GoSlash27

10 hours is the sticking point here. Do I understand correctly that you have no solar panels or RTGs aboard? And your engine doesn't have an alternator? If that's the case, you don't have time to wait for your burn, let alone sending up a rescue. Where is your orbital plane in comparison to Kerbin? parallel to Kerbin's surface being 0* and perpendicular being 90*?

That's the beauty of KSP; nobody says we all have to play it the same way. I am also lifting all the "interesting cargo", I'm just doing it with smaller launchers. I can see how the aerospike is pretty much useless to you, given the designs you build.... but *I* find it an excellent choice for the designs I build. If it is improved any more, it'll make a whole slew of other engines obsolete. I definitely don't think it should be vectorable, and I'm cool with not being able to stack it. Best, -Slashy

... although if you take advantage of the loopholes in the physics engine, it *is* possible. Couple an Ion drive with infiniglide, and it becomes possible. Likewise a Kraken drive could possibly pull it off. But none of that is mathematically provable.

According to my spreadsheet there isn't anything that can generate over 8000 m/sec DV while simultaneously exceeding 17M/sec acceleration in the stock part set. Even with a payload comprised entirely of physics- free parts, you're still gonna have to stage to get off of Eve.

I think the Aerospike is just fine as it is. I can see how it'd be useless to folks who are running 500T landers, but if you design your stages properly I can't picture a scenario where you'd ever need a vehicle anywhere near that big. 60 tons on the pad is as big as you'd ever need to get in this game (at least without mods), and the Aerospike shines in that region. If anything, it's a little *too* good. Regards, -Slashy

And finally there's Startrader/ Chiron; the mass driver and tug assembly. A Startrader/ Chiron aboard a Shotput lifter for launch. Startrader is a mass driver with sufficient delta vee to transport a 5 ton stack of modules to any body in the system. It's chiron tugs serve as "hands", disassembling and reorganizing components of stacks into landing vehicles. Startrader/ Chiron in LKO So that's the whole system, pretty much. There's a standardized group of surface vehicles that are used to establish a surface colony on any planet. They are lifted to LKO aboard a Shotput/ Courier. The Startrader/ Chiron is likewise lifted aboard a Shotput. The stacks are assembled in orbit and refuelled. Then the Startrader does the transfer. The Chiron tugs reassemble the stacks into lander modules in orbit around the destination and everything is assembled on the surface.

Thanks, Claw It just seemed the way to go to simplify the process. This is my standard launcher, "Shotput/ Courier". Shotput lifts 5 tons of payload plus the courier. Courier then establishes LKO, corrects for inclination, and conducts intercept, rendezvous, and docking. I use this standard booster combo to lift all of the pieces in the preceding picture except for the Eve launch vehicle, which requires it's own unique launcher. Shotput/ courier also carries out the logistical lifts; 5 tons of fuel/ oxygen/ monopropellant per launch. A shotput/ courier LV with a stack of Tylo rovers A stack of Tylo Rovers in LKO aboard a Courier. The mass mover also uses a Shotput lifter for launch but dispenses with the Courier LKO vehicle, conducting that phase autonomously.

IMO the most important thing is to have adequate torque while avoiding excessive oscillation. I'm a big fan of having a reaction wheel right at the COM, but it's just as important to have your controlling pod rigidly linked to it. If you can't put your controller right next to your reaction wheel, then you either must make sure that your rocket is rigid or else move your reaction wheel closer to your controller. HTHs, -Slashy

This is my family of modular surface exploration vehicles. Clockwise from lower left: a pair of linked Habitation modules with a Tylo Rover, another Tylo Rover, 2 rovers with a generic lander, and the Eve launch vehicle. All of these vehicles can be connected together and exchange fuel. The Tylo rovers work in pairs to place 5 tons of payload on the surface of any body or lift 1 ton to orbit (exception, Eve). They can bring habitation modules to the surface, drive them around and link them together. They can do the same with the generic lander and also launch to orbit carrying it. The Eve launch vehicle is built to tackle the unique challenge of Eve. It can land, traverse and climb to a suitable launch altitude, refuel using Tylo rovers, and launch a Kerbal to orbit from 4Km or higher above MSL. These are sent in "stacks" from a family of standardized lifters and transported to their destination bodies using a standard mass mover with dedicated tugs (not shown)... Generic lander combo during terrain testing.

I wouldn't necessarily hang my hat on that. The Aerospike is an awfully good choice for a lot of bigger landers. A ton less mass and 3 times the thrust per engine makes up for a lot of Isp. I'm currently working with 2 standardized landers and neither one uses the LV-N. Between the two, I can land on and return to orbit from any body in the system. I'd recommend modeling each choice in a spreadsheet to see what works out the best for your application. Best, -Slashy

@NecroBones, Woof! That's a big'un. I imagine it's designed for 12,000 DV. I found that the mass balloons pretty rapidly above 9 grand or so, so here's what I'm working on: It only gets 8,900 DV, but it's off-road ability allows it to climb to a suitable launch altitude. Weight is 52 tons and it has very docile handling through all phases. The idea is to do a deorbit and landing, drive overland to the launch site, and then use tylo rovers to refuel it on the surface. Still in alpha testing, so I'm not ready to release it just yet... Taking a breather to recharge the batteries during the hill climb test. Jeb's feeling daring... Yeah, you can use parachutes during the descent, but the atmosphere is so heavy that it's not worth the weight and headaches IMO. The atmospheric drag will get you pretty slow before touchdown and it doesn't take much DV to make up the difference.

Duplicate post...

Well- stated. Best, -Slashy

No, it is absolutely true. An inefficient engine can be replaced with an efficient engine or a cluster of efficient engines and generate adequate thrust for a stage. You can replace an inefficient engine with a more efficient setup and get more DV, but you *cannot* replace an efficient setup with an inefficient one and gain DV. The point is that "thrust efficiency" is a useless term. At least as far as our purposes go. I understand what you're getting at, but your argument is based on a false choice fallacy. Regards, -Slashy

That's a very high center of gravity for a lander, and I suspect it's also going to be underpowered for Eve. Some food for thought: An early version of my "drumset" Eve lander design. Normally short wide rockets are bad for stability, but the upside is that you can put a reaction wheel right at the CoM and it makes for a very stable landing platform. The latest version looks very similar to this, but is more mass efficient (no pics yet) Regards, -Slashy

Basically you've got 2 ways of looking at efficiency: Mass efficiency and Isp. An engine that can generate a DV with less total mass for a stage (which includes the engine itself) is highly mass efficient. This is critical for later stages in a stack, as they make for a smaller payload for earlier stages to contend with. An engine that delivers a high Isp is more fuel efficient. All else being equal, an engine with high Isp will generate more DV with a given amount of fuel. This can be important for longer burns, where the fuel efficiency overcomes the mass penalty. The important thing is that thrust doesn't figure into efficiency considerations. You need to generate the required thrust for a stage regardless of other concerns, but there are many ways to do that and nobody says you have to use just one engine to do the job. Best, -Slashy

It works! My new Tylo rover can can reach 80km orbit in a single stage, deorbit burn, land without parachutes, and drive home. I put a link to the download in the stock vehicle section. -Slashy

Grazi! I just used the clipping to gain ground clearance while maintaining a low center of gravity... but I'm not above lying, cheating, and stealing where necessary to achieve my goals The secret to achieving SSTO performance in such a tiny package isn't in the part clipping, but rather ruthless elimination of weight and the liberal application of math. Anywho... glad you like it. Use it in good health! -Slashy

I disagree. Lots of people have rockets that they haven't fully engineered early on and think that they can just use more fuel or more engines as a crutch. "More" can work sometimes, but usually it just winds up being a bloated mess. Better to design it properly from the outset IMO and if it doesn't work, more often than not the answer lies in "less" somewhere rather than "more" somewhere else. Best, -Slashy

In LKO from KSC, SSTO. preparing for reentry. reentry over KSC. Final descent, no chutes. Touchdown.

Rule#1: Always trust Jeb. He won't get in a rocket he doesn't trust. Rule#2: If you can just get Kerbals on the surface, the rest will work itself out. 2a: Don't overthink it 2b: Don't worry about contingencies Rule#3: You don't need math Rule#4: If it's too heavy, add more engines. If it runs out of gas, add more fuel.

Please place this one under stock craft/ VAB/ rovers... The spacecraft of the future is here! Tired of attempting to colonize planets, only to leave your supplies and personnel scattered all over the surface and stranded?? Sanchez Aerospace (a subsidiary of Mainway Enterprises) proudly presents the Tylo Rover 5.0, all new for 2014! Far more than just a "flying car",... (although we must stress that it *is*, in fact, a flying car)! It is also an excellent rock climber and all- terrain vehicle with the best handling this side of Baja! But that's not all it does! Slap a couple of these onto a payload and deliver it directly from orbit! Not only can it deliver payloads to the surface, but it can actually traverse the most extreme terrain with it and actually assemble your outpost when it gets there! You can slap a couple parachute pods* on it for deliveries to even the largest planets, or just use the prodigious power of it's built-in rockets for the most massive airless moons! How much power are we talking? How about enough power to get you to LKO in a true SSTO vehicle?** Put a stack of them on top of a "shotput courier" booster and send a fleet. Attach them to a lander module and make a return vehicle. Use it as a self- propelled jerrycan! Also makes julienne fries!*** Kiss your interplanetary exploration worries goodbye in style, in your all- new 2014 Tylo Rover 5.0 SS! Operators are standing by! *Parachute pods sold seperately ** Closed course with stunt robot guidance. Always drive your Tylo Rover responsibly! *** Not really http://wikisend.com/download/440760/TR5 SS.craft

After tweaking the rover design, it is now SSTO capable from the pad at KSC. Now to see if it will keep this capability after adding docking ports...

This rover is designed to act as an SSTO for most bodies in the system, as well as an ATV, scout, payload hauler, construction equipment, and jerrycan. It falls a little over 400M/sec short of being SSTO from Kerbin. I haven't bothered to create an SSTO from Kerbin because 1) I don't need one and 2) there's no benefit to it. This one serves the function from most other bodies because 1) I *do* need one and 2) There are all sorts of benefits to it. Best, -Slashy [edit] I wonder if I could put one in orbit from a mountaintop. Hmm...[/edit]

Beyond what's been suggested already, you could simply place your "satellite" on one of Kerbin's poles...