows might help? Landing the rover at the other end without it breaking up or crashing grants an additional 2000 points. No more than 10% of the parts may fall off and it has to be somewhat operational afterwards as well. Additional Boosters Required Reach a minimum speed of 1000 m/s. You may do it anywhere on Kerbin, and additional stages and decoupling is allowed. Leading Kerbal scientists suggests taking your Eeloo launch vehicle, rotating it to a horizontal orientation and then strapping some wheels and a command chair to it. Just make sure you point the death-machine away from any vital buildings before detonating, errr, I mean launching. The Jack of All Trades A deranged scientist at KSC has placed your rover in a vertical orientation on the rocket launch pad. Can you reach an altitude of at least 8000 m? You must use a rover that has been previously submitted and completed at least one (1) of any tier in any mode. You are not allowed to make any alterations except placing it in the VAB in the correct position and attaching TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancers. The Minimalist Make a rover using 10 parts or less and weighing 10 tonnes or less go faster than 200 m/s. Scoring Each mode will have a top list of the best crafts. Some people will beat the Tier 1 challenges, and these will obviously be placed higher than those completing Tier 2 or 3 challenges. Scoring amongst contributions in the same tier will be judged on an attribute relevant to the challenge mode. Detailed list below. General Scoring Tier 1 entries start with 1000 points. Tier 2 entries start with 500 points. Tier 3 entries start with 100 points. Skunk Mode If using less than 60 parts you receive the difference times 10 in points. Every m/s above the minimum speed (during the entire time required) yields an additional 6 points. Austerity Mode If using less than 40 parts you receive the difference times 20 in points. Every m/s above the minimum speed (during the entire time required) yields an additional 8 points. Funky Mode If using less than 40 parts you receive the difference times 15 in points. Every m/s above the minimum speed (during the entire time required) yields an additional 10 points. Insane Mode Completing an insane challenge will grant you 3000 points. If you argue for more points I might grant you them if the argument is well thought out and eloquently presented. Rewards Completing one of the Tier 1 challenges or one of the insane challenges yields a custom flag/badge. I don't know what you would want to use it for? Planting the flag somewhere or using the badge in your signature. Quality not assured. Suggestions and notes The stock wheels are not good enough to complete some of these challenges. I suggest using the Small Gear Bay if you are just using stock wheels (like I did) since they are far more suited for high speeds. Just be prepared to use a lot of them, and ohh, you can't steer with them. It might also be a good idea to use some of the jet engines since they require less fuel and weigh less. Note 1 Some challenges has been modified to reflect the ease by which some of them were completed. I really want the Insane Challenges to be, well, insane. And the Tier 1 challenges to be difficult. I hope you don't mind!

I got 200 GB so I'm fine. I just leave them there, videos and downloads. Sometimes, when I feel like it, I delete old useless downloads and videos.

Wut? @OP: Coming online to a forum like this for computer decision help isn't the best of ideas, everyone has different opinions and it just ends up with a lot of arguing and fanboying. I would suggest you pick a computer based on your other needs, or start to learn about computer technology (the fact that you don't know the graphics card of your computer doesn't bode well) and choose something wise. You don't seem to have much understanding in this field and are probably overwhelmed by people spouting stats. I'll try to simplify it. Overall, most laptops are going to perform basically the same with KSP - In general laptops don't have particularly powerful processors and as physics is constricted to one core, you are going to get part related lag no matter how fancy your laptop is. You'll just have to accept the fact that you can't build monster ships. Graphics cards on laptops are also fairly lackluster, so unless you spend the extra money to get a special gaming designed laptop, you aren't going to be able to max your graphics settings. This shouldn't be a huge issue though, as KSP isn't particularly graphics intensive. I currently run KSP on a 15'' MBP, quad i7 2.3ghz 4gb ram thats a couple years old, and it performs acceptably for ships up to about 200 parts. Beyond that the lag gets unbearable.

Sorry, I should have explained. I use 5 mainsails for getting any nuclear engine based craft into orbit. My generic craft for anything between Eve and Jool consists of a X3-200 fuel tank with a nuclear engine on it. The 5 mainsail setup works well for getting this into orbit.