Stariy_Yevrey

@4x4cheesecake Yeah, I made very basic one

STS-5 (Wilbur): And yeah, I gave names to my shuttles. Individual names, so now I have fleet of 2 shuttles. First one called Wilbur. And second one is Jeff. STS-6 (Jeff): STS-7 (Wilbur): STS-8 (Jeff): And since I have installed more mods:

I have a question. Would IVA replacement (this one https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/157366-131kermantech-mk3-iva/) place me in modded category?

@Mopoii It means that you need to attach solar panels to telescope on orbit. Also challenge requires that you have to do that with 2 MMU's.

@Kerbolitto Wilbur souds cool.

STS - 4/4R: https://imgur.com/a/szHGT2r

@4x4cheesecake Not really that much. Orbiter had around 200 parts, but It already was a significant hit to performance. Especially when I was assembling space station. Not sure about landings from incilnations close to 30, but I did previously land from polar orbit.

@Kerbolitto I think that if you want to build shuttle, that would be perfect in every way - you better go with SSTO instead

@Kerbolitto I designed my shuttle to be cheap LKO transport (cheap relative to the "real shuttle-like" designes), other goal was to have low part count (not sacrificing aesthetics, though). I compromised with returning payload and dV ( and I'm absolutely ok with returning payload). My shuttle can't really go furher than LKO, STS-2a and even STS - 3 were kinda on it's limit. I think I won't go beyond Kerbin missions, cause it would recuire designing completely new shuttle. Btw, there is another design: But i dropped it cause there just was too much parts. And it actually had even less dV...

@Kerbolitto Control surfaces are ok. Stabilators work only for pitch. With that mass and balance it starts to sink at 120-130 m/s. And I coldn't land with significantly greater speeds because then it would just roll out from runway ( that actually happend during second attempt. Everything was ok except that shuttle stopped only when it had dived into the water). I think that the best solution is just not try to recover 40 tons from orbit with that shuttle.

@Kerbolitto Explosions. Even with fully fueled rear tank shuttle was still nose heavy. So it was hard to land at very low vertical speed ( otherwise, the runway would blow up).

STS - 3: https://imgur.com/a/F9NffX7

@4x4cheesecake Yes, it was a double-docking. But I can't say that it was significantly harder than normal one. Because fuel in rear tank was locked until reentry. And yeah, I didn't land it on a first try. There were a lot of attempts.

STS - 2b: https://imgur.com/a/TCfm4Gi

@4x4cheesecake Yeah, screenshots order was messed up after uploading on imgur, so I had to rearrange them all manually.

And here goes my STS - 2a: https://imgur.com/a/DcYrmey Same 1.7 version. Only KER.

@4x4cheesecake Orbit screenshot: STS - 1a was made on 1.4.5 version. I had a few mods installed, but none of the mod parts were used in that particular craft. Here is gamedata folder screenshot: STS - 1b was in 1.7, and I had only Kerbal egineer installed.

So here is my entry into this challenge (and KSP forum too, actually): STS - 1a https://imgur.com/a/DeRd2Nb (album was made for KerbalX, so it has more images than necessary. Link to craft: https://kerbalx.com/Stariy_Yevrey/CTS-5) STS - 1b https://imgur.com/a/XC60Rl5 Both shuttles are completely stock.