GoSlash27

I guess you'd have to tell me the answer to that one. It sounds the same to me. Best, -Slashy

jonrd463, If you mean this whine: , that's caused by the turbopump. Best, -Slashy

Superbug. Best, -Slashy

The process of using math in KSP for fun 'n' profit, or "How to succeed at KSP without really trying". Step #1: Learn orbital mechanics. To get where you're going, you must be able to quantify what it takes to get there. @OhioBob is the resident zen master of this dark art, and can lead you on the path. I recommend starting here: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm Step#2: Learn how to design a rocket to meet your needs. There's lots of people who can chime in on this, and @Foxster has a good tutorial on this. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/128838-how-to-build-a-rocket-ship-for-a-mission/ Step#3: Learn how to reverse the rocket equation to mathematically optimize your stages. I'm kind of the go-to guy on this subject, and here's the tutorial: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/122722-how-to-mathematically-design-stages/ This can be short-cutted somewhat by using DV maps, transfer window planners, MechJeb/ KER, and Meithan's engine optimizer... but there will always be gaps in your understanding (and thus shortfalls in your designs) until you're doing it all on your own. Best, -Slashy

Well... The challenge is about "stock and jets only", so I don't see that as an option. Best, -Slashy

TimePeriod, I build my stuff like it's intended to be used in career, so I don't spare any simplicity, reliability, or economy for "cool factor". That makes my stuff about as exciting as a maytag washer. Best, -Slashy

Most of my self- imposed rules have been covered up-stream. Rule #1 is safety. KSP is supposed to be a "let's have fun and make explosions" kind of game, but I don't play it that way. I consider it a major failure if any of my Kerbals get killed. I have a lot of safety procedures and precautionary measures to try to keep that from ever happening. Rule #2 is debris/ contamination. I don't launch anything without a clear plan for where it ends up. No floating debris allowed. This goes double for nuke parts. They may not return to Kerbin's atmosphere for any reason. Rule #3 is realism. Long duration trips require proper living quarters. Short duration trips require capsules. I do not use command seats for anything except short- hop rovers and I don't stuff Kerbals into material bays. Rule #4 is cost- effectiveness. I'm always trying to accomplish the mission with a high expectation of success, low mass in upper stages, and low total mission cost. I plan the entire mission from start to finish, engineer the stages to the mission requirement, and look for ways to stretch my operating budget. Now... all of this applies only in "career mode" for me. I treat sandbox mode as just that; a playpen where I can experiment and develop new techniques. My goal is to not have mishaps there, but I expect them. Additional rules: No mods of any kind and no external aids that I haven't developed myself. Best, -Slashy

Exactly this. Best, -Slashy

I'd say "not a chance". Create a 100% self- sustaining biosphere that can survive for thousands of years in just 5 years? No way. Certainly not in a scale where the humans wouldn't be doomed by lack of genetic diversity. If the SMOD comes along, all of humanity is dead. There's nothing we can do to change that in the foreseeable future. Best, -Slashy

McFarnsworth, If ISRU is included, then yeah. It's pretty easily doable. Best, -Slashy

McFarnsworth, No, not going both ways. The Rapiers would be too inefficient to use, so they'd just be dead weight. You'd need 8 nukes just to lift a single Rapier, and that's not counting the actual payload. Best, -Slashy

For the mission profile of initial acceleration 1G (Tylo relative), 1t payload, and 5,675 m/sec DV here's the candidates: Poodle makes the lightest and cheapest lander at 33.5t and $6,900. Other decent choices are 5 Nervs, 2 aerospikes or 7 terriers. The other options fall prey to the rocket equation, but are at least technically feasible: Skipper, Rhino, Mainsail, Vector, Twin- Boar, Mammoth, and Swivel (although the Swivel is an especially silly option). Anything beyond those won't work. Best, -Slashy

Wumpus, I believe you should review the definition of the word "utility". As for the rest of your argument, I believe it's been covered thoroughly upstream. Best, -Slashy

Parkaboy, It's not really hard to set up a cycler orbit, it's just inefficient. It takes more DV to establish the cycler between A and B than it takes to simply go from A to B. And if you want to rendezvous with something in a cycler orbit, you have to actually match it's orbit, so you have to be in the exact same orbit. The end result in stock KSP is that it's more efficient to send your science directly to Kerbin than it would be to send it to a station in a cycler orbit to hitch a ride to Kerbin. Best, -Slashy

Gojira, Agreed. There are "cheaty" ways to do this and the OP wasn't really specific on weeding out the loopholes, but my read of the spirit of this challenge is that it not use non- stock parts or rockets in any way, maintain it's flight in the atmosphere entirely, and not resort to debug menu or exploits such as drag- masking, phantom forces, etc. The OP was not explicit on a lot of these points and I'm not dictating the terms to any other entrant... but these are the standards I'm holding myself to. So in keeping with that, I won't be submitting any suborbital ballistic flights. I'll just get as much speed as I can in level flight and then try to squeeze out the last little bit of peak speed by minimizing my profile. Best, -Slashy

According to http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Acheron_%28LV-426%29 It also has a 2 hour rotational period and a dense atmosphere, so Tylo can't be LV-426. Excellent pull, though! Best, -Slashy

I use trim on long- distance atmospheric flights, but that's about it. I find getting it set is more of a hassle than just hand- flying with SAS on short trips, and I have no use for it in space or on rovers. Best, -Slashy

Gorebello, If I read your OP correctly, you only want enough DV to get you a Jool intercept. I call it 3500 m/sec to Kerbin orbit and 1,935 m/sec to transfer to Jool (plus another 300 for midcourse correction and reserve), which would bring up the transfer stage to 2235 m/sec. If I were to design a lifter to do this in one shot (I wouldn't... but if I did) it would be a 3 stage design. Stage 3: 36t payload, minimum t/w 0.5, DV= 2,235 m/sec. It could be jettisoned on a collision course with Jool. 7 LV-N, 82t total mass Stage 2: 82t payload, minimum t/w 0.7, DV= 1,700 m/sec. This would get you to just barely short of LKO, so the stage could be jettisoned to deorbit on it's own. 5 Poodles, 170t total mass Stage 1: 170t payload, Minimum t/w 1.2, DV= 1,800 m/sec.This would have all the aero fins and get you to 30km in a gravity turn. 3 Twin Boars, 425t total mass If it were me, First off I'd try to reduce the tonnage of equipment I'm bringing to Jool. This would include ISRU, which would weigh a lot less than bringing fuel along for the return trip. If you're going to Jool, you'll be waiting there for 3 1/2 years for the return window. Might as well make use of it. Next, I'd plan to lift my ship in sections, assemble it in orbit, and fuel it in orbit. More launches, but much easier to manage. Good luck! -Slashy

Figuring a 1 tonne payload and starting t/w of 1.5, it's a matter of how much DV you want on top of the theoretical minimum. +50% for landing is an 83t monster powered by 5 Aerospikes. The theoretical minimum would be 13.5t on a single Aerospike. The "tyranny of the rocket equation" rears it's ugly head. This would definitely be a job for ISRU. Best, -Slashy

I grinned while reading this. I suspect you watch movies the same way I do. Best, -Slashy

Yeah. *sure* you will

I just finished watching these edited versions. The anti-cheesing helped a little... but let's face it: these are *awful* movies. I almost didn't make it through Ep. 3 even with the editing. Best, -Slashy

I'm with Snark on this one. A lot of players aren't interested in the nuts and bolts. They just want to build rockets with little fuss and have fun. Certainly nothing wrong with that, *BUT*... If you're interested in understanding the math and improving your engineering skills, it's best to not let yourself become dependent on aids like KER early on. It'll just make it more difficult for you later. Best, -Slashy

suicidejunkie, I'm not restricting the conversation to anything. I believe the thread has covered all sorts of options. All I'm saying is that cycler orbits have no utility in a stock game. Best, -Slashy

Suicidejunkie, I don't dispute any of this, but it's not what the OP was asking about. The OP was asking about "plausible utility". There is no plausible utility for cycler orbits in stock KSP. Not sayin' they can't be *made* useful by altering the game or that they're not cool. Best, -Slashy