NoobTool

Here's my entry. The Czar Galactica MK 3 EX. 236.8 ton payload to a 100km circular orbit, orbital docking maneuver, runway landing back at KSC. Full album here: http://imgur.com/a/Z3oUU

Glad you like it, sorry it won't work out for you. It does have a pretty high part count, and taxes my system as well. I would highly recommend setting up an account at kerbalx.com. Great craft-sharing site created by katateochi. Well laid out, easy to use, lots of tools and features.

Yes, full stock.

https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-3-EX I haven't actually flown this particular one to Duna... yet. I did fly the passenger variant there and back though. This one should theoretically be more capable. I know I stated in my original post in the spacecraft exchange and on the Kerbalx page for the craft that 180 tons is the max payload to orbit, but after re-balancing fuel and tweaking my ascent profile slightly I just flew 6 full orange tanks each with docking ports on both ends (218.6tons) to a 100km circular orbit with plenty of fuel left for the return. I'll try to get some images and brief mission report up in the next few days. I've got to get to bed.

@DerekL1963 Actually, it appears that there are plenty of solid oxidizer options: Composites typically consist of a mixture of granules of solid oxidizer (examples: ammonium nitrate, ammonium perchlorate, potassium nitrate) in a polymer binder (binding agent) with flakes or powders of: energetic compounds (examples: RDX, HMX), metallic additives (examples: Aluminium, Beryllium), plasticizers, stabilizers, and/or burn rate modifiers (iron oxide, copper oxide). (From Wikipedia) It appears that this question might warrant a bit of discussion, maybe I shouldn't have posted it in this thread.

@DerekL1963 I'm not aware of any either, I sort of presumed their existence based on solid fuel boosters containing both fuel and oxidizer.

Kinda spit-balling here, I've seen hybrid solid/liquid fuel rocket engines using a solid fuel and a liquid oxidizer, but what about using a liquid fuel and a solid oxidizer? This could conceivably allow for jet and rocket engines to use the same fuel on-board the same craft. Is there anything that immediately jumps out that would preclude the viability of such a set-up?

Extended cargo variant of the Czar Galactica MK 3, featuring a laundry list of improvements. Can now lift and deploy 180 tons to a 100km circular orbit and return to land safely at the KSC runway. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-3-EX 5 x CRG-100 MK3 cargo bays, 1 x CRG-50, 1 x CRG-25. It can now take-off weighing 965 tons! My intention is to fly this thing to Laythe and deploy a sizable surface outpost. The plan is to deploy stationary surface assets via precision inverted air-drop and then have them land under parachutes. Preliminary flight tests have been promising, I just have to watch the part count. Wish me luck!

Haha, Thanks! I've been playing for a while, but only recently started posting on the forums.

It's good to know that I'm not the only person who would like to see this.

Speaking of over-engineered overkill, this might be a little more than you had in mind. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-3-Heavy-Crew-Transport The Czar Galactica Mk3 Heavy Crew Transport Economy seating for 150 Kerbals, Capable of reaching Minmus or an asteroid intercept for refueling with on-board mining equipment, Room in the forward cargo bay for a full science load-out (along with a rover or VTOL for biome hopping if you wish). I used it to fly 150 Kerbals to Duna and back for the Elon's Problem Challenge posted in the forums. As far as aesthetics, I think she's pretty sexy for a bbw.

It seems that this thread has become focused on submarine parts, which is cool, but wasn't my original intention. Without interesting things to find under the surface, being able to travel under the surface quickly becomes boring. No amount of submarine parts would prevent the novelty of being able to dive under the surface from quickly wearing off if all there is to be found is vast expanses of largely flat nothing. The only reason I would travel to Dres (I have not yet been), would be to bring a rover designed to explore the rather epic canyon that waits there. The same is true of the Mohole on Moho (is this still a thing btw?). Adding interesting topography, landmarks, easter eggs, biomes, etc. under the surface would make going there rewarding. Without these things submarine parts are largely moot, since there would be little reason to use them.

Thanks! Although, thinking a bit further, I suppose you would need a separate resource for the ducted electric turbofan to keep it from working in space or at insanely high altitudes (intake medium maybe?). But now we're getting away from the whole simplicity idea.

Right, I was simply advocating for simplicity. It would be easier to add in the topography etc., than to add in the topography plus a bunch of new parts (I really just want to pilot this thing through a trench on Laythe). Although, I would like to see a stock electrically driven propeller, or maybe even an electric ducted turbofan that would require a certain intake capacity (although not the intake air resource) plus an electric power source to operate. The electric power requirement should be relatively high though, you would want it to be prohibitive (although maybe not impossible) to power it with solar panels / rtg's.

Right, the jets shouldn't be running underwater, but if I wasn't ready to suspend a bit of scientific correctness for the sake of gameplay, I don't think I would be playing KSP. Using current stock parts keeps things simpler, although I'm not as opposed to more parts as some people are.

I think it's entirely possible with current stock parts. I'm not necessarily suggesting adding a bunch of submarine parts. This craft is positively buoyant, so it has to stay moving to stay submerged, but it's quite a bit of fun to pilot under the surface. I'm hoping to get it to Laythe soon, should be a fun mission. I took it down to -1000m off the coast from KSC. Eve would be more difficult since jet engines don't work there. A negatively buoyant submersible would likely be more suitable for Eve.

Given that there are multiple real world destinations in our solar system with liquid oceans, and that exploring these environments is likely to be a goal for not-too-distant future exploration missions, I would have difficulty understanding why anyone would be unhappy about adding meaningful exploration of liquid environments in game. It would add new challenges and new rewards. Love that profile pic btw

With the advent of usable hydrodynamics, I think including things like interesting underwater topography (underwater mountain ranges, canyons, maybe even a cave or two), underwater biomes, and maybe underwater Easter eggs in places like Kerbin, Laythe, and Eve would add a new and interesting wrinkle to gameplay. I've recently designed a few submersible vessels that are a lot of fun to skim along the ocean floor. They would be even more fun if there were some more interesting rewards for this type of exploration.

Does this count? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/149740-150-kerbals-to-duna-on-a-friggin-spaceplane/

Thanks!

Yeah... I didn't go to the trouble of getting them all out, only one engineer eva'd to re-pack the chutes (I thought to myself after landing, "gee, I hope there's an engineer on board"). Heh. Framerates were pretty abysmal (I'm playing on a first gen i7). Probably dropped to lowish single digits during ascent/re-entry. 1.2 runs pretty well though. The good news is the i7 doubles as a space heater!

Well, I'm not sure what the issue was with the drills. Maybe I was missing an update? Anyway reloaded that save a few days later and they were working! Game on! Link to the mission report. All parts recovered landed at the runway. The only cost was fuel. 80151 units liquid fuel x .8 funds = 64120.8 27225 oxidizer x 0.18= 4900.5 250 Monoprop x 1.2= 300 69,321.3 starting fuel value Recovered: 9107 liquid fuel x 0.8= 7,285.6 2140 oxidizer x 0.18= 385.2 208 Monoprop x 1.2= 249.6 7920.4 in recovered fuel 69321.3 - 7920.4 = 61400.9 / 150 Kerbals = 409.4 funds per Kerbal. Pretty good value! Thanks for posting this challenge! I had fun!

I flew this mission to participate in the Elon's problem challenge posted by Jasonden. I thought it would be a good test/demonstration flight for the Czar Galactica Mk3 platform. I figured I'd do a mission report here with a link to it in the challenge post. The craft: Czar Galactica Mk3 Heavy Crew Transport 1,270,939 funds to get started. Seating for 150 Kerbals Less fuel than I expected when we got to orbit, still more than enough for a flight to Minmus. I'm thinking the lower frame/refresh rate with 150 Kerbals on board played with my ascent profile. I remember having more fuel in orbit on the maiden test flight with only the pilot on board. Had the option of refueling on Minmus or intercepting an asteroid, I chose Minmus. Ateroids can be mined faster, but I neglected to check phase angles before departure, so we were going to have a lengthy layover at Minmus anyway. After Refueling (and waiting for phase angles), on to Duna! Plenty of fuel left for insertion and landing (or so I hope). I flew this mission with no mods (no mechjeb or Kerbal engineer), So there was a lot of guesstimating going on. It took a few failed attempts to get the Duna landing procedure nailed down (Oh, the carnage!), but the landing went pretty smoothly after that. With the parachutes deployed, and the NERV's and vertical landing engines at full throttle, I was able to touch down at around 30 m/s and less than 5 m/s vertical. Very survivable, I just had to remember to turn SAS off immediately upon touchdown. Otherwise the SAS did it's best to shed the engine pods, control surfaces etc, etc. Landed At Duna!! With 150 Kerbals on board. Should've brought a rover, next time maybe... I made the mistake of topping off the tanks at Duna... very bad idea. I had a difficult time finding a piece of terrain suitable for takeoff. Apparently a rocket-powered commercial passenger vessel weighing around 1000 tons makes a poor bush-plane... Go figure. A few more failed attempts here, but in the end I found a sweet spot. Success!! And we're off to the races! The oxidizer was just about right, but I had waaay too much liquid fuel. Oh well, I'll have plenty for orbital maneuvering back at Kerbin. I didn't do any aerobraking for Kerbin capture, I had a lot of fuel and I wanted to burn some of it off. Not to mention, she doesn't hold up to aerobraking terribly well. Speaking of fuel, balancing fuel distribution to get a good center of mass is a bit of a chore. I recommend using the Mk3 long tanks along the sides, filling the front and rear tanks in around a 2:3 ratio. The rear tanks are pretty close to a good center of mass. Re-entry went pretty well... until I got south of 20km. High altitude flight is not the Mk 3's strong suit. I entered a spin, but luckily was able to correct once I got below 7km. It does much better low and slow. I'd like to say I landed at the runway on the first attempt, but I didn't. What made that worse is that loading any of my atmospheric flight quicksaves below 7km resulted in the forward wings ripping off immediately. This meant I had to do the whole re-entry over again. This time I was able to descend without a spin, and I made a quicksave flying over the mountains at 7.5km, after dropping my speed to less than 200 m/s and pointing my nose directly prograde. That quicksave works (I tested it afterward), but luckily I didn't need it. Coasting to a stop, all parts intact! Sorry I didn't get a pic of touchdown, but I had my hands full. Well, I guess that's it. It was definitely a learning experience. I have a few refinement ideas for the Mk 3 (outrigger landing gear on the wingtip engine pods probably foremost among them). All in all, I'm pretty happy with her performance. If anyone has any ideas for improving high altitude flight characteristics, I'm all ears. Thanks for reading!

I built this variant to compete in the Elon's problem challenge posted by Jasonden. Economy seating for 150 Kerbals. Able to be refueled either by surface or asteroid mining. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-3-Heavy-Crew-Transport

*Edit: So... I guess Duna will have to wait. I was unaware that drills are not working. Does anyone know if they are broken for asteroids too? Or is it just surface Mining? Anyway, here are a couple better pictures and a link to the craft file. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-3-Heavy-Crew-Transport