Nich

Yes I am not super worried about actually rotating kerbals however I am very strict on must dock with a station. I have been pretty lax with proof required as this is a "honer" based challenge that and I have flown most the craft anyways. Don't worry I will give your craft a try and see if I can mange it. As for scoring you were close but I believe you worded it a bit wrong so I will give an example. Deliver 30 Kerbals to a station First 6 give you 12 points Next 14 give you 14 points Last 10 give you 5 points Total of 31 points I dont know if I can do simple algbra but here is my try {[1-6]2x, [7-20]x, [21-infinity].5x} I hate non-continuous equations

BTW I have a bachelors in Aerospace engineering and mechanics and landing on the moon was still quite tough my first 15 attempts. Retrograde hold is your friend I have managed 2-3 landings without it but it sucks trying to do

That just doesn't seem right GoSlash. The AV-T1 winglests are 10x more efficient then the big S wings? I will have to try an exploit craft with 20 pairs of these

see it on a daily basis glad I am not the only one

It should be possible to obtain an approximation using laplas transforms and a lot of differential equations and a Phd in Mathmatics however Numerical integration will give you an answer that is just as accurate and is a lot easier to calculate. and yes it could be done in a spread sheet but I would use matlab

Not cheating in the slightest. Using tools given and following the stock rules. Accomplishing this with no saves no reverts is even more impressive. I think MJ is more cheating then this is.

What a brain fart I did some really fuzzy math yes you are right 128.8 launches if you launched on day 0

Have you done any tinkering with the ascent profile? Perhaps extrapolating the results from the Goddard Problem I suspect you might be hitting air friction maxes in the middle accent when TWR is really high but air density is still pretty thick. This is compounded by the fact you have wings so now drag is even more important.

Alshain have you considered that your physic.cfg is messed up? If you really do have that much experience you may be running with 1.0.2 drag with 1.0.4 ISP which would make SSTOs nearly impossible IMO If you really want a challenge try a wheesly SSTO(and yes I was successful). I spent a month trying to make one of those. Then tried a rapier build and it was SSSOOOO easy.

Very nice comic style, I am definitely hooked. My only complaint is the front matter ruined a lot of the surprise. If you wanted to explain your rules I think you should have worked it into comic form. (Have Bob mention the next rocket will not be ready for 10 days) Also you must be using 24 hour days rather then kerbal 6 hour days which kind of kills the lore for me If you want to change it PM me and I will delete this post so I dont give away any spoilers

Very impressive stats and it looks a hell of a lot better then my variant

I think he is looking for a highly mobile ship with infinite fuel turned on

12km is the sweet spot for turbos and 15km for rapiers IMO if your upset imagine how rocket people feel. Most are happy with 20% I feel SSTOs with less then 30% are pretty lackluster. The great thing about KSP is you can always modify your files to give double thrust with double isp.

6 km is really low I normally set PE to 40-45 km and aerobrake until orbit runs into KSA

Really good pictograph but drag info is outdated

Also has anyone considered the spark as a first stage booster engine? it has a little better TWR and doesn't seem to be hit as badly as the aerospike by atmoshpere. I am not sure of its Eve performance I am not sure how to get this information. However the additional drag of 10 stacks vs 1 stack may nullify its benefit entirely.

Anyideas how to optimize the AOA? Your AOI looks quite large perhaps more wing and less AOI might get you that 100dV

I usually holman transfer from 26-28km

removed** Ha ha posted on the wrong thread lol

The MK3 really needs bigger wings the Big S wing is only good for 50t I would like to see a variant twice or 3 times the size for some real heavy lifting or some big S extenstions

Very nice flight I don't think I would have been able to reach 100x100 with my flight profile and you didn't lose a solar panel If you have the recovery cost you would probably beat me for second place. I will put you down as 9.19 for now.

Not sure what you are talking about I have a sand box plane that can make it just about anywhere with 6 rapiers and a smaller variant that is currently refueling its self on Duna on my career game with only 4 rapiers. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/129374-Pro-SSTO-builder-pilot-Challenge?p=2120450&viewfull=1#post2120450

So I am sure it can be done more efficiently but my first asteroid capture was a Class D with about 260 tons of ore on it (360 total) My launcher to capture said asteroid was capable of launching 200 tons of fuel into orbit. I used fuel I have brought along with aero braking to get the asteroid into orbit of Kerbin, so most of the original asteroids ore is still available. That being said I only made 60 tons of fuel on this venture. What kind of pay pack can a truly efficient class E asteroid bring and is it worth the time?

Yes it is honer system. Danob and PB2.0 have near perfect scores however these are your best bet for getting to the top of the list. Neagle (flexs too much) and Neagle Infinity (requires a very good flight profile) are monsters no one has been able to ride but have potential to take the top spot. Space plane has not been flown but does not have a lot of potential with only 2 kerbal capacity. As for a craft you have submitted I will need testing cost included with the submission and screen shots always help unfamiliar pilots with the flight profile. If you crash a design and the cost far out way possible points feel free to start with a new design, it took me 3 tries

Working on a grand tour I hit a very bugg experience where my ship would maintain velocity and direction ignoring thrust and gravity. what happened exactly was I crashed my ship attempting to land. Then reloaded a quick save and discarded the ore stored in the tanks connected to the shock cones. I also messed with the brakes and landing gear. every time I to fast forwarded I would experience the unchanging velocity vector no matter how many times I reloaded. Restating KSP fixed the issue. I accidently saved over the craft file so I will have to remake it if anyone is interested.