Keto888

Sorry I didn't answer sooner, I forgot a bout this for a couple of days. I put the aerospike on the near side of that triple decoupler thingy. Also, all of these designs are so cool and creative!

I started with my standard KSP design philosophy of building a standard respectable rocket... and then tacking on random bits to make it go faster! So my ship looks very different from all of yours, and I ended up using some staging ( is that okay? ) but I'm pretty sure I got all of the pieces (except other command pods). So here's the ship: And here's the log: I'm very proud of the results! 6,102 m!

But you're forgetting about the Alcubierre Drive or any other type of "warp" drive, which bends space around you, thus allowing you to drastically change position (faster than light travels) without actually having to go faster than the speed of light. Also, Nomad, are you still working on this? I know you, of course, have to put real life stuff first, but you haven't given us any sort of progress update in about two weeks... (also, sorry, I hope this doesn't count as a necro or anything...)

Is 'Adventure' far too cheesy a name? That\'s the only word I could think of similar to those words, that isn\'t already a space shuttle or star trek ship .

This is looking awesome! I\'ve tried out the MK I and I\'m sure the mark two will be even better . But my question is this: the MK I engines are clearly absurdly fast, and you probably couldn\'t go faster than that within the atmosphere without your ship just breaking apart, but once in space, I feel like drives take you nowhere near FTL speeds. I was just wondering if you are planning on making any changes to the way the MK II engine will work, both in terms of speed and stability. No matter, I\'m sure that the MK II engine will be great ;D!

I got 7,100m using a single SRB. Kerbals don\'t need to survive right? I also don\'t know if an ending screenshot is enough proof, but here it is: