GoSlash27

Pinchy, The fuel tank pretty much is the rover. Let me see if I can find a better shot... *edit* This one was designed to operate on Tylo. Just an example of the design philosophy where the fuel tank doubles as the chassis. Best, -Slashy

Pinchy, For a 1.4t vehicle, just 1 would provide adequate thrust. 4 will be way more than you need. FWIW when I build self-landing rovers, I make the fuel tank the core of the structure. For example... Best, -Slashy

Pinchy, RCS thrusters aren't gonna work with a round-8. It carries LF&O instead of monopropellant. To answer your question, yes you can do that. You need a minimum of 180 m/sec DV and 1.2:1 t/w on Minmus (.06G on Kerbin). I recommend bumping it up to 360 m/sec for flexibility in how you land. A design using RCS for a 1.4t payload would need 1 R1 tank and a single linear RCS port. It would weigh 1.74 tonnes fully-loaded. This would not be the lightest or cheapest solution, though. An LV-1 Ant and round-8 would get the job done for 1.64 tonnes and approx $260. Best, -Slashy

Alshain, Surprisingly, not so much. I can't speak to the fuel savings, but keeping it in a single burn actually simplifies the problem and makes it easier rather than harder. The pilot's job becomes 1) keeping the ship mid-way between apoapsis and the surface (done with throttle) and 2) keeping the touchdown point in the target area (done with pitch and yaw). Sorta like flying final approach to a runway. It requires no previous experience or practice to make it work. You can simply build a lander to spec and have full confidence that you can drop the lander right where you need it even though you've never shot the approach before. Best, -Slashy

Alshain, Not quite. The reverse gravity turn has the trajectory intersecting the landing zone throughout the approach and uses a single continuous burn to touchdown. Very similar though. Best, -Slashy

The easy way to do it is the reverse gravity turn . With a little practice you can drop a lander right on a dime and make change and it doesn't take the ridiculous amount of propellant that the stop 'n' drop technique requires. Best, -Slashy

X-SR71, You certainly won't get bashed by me. I use SSTO spaceplanes to deliver stuff but not things. Specifically, whatever needs to be delivered from the KSC to an object in LKO via transfer through a docking port. Whatever is going to be placed in orbit and left there as an assembly rides a conventional booster. I use SSTO spaceplanes for this job because it's cheaper, safer, and leaves no debris in orbit. For example, if I want to transfer fuel to a ship being assembled in orbit, at the end of the job I'm left with a fueled ship and an empty can. If I use a spaceplane, the empty can is my plane itself. Using a spaceplane for putting crew in orbit is also a good deal safer than riding a booster. There are a lot more abort options so I worry less about snapping their little necks (I am very protective of my kerbals). And *if* you're good at flying planes (which I am) the mission works out much cheaper. This allows me to spend more time doing science and less time completing contracts for funding. I personally don't build spaceplanes to go any further than LKO. I believe that lugging unnecessary mass to another body and back is a waste of resources. Fun, but wasteful... tl;dr... Spaceplanes are a very practical solution when used properly, and I'm a very practical- minded administrator. Best, -Slashy

mattssheep, Congratulations for successfully completing the Caveman Challenge! Welcome to the clan Most civilized caveman ever... Best, -Slashy

nhnifong, You may find this useful... A project I've been working on. It delivers 25t of fuel and oxidizer, uses all low-tech parts (tier 7 or below), operates from level 2 runways, is easy and safe to operate, and costs under $90,000. Unit cost $87,762 Mission cost with full recovery $8,364 $335 per tonne delivered. *edit* deducting payload to conform to your figures Launch cost: $85,467 Recovery cost: $79,470 Mission cost: $5,997 Download link Best, -Slashy

Sharpy, That one's current as of 1.04. In fact, I decided to fully develop it and release it on the shared craft forum this weekend. It's listed as the "Mainway Adobe". You may well be the first to use the Poodle in conjunction with 2 TJs. There ain't nuthin' new under the sun, and it happens to be the best engine for the job (if a little awkward). Just the right amount of thrust and excellent Isp without being a boat anchor. Best, -Slashy

Seems to me by reading this that what you really need to do is play the game completely stock. Best, -Slashy

MRS, I appreciate the kind words, but I didn't invent any of the techniques that went into the design. Everything from the engine combo to the downturned intakes has been done before by others. This one has merely been redesigned to use low tech parts and to be as easy, reliable, and economical as I can make it. It's intended to be a career "starter" SSTO. Best, -Slashy

Foxster, Maybe I worded it poorly... The question you're trying to answer is one of efficiency, and DV is a measure of range (sorta), but not efficiency. To quantify the effect (or lack thereof) of attaching and then deploying a shroud, you have to look at the payload fraction rather than the leftover DV. Best, -Slashy

^ It takes not putting your sat into orbit backwards *edit* Don't feel bad; we've all done that once or several times. Best, -Slashy

Mad Rocket Scientist, It's got 2 C7 Aerospace Jx-4 "Whiplash" Afterburning turbo ramjets for air breathing mode (combined rated thrust 1,508 kN) and a single Rockomax Re-L10 Poodle rocket for closed cycle (total rated thrust 250 kN). It's also got a Staedler/ Reaction Systems RCS combo for full translation authority in all 3 axes for docking. Best, -Slashy

No existing song currently. Description: When vehicle is spawned for launch Song: "To Glory" - Two Steps from Hell No existing song currently. Description: Vehicle first reenters the atmosphere Song: "Protectors of the Earth" - Two Steps from Hell Best, -Slashy

Foxster, Tough nut to crack. The DV on orbit is a misleading figure, since DV <> "efficiency". When designing a stage the question isn't "what stage will leave me with the most DV at the end of the mission" but rather "what is the lightest, cheapest stage that will accomplish the mission". For example, a Rhino can orbit a .5t payload with tremendous DV left over, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for the job. The best choice would be whatever can do the job lightest and/ or cheapest (in this case the 48-7S). When making this comparison, the important question is " is attaching a fairing and then deploying it before launch more efficient than either leaving it on or leaving it off?". I would calculate this by payload ratio; mass at orbit/ mass at launch. Whatever method yields the most mass in orbit compared to the mass at launch has expended the least fuel during the launch itself and is therefore the most efficient. If there's fuel left over, then that's mass that could've been additional payload. I personally wouldn't trust MJ or KER to calculate these numbers, and they're available in the map view anyway. Best, -Slashy

Mainway Aerospace (a wholly owned subsidiary of Mainway Enterprises) is proud to present the all- new for KSP 1.04 Adobe! http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Mainway%20Adobe Operators of fledgeling space programs have been clamoring for an SSTO spaceplane that fits their unique needs, and the Adobe was engineered to meet the call! * It's built entirely of tier 7 or earlier parts, so you can use it the moment you unlock the Whiplash. * At $44,050 MSRP, it's easy to fit into even the most cash- strapped budget. * It can comfortably shuttle 12 passengers and 2 crew between KSC and a station in LKO and back with 250 m/s DV on orbit. * Mainway's "Perfect Balance" design philosophy ensures a spaceplane that's easy for beginners to fly safely and accurately in all flight regimes, reducing operational accidents. * The Adobe's efficiency will allow you to shuttle crew to and from orbit at the low operating cost of $162 per passenger. When modified for cargo duty, it can orbit cargo at just $320/ tonne. * The combination of light weight (36t), airbrakes, and ample jet fuel reserves means a positive recovery on the runway at KSC the first time, every time! It's Adobe! The little plane that's made out of clay! Operators are standing by... Get your Adobe today! - - - Updated - - - Takeoff: Engage SAS, throttle to 1/2, and hit space bar. At 70 m/s airspeed, pitch up to 8°. Warning: Do not exceed 10° until airborne Climbout: At positive climb rate, retract gear and throttle up to full. Pitch up to 20° Going supersonic: At 10km altitude, pitch to 15° and maintain until 360 m/s airspeed Going hypersonic: At 16km altitude, pitch to 5° and maintain until climb rate is reestablished. Let the nose pitch slowly on it's own until airspeed is no longer increasing (usually around 20km altitude and 1km/sec airspeed) Boost to orbital apoapsis: When airspeed is no longer increasing, hit spacebar to engage the Poodle and pitch to 20°. Maintain pitch and full throttle until 2,050 m/sec airspeed is achieved. Throttle as necessary to achieve 75km apoapsis. Boost to orbit: At 5 seconds from Apoapsis, boost and pitch as required to achieve stable orbit. Orbital ops: Press 1 to toggle orbit mode. This will deploy the solar panels, turn on the lights, deploy the docking collar, and turn on the docking light. ------------------------------------------------------- Deorbit retroburn: Orient the spacecraft retrograde and inverted. When opposite KSC, burn and pitch as needed to establish periapsis at 45km altitude directly overhead KSC. After retroburn, pitch to point the nose straight down, disable the Poodle, hit the parking brakes to deploy the airbrake, and hit 1 to secure from orbit mode. Reentry: Maintain 5° pitch throughout the reentry. Pitch and turn as desired to deorbit overhead KSC. Approach: Ensure that Poodle is deactivated and release parking brakes to deactivate airbrakes. Throttle to 4 tics for cruise. Deploy landing gear below 100 m/sec and fly a normal approach to flare and touchdown.

Mainway Aerospace (a subsidiary of Mainway Enterprises) is proud to submit the Mainway Adobe for consideration in this challenge. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Mainway%20Adobe What sets the Adobe apart from other spaceplanes is that it's cheap, economical, easy to operate, and best of all is composed entirely of tier 7 or earlier parts. Best, -Slashy

Starhawk, Cool, thanks! I'll try it that way. Best, -Slashy

Interesting; the one in the first example required only 2,130 m/sec to achieve orbit? How is that possible? That's less than orbital velocity at 80x80. Best, -Slashy

Foxster, I found this very intriguing and tried it out on one of my space planes in lieu of a short LF&O. What I found was that while storage did improve, drag went up dramatically. I tried cycling the doors, but it didn't seem to help any. Is there a trick to using this method without the drag penalty? I attached the additional stuff to the rear of the preceding bulkhead. Should I have attached it to the FL-T400 instead? Thanks, -Slashy

Good work, RIC! Useful info there. I saw another variation of this trick employed in one of my challenges: A rocket was placed inside a Mk2 cargo bay with a cubic o-strut attached to the front. Cycle the doors before launch, and you have a zero-drag launch vehicle. Best, -Slashy

selfish_meme, To be scientific on the fairing test you'd need a third launch that would test an otherwise identical craft that never had a fairing. That way you could see clearly if adding a fairing and then deploying it on the pad has any benefit. Best, -Slashy

Congratulations to Terwin, our first kerbin-bound caveman! A special induction ceremony... Best, -Slashy