Francesco

I've found out that with a little bit of balancing, it is possible to re-create the LADEE mission. (by the way, have you seen the launch yesterday?) I've built a five-stages launch vehicle using SRBs as the first three stages: Stage 1-2 separation and Stage 2 ignition Stage 3-4 separation Stage 4-5 separation Trans-munar injection Optional fairing.

it seems to me that on Ariane 5 payload separation happens earlier than in other launch vehicles: also, the flight profile seems to be different, with a very steep initial climb. can someone confirm this?

I have a question, are launch from Vandenberg considered to be more "secret" than those from Cape Canaveral? that is, are classified payloads launched preferably from there?

oh right, I didn't notice! can I has the craft file?

hey, wouldn't it be a great idea if, when you selected a collapsed group of parts, instead of expanding within the staging column, it expanded in another column parallel to that? maybe with a small UI element like an arrow which links this sub-set to the root staging set.

uhmmm, what?

The 48-7S is extremely useful on small payloads, but for very small and micro payloads, the ant is still the best choice. Also, I see a lot of people building Duna rover skycranes with four 24-77 engines, which are ridiculously overpowered for that job and could be swapped with LV-1Rs.

SpaceX will continue, as long as there will be satellites to be put into orbit.

actually, it's just a matter of logic: the VAB faces east, so it only makes sense that your rocket faces east as well when you launch it. what we have right now didn't make sense in the first place, hence we had to learn what direction inside the VAB matches a different direction when on the launchpad. when you build a plane inside the SPH, it's already aligned with the runway anyway.

Very nice! You've given me an idea: inside the procedural fairings mod, isn't there a fuselage which doesn't decouple and split itself into pieces? Maybe it could be used as an interstage?

do you remember this? the big, fat, ugly, pre-0.18 VTOL

I voted for Giggleplex's Meteosat 2: I LOVE how the satellite looks, with all those solar panels wrapped around

you mean delta-v, or is that another thing altogether? also, do real wheels work just like in KSP, consuming electricity? and how can they give you unlimited delta-V/L, if you have to "empty" them at some point using RCS? a lot of questions here

well, damn. a booster made of boosters: this is as Kerbal as it gets.

Well, if by "shelter" you simply mean structural panels above each Kerbal's head, that changes everything. Also, if you allow orbit refuelling, then I'll just build a Kerbin SSTO with some 4500 m/s of delta-v, launch it, and refuel it before Mun transfer. I'll do it tomorrow. Oh and by the way, I agree with Johnno: what's with the cheaty LV-N engines? Seeing both of your screenshots, you seem to be using an upgraded, 320 kN version. Hmmm...

and what type of symmetry did you use to place the SRBs? three times 3x?

the rules you have set up are very strict: you say we lose point if there is no shelter, and I don't know about the HOME habitats, but carrying 25 kerbals with stock parts means using no less than 6 hitchhiker modules = 15 tons at least. now try to carry that to orbit with a craft that's under 80 tons. I'd like you to show us your attempt at this. (inb4 air hogging SSTO)

Description: Like its predecessor, the K-MAP Satellite Launch Kit is a two stage launch vehicle, with a probe-equipped upper stage which can de-orbit itself, leaving no debris in orbit. It shares many similarities with the earlier model, but it's more elegant in terms of design, doing away with the "hole" on the bottom of the satellite body: the use of four LV-1R engines allowed our engineers to put protective plates on all sides. What's inside: Stage 1 liftoff TWR: 1.6 Stage 2 separation TWR: 1.5 I created this to be a Kerbin-stationary satellite: the recommended launch procedure involves achieving a 75x75 parking orbit, then waiting for Kerbal Space Center (or your stationary point of choice) to be 90° ahead of your position, and perform the transfer burn. It will take you about 1h 25' to reach apoapsis (2868 km), during which Kerbin will spin around 1/4 of its period. Some minutes before reaching AP, separate the upper stage by releasing the docking port: the de-orbit maneuver requires 20 m/s of delta-v. The apoapsis kick is performed by the satellite itself: a 420-430 m/s burn takes about 1' 10" at full thrust, but a lower throttle for fine-tuning is recommended. (The making of: A RCS prototype which turned out to be too heavy) Default action groups: 1 toggles the four LV-1R engines 5 extends all the antennas Gallery with more pictures: http://francesc0.minus.com/mbiXStC8m7m1XE Download craft: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23334071/0.21.1/K-MAP%20Satellite%20Launch%20Kit.craft

You guys are making this difficult for the OP by giving all kinds of advice, except the only objective measurement we can all agree upon: knowing how much delta-v it takes to reach Sun escape velocity. Starting from a low Kerbin orbit, that value is approximately 2.7 km/s. So, no, you don't need a monster spacecraft to do that.

he means that since you can't transfer crew via EVA, you have to recover both crafts together (for which you would get 65 points, according to the challenge rules). ----- by the way, bonus points for docking is also already in the rules. waiting for the scenario file!

I like the idea of the dockable heat shield. never thought of that before.

I think we should be able to use action groups for fuel/RCS tanks also, not just engines or thrusters, so that if you can't reach inside the fairing and click the red arrow, you can still toggle the resource flow from that tank with a 0-9 key.

Most definitely it will. My Macbook is quite similar - 2.3 Ghz Core i5, 4 GB RAM, Intel HD 3000. Don't expect great levels of performance, though.

Because I love solids.

how can you launch directly vertical and intercept the Mun, when it is 90 degrees ahead of you?