Technical Ben

Test, test and test again. Minimize part count to <150, preferably <80. How? I've been using large batteries and a single, or just 2 RTGs. Then it does not really matter if the ship drains the battery quicker than the RTG can replenish, as long as the maneuver is done before it runs out (or lands).

That is insane. I thought my attempt was big! I've stopped at 400 parts, and only have 2000dv so far. What is the partcount on that thing?

http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1nmvp5/the_kraken/

I have seen your opponent. The ground around KSP fell into it's core. Out from that deep cavern came the end. I have seen infinity, and it is death! Don't try to lift the lifter! It's not worth it! It will kill you!

I played a lot of 0.3 and onwards without mechjeb. So anything beyond the mun is new territory. Anything before, is better automated as I've done it hundreds of times. I'll fly "flying" craft myself. But launch craft are, by their nature, automated.

Thanks! Might give this a try!

Wait. You have a dual core 1.6Ghz that can talk to people and answer your phone? Wow!

Nice. I start that way... then end up on simplicity because... well, PC CPU limits and time limits. So hope it all goes well! I toyed with side way launched tanks for a little while. I'll keep my Space Program going alongside yours. Aim for the papertrail fanfair!

Here is an addition to your Challenge... or an assistance. You can decide! Do you take the "Space Race" to be friend or foe? Because I'm stepping up and seeing if I can meet your challenge. That's the first stage. ~180 parts. To 71km orbit. I don't think I'm looking forward to the second stage. :'(

They think it might blow up at any time? Can you pay for the electric? (Should be pennies).

It's not like building a house. It's not tried and tested. So no, there is little schedule as to "when" things get finished.

As I posted in another thread. I'm currently using, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12 LVNs on about 6 different tugs... so yeah, I'm getting a feel for them all.

Well, there actually is a soft upper limit to the lifting capability in this game (as in real life). We will see if you hit it! :I PS, I might be able to do the first stage, not in "1,975,442 kg" but in 2339kg.

For some ideas, this is the "Kracken". STTO and return for a full orange tank. 150 parts. I can send you/post the craft file if you wish. I use mechjeb only to hold the throttle at 19-20ms to stop it's large engines over loading it. Without Mechjeb, a launch should be possible, a return difficult (only ~100ms/dv SPARE for mistakes!).

Re-usable drop tanks? I already have a large array of Orange dockable tanks I'm slowly expanding out of Kerbin orbit. I say slowly, I have 5 tankers set to deliver to 4 or 5 planets. During the wait for the burn (50 days off for the closest) I'm moving my tanks out from orbit, to the mun then to a high orbit. Filling them up with replacements as I burn through the fuel.

Probably. I put it down to a stupid TWR and a the "rolling rocket" problem KSP occasionally has. I scaled down the weight/size of my pulling/pushing tugs and it works a lot better. Still hard to get a controllable design using docking ports only and big fuel tanks. Currently waiting for a Duna, Eve and Jool window to test subsequent designs for a long burn. The most stable might be a 3 row of ports. It's a scaled up version I made way back. Which reminds me, I still have to launch the fuel for that one! PS, notes to himself not to try and hit 18k DV... must remember (especially as I've had 10k DV and 12k DV craft easily!).

But wow, it's amazing. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/01/nasa_find_tupperware_on_titan/ Can't wait for it to be in KSP (hints at ringed planets?). It's quite beautiful, and interesting that neither the moon, nor the camera can display any features. Just a smooth "marble".

Thanks for this. I'll keep it in mind when planning my missions. Now to get that 8 orange tank monster to move (LV-Ns OR 30s)... (I have up to a 12 LV-N engine base I can swap for in orbit, oh and everything in between. Though I found the Rocomaxs to be far too big and usually shake the craft apart. But I might revisit that. Use some 909s occasionally for orbital tugs too.)

People (human beings) mistake the letter of a rule for it's meaning. "Discussing MP" may mean be literally "do not discuss it", or it may mean "do not request it from the developers". A modable game, with a mod in it (that just so happens to be MP) may be fine if the developers allow mods. It may not be if their plans are to add their own (this would conflict with it). So we are left with keeping to the letter, when we do not know the meaning. But requesting clarification when we need it. In this case, it's a modification (not the game it's self), so I hope all goes well!

Yes. That's the idea. Well, I'm not sure on the "reasons" for doing it either. The Kerbal reason? "[We don't go into space because it's easy, but] Because we can!" A rocket could be re-organized and recycled. I was thinking of keeping construction of the rocket the same as your current method, horizontal. With a docking clamp on the top of the rocket (a toggle one with a nice cap too ), you can build it on the side of a base. To begin with it would not need any legs for support, but I guess some system might be needed. Then for launch, it would decouple from the base, the "launcher" would tilt back, and it could launch! The base of the rocket would either be a docking port with side mounted rockets, or a rocket with side mounted docking ports. I'll be testing the tipping ability of a fuel tank weighted gantry. Using legs to tip, and fuel to weigh it down... wait a second, that picture just gave me an idea! You could use your rover design, with a side docking port on each bit of the rocket, then tilt your entire rover (with upgraded structure) with the launching platform. Then decouple the rovers on launch (I usually make "10" my decouple/launch button on all parts).

Wish I could make a STTO plane like yours WafflesToo, especially the mini one.

While no doubt true, it's still and assumption that is being used to get to that conclusion, not an observation/tested claim. At least as far as I can tell. Which "begs the question" as to why people are pursuing the resources to put together to build such things. Discussion of a hypothetical is one thing. Asking for application to it, is another. I'm all for applying safety measures for car seats, we can make observations of those things, and can be certain we are driving cars that may crash. I'm not sure we can be certain an investment in asteroid killers will ever be needed, or even succeed in paying off. Going to space for excitement, exploration and knowledge do pay off though, we can be certain of that.

That in all honesty the solar system around us is better at clearing our "local neighborhood" (the technical term?) than we are. Jupiter. Is another example of a large planet that actually "clears up" wandering rocks. But we also have the atmosphere and the moon as well. Why take note of these? As any action we take is possibly insignificant in relation. Not that we should not try, or should not take notice, but that we should look at how things already work to prevent, or does not create, such events. Our current setup of planets is rather stable. It's not like were being thrown planet killers every 5 mins. Statistical analyses of how many events in the past, do not help us know how many events in the future will happen, if the current mechanism is progressive. We already know the "early bombardment" period is past. Are we past the "planet killer" period?

(In regards to first post). I just saw a space ship give birth to a rover... um... I've seen everything now.

The atmosphere. [i'm still being pedantic... sorry! ]