xebx

A way to reduce the performance drop due to aero is to set 'aerodynamic fx quality' to very low, fps is better during ascent or reentry. Another way to increase performance is to limit part count, efficient minimalist design and tweakscale (and kjr to reduce struts) can help. (or you will end in a lagfest anyway) I have ships with 300-400 parts and they are playable but i try to limit new designs to 100-150 parts for a better gameplay experience. That said code optimisations are always welcome. I didn't vote because i started the game in 1.0.2 (i remember red glowing bouncing spaghetti rockets, i prefer 1.0.4 as long as i don't have skin temperature increasing very fast)

The penguin ISP is only 400 when recent LH2LOx engines can have 465 ISP ! (Vinci engine) Why do you say it's op when it's a nerfed engine, and when you are ok with highly unrealistic nerva engine (nuclear engines don't exist), this is not very science friendly. Too many SciFi challenges here, not enough real science. But the idea of the challenge is very good, people should do it with real and proven technologies (kerolox, hydrolox, ion/plasma, solar/capacitor, etc) coming with the smart mods and don't care about the absurd restrictions.

I've found recently the answer : (yes it should be in direct options) BB code list

Very true And use high vectoring engines (mammoth/mainsail) add small wings or fins in the bottom to lower center of lift add reaction wheels near the center of mass AND heavy nose once more, fr ex lock upper tanks (and don't launch a rocket with an active upside down probecore@wtfisdoingmyrocket) This way impossible for a rocket to flip, do the contrary and it's 100% flip garanteed.

Use sepratron like the real rockets. Note : sepratron are only usefull on powerfull rockets when ejecting booster in lower dense atmosphere area at mach 1-2. In higher atmosphere aerodynamic effects are smaller and won't push the boosters back to the main rocket, you don't need the sep. Same with smaller or low twr rockets, ejection force is enough or speed is too low.

The moon harvester design is good for moon as the name suggests, on duna it is ok as there is atmo to slow the descent and gravity is low, but on laythe it will be less efficient, better go Vall or Pol or Bop for Jool system. For landed refueling i have this very old design (first interplanetary travel, i won't build that again, ground rendezvous and refuel are very annoying compared to orbital) Driller+Truck (the truck can adjust the height of the dock with the side engines) landed 5 years ago !

I always start with a Steadler remote guidance unit, except for lightprobes (OKTO). All my ships are 99% unmanned control (+MJ), except during atmo ascent (Val or Jeb seems to do a better job) Then it goes from the return module to the boosters. I have prebuilt boosters (2.5m and 3.75m separate or 3.75m aspargus 5 or 7) it saves a lot of time (i use stage recovery for my boosters), i choose the closest to 3400 m/s deltaV for the job. If my biggest 3.75m aspargus 7 isn't enough, i had kickback, if it's not enough, i had more and longer lfo booster. My biggest payload in LKO is a 700ton test for Jool-5 The return module will land or stay in LKO, it depends on the weight of added chutes or heat shield on this module (if it's a light lander it will probably wait in LKO for a quick recover mission) More complicated is the design of a mothership with one or more reusable landers and refuel tanks, and with complicated deltaV requirement. Grand tour or Jool-5 is very interesting for that.

I use heatshields mainly for Eve entry, Kerbin is ok with 40km Pe. The Eve-Kerbin return module (7 kerbals + science service bay) i'm using have an heatshield but with 100 ablator only, and it's nearly useless because the interplanetary booster have enough fuel to slow down to safe velocity. If you experience capsule explosion with different entry angles and decent velocities, try setting aero heating production to 99%, i have the feeling it reduces the weird/fast thermal skin effect that happens sometimes. Oh and fully fuelled / heavy ship will generate more heat, better burning the fuel to slow down than exploding.

Well, not sure about the radiator term/feature for airbrakes, let's say they increase your surface/drag, they heat due to friction, they slow your ship and transfer partially the heat to the air and the rest of the ship, otherwise they would explode yep (they are near critical temp during first descent part). The higher part of the atmosphere (>50km) is the main problem, although i had one or two disintegration at 30km during tests. Yes refuelling on Eve is a good idea, it makes your ship lighter. I made one or two tests yesterday with a fully fuelled ship, and all boom. But it didn't have enough control/reaction wheels and i didn't use engines/extrafuel to slow. (this is the plan) Edit : airbrakes acts as radiators, because they overheat, they glow, they radiate (infrareds etc). It's nearly obvious, don't know what i was thinking about.

Yesterday i've completed a Fast Travel manned Mission to Eeloo with a 24000 m/s deltaV ship (small lander included ) LFO+Ion (3 gigantor + 3 jettisonable fuel cells), 100% stock, no refuel, no nuke (timewarpx4 ok) 1y34d to and 1y207d back, total 2 years 247 days More pics in imgur album in signature.

Laythe aerobraking is the way to go, your velocity is lower (not the 9000 m/s). Gravitational capture is nice too, a mix of it and you can save lot of deltaV (in the end that's what happen when you aerobrake at laythe)

Ablator of heatshields reduce heat and Airbrakes also acts as radiators, both help a lot when you need to land something big. Drogues are useless, low atmo is very dense, but chutes saves fuel. I've often aimed for 55-70km (from 100-300km half orbit) for a good atmo entry. All gigantor panels survived, the problem was the airbrakes or some struts near the heatshield assembly.

Moar DeltaV !! (tweakscale fest)

Fast Travel manned Mission to Eeloo completed : total 2 years 247 days (1y34d to, 1y207d back) The ship is 100% stock, 24000 m/s deltaV, LFO+Ion, no nuke. Now working on a larger and modded version, that will show realistic fast travel possibilities.

Mk5-2* All-in-one Drillersupertanker : Moon Harvester 4 Drills + 1 ISRU can run continuously at same time. It's autonomous with 5900m/s deltaV, so it can refuel other ships in orbit and land back for next mining op. The 16 crew module and the science servicebay are very optional. An engineer is very welcome, to run the mining operations and repair these stupid landing legs. *Note : the Mk5-1 was destroyed by a kraken thermal attack around gilly...

Ok i am lacking precision : in real world : SSTO spaceplanes don't exist Spaceplanes were a big economical failure (you launch the payload and the carrierspaceplane at the same time + it needs high cost maintenance after recovery and it flies badly) So claiming spaceplanes (ssto or not) are really more economic is just pure absurdity, but we keep on seeing this here and in other posts. We can also find a lot of challenges that can be fun, but are nonsense in the end for most of them. The thread is about 'should' and showing where absurdity/scifi is and where real science is, is a good way to answer imo.

5 spaceplanes, how many rockets were launched ? ratio must be 0.001% that's why i say they don't exist/ are very optional (economical failures etc, X37 is very special it's a military recoverable spacedrone) Skylon project started in the 80's, it's dead, except maybe the engines, maybe Roll Royce (the real top guys no jokers) are lurking behind hoping something good and dropping some money into. Flying jokes are a good way to have fun, it makes me think of space balls or laythe ssto challenge, so hilarious spaceplanes airbreathing on another planet (80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen atmo, how hyperlucky) and using nuclear rocketry. Absurdity

Spaceplanes don't exist in real life, so they are very optional in KSP if you are interested in Science not SciFi, from here economical benefits of highly hypothetical unrealistic spaceplanes are non-sense. I'll add to this : nuclear spaceplanes are extreme non-sense. It's a game you can go SciFi or Science, where you have fun. The shuttle was not a spaceplane but a winged rocket using big big boosters like all rockets. I was very popular and a big economical failure at same time, that's why it was stopped. 99% payload launches to LEO are rockets. Skylon is a joke, a fat sausage without wings or real bodylift or big engines. Virgin airlaunch is a joke. Real stuff are named Delta IV, Ariane V, Proton, Soyouz, SpaceX, etc

Fast travel Mission to Eeloo is going well. (24000 m/s deltaV ship) After 1year and 34days, arrival inside Eeloo SOI at 7750 m/s was a bit scary, but stages and fuel are consumed nearly as planned. Ship is now in low Eeloo orbit, Dotty Kerman will plant a flag soon and travel fast back to Kerbin. All stock no nuke. (more infos in imgur album) 7 Ion Engine run mostly on jettisonable fuel cells, but for 50-100 m/s orbital adjustments 3 gigantors panels (only 5% power compared to LKO) + batteries are enough. Gigantors will run as main source during Kerbin capture+to LKO.

Is it from Eve sea level or from 7500m ? Is it a full mission from KSC to Eve to KSC or from Low Eve Orbit to Low Eve Orbit ? It makes a huge difference. Any mod and low part ? something like heavy lifter tweakscaled will do the thing. I'll try when someone post a valid entry. (i hope the first one to post will be davidy12)

Pics !! IMO it's all about mission objective (start from the end and finish with the lifter) and how your creation will fit these objectives, size is not important, features are. Is it SSTO, or sophisticated staging/docking ? (both can be good or bad) Look at other's creations it will give you ideas to change yours. Rebuild your old rockets after mission complete to make them better. (where was it annoying, where was is it good/efficient) After few iterations you should have your own style that fit your missions, looks good to you and have things at the right place with the right amount. Overbuild can happen, part limit and minimalism is a good step. After lot of iterations maybe your rocket design will tend to match the same efficient design other experienced players are using after lot of their own iterations, but still have your personal style. Build fashionitas or efficient beasts or ugly asymmetric, what you like and have fun with.

I would say if you fly spaceplanes you miss out rockets, you loose your time because spaceplanes don't exist in real world, you nearly cheating at the same time and stay at low performance. It's a game people do what they want and missing out something not important like spaceplanes is all good.

(reread the 1st message) Ah yes if he's using LV909 Terrier on launchpad, it won't move, it's a vacuum engine thrust is very low At Sea Level.

I have a similar 450-500 tons payload lifter (7 mammoth + 14 S3 tank, simple aspargus, few kickbacks are added, 25% p.f.), it needs only 6 min to have payload in stable LKO, never fail and i recover 75% of the price. Funny beast.

The top part is : LV909 Terrier + FLT200 Tank + science mat + Pod ? it should be ok, check your staging and if thrust limiter is 100% (in VAB right clic on engine), tanks are full and unlocked ?