Holo

I never saw the use of the LV-1 engines, but I do enjoy it because it' still within the rules. Adding you all he the OP!

My first, and only, planet is Duna.

Build a craft capable of reaching space on the ground using docked segments of no more than 3 tons in size each.

This challenge is simple: get the highest altitude whilst using exactly 4,000 liters of fuel (10 FL-T400 Fuel Tanks equivalent). It's basically a copy of khyron42's old challenge, which was posted back in September. There are some rules: Full thrust all the way. You are not allowed to throttle down until all your fuel is depleted. This also includes pausing for too long between stages - a short pause is OK. Use the Mk 1 pod (1-man) or the Mk 1-2 pod. No bonus points are awarded for the Mk 1-2. No sources of propulsion that are not liquidfuel+oxidizer rocket engines With those out the way, I present my entry to the challenge: http://youtu.be/OHNy25JSO80 You'll be scored by the altitude of your rocket the moment all of your fuel depletes. Here is the scoreboard so far: tavert - 19 Mm zarakon - 18 Mm Plur303 - 17 Mm zarakon - 11 Mm clapanse - 9.6 Mm tavert - 9.6 Mm Jason Patterson - 4.8 Mm Jason Patterson - 1.5 Mm Holo - 1.4 Mm

An excellent counter this that kind of thinking. Mind if I quote you on my blog post?

Where did you find those images? They look very nice.

9/10. Kerbal Ribbon Generator for the win!

I don't want limited fuel. It's too much realism for a game in a fictional solar system inhabited by little green men. In fact, I don't want orbits. You should just be able to click on a planet to fly there, because honestly, physics has no place in a game about little green people.

Distances in KSP are 10 times smaller, so Kigel Kentaurus will only be 0.4 ly away. Also, I say no to FTL.

Neither humans nor kerbals are anywhere near capable of interstellar travel. We'll chat using radio waves, but not much else.

6/10, don't remember your username but you signature is recognisable from Mars orbit.

1/10, have not seen you 'round dese parts afore.

And since the distance is shorter, does that mean that from your point of view you have reached your destination more rapidly?

NASA spent millions working on a maneuvering system for their command pod. The Russians just covered it in heatshield.

The knowledge of each shall be shared through electromagnetic radiation, each civilisation becoming more enlighted than possible in separation.

I know, I was exaggerating, but still. If that thing crashes...

Sending up our entire nuclear arsenal into space and nuking it repeatedly? No way that could possibly go wrong. Nope, none at all.

But what if the fact that you don't believe is "The Oort cloud does not exist"? THE OORT CLOUD IS A HOAX BY THE REPTILE OBAMAS, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

This makes my brain hurt, so I'm just going to believe this guy instead: Speed of light? More like speed of waves travelling through the luminiferous ether! (reading through some relativity stuff, it looks like acceleration makes distances shorter ? or something like that so I dunno)

I've done the challenge guys! E1 is me failing, E2 is me overcoming adversity and succeeding. Excuse my high-pitched, annoying voice. 14 AND PROUD. http://youtu.be/Mq0I6nj81p0 http://youtu.be/ZS34qQSBzmU EDIT: By the way, it has a mass of 6.207 tons which gives me both of the low-mass bonuses.

My brain hurts, enough relativity for today

It makes perfect sense if you want to visit the next star without aging severely. But, due to time dilation, won't your brain slow down, making everything look like it's moving ~50% faster?

I'm going to imagine in my head that either NASA was performing a very scientific study on the growth of beards in microgravity environments or the skylab crew justified their not-shaving as "I'm the king of space, [EXPLETIVE REDACTED] you".

AT JOOL HE WILL RETURN FOR REVENGE!!! (dun dun dun)

Doesn't matter, Laythe's surface is still a toasty 6 C according to the wiki.