Deutherius

-52 Where's all the opposition? Is this a trap?

Banned for not offering the Kraken any sacrifices lately

-50 And as we stand at this point, brothers, let us remember all those who fell fighting on our side

By the looks of it you got too much thrust on the bottom and too much mass on the top. A slight bend in any direction will induce huge forces on the middle part, which breaks. I reckon if you don't do a gravity turn at all and just go straight up, this won't happen (well, unless the top wobbles). I'd suggest throttling down a bit or making a slight design change - do you really need such a long middle part? Shortening the mid part and strutting from boosters to payload should increase the structural integrity enough. Probably.

-48 And so the epic invisible saga continues

Banned for living in Newfoundland.

-46 This is kinda onesided... Not that I'm complaining

I was just joking, but this just got dead serious. Starting KSP right meow. Also, I don't think I ever congratulated to Whackjob. Congratulations and may it all go well

I was thinking more along the lines of a pancake lifter, but instead of a circle it would look like a heart (when viewed from top). I didn't say it has to be aerodynamic or fly well (not that my gf would really know the difference, and even if she did, I think she'd appreciate the thought more than function) Well, there's a working , so a nyan cat would definitely be possible. Anyone knows any rainbow colouring mods for exhaust?

That'd be my second monitor. I'm going to slap my bloodied hand on it and call it Willson. It's pretty heavy though, I feel like that might drag our friendship down. The object you see in the corner of your eye is now animate and very hungry. Beware.

-44 5char

Build her a huge, heart-shaped rocket. Ladies love huge, heart-shaped rockets. (now that I think about it, I should build my gf a huge, heart-shaped rocket)

Very true. If anyone is unsure, the theoretical top speed of the turbojet is 2400 m/s (surface velocity - after that it entirely stops producing thrust), realistically you'll get acceptable performance up to 2250 m/s (read: "produces about 1 kN of thrust and doesn't flameout if you alternate tapping shift and X") - if you're going east, that's 2430 m/s orbital velocity (you should only need about 30 m/s vacuum dV for circularisation). Going west, however, this will only net you ~2080 m/s orbital velocity, which means you'll have to supply about 300 - 400 m/s vacuum dV to reach orbit. I don't think this is going to change in 1.0 - getting into a retrograde orbit will always be more costly, regardless of the engine type used.

One thing to add here - if you experience assymetric thrust/flameouts, alt+right click both the turbojet engines (like you would when transferring fuel in tanks) and tweak their individual thrust limiters to keep symmetric thrust, while slowing overall throttle (ctrl) to prevent flamouts. As you can see, I had to throttle the left engine to keep it from smothering the right one It made all the difference - when I just switched to the rockets at the first sign of flameout, I barely managed orbit with no fuel left. Using this technique I was able to milk the turbojets a lot more, resulting in more than 660 m/s dV remaining after circularising orbit.

What Starhawk said. Also, While it will take less dV to get to Eeloo where your arrow is pointing, consider that to stay in it's SOI you will have to accelerate your orbit around Kerbol a lot (and Eeloo has about the same gravity as the Mun and no atmosphere, so gravity braking and aerobraking will not really help you) - compared to the encounter you already have, which will take more dV to get to, but less to inject yourself in Eeloo orbit. And no, you would not be travelling in opposite directions, you'd still both be going prograde around Kerbol (well, unless you spent some ridiculous amount of deltaV to reverse your orbit )

I think the question should be a little more specific. My laptop starts seriously slowing down at 250+ parts (1 second in-game takes >7 seconds IRL), but I personally have no problems launching 1000+ part lifters and using the massive amounts of free time to read a book or something. My vessels usually don't exceed 200 parts, so I'm going to assume that's what OP meant.

-41 5char

And both mission were successful Gennady Padalka, Mikhail Korniyenko and Scott Kelly are safely aboard the ISS, and (from what I managed to gather) both Galileo satellites are on their intended orbits and working correctly.

You can create your own here.

Your imagination is correct - it costs more dV to launch into retrograde orbit. By how much I'm not entirely sure, but I would confidently say it's not going to cost more than 400 m/s dV extra to the normal 4500 m/s (probably even less, but better safe than suborbital) EDIT: Oh yeah, and the reason it costs more is because you have to counter the velocity the planet's rotation is giving you. That velocity is about 200 m/s prograde if my memory is correct.

-33 5char

No, that's either meant as -30 * 10^6543 (written slightly incorrectly), or -30 + e*6543 (which is about 17756). Both of them unacceptable. I'm taking your -30 and subtracting one, giving the number -31

-29 5char

-26 Well this is going fast

-19 The Kraken's will shalt be fulfilled once more