Yemo

Balancing, especially with regards to contracts/economy/difficulty settings. I tested hard difficulty and ended up converting science into funds. Biomes/old school science was nearly irrelevant, a few simple low gravity minmus surveys and I didnt know were to put all those science points.

I think restaging is not an exploit. But staging a totally empty/unusable part is imho an exploit. A booster test should only be successfull, if the booster is used, ie it should have to contain a small amount of fuel. So you cant use the booster before the test due to the nature of solid fuel boosters. A rocket engine test should only be completed, if the rocket engine fires (with at least minimal fuel), ie putting the engine just between 2 parts and then staging it should not count. Of course you can use the normal engine before the test.

This is my biome hopper with level 5 tech. The 909 can be replaced with one or two 48-7S for more dV or more TWR. Not sure if the science hopping is possible without asparagus/2.5m parts/jets/lower tech while keeping the 30 part restriction. It may be interesting to try the other way around, 18t launch pad restriction, but more than 30 parts.

@cantab: With your info that placement order is relevant, I was able to build multiple versions of the 3x jet booster pack, each optimized for either part count, weight or aerodynamics (FAR). @Greep: I like your battery cluster with attached rocket vessel ;-). How do you seperate your lowest booster, I tried explosive decoupling in 0.90, but it took quite some time to overheat and I lost a lot of vertical speed until then. @xcorps: With cantab s tip in mind, I placed 1. a small fuel tank (54 liquid), 2. then the tricoupler, 3. a symmetric pair of intakes around the fuel tank, 4. one jet engine below tricoupler and then repeated 3 and 4 two times. The 3 additional intakes compared to your design weigh nearly nothing, but massively increase efficiency for the jets. For 15.7t to 18t vessels, 54 liquid fuel and the right ascent path, they burn out before they suffocate. But fuel level is adjustable for weight and ascent path differences.

A friend flew the mission, I m not the best pilot and with xmas around, too many interruptions. The main challenge is, to find an optimal ascent path to waste as little dV as possible in atmo, while accounting for the low TWR of S2 for circularizing the orbit. Then it is just landing at an elevated/dV efficient point on the mun, the lander is wide enough but relatively top heavy when landing. Will try the mission probably after boxing week and make some screenshots. About the difficulty level, I think the 30p/18t is harder than the Biome hopping 30parts (4science/goo, 2 of them landed). The 18t limit with 1.05t, 6parts science + capsule and parachute is very tough. I m sure a surplus dV, Biome hopping <30p vessel is possible, if weight is not an issue, by using asparagus 2.5m rocket parts. Yours and Francescos design sure can fit in an additional science and goo part for 0.35 additional mass, by just replacing the fuel tanks with larger versions.

Had 0.01 tons too much for an 18t challenge design. In desperation I replaced a stack decoupler with a radial decoupler, using the offset and rotate features creatively...

Havent played modded KSP in a while, testing stock at the moment, but afair the much thinner FAR atmosphere plays a role as well. So even a 70km vertical drop is a problem. I remember when returning from interplanetary journeys I routinely put in 1-2 Kerbin aerobreaking rounds before the final very shallow descent.

If it is allmost all vertical velocity, you are going at an angle which is too steep. That was my first mistake using FAR and real chutes, had to radically rethink my descent path.

@Pecan: Thanks, didnt check the title again.

My ascent path uses the jets until about 28km, when they loose too much thrust to be efficient. They suffocate around 30km. Key is not only the air intake to usage ratio (with one intake per engine, they suffocate around 20km), but also the speed (especially with basic jets) and the thrust to weight ratio. You only have 2 jet packs for a weight similar to mine, thus relatively low TWR of 1.7 in the jet booster stage compared to my 3 jet packs with 2.9 TWR. But you carry much more fuel in the second stage which makes your design a lot more funds/cost efficient (and funds are in shortest supply when on hard mode), while mine is more energy/weight efficient. Katateochi has much less weight, so he only needs 2 jet packs for a TWR of about 2.9. Also there is some kind of bug. When I tried a setup with 1 fuel tank, 6 intakes around it and 3 jet engines below a tricoupler to save 1 part, they suffocated around 20km, as if they had a 1 to 1 intake to jet ratio. Specific intake/fuel placement seems to be somehow important.

@Firefitter: All explained in the linked thread and its imgur album.

I like those construction challenges. This is my weight optimized, mun capable probe. Elevons for lightweight landing gear (15m/s impact tolerance, upside downand locked or it will screw up your ascent) and dual 48-7S for the middle stage (girder segment + offset/rotate feature) and a basic jet pack as boosters. Learned the 48-7S placement from katateochi and his "Chimera" manned mun vessel: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103878-18t-%28or-less%29-Returnable-Manned-Mun-Lander?p=1616865&viewfull=1#post1616865 m: 4.8t

The craft stats are just not precise enough, should only round up in that case. You know, for testing you dont actually need fuel in the booster. You only have to activate it by staging. And 5 chutes are overkill, try 2, max 3.

Science is abundant, funds are not (esp. on hard). In that scenario, there is no need to upgrade the launch pad before the mun mission. Also, do all the profitable altitude contracts. I did a small tutorial for a hard career (without "exploits"), with an imgur gallery for ship design: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103689-KSP-0-9-Career-Kickoff-Guide-%28from-normal-to-hard-difficulty%29

Finally managed to build a vessel capable of fulfilling the requirements. It was very tough, so the margin for error when piloting is slim. dV: 5180m/s + Jet boosters for atmosphere Parts: 30 m: 16.9t √: ~22,200 3 Science Pods, 3 Goo Canisters With the Jet Boosters (S4) it reaches 28km in the Kerbin atmosphere @ 500+ m/s. With the right ascent path, the jets are out of fuel just before they suffocate. The Lifter stage (S3) takes it to 80km apoapsis. Then comes the very low TWR main stage (S2). If I had just 2 more parts available, I would have slung Rockomax 48-7S underneath the Science pods, for 0.2 less weight and 90 instead of 50 thrust... The S1 stage is for return only, its fuel tank is not full, because I decided to save weight for the other stages. The goo canisters have relatively high crash tolerance (12m/s or so), so I use them as landing legs. @-Ace: I tried a setup similar to your jet booster setup when designing for the 18t mun return challenge in the general discussion. I found that even if I put 6 intakes on the base, for the 3 jets, they suffocate around 20km. I then tried 3 fuselage intakes (the ones without fuel) and 3 of the standard intakes beneath the tricoupler (to keep the part count equal for some more weight). Same result, they suffocated around 20km. Strangely with my current design, which also has 6 intakes for 3 jets, they may go as high as 30km or so. Unfortunately my design has 1 additional part.

A great challenge thread! @Katateochi: Thats a very nice design, especially using the offset construction for the very efficient Rockomax 48-7S. I tried your craft without the wings and elevons, and it is really great. Will use that design when I m higher tech, thanks very much. My VJR Mun focuses on low tech requirements, in its basic form it needs only 200 science invested (batteries instead of solar). The standard lander makes it newbie friendly and there is some room for customization. TWR is a bit high for the 5000m mark (about 190m/s instead of 160m/s), but ok for 10000m (260m/s). But with jets, there is no need to save fuel in lower atmosphere anyway. Parts: 27 Mass: 15.7t There are other low tech/low cost designs in that imgur album, if anyone needs some inspiration for a hard career. Best to open the album seperately for that, to see all info on the crafts.

I propose cloning and adjusting one of the ugly cores for level 0 and give the Stayputnik SAS back. And while on it, make the new level 0 core available earlier, like Basic rocketry or Stability. Since without SAS it basically would just be a remote control, which were available in the late 40s.

@zarakon: I dont use the admin building, I think it is unbalanced at the moment. I got about 500 science in my second minmus mission, when I only had invested 103 science total so far and only upgraded the launchpad. Playing on hard, so should be 60% science return. Even if it isnt 60%, it is ridiculous, imho. And that were only 2 contracts and a cheap rocket... edit: I should convert science to funds at like 75% or so...

Science payout from contracts is so high, and sometimes absurdly high, that science quickly becomes irrelevant. Like very early on (only launch pad upgrade and minimal invested science), you can do eg 2 minmus survey missions and get like hundreds of science in one go - on hard mode...

I get survey kerbin missions when I cant build planes, and when I can build planes, I dont get those missions anymore...

I m playing on hard. I tried a survey mission with my V-2 space capable vertical rocket. Was not worth the time and effort, though paid ok. https://imgur.com/gallery/xSaSJ I think the overall monetary balance is ok, but the contract progression needs some work. Also the contracts pay way too much science overall. Key for hard mode is, to build cheap & efficient (as I ve shown in the imgur gallery) and to concentrate on the profitable contracts, especially the altitude ones which are not offered if you reach that altitude before accepting. Then test stuff in orbit for making good money (decline bad contracts to get good ones) and surveys when you have at least some wings. After only the cheap launchpad upgrade, the mun missions are easily doable with relatively low science (103 total), if you spend it wisely...

https://imgur.com/gallery/xSaSJ That should provide more than enough for orbit, for very low money and science requirements. But you need a pilot. You can build one which does not need a pilot with similar dV and looks better, for a few hundred more funds and a little more tech necessary.

I made 4 basic vessels to kick off the career in 0.9, which work under hard settings as well. The aim was to get all those profitable altitude contracts (until orbit without facility upgrade) with minimal costs (funds and science) and then to gather the easy science close to KSC. https://imgur.com/gallery/xSaSJ Hard mode kickoff guide: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103689-KSP-0-9-Career-Kickoff-Guide-%28from-normal-to-hard-difficulty%29?p=1609771 My very basic science gatherer/hopper:

When I tried out hard mode, I used 6 launches to orbit. 1 Booster: 1) liftoff and 5000m 2) 11000m 3) 22000m 4) 33000m 2 Boosters - Stack decoupler: 5) 56000m and for leaving atmosphere 4 Boosters - Stack decoupler - 2 starter fuel tanks + LV-909 6) reaching Orbit Then I built my "Science Hopper" to farm the biomes close to the KSC Havent upgraded a facility so far, although I m not short on cash. I made a small guide with designs for those first steps, if someone has problems with hard mode: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103689-KSP-0-9-Career-Kickoff-Guide-%28from-normal-to-hard-difficulty%29?p=1609771

I just made a small guide for starting a KSP 0.9 career. The guide should enable Kerbals to coste efficiently (funds and science) reach orbit (without facility upgrades) and to get some easy Kerbin science to kick off the career (normal/moderate/hard).