Skeltek

I dont get you guys. Just build a Spacecraft with 2-3 Hitchhiker containers and haul 6-12 tourists at once. With proper gravity assists at planets all thats required is the delta-v for achieving a mun-gravity-assist and a bit extra for fine manouver adjustments. For speeding up again, just use Eve, Gilly. Gillys very eliptical orbit also allows for a lot of delta-v gains when its periapsis is facing away from the sun. If all else fails you can still adjust course and use a few m/s to get a third gravity assist at Moho. The only reason this mission feels bad is the large amount of time consumed, wasting a mission slot until completition; though some players dont have a problem with making excessive use of the limitless resource "time". The 1.5-2.5 mio for hauling 8-12 tourists to suborbital sun trajectory is worth the bit extra fuel for the challenge. Also you dont really need to slow down for the suborbital. Another possibility is to translate the transversal velocity part of the orbital velocity vector into radial velocity. Just use a gravity-assist to trade the orbital velocity around the sun into radial velocity away from the sun. That way your overall kinetic energy is conserved, making it a bit easier energy-wise to reestablish a stable orbit with another gravity assist.

Ridiculous? How? Why dont you just refuel in high Kerbin orbit for the additional few hundret delta-v? So you're kind of saying parabolic flights in earth's atmosphere are also pointless? Thats what your argumentation implies. Going suborbital around the sun requires several planetary gravity-assists with preferably lunar gravity-assists to get the additional delta-v. If you dont cheat your tourists out of their money, you should had passed several planetary bodies when you reach completition. Besides, you "funds payout" is not just 150k. Just take 6 or 12 tourists at the same time if you are afraid of financial losses. 1.5 mio credits is ridiculously worth the investment and the few hundred delta-v n total doesnt even require a heavy rocket. Going suborbital means reducing the transversal velocity of the craft, thus tourists slow down over a certain spot. Sightseeing-wise they get to view a certain area of the celestial body for a longer period of time instead of just furiously speeding by it and the view and photos all getting blury ^^ So logically you can always find something to legitimize the mission parameter. And why do you even care why someone wants you do do what he pays you for? It is a challenge.

should be sun atmospheric height: 600,000m Having a suborbital trajectory should suffice: periapsis anywhere below atmospheric height (or below ground if no atmosphere is present) and apoapsis above atmosphere. It is important to have a full closed elipse. If the elipse enters any sphere of influence of anycelestial body along its path, the elipse will be broken by a fly-by and not be closed. You should get a fly-by whenever you enter a sphere of influence and leave it again. Switching from planetary SOI to sun SOI and back to planetary SOI should give you a fly-by (not sure if it has to be the same planet in case of the sun though). I cannot imagine suborbital sun missions being removed ever. Kerbin's transversal velocity from the sun is 9284.5 m/s, so in total you need a delta-v of less than 2*9284.5 m/s = 18569 m/s. That can very easily be achieved by a lunar swingby at Kerbin to leave in proper direction, planetary swingby at another planet to remove the required delta-v and another planetary swingby at EVE to pick up speed again. It can be a very big help to combine a planetary gravity assist with a lunar gravity assist. that way you can use the planet for gravity assist and additionally use the moon to futher absorb impulse (that needs very good plan ing ahead and is difficult for most players to comprehend the required constelation and angles of participating bodys. The mission should be doable with normal conventional rocket engines. With proper planing ahead you usualy just need a few hundred m/s delta-v to reach any place in the solar system. The only thing I really hate about theese missions is the time required waiting for proper constellations. Just a small change in prograde speed can sometimes completely change the planet-moon angles on arrival. Problem is the game cannot calculate the stuff accurately too much time in advance due to machinenumber-inaccuracy. So a solid understanding of required angles, speeds, maximum impulse-change of gravity assist is mandatory if you want to plan futher ahead than the pre-calculated conics&elipses canaccurately prognose. Sometimes a divergence of about the smalest possible float-number in m/s can already mean a completely different outcome if the trajectory has to be calculated too far in advance.

You dont get it... I want it in the middle of the craft and not at the very front.

"Belief" is a squeeky little devil. After some futher testing and excluding a glitch with the nodebased linkage system of vehicle parts, I was convinced they just got the sign of the z-axis wrong for the engine. It is as hard as it is already to get the center of mass towards the back of the craft. I dont think it would had been a wise decision to implement it like you describe. With larger crafts a shift of weight towards the front by just a few inch doesnt help much at all. And with smaller craft it is just nearly impossible to balance. With most real aircrafts, most the fuel is located inside the wings, so center of variable fuel mass is automatically pretty close(slightly in front) to the center of lift. Inside the game for small craft it is especially difficult to have something behind the fuel tanks to balance out the cockpit mass in front of the craft. Basically you have the cockpit in front, a fuel tank in the middle and the engines in the back, so the aproximate center of mass if about where the fuel tanks are. With how it is now, you have to place some placeholder or something else behind the fuel tanks to make the engines able to shift the center of mass backwards; effectively making your "small aircraft" too long to be really able to lift off safely with the small landing gear keeping minimum distance from ground...

I just noticed trying to construct an airplane. I got the center of mass pretty much in the middle of the craft. Attaching 2 heavy engines in the far back of the craft actually moves the shown center of mass forward instead of backward It is really a pain to balance out all the craft and center of mass, lift and drag, just to see the attachment of engines at the far end of the plane to actually move the center of mass forward to the cockpit. Anyone else can give me a hint on what that is all about? Apparently it seems the mass is added at the location, where the frontmost part connects to the mid section. Dont know how to upload pictures here and my dropbox doesnt give me a direct link to the content, so heres the dropbox links: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lers4y0046nox9y/WithoutEngines.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/20001fi163jjuu2/WithEngines.jpg?dl=0 As you can see, the center of mass with the engines attached is significantly futher front instead of the back. The game just seems to add the engine mass to the fuel containers attachment point and forgets all about the z-axis difference. Also the center of drag and center of lift behave strange for me it seems(nosecone-effect-like, but with the exactly opposite of expected result), but Im still trying to figure out the exact reason.