So I took an asparagus lander to EVE.

[Moar Boosters]

You're going to want to put your parachutes above the center of mass. Those chutes on the legs will make the craft come down upside-down.

I would redesign if I were you. Take the top few stages off and then build the aerospike stages coming off the side instead of underneath.

There's also the lack of a ladder to consider. There's way too much gravity to use your jetpack, so you need a ladder that goes all the way down if you want to get out to plant a flag.

[MockKnizzle]

You have a ton of extra mass in your upper stages, which massively reduces your dV capacity. First off: no need to bring all that science equipment back up with you when you can store the data in a pod. Second: don't use any unnecessary structural parts, and I mean any. Use only tiny decouplers, get rid of that 2.5-1.25m adapter, and use the tiny docking port (or better yet none at all). Third: winglets are lighter than SAS, get rid of it.

[BMBender]

I'm a sucker for aero spikes and Eve

from .23 I think lander + rover + 3Kerbals' Lander+ Kerbals came back Rover is a self propelled I was here flag

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244553494

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244583795

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244583830

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244597641

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244597658

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244597722

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244606041

As MockKnizzle said any excess mass get rid of or put on an ejection system for it before launching from EVE

my ladder assembly http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244597612 I also eject chute assemblies and ground stability apparatus, only thing you want to be lifting is fuel engines and kerbals anything that doesn't directly contribute to that loose it.

Edited April 9, 2014 by BMBender

[RocketBlam]

That's actually the second version of that lander. The first version I landed on Eve, and it had all but maybe 200 DV to get back to orbit, so I redesigned it. I'm still concerned it's too tall, but I tried to redesign it to be flatter, and just sort of gave up. It took a lot of work to get to this point, I can't really start over for the third time.

To deal with the wobbliness I installed some extra struts, and two more landing "gear". The landing struts on this thing aren't actually supposed to support the weight of it, they're more to cushion the main girder legs during landing.

I did install winglets on the top. It just wouldn't fly straight without them.

I think my current DV on this is about 8750, which is 350 more than the previous version. I also installed ladders.

Also, regarding SAS, winglets don't do any good at high altitude/in space.

Edited April 9, 2014 by RocketBlam

[BMBender]

Also keep in mind that whatever your TWR on Kerbin is it will be 1ish less on eve a 1.7 TWR = .7 on EVE more or less. Rule of thumb I use is have the last 2-3 stages around the lander can = 2.5-3+ TWR in Kerbin. The rest of your stages just need to supply fuel to your core while supporting their own weight in doing so for long enough to get above the soup.

EDIT: as people have mentioned before and after you need a bit over 10k dV in fuel MINIMUM (for any type of post launch obit maneuvering, ie docking, circularizing ect) launching from an EVE mountain top. ASL you want 11-13k dV of fuel.

Edited April 9, 2014 by BMBender

[Whackjob]

Now I wanna do a Whackjob style lander tower and put her on Eve. And get back.

[The Destroyer]

I burst into laughter after seeing that lander- it looks like the one Danny made! Err.. definitley not enough fuel or thrust.

[problemecium]

If the lander can get off Kerban with, say 25% fuel to spare, you have a chance of reaching Eve orbit.

I have never tried an Eve ascent before, but now I'm tempted to try it with one of my single-stage heavy lift rockets. xD

[r4pt0r]

Now I wanna do a Whackjob style lander tower and put her on Eve. And get back.

that tasty thirdperson reference. have you ever done an eve accent? any tips?

[MarvinKitFox]

Well that lander can take off from kerbin and nearly (very close indeed) reach a stable orbit. So I assumed it would be good for EVE..

bad bad BAD assumption!

Want to build an EVE lander, using Kerbin as yardstick?

You want something with enough thrust on it to cause re-entry visible effects while launching vertically from the launchpad, and with enough Delta-v to launch sensibly, get into orbit, fly to Mun, land. Ascend to orbit, fly to MinMus, land, go to orbit, land, go to orbit, land, go to orbit, and then return to Kerbin for a controlled vertical landing. Without Aerobraking to enter your Kerbin orbit!

(and even that is still likely 1200-1500 delta-v short)

I.E.

Your pad TWR on Kerbin must be about 3.5+, and you want 11000m/s delta-v in the tank. 13000 if you are not a demigod at rocket design.

[BMBender]

bad bad BAD assumption!

Want to build an EVE lander, using Kerbin as yardstick?

You want something with enough thrust on it to cause re-entry visible effects while launching vertically from the launchpad, and with enough Delta-v to launch sensibly, get into orbit, fly to Mun, land. Ascend to orbit, fly to MinMus, land, go to orbit, land, go to orbit, land, go to orbit, and then return to Kerbin for a controlled vertical landing. Without Aerobraking to enter your Kerbin orbit!

(and even that is still likely 1200-1500 delta-v short)

I.E.

Your pad TWR on Kerbin must be about 3.5+, and you want 11000m/s delta-v in the tank. 13000 if you are not a demigod at rocket design.

to clarify on this point, your EVE lander assembly must be in the 10-12k dV range that does not include your interplanetary xfer stage or your Kerbin launch stage.

[Whackjob]

that tasty thirdperson reference. have you ever done an eve accent? any tips?

Nope. Never. Did land a probe on it a few times. Never launched from there. My strategy would be to build something that I think would have fifty percent extra delta-V from sea level to orbit. Then double it.

[MrPopcup]

I did takeoff, but didn't return to kerbin, I had to use the jetpack (Lol) to get just above the atmosphere, and note: I took off from 2km high, meaning I was near sea level.. god it was hard!!

here it is:

[maccollo]

that tasty thirdperson reference. have you ever done an eve accent? any tips?

Did an Eve ascent in my 0.22 grand tour mission. I forgot exactly how heavy it was, but I think it was around 14 tons.

I think my main advice would be to just put wheels on your lander. That way you can drive to some mountain top and take off from there. The peak on Eve is 7.5 km above sea level. You only need about 8 km/s to get to orbit from that altitude.

[RocketBlam]

Nope. Never. Did land a probe on it a few times. Never launched from there. My strategy would be to build something that I think would have fifty percent extra delta-V from sea level to orbit. Then double it.

Ha.

Good luck with that.

You're talking about a vehicle that weighs in the hundreds of tons.

Just getting that into orbit around Kerbin would be a massive accomplishment.

[BMBender]

Ha.

Good luck with that.

You're talking about a vehicle that weighs in the hundreds of tons.

Just getting that into orbit around Kerbin would be a massive accomplishment.

Actually it's not so bad. Your EVE lander has more than enough TWR to get itself and an interplanetary xfer stage off Kerbin; all you need to do is give it some self propelled fuel. All they needs to do is be able to:

A. provide a good amount of gas

B. hover it's own weight under it's own power and feed your Eve lander

like:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244553511

or

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=244619097

EDIT: we aren't NASA; we aren't weighed down by reality and those mythical pesky multi trillion+ dollar fuel pumps such a set-up requires

Edited April 9, 2014 by BMBender

[Red Iron Crown]

Here's a good, recent discussion of Eve ascent landers.

[quantumpion]

Here's my 50 ton stock eve lander:

[Red Iron Crown]

Here's my 50 ton stock eve lander:

http://i.imgur.com/jal6PUu.jpg

Where does the kerbal go after he climbs the ladder?

[NecroBones]

Where does the kerbal go after he climbs the ladder?

I'm guessing he's held onto that probe core by G-forces.

[Aedile]

It depends if you are using mods, etc, and how realistic you want your lander to be.

External seat - is a no no for me.

But like it can probably be seen in many designs, you need efficient atmospheric engine such as aerospikes.

You can also do a 3 refuel mission.

Lift lander, refuel, go to eve orbit - refuel, land - take off, refuel what's left - go home.

[oggylt]

I bet now you can use ions on a chair for final stage

[allmappedout]

I bet now you can use ions on a chair for final stage

Where's that electricity going to come from? big batteries? solar panels? (whilst I get they'll be more efficient, you'll struggle to run on full power unless you're taking the heavy XLs). For the TWR loss, you'll have to burn for longer, even if it is far more efficient, and xenon won't be your problem, it'll be electricity, I predict.

But that's just me being a naysayer! I'm sure somebody will prove me wrong

[Jouni]

The main problem would probably be engine mass. The final stage usually doesn't have more than 2-3 minutes to do its job, which puts an upper bound on the effective delta-v we can get from the stage. The total mass of a command seat, a small probe core, a kerbal, a small xenon container, and an ion thruster is around 0.5 tonnes. In three minutes, the thruster uses less than 22% of the fuel, producing something like 720-730 m/s of delta-v. Adding a second thruster increases the mass to 0.75 tonnes and delta-v to 960-970 m/s. With four thrusters, the delta-v would still be less than 1200 m/s. These numbers obviously ignore solar panels and batteries, so the reality would be worse.

On the other hand, it could be feasible to add an ion-powered Kerbin return stage to large Eve landers.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

bad bad BAD assumption!

Want to build an EVE lander, using Kerbin as yardstick?

You want something with enough thrust on it to cause re-entry visible effects while launching vertically from the launchpad, and with enough Delta-v to launch sensibly, get into orbit, fly to Mun, land. Ascend to orbit, fly to MinMus, land, go to orbit, land, go to orbit, land, go to orbit, and then return to Kerbin for a controlled vertical landing. Without Aerobraking to enter your Kerbin orbit!

(and even that is still likely 1200-1500 delta-v short)

I.E.

Your pad TWR on Kerbin must be about 3.5+, and you want 11000m/s delta-v in the tank. 13000 if you are not a demigod at rocket design.

I think you're overestimating it a little bit. You need 12k from 0 altitude, but you can easily launch off a mountain with something like 8k. And you only need a TWR of like 2.4-2.6 on Kerbin. With the new parts and reinforced joints (no more parachutes ripping off on descent) it's actually not too bad anymore.

Ha.

Good luck with that.

You're talking about a vehicle that weighs in the hundreds of tons.

Just getting that into orbit around Kerbin would be a massive accomplishment.

Again, not too bad anymore. I threw together a 1600t launcher in an hour or two, and others have done more.