GoSlash27

No good reason, honestly. This challenge just gave me an excuse to build a plane similar to the Rutan Voyager. Unfortunately, the canard configuration didn't work well at low speed and I had to revert to a more traditional arrangement. Best, -Slashy

Hopkinton, IA

25.85t. I am keen to see how far this rabbit hole goes... Best, -Slashy

New record: 22.11 tonnes. I believe that's all I can get out of this design. Best, -Slashy

19.2 tonnes for me. Best, -Slashy

It took me a moment to figure out the word choice. The phrase [grammar- (National Socialist)] is in pretty common usage, and replacing it with "grammar pedant" seems natural. Doesn't fit for any other usage of (National Socialist), though. Best, -Slashy

As of the last Unity update, it worked like this: Spring rate is what it sounds like. A higher number for spring rate will compress less for a given load, and will oscillate at a higher frequency. Perversely, this means you can have too much landing gear and will have to reduce the spring rate under light loads. The damper rate, OTOH, is the percentage of criticality. 0% is undamped; oscillations will carry on forever. 100% is critically damped; oscillations will be eliminated by the end of the first cycle. A typical rough terrain suspension is damped around 30%, whereas a 60% damping is used for a smooth surface. Going beyond 100% damping tends to make it difficult for the wheels to maintain contact with the ground, jacking down the suspension over rough surfaces. Since there was a new Unity update, I don't know if the same rules still apply. Best, -Slashy

I don't judge people by their circumstances, I judge them by their motivations and accomplishments. Believe it or not, there were some "pedants" who were truly good people. See John Rabe. In Dr. Von Braun's case, yes he did all the awful things he was accused of. He didn't want to do it, he was forced to. The only thing he ever wanted was human spaceflight. I'm inclined to give him a pass. Best, -Slashy

28: Referring to your DV in the term (number) DV; "My rocket has 514 DV". 257: Violating rule 28 and pluralizing it; "My rocket has 514 DVs"

True, but that's 74 m/sec DV to accomplish as opposed to 8. As long as he's going to GOAP, why not just do a little push and come straight home? Best, -Slashy

Normally I'd recommend a rendezvous rescue, since it's the safest and most reliable course of action (plus rendezvous is a skill you should have). Unfortunately, you're on an orbit that crosses the Mun and (potentially) Minmus, which could eject you into solar orbit or worse if not dealt with. Therefore, I have to suggest GOAP. I concur with bewing's recommendation to use time warp to halt rotation. I wouldn't terminate the flight under any circumstances. Bring Jeb home alive! Good luck, -Slashy

[Citation Needed] There's a big difference between "a little more" and "a lot more" Disagree. Calculations are necessary any time you want to be certain that you are building a cheap, efficient rocket while being certain that it will succeed. Some people enjoy playing that way, and that's fine... It adds all sorts of tension and drama. But there are others who don't enjoy leaving their kerbals stranded in a 47M x 300k orbit, or wasting cash and launchpad capacity hauling around tonnes of fuel that never gets used. Your mileage may (and clearly does) vary -Slashy

Calculations are only unnecessary when you overengineer your ships so you have a lot more fuel than you actually need, raising costs and lowering payload capacity. If you want your ships to move the most payload for the lowest cost and make absolutely sure your kerbals will make it home every time, then yeah... calculations *are* necessary. Best, -Slashy

Still... that's less than a 1 m/sec difference. Should be a quick push for either. The trick will be 1) not overdoing it and 2) getting back in once you're done. Best, -Slashy

If I understand you correctly, your orbit is 47Mm apoapsis and 300km periapsis. If that's the case, lowering the periapsis to 35km is only 8 m/sec DV assuming you do it at apoapsis. That shouldn't take long to do at all... But getting back in the ship afterwards could be difficult. Best, -Slashy

You got it. This one does 140 tonnes to LKO for under $100,000. Not as "gamed" as the contest entries, but almost all of them wound up using this technique. Best, -Slashy

IRT all the 'Why didn't he just' questions: Please keep in mind that Mad Mike Hughes is a stuntman looking to break records. My hat's off to him and I'm glad he survived the trip. Best, -Slashy

ShadowNightfall, No problem, that's actually why we had the competition; to demonstrate and refine techniques to make crazy- cheap lifters without recovery or exploits. Of course... if you wish to add recovery you can do so. Your requirement is actually a fairly light payload by our standards (you could do 32t pretty cheap with level 2 facilities). We were able to create even cheaper lifters in the 130- 150t payload range. Tips: -SRBs are the best deal going for DV in the first stage. Except for the Flea. That thing is garbage. -The Twin- Boar is the best bargain in the game for LF&O engines, but is often overlooked. -Quasi- asparagus staging (SRBs lifting LF&O drop tanks in an asparagus arrangement to feed a core) work beautifully on a larger scale. Best, -Slashy

ShadowNightFall, Check out the cheap & cheerful challenge here: Maccallo had an entry that's the perfect design for your needs. It cost him $734 per tonne to orbit 38 tonnes with this design, and that's *without* recovering any of it. Best, -Slashy

Geonovast, Presumably he couldn't close the munar encounter and wound up in a slingshot. Best, -Slashy

What OhioBob and Blakemw said. If it takes 3500 m/sec for your payload to reach orbit, then that's just what it takes. Add another 100 m/sec DV. The importance of the DV figure lies in it's consistency. It's just there to let you know how much rocket you need. Don't use it as a mark of efficiency... at least during launch. The true measure of efficiency is the price tag. Best, -Slashy

pquade, Unfortunately, this looks like a repeat of what happened the last time KSP moved to a new version of Unity. If that's the case, there's nothing the devs can do about it because the problem is in the physics engine rather than KSP. We're all stuck in the same boat (or more accurately 'bouncy castle') until Unity issues a patch. Best, -Slashy

https://xkcd.com/1975/ This is clearly Randall Munroe's fault

Ah, but if you're using cheats to get there, then the design of the vehicle itself doesn't matter. You can "cheat" a capsule to Eve with no engines or fuel whatsoever. And as I said earlier, getting there is the easy part. Eve is the easiest planet in the system to get to. Unfortunately, it's also the most difficult planet to get home from. If you're cheating, then use whatever vehicle you like, 'cuz it doesn't matter. But if you're trying to design a vehicle that will actually do the job, then a spaceplane is the worst possible vehicle you could use. Best, -Slashy

AeroGav, You always have to keep in mind that mods to calculate DV can be (and regularly are) fooled, and are never accurate during atmospheric flight. Discrepancies such as the one you describe can and will happen, especially when you stage at a point the calculator doesn't expect and can't predict. In this case, you didn't "gain" DV when you jettisoned your gear and half your LV-Ns. You had it all along, but MJ didn't know because it based it's calculation on the assumption that you weren't going to do that. Had you calculated it based on what you were planning, it would've been accurate. Vacuum maneuvers are usually accurate to the predicted values so long as T/W is at least 1/2g in the local gravity well, although landings can vary widely. Atmospheric numbers, OTOH, can only ever be estimated because the Isp is constantly varying. None of the mods do a good job of predicting true launch DV in my opinion. The mission planning cycle always works the same way. You either calculate or estimate the DV required for a phase of a mission, as well as the minimum T/W required. This is done with math and experience. You then take this mission requirement (along with the payload it will be moving) and use that to design a light and inexpensive stage that will fulfill the requirement. Thus, the mission planning moves forward in time, but the ship design works *backwards* after the mission planning is done. Even the rocket equation works backwards instead of forward. When done properly, you don't find yourself in the VAB putting together assemblies and observing what DV and T/W they generate, but rather the reverse. You already know what engine and tank combo will best suit your need before you begin assembly. Best, -Slashy