Claw

I did this with stock. I used a basic jet to keep it stuck to the wall, then climbed with wheels. It didn't fly, but I know the jet leaves the VTOL possibility open. So I leave it up to you if it qualifies.

Air intake values are also based off the intake's AoA. If your intake is too far off prograde when the air is thin, the "intake air" production will drop off. Each intake also has their own surface area value which effects intake air production. Throttle position doesn't effect "intake air" production, but does effect intake air demand. That's why throttling back when the air is thin helps. The intakes are still producing, but if your engine is demanding too much if flames out.

Be patient. Keep your orbits around Kerbin and the Mun low. So don't raise your Kerbin orbit up too high before leaving for the Mun. And when you aim for the Mun, try to get a nice low PE initially. These two things will help keep you from spending gas moving the AP and PE around as much. The other key is your approach to the Mun. There are several ways you can do it, but you'll want to get your orbit pretty low before you start your retroburn. There are other things you can do, but try those to start out with. Good luck!!

Capi101's post above has some generic guidelines for your question. I use similar design criteria as Capi. Also, I think I fly a "typical" SSTO profile, but I know there are a few things I do differently. So like others have said, you may need to modify these slightly to suit your taste/flying style/ability. Engines: I aim for 1 TurboJet per 12t of craft, I don't usually go much above this, but in no case above 15t Wings: 0.5 to 0.8 lift rating per ton, up to a maximum of 1.0 of lift rating per ton Intakes: 1 to 3 intakes per TurboJet Liquid Fuel: 100 to 200 units per TurboJet The simplest way I've figured to use these basic design criteria is to match them all up from left to right, starting from the top and working down the list. (Essentially, the higher the TWR, the less other stuff you need.) -For example, start off guessing that you want a fairly light, single engine craft aiming for around 8 tons. This is on the low side, so you can get away with around 0.5 lift rating/ton, 1 intake, and somewhere around 100 units of fuel. -If you build a heavier, 12t version, you'll want around 0.8 to 1.0 lift rating per ton, 3 intakes, and 200 units of fuel. -A 16t space plane would need 2 engines, but has a TWR similar to the first example so it can use similar design criteria. Truthfully now that I'm more experienced, I get away with less lift rating and less fuel. But I found it's a good place to start. For stock airplanes, TWR seems to be the easiest measure to gauge the rest of your design around. A good practical example of this design criteria is already in your KSP game. Go look at the Aeris 4A. It's a 17t plane, uses 2 TurboJets, 8.6 points of lift rating (0.5 per ton), 2 ram intakes (with a couple radials), and 150 units of liquid fuel. It turns out the liquid fuel is enough to get into orbit, but runs short if you plan on a powered return. (So it could use a little more.) Anyway, that's just what I use. I could post a giant wall (or more giant-er) explaining how I came to all that if you want to know, but it seems to work well for me.

Looks good to me! Nice job!

Well, now I feel bad as my intent wasn't to kill the thread, nor hijack it with unworthy challenges. So perhaps, in an attempt to remove the drama and return to challenges, I'll try to post another. As far as I can tell, this is all in accordance with the original rules. THE TASK: So to borrow from an earlier post, the task is to beat 80km of ground distance coverage using Mono Propellant as the propulsion source. RULES: I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure there's a loophole. But the intent is to use monopro. - Must takeoff from KSC runway or launch pad. (I don't care if it's a plane, rocket, or some other thing you can dream up.) - Use monopro as the propulsion fuel, and thruster blocks or Linear RCS ports as the engines. - No limit on amount of monopro or engines. (I was going to limit to 350 monopro, but go nuts.) - All stock, except MJ/KER or other similar autopilot/engineering aids that don't add propulsion. (Mine uses MJ to show stats, I have no idea if it can fly this thing.) - Manned or unmanned is fine. So, for example: Yes, you can have electricity on your craft, but it cannot be used for propulsion. I don't really care what kind of wheels you use on the craft, but if you're using them to propel your craft forward, then you're not using monopro as the propulsion source. No kraken drives, infiniglide, etc., etc... Also, it abuses no glitches that I know of. In my opinion it's rather simple, but hopefully gives some enjoyment as there are a couple minor things to figure out. I also made an RCS rocket, as well as an undisclosed craft that made it over 90km. So there are lots of ways to get it done.

Yes, I find that MJ does some silly things from time to time. Sometimes wastes RCS fuel for no reason, or chases the last 0.5m/s of a burn while the node guidance races off to the side. It does okay, but always be ready and never be afraid to take control, like you did. It's an aid, so use it when it's useful and ditch it when it's not. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal. If you are concerned about survival but still want to experiment, perhaps you don't know about F5 and F9. If you press F5, it will quicksave your game right where you're at. If some time later you press F9, it will reload your game at that last save spot. So if you quicksave right before a docking attempt and it goes poorly, you can quickload the the previous spot and try it again.

Okay, I see you don't have enough fuel. Is there a part in the profile you're struggling with?

Have you given it a try yet? It's certainly tricky but it's doable.

Thanks! You can do it! Let us know if you need tips, but half (or more) of the fun is figuring it out.

Nice, simple, and no drama. And a task I wouldn't have done on my own. Thanks for the challenge! Here's Jedford's hero shot. EDIT: There's a bit of extra gas to play with. I have around 250 dV left and 40% of the monopro.

Okay. My challenge has been deleted. I give up my challenge and whomever would like can post. Or however the challenge replacement rules work.

(challenge deleted)

I'm still a bit confused. And sorry, I don't mean to be difficult and I don't mean to bypass the challenge by looking for loopholes. Anyway, does this qualify?

Well, I still don't quite understand the rules here but I've been trying to follow along. You guys are just too fast for me. Since nobody else has tried yet, here's an infiniglider to the island. It certainly doesn't beat the time though. Although it's unclear to me if it's supposed to be faster, or just get there...

On the top right of each post is a number. For instance, your first post is labeled #1. (This post is #15.) If you click on that number, it will take you to a direct link to that post. Then you can copy that URL and link to it like any other URL. (Depending on your browser, you may also be able to right click and copy the link.) If you don't know how to link, highlight the text you want to link and click on the "Link" button. It's the little globe icon with the chain links at the bottom (in the tool bar that pops up when you edit the post). So when you link to a post, it looks like this.

I've deleted my previous entry start and finished a new one. It's the same crew and setup, but I threw out the storyline. Also, I upgraded the vehicle with what I learned from the previous one. This vehicle is capable of 3x physics warp over most terrain and 4x warp over rolling terrain. It can withstand pretty much any crash at 1x, but 4x can still be pretty brutal to it. I made it in 12 hours and 1 minute. Like Lesbiotic, I recommend building a sturdy vehicle. I didn't really count the number of times I rolled over, but it was quite a lot. If you hit a steep slope and can't go perfectly perpendicular to it, you might as well go straight down. If you try to zig-zag, it'll just slide and flip over. Yes, indeed refreshing to have smooth terrain for the last bit. For me it was smooth for about 180km. Although driving for 2 hours over completely flat terrain (still 30 minutes at 4x warp) also gets old after all the earlier craziness.

By the way, I have designed carriers that hang the orbital platform as well. They tended to have higher part counts and were usually a lot more bendy than my piggyback carrier. Although it was easier to control CoM/CoT/CoL relationships in the design.

Sure, but I suppose at some level you have to trust yourself to actually fly something "reasonable". My Scorpion design releases around 35 km, and the orbital plane has plenty of juice to obtain a PE > 90km before leaving physics range. So I suppose you'd have to believe that it would at least establish itself above 70km even with aerodynamic drag. I didn't mean to imply that I simply establish it at 40km and call it a day. Just enough to be a "reasonable" suborbital to allow time to recover the carrier, then switch back and establish orbit. The other way you could swing this (as I have seen done in challenges) is to fly your profile and prove that you can recover the first stage. Then subsequent flight(s) involve launching the second stage and letting the first stage get deleted during it's descent with the roleplay/understanding that it "returned." (Obviously complicated if you have kerbals on board.) What you say is probably even more of a "problem" for a three stage design. I think that because a three stage design starts with the assumption that the first stage isn't going to get very high. If it does manage to get higher, it will probably be difficult to switch back and forth between three craft fast enough to prevent deletion or "cheating drag" on rails. Also, my guess is that if you can get high enough on your first stage to prevent deletion, such as my Scorpion, then you probably don't really need three stages.

You can post your craft on kerbalspaceprogram.com or in "The Spacecraft Exchange" subforum under "General KSP". On second thought, it's probably a mod. You can also try here.

Aww, as I was playing with the scenario (south pole), I realize it's incompatible with the Polar Challenge (north pole).

Hmm, I'm doing the polar challenge right now. I was making a story out of that, but perhaps I will scrap that idea and switch my storyline over to here. Although, since I'm driving there, it will take me quite some time to arrive. EDIT: Downloaded. Hopefully you don't mind me trying to take some creative liberty with the storyline. I'll see what the team can get done tonight!

Heh. Nicely done. It's hard for me to tell from that picture, but did you make the free return go out away from the Mun after it passed through the SOI? Because that's what I was thinking... Or did you just "fire the engine for landing" with it initially pointed the "wrong way?" Although this rule... Leaves me a bit curious on how exactly you're supposed to get back off the Mun after landing if you can't fire the engine? Sorry Kasuha...

Ohh, sorry. Mine is actually called the Spiderweb. Thanks for the clarification on the rules. I think I will scratch my head for a bit and come up with a new flight profile.

I try not to get too hung up on the "it isn't the most optimum piece." I use what feels natural for me for that design. It's an open ended game. You don't have to eek out every drop of dV unless that's your goal. SRBs exist for real because they are less complex, relatively light, and can be strapped to existing rocket designs to boost payload. None of these are limitations in game yet, so it's mostly up to your play style. So if you have a rocket that is Mun capable, but you want to take a bit more science with you on the second flight, an SRB may be an easy fix. Sure, there are lots of ways to "fix" the design with liquid rockets, jet engines, more fuel, etc. SRBs are simply another option.