sgt_flyer

For the launch clamps, i encountered that problem with my Chaos star mk2 - basically, if one of the launch clamps is hanging in the air (and not resting on the launch pad) it 'appears' next to your flying rocket from time to time (at least, until you discarded the boosters they were attached to) - which can be pretty dangerous Now that i try to keep all those clamps on the launch pad, i don't see the bug anymore (Though, the clamps are still wobblier than before )

Well, it saves on commonality you can configure the booster to use more or less SRBs depending on what you need to put your payload into orbit - and you don't need to specially design and use a smaller booster to have symmetry (as it's SRBs, it would have been half the length of the current one, same diameter to use 2x SRBs instead of 1 (for the same thrust & firing duration) - which would have also required a modification of the rocket's core stage - so it could be mated with those 'small' SRBs. So it's mainly about economics no need to have separate production lines / tooling for a special version of the booster

For more classic 'suboptimal' manual ascents, with a rocket with side boosters (but with fairings) , personally, i'm closer to 3500 m/s of dV for a 80x80 lko ascent. Now, the vacuum delta-V requirements of the old delta-V maps once you are in lko are still the same as before (what dV you needed to reach a low dres orbit from LKO for example, is still the same as before - as the orbital parameters of the planets are still the same.) Now, as the vacuum chemical engines are less effective, and with various previously massless parts now adding weight, you'll need a bigger chemical stage than before to have the same delta-V.

Still, you think they'll want to avoid - as much as it's possible - any risk of breaking bones - fat embolism from broken bones can be deadly - especially if the crew was ejected at long distance in sea and will require some time to be rescued.

That's why i said they need to exploit the crash dummy data it's the dummy's data that will say if it was survivable without generating life threatening injuries

Now, they'll need to exploit the data (notably those from the crash dummy they put inside) The capsule turning upside down just after the separation and the capsule jerking around after paracute deployement were... Violent, to say the least

One way to increase our delta-V with chemicals would be to have drop tanks

@Sdj64 it will depends if we aerobrake or not - if we don't aerobrake, we'll need around 4000m/s of delta-V (with a modular puller design and the new aero, it might not be recommended to aerobrake ^^) now, between chemicals and nukes, the problem will be to have a TWR high enough to not having to sustain hour long burns - so if it's achievable with nukes without needing a huge amount of parts, why not (though having 9+ nukes on a pod creating heat, i doubt adding a radiator made of wings would be low part count else, chemicals ^^)

Mmh - with a puller design, if we keep the energy / communication module in the same configuration as on your picture, we'll need to go with a 4 pod configuration in a cross pattern (so the solar arrays / antennas are not hit by the exhausts)

Guess going nuke or chemical will depend on the final weight of the other modules - and the part count. (Especially with the new heat mechanics - as we'll need lots of wings to keep the nukes cooled down) Even with 9 nukes per pod, with 6 pods, that's only 3640 kN of thrust - for 102 parts only for the engines + engine mounts. And that's not counting the fuel tanks and cooling systems)

does it fit inside a 3.75m fairing stretched to the max ?: ) with so many wings, i suspect it will be hard to launch

ok, i just copied badly the link should work now http://www./download/rvwghk3oa841t1k/Chaos+Star+MK2.craft suprisingly, the 'lite' version of the Chaos star (without the most external boosters) is a pain - as the first decoupling occurs at a lower altitude, the aero keeps smashing the boosters into the rocket (but i wannaaa build it ! the 'lite' version is still capable of launching half the payload of the standard one...)

the stretched version of the propulsion unit is inside the Chaos Star, 4 posts above yours - here's the stretched unit http://www./download/rv...Star+MK2.craft - the stretched unit is 1530 tons - just remove the launcher, and you'll be able to see the stretched version of the propulsion unit (now, i need to rebuild a less powerful version of the chaos star, to launch lighter (but still extra wide ) payloads

@revancorana why duna ? Thought the OP stated he wanted to go to laythe ? (The inspiration model is a mars CSV though )

updated the Chaos Star to version MK2 - compatible with KSP V1.02, now comes with a fairing - and it has now 1500 tons of payload capacity !

here's the Chaos Star MK2 and a 1530 tons propulsion unit (not necessarily final for the propulsion unit) - whooping 21,08% payload fraction (for only 2.430.597 Kr - so 1588 Kr / ton ) i'll try to create alternative versions of the Chaos star - with the same size capacity, but less weight capacity for large lightweight payloads (maybe with less side boosters ) edit : here's the Chaos Star thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115732-V1-02-Chaos-Star-MK2-1500-tons-to-LKO-launcher and here's the link for the Chaos Star with the early version of the propulsion unit (which weights 1530 tons for 82 parts (if you include the 12 struts used to link the propulsion unit to the upper stage)) - http://www./download/rvwghk3oa841t1k/Chaos+Star+MK2.craft

Yes we can but why bother ? launching the fuel tugs will be multilaunch, and you'll need to ferry the additional dry weight of the tugs (And refuelling 14+ kerbodynes S3-14400 will either need 1 massive fuel tug as big as the propulsion unit, or a lot of small ones ) The chaos star is only around 460 - 470 parts itself

Tested the limits of my chaos star rocket - (without changing the launcher) - has i had around 500m/s of delta-V left with a 1000 ton payload in V1.02, with plenty of twr. Turns out i can launch 1500 tons to a 80x80 orbit with it... And stll have 200m/s of delta-V left in the upper stage at the end:p So, if needed, we still have quite some margins to stretch the propulsion section. (I'll try to remove a stage or two on the chaos star (keeping the cores arrangements), to have a less powerful launcher still capable of launching delicate oversized payloads in a fairing (the wide upper stage on the chaos star allows to correctly strut any payload )

from my above tests with 6 non detachable engines - swithching from rhinos to mainsails makes me lose 300 m/s of delta-v

yeh, don't know if it will be feasible to aerobrake with this monster even with the ship's spine full of fuel, we're going to be limited in delta-V if we are using the Rhino engine (and i doubt we'll be able to store 5000 tons of fuel in the spine) edit : with the original 6 non detachable stretched engine pods (1000 tons drive unit) , and getting fuel from a spine made of kerbodynes - i needed 7 S-3 14400 tanks (567 tons) to push 324 tons of payload. To simply add 162 tons to that previous value, i need to add 8 kerbodynes S3 - 14400 for the spine's fuel. (and we're with a TWR of 0.45 at this point - with 6 rhinos)

@redshift - do you need all these struts ? that looks like a lot else, we really need to have an idea of the final weight of all modules - that'll allow us to know if the propulsion section will have enough DV for the job (according to the cheat sheet, coming from LKO, we'll need a bit more than 4000 delta-V to reach laythe low orbit if we don't aerobrake. - and vacuum delta-V requirements should still be the same - but the engines vacuum ISP has been nerfed) the current drive unit i posted an image of, has 5489m/s of delta-V - with no payload. a single 81 ton Kerbodyne tank added in front of it (with no fuel crossfeed) makes the Delta-V drop to 4354m/s. a second kerbodyne (162 tons) makes the delta-V drop to 3645m/s. - using asparagus staging onto the propulsion unit, (dropping the tanks + engines two by two) i get back to 4135 m/s of delta-V - with the 162 tons payload. adding 6x S3-7200 (the medium Kerbodyne tank) to the engine stack - still in asparagus configuration - allows me to have 4096 m/s of delta-V - with a 243 tons payload (3 kerbodyne) - more tests : switching to a single center engine, with the 6x outer pods feeding the center fuel tank, in asparagus staging, with a 1000 ton drive unit (each of the fuel pods has 1 of each fuel tank - 1 Kerbodyne S-3 3600, 1 S-3 7200, 1 S3 14400) allows me to reach 4185m/s of delta-V with a 283.5 ton payload - with a single engine, we have a TWR of 0.16 when all 6 pods are connected - up to a TWR of 0.49 when all 6 pods are dropped. we'll need to switch to a more efficient propulsion (and Nervas need a cooling system to operate a long time) - or seriously limit the weights on the various components edit : with the tests i made,some examples : the poodle (the nervas are too heavy, and not enough TWR) - got up to having 4058 m/s of Delta-V, by using 7 poodles (1 on each pod and 1 in the center) TWR goes from 0.14 (with all 7) to 0.07 - with only the center engine. with nervas : (not accounting for the part count needed in wings to cool down the nervas) and using rocket fuel only MK-3 parts (7 pods, no jetisson, 2 nervas per pod) : i reach a 810 ton payload with 4340 m/s of delta-V - but it has an abyssmal 0.05 TWR... with 14 nervas !

we'll need to design a common adapter for the ship's spine - to have something capable of transmitting the thrust of the engines without having a noodly ship when we'll dock the various sections together. especially if we use Vernor engines (as they need a fuel source - unlike the monopropellant) - we'll need to be able to transmit the fuel along the whole spine, or have small fuel tanks at various sections of the ship. edit : here's a possibility for a engine section (with an engineer 'room' ) - the thing in the middle is a possibility for a 'spine' adapter design. - currently 89 parts - because of the struts needed. (also an 'example' of a 'spine' adapter - but this is bound to change - a bit too much part for such a part) note, this is the largest single section that can fit into a stock fairing for launch (and i have rebuilt my Chaos Star LV for V1.0 - it will have no problem lifting the fueled 758 tons of this engine section. - i added a central Kerbodyne S3 14400 tank for either - refuelling docked systems, or to be used as additionnal fuel for the main engines also includes 3x 2.5m RCS fuel tanks. (note, this engine block can still be stretched a bit if we need additionnal fuel tanks - my Chaos Star can lift 1000 tons in one go to LKO.) i'll try to design something for the solar arrays

i can give advices / help for animating stuff and various constructions tricks (i have various ideas to make deployable huge solar arrays (using my stock hinges ) so they can be folded into a fairing for the launch. now, solar panels are not going to be very useful on jool (gigantor's mass versus electricity /s is worse than RTGs...) though, this kind of ship will need to be space built the biggest fairings won't be able to enclose that thing for a single launch (still, we'll need various reliable launch vehicle to ferry the various parts (some heavy, some oversized )

thanks to the new 1.01 basic fins, i could finally get some nice vernier housings on the R-7 core stage (before that, we had no small enough triangular part ) (removed 1 of the boosters for the pic )

@rath we won't be able to help without knowing what your design looks like:) Though, i know some parts don't play nice with others - ex, i recently tried clipping a RT-5 flea inside a booster for decoupling - the thing made my boosters explode each time - replaced it by a small fuel tank and a MK-55 radial engine - no more rappid unplanned dessassemblies. Now, other parts do the same (like the inline docking port, the new 1.25m and 2.5m cargo bays also don't like clipping.) Besides, if you need someone to build a transfer stage, he'll need infos on what you want to do with it - ex : where do you want to go with that transfer stage, and with what payload weight. (And after that - depending on the upperstage, your launcher might need a redesign(