GeorgeG

So, my all-out flight made specifically for the challenge. It did successfully get the second stage in a stable orbit before landing the first stage on the barge. I decided to go with turbojets to make it easier to get the first stage to fly vertically to 100 km. I considered adding the jets to my original Falcon based on 2 meter tanks. But I realized all the extra engines and such would add so much mass that the stage would maneuver even slower than it did, which was a bit marginal. So, I built a new rocket based on 1 meter tanks, and a Mk 1 pod. It took off only with the four turbojets running, beginning a vertical climb to 100 km. At 20 km, the thrust started to drop, so the T-45 and four 7/48's were ignited. The jets shut down at about 28km. The rocket continued up on rocket thrust until the projected apoapsis was 100 km, then the engines were shut down. The second stage was separated. But both the 1st and 2nd stage coasted up to 100 km. As it neared 100 km, the second stage began its burn to insert itself into orbit directly (no second burn needed later). In the image below, the coasting first stage can be seen in the upper left just as the second stage started its burn. After about 2 minutes, it was in orbit, 95 x 105 km, later tweaked to about 100 km circular. Meanwhile, the first stage had begun descending. In the map view image below, the second stage is near center. The first stage is at the right., 86 km up After switching to the 1st stage, it made its first correction burn to move "over" the location of the landing barge. Then it descended tail first for a hot vertical re-entry. It was a bit off, I did some manual adjustments. Urrrggh….arrggh…… DOWN! Not as close to the center as I would have liked. But at least it was not off on the left or right sides, being on "the bow" of the improved barge was OK The barge was upgraded, first by structurally improving it, and removing all the vertical thrust rocket engines, as it would be put into place in the water by HyperEdit, as allowed. I also emptied all the fuel/oxidizer from the tanks to improve floatation. Most importantly, gave it ten horizontal thrust rocket engines so it could make its way back to KSC. I used action groups on key 1 to toggle one left engine, and key 2 to toggle one right engine. This allowed for a very practical means of steering. For fuel, I used unlimited fuel for the trip back to shore, as allowed It was a long boring trip back. Top speed of 5 m/s, and warping beyond 2x caused problems. So, I kept an eye on it as I did other things on another computer. It wanted to drift left a bit so I kept needing to shut down one right engine briefly, every once in awhile. And the last few hundred meters, more precise steering to bring it where I wanted it to end up. Finally made it to shore, in line with the runway. Meanwhile, in orbit, after doing a burn for a 100 km circular orbit, the "Dragon" capsule/SM was separated from the 2nd stage. Then the second stage did a deorbit burn and… ..landed….. HERE! Well, that's what SpaceX wants to do, eventually (land second stages safely for re-use, not land that close to the ocean). Although it's a heck of a lot harder to do in the real world than in KSP, and also way harder real-world to be able to recover a 2nd stage in re-useable condition than a first stage. Meanwhile, back again in space, the Dragon has made a transfer burn to take it from 100 km to 130 km To rendezvous with this at 130 km. And dock with it to deliver those Charmin supplies. Then undock and….. Come back. And then the chute deploy….the chute… the chute? Oh SHOOT! The chute was left off for the docking port! Well, no matter, SpaceX also has plans for the Dragon capsule to eventually make a landing under thrust (though not with the SM). So, it landed safely, near the second stage and the barge with the first stage. Bill got out and headed over to take a closer look at the first stage on the barge. End. Of course, not exactly the kind of flight profile that SpaceX is using. And SpaceX is not using jet engines. But at least this does not use any special mods, it's stock other than Mecheb parts. - GeorgeG

Thanks. I knew exactly what you were looking for, second stage into orbit on the same flight. I specifically pointed out that my 2nd stage was on a reflight for that reason. As I said, I had already done it as my own personal project, capable of orbit and landing the simulated Dragon back at KSC. So I wasn't misunderstanding what you were looking for, just documenting what I had done. And hoping maybe for some unannounced "style points"..... Doing it on one flight is so hard that if it can be done, the flight profile would probably be nothing at all like SpaceX's Falcon. I can imagine launching nearly straight up, the first stage so over-powered that it has an apoapsis of 200 km or whatever it needs to coast long enough for the 2nd stage to have time to make orbit. Maybe to help the first stage boost that high, use lots of Turbojets and plenty of air scoops. Or "cheat" and let the first stage "hover" vertically at 15-20 km on turbojet power for a few minutes. And/or, probably a "jackrabbit" second stage with a huge TWR. So, actually it may be possible do technically but not in a way that represents SpaceX's way other than technically landing on a barge. So you might want to have a 2nd leaderboard for those who can technically get the 2nd stage into orbit but who do it in a way that is too far away from the Falcon-9's method. There is an easier way to do it. Rephrase.... less difficult way to do it. Have the second stage boosted at a high enough loft above the atmosphere that the second stage will take long enough to coast up to apoapsis, to go back to land the Falcon first stage, then go back to the 2nd stage to complete the orbital insertion burn. But you specifically stated getting the 2nd stage into a stable orbit before landing the first stage, so that is why I didn't mention that. But you probably need to decide what to do about that. And that would be more realistic. Bad news update, the real flight has been delayed to at least January 6th. A static test firing indicated a small problem, so they have to fix and retest. And due to the holidays and other issues, that means the launch slips at least 2.5 weeks. - GeorgeG

Glad to see the challenge. I made my own today, for the heck of it. Was looking for someplace to post it on the forum, might as well be here. I didn't plan for moving the "barge" back to shore, so I wont be going for that. The barge is made up of dozens of 2 meter 800 liter tanks, part clipping on to allow them to merge into one. Each one has an engine on it. To move it to the ocean, it was flown like a massive pancake. But it was hard even for Mechjeb to maneuver and crashed a few times. I finally got it into the ocean safely, 9.2 kilometers away. I had wanted more distance but settled for that. Made up a rocket to crudely represent the Falcon-9. .Launched it, climbed up, staged the second stage early, to leave fuel in the first stage, .and also before the first stage would fly past the barge since the barge was not as far out to sea as I'd prefer. .Mostly used Mechjeb for the landing. But even so it is not dead accurate, so I had to do some manual adjustment and several attempts. .Don't have any software to record the game video, so all I have are screenshots. The Barge: The simulated Falcon 9. Has a 2nd stage, and also a simulated "Dragon" capsule with service module (3rd stage). The Barge is 9.2 km away, as highlighted in the red text out in the ocean. Climbout with 9 engines running. They are T-45's. Had to do some interesting work with cubic girders to get something to mount the legs to, so they could reach far enough down. Shut the first stage down shortly after 10 km, then staged. First stage beginning maneuver to land at barge Coming in….. DOWN! On a duplicated flight, following the second stage after staging. The 2nd stage used one T-30, but also had eight 7-48 engines to help achieve adequate TWR. I used action groups to toggle off the 7-48's, in groups of 4, as the fuel was burned and it got light enough to not need as much thrust from them. The simulated Falcon's Service Module had to fire its engine to make orbit. Of course if i had not used a real capsule/pod, only a tiny light probe pod and nose cone, then the 2nd stage could have made orbit by itself. Proof of orbit due to periapsis of over 70 km Coming in to land at KSC. - GeorgeG

Is there an archive of these SpaceX files that will work in 23.0? That's the highest my computer can run the game. - GeorgeG

Thanks, tried them. Neither one would load properly on my computer. I have had to give up on functional docking, at least for leaving Kerbin (Two launches, a lander and it's transfer stage behind it for a flight back from Moho, and then a launch of a slightly bigger transfer stage to dock with the nose of the lander, as a puller, for the flight from Kerbin to Moho). I fly them both into orbit, then dock them, for the sake of accomplishing the task. But they won't survive. So, then I have both assembled in docked configuration in the VAB, four struts added, and use HyperEdit to put them into the same orbit, with the same fuel levels. They survive fine. They won't be undocked until much later when the outbound Transfer stage (docked with the nose of the lander, pulling it) has run low on fuel, with the whole docked ship in orbit around Moho. The outbound Transfer stage will have some fuel left, so after the mission to Moho's surface and back up I'll want to re-dock it with the lander and its return transfer stage (attached to the rear of the lander). By that time most of the fuel tanks will be gone, as will two nuclear engines, so I expect the wobble/Kraken problems won't repeat. Although as I type this I realize ought to do a test flight in low Kerbin orbit to simulate that configuration to be sure it won't be a problem. - GeorgeG

I have resumed playing KSP after a long break. I cannot get version 24 or 25 to run on my computer. I am stuck using using 23.0 (would love to try 23.5 but it is not available for download). Anyway, I have run into a problem. Two big long ships, sorta heavy at each end. When docked, they want to wobble along the docking port (1 meter port, not the shielded one that is super-wimpy). The ships once docked stay together and do not bend much under full thrust. But, they have begun to eventually just blow up. A part blows, then others. I hit F9 to go back to the previous save, it blows up parts coming out of the save or shortly after. As though it had accumulated enough stresses previously that the parts can't take it (yes, I know the game does not truly keep track of stress levels or bending levels, but something is introducing an error that eventually makes something blow parts) I am hoping something like "Quantum Struts" could solve the problem. But I cannot find the old version that would work with 23.0, only the new one for 25. Can anyone point to where I can find the older v 23 Quantum Struts, or some other mod with equal functionality for v 23.0, that would help to solve the problem? Now, I did try to address some of the problem already, by redesigning the other ship. So that it was a very short but wider ship. So, less leverage for bending, but the same mass. I thought that had solved the issue before, when the two identical ships were simply bending so much they broke apart under thrust. But then I found out that while the new short wide ship does not have as much of a problem with bending under thrust, the combined docked ships eventually blows up parts. I've not had any docked ships that have done this. I know there is an old Kludge involving using a cluster of small docking ports, but that is not an example of crazy Kerbal stuff (like Asparagus staging), but more of a forced dumb solution to a problem that ought not to exist (I thought this wobble, and bending while docked problem was fixed LONG before 23.0) - GeorgeG

Is there a way I can download version 23.5 for Windows? I took a lot of time away from the game, last using 23.0. I have downloaded 24.2 and 25.0, but the computer I'm using for the game won't load them properly. So this is why I'm looking to download 23.5, as it may be the last update that will work on this old computer. FWIW - I bought KSP over two years ago. - GeorgeG

Well, I had just tweaked and flown mine, and was about to post it, when I got called out for my last one being under 8700. It was not the OP who said so, but that comment instantly killed my interest in continuing. Because I really have no interest in building a rocket that has way more D-V than it needs, due to an arbitrarily bad decision that the OP made. And then yet some say it does not matter .... but it has to, one way or another. Because it's a challenge thread, and not a "demonstrate how lightly you can build an Eve Lander" general thread where documenting things is of no importance. And the OP has not been maintaining this challenge. I see he's made several posts elsewhere, so he's around, just not doing it here. I hope the moderators take note of people who do not maintain their challenges.... when it comes to the same people posting any future challenges.

No, it isn't. It's for not using less than 8700 m/s Delta Vee. If it did not matter how high someone launched from, the OP would not have arbitrarily chosen to add a restriction of 8700. And a number of the designs in the last week have been under 8700 or simply failed to list the Delta-V at all. Someone called me on mine being less than 8700. So I'm calling shenanigans on all the others that have not specifically given screenshot proof of 8700 or more D-V to orbit. And getting outside to push violates the whole concept of using an enclosed capsule/can rather than riding on the outside to begin with. Really, the challenge ought to have been a Sea-level launch, or left open (or specify 6400 meter site limit rather than 8700 D-V). Take-off from a site no higher than 20 meters ASL, as the Kerbal Stands during EVA next to the ladder (if the Kerbal can't do an EVA to the surface and get back in, why land?). Because if it's a challenge for launch under 1000 meters, then the challenge automatically becomes launch from 999 meters, and people have to go search for 999 meter sites. When it's a lot easier to find 20 meter or lower sites.

Hmm, I have to wonder.... why did the OP do that? Might as well be a challenge just to make the lightest rocket that has a Delta V of 8700, forget orbiting Eve. I had tweaked out my rocket more, getting it to something like 27.3 ton. But I guess it's not worth posting it or anything else. I'm not going to screw around with rockets that have far more Delta V than they need to accomplish the task of making orbit. Also not going to screw around downloading craft files blindly. I have to DL on my laptop, transfer by thumb drive to the one I play KSP on, which I do not have access to as easily as my laptop. Too much hassle to go thru for something that I don't know beforehand if it's something that I would have wanted to DL and try out. - George Gassaway

Well, like the strong gravity of Eve, I could not resist the pull to make one more shot. Liftoff mass of 28.022 ton A key part of the improvement was using the 7.5 km site that Nao used for his winged vehicle. It is sloped enough that I had to extend the footprint of the legs to keep it from falling over (though it fell a few times before getting a good landing). And I swapped out the T30 from middle to outer, and aerospike from outer to middle, as Nao suggested. Also did some other tweaking of tanks. Mass at landing 29.177 ton, chute and top-off tank assembly still on. EVA Mass at liftoff 28.022 ton Jettison of first tank pair with legs. In orbit. Orbital info: 100.26 km x 100.09 km orbit 8218 Delta V used 37 m/s Delta V remaining Ship file: http://www./view/tb7ey2vov7sz76t/Eve_2014_-_12-3.craft - George Gassaway

Thanks, glad you liked it. As I mentioned, it also is an interesting ship to fly to the Mun and back, just adding 4 legs to the last two outer tanks. Really nice winged Eve rocket. Yes, technically I only have 20 posts (Well, 21 with this one). When the forum crashed a year ago it wiped out all of my messages (I had made hundreds). Including the loss of my massive mission reports to Eeloo, Moho, and Eve/Gilly, which many people liked. It really depressed me to have all that lost. And also about then I needed to stop playing to concentrate on other things for the summer. I've posted a little bit but not a lot. Also only played a little bit in December and this past week. And now I have the summer stuff to get ready for again. BTW - Saturday, I attended Air Space Minnesota's "Go Boldly" exposition. Four astronauts were in attendance: Buzz Aldrin - Gemini 12, Apollo 11 Karen Nyberg - Two ISS missions, one aboard STS - 124 in 2008, and one aboard a Soyuz in 2013 Harrison "Jack" Schmdt - Apollo 17 Curtis Brown - Flew 6 shuttle missions, 3 as commander, including STS-95 that John Glenn flew on. Aldrin, Nyberg, and Schmidt had talks and presentations. - George Gassaway

Great job Nao. The latest ship I showed, it had been a bit lighter (than yours) but kept coming up short of a stable orbit by about 10-15 m/s. So I ended up adding one more tiny 1/2 meter tank to the final stage. So, that's probably it for me. - George Gassaway

OK, so I got out the hacksaw, hammer, screwdriver, crowbar, sandpaper, and a new slide rule. Thunked, tweaked, swapped parts, fiddled, cogitated, and buffed and got a lighter ship to make Eve orbit. So now I'm making an official claim for lightest at launch with a liftoff mass of 30.407 ton. I figure if Nedal does some similar tweaking with his, he'll be able to beat it. A descent mass of 31.957 ton before landing. After landing, 31.639 ton (some fuel used to cushion the landing, as before). An EVA before preparing to lift off. After jettisoning the chute and top-off tank assembly, ready-for-liftoff mass of 30.407 ton. A good liftoff, shown here is the ship after jettisoning the lower sets of tanks/engines. And…. in orbit. Orbital data: 101 km x 98.7 km Delta V remaining: 22 m/s Delta V expended: 8577 m/s Vessel mass: .861 ton craft file: http://www./view/xqc4qnadjo9xjsd/Eve_2014_-_9.craft Action groups for this ship and the previous one are: 1 - ladders toggle 2 - engine toggle on twin engine upper tank pair 3 - engine toggle on the single engine upper tank pair 5 - all chutes deploy (drogue opens at 2500, two at 1200, final four at 500 meters). 9 - jettison of the chute/top-off tank assembly - George Gassaway

Thanks for the comments. Here's a few other images to show other views, launched from KSC. This one shows the chute/top-off tank assembly on the top. Close view of all the engines burning. First set of tanks jettisoned. The landing gear could have been mounted to those tanks, in real life it would be best (I added the legs to the Aerospike tanks before realizing the need for some more fuel, adding the smaller tank set later). There is a bug in the game that gives those aircraft gear legs zero mass (If I'd been very close to being the lightest I'd have done it just to get rid of their "drag" values early). The big steerable fins are definitely needed to be aerodynamically stable and to maintain control due to no vectoring by the Aerospikes and T-30 engine). The ship after jettisoning the outer Aerospike tank set. After dropping the lower core with its LV-T30 engine, firing seven Rockomax 48-7S engines. For the test flight from Kerbin, it had enough Delta-V left (3830) to fly to the Mun or Minmus (no legs though) and back, and soft land at KSC. I had used the Eve ascent profile for the Kerbin test. For a more optimal Kerbin launch, I reflew it to a 72 km orbit, it had 4154 m/s left over. For the heck of it, I had added landing legs to the last two outer tanks. Landed it on the Mun with 2399 m/s left. Flew back to Kerbin, and soft landed at KSC with 529 m/s left. Edit - pic of the above described Mun-landing version. - George Gassaway

Thanks for the comment. Being a challenge to do it as light as possible, the ship should have very little Delta V left, this had 52 m/s. If it had say 200 left over, there would be reason to change the tank set-up to make it even lighter (and an earlier version did have more left over so I changed the tanks). If it was an operational ship, yeah, you'd want to have a nice cushion of 200 Delta V or so (If it was a real-world Earth ship, WAY more! ). There's lots more info on the Lightest Eve Lander challenge thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76153-Lightest-Eve-Lander/page3 Here's a copy of what I posted about the stats after reaching orbit: Stable orbit achieved. Data after reaching orbit: Mass .868 Ton Orbit 100.149 x 99.790 Km Delta V expended 8478 m/s Delta V remaining 52 m/s Ship file is here: http://www./view/xh32o8z8ehk8ttj/Eve_2014_-_6.craft Stock plus Mechjeb. - George Gassaway

I made a ship for the current "Lightest Eve Lander" challenge, at this link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76153-Lightest-Eve-Lander/page3 Mass coming down on chutes is 33.418 ton. Mass for liftoff is 31.868 ton. A couple of pics: - George Gassaway

Thanks for the info on a place to land. I used Brotoro's coordinates and found a little bit better place on the same plateau, a bit over 6500 meters. 2 50 19 S 171 26 33 W I made up a ship for the "Lightest Eve Lander" challenge, here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76153-Lightest-Eve-Lander/page3 My ship is a bit more than a ton heavier in liftoff mode, than the lightest entry in the challenge, mine coming in at 31.87 ton ready for liftoff. But it is currently the lightest as-landed, at 33.197 ton. It later jettisons an assembly on top that has chutes and a small fuel tank to top-off lander tanks (during landing the engines fire the last 10-15 meters to cushion the landing). Pics below, more in the thread linked above: - George Gassaway

Here's my entry. It is not quite the lightest for liftoff (31.868 ton). But the ship seems to be the lightest for landing of any others mentioned here. So, I officially apply for the "lightest at landing" category, at 33.197 ton. I don't think I can get it any lighter for launch without going to the "flying pancake" extreme asparagus approach. Coming down on chutes, the mass was 33.418 ton. It uses 7 chutes (one being a drogue), but does a very short "dab burn" to cushion the landing for the last 10-15 meters. After that burn and landing, sitting on the ground before jettisoning the "landing stuff", the mass was 33.197 ton. Landing/launch site about 6500 meters. A small top-off tank was attached to the parachute assembly on top of the vehicle. After transferring fuel from the top-off tank to the lander's tanks to fill them up, the parachute/top-off tank assembly was jettisoned, pushed away by a separatron. After the jettison, the ready-for-liftoff mass was 31.868 ton So, the mass at moment of liftoff: 31.868 Ton. Delta V calculated capability before liftoff: 7672 m/s atmo, 8814 m/s vacuum Some exploring…. Then back inside and liftoff Action Groups were used to turn on and off some of the Rockomax 48-7S engines in the upper group of Asparagus tanks. This was done so that when the thrust to weight was more than needed some of those engines could be shut off because their ISP was somewhat poorer than the other engines (LV-T30 and the aerospikes). Shown here, two tank/engine sets just jettisoned, the ship climbing on the last set of Asparagus tanks and the core. An uncluttered view. Final stage burn towards orbit. Stable orbit achieved. Data after reaching orbit: Mass .868 Ton Orbit 100.149 x 99.790 Km Delta V expended 8478 m/s Delta V remaining 52 m/s Ship file is here: http://www./view/xh32o8z8ehk8ttj/Eve_2014_-_6.craft Stock plus Mechjeb. As some of you may know, from sometime late fall of 2012 until the April 2013 forum crash, there had been the SEAV challenge. Smallest Eve Ascent Vehicle. I made a number of ships for that, often being the lightest, though they were all ladder-riders. In the SEAV challenge, it was the mass of the ship as it descended towards the ground (the assumption was that a separate stage had been used for de-orbiting, so the starting point was the lander itself falling thru the atmosphere). - George Gassaway

Over a year ago, I made a number of different Eve Landers, some for a mission and some of the old SEAV Challenge. For the SEAV challenge, I used a location that was over 6 km high. I did those in .18 and a bit in .19 Today, I tried a new lander in .23, to the same Eve coordinates, only to find that what used to be a mostly flat-ish plateau, is now an area of high steep mountains and slopes, my old location being about 4600 meters on a slope too steep to land on. It seems Eve for a terrain make-over between .19 and .23 So, can anyone recommend some 6 km or higher coordinates on Eve? Preferably an area that's not like trying to land on the tip of a mountain. - GeorgeG

Here is a Sea Level version of the above ship. Same layout, same procedures, 4 Kerbals, with more pairs of tanks and engines, more chutes, and some landing gear mods. I later made an even smaller-lighter SEAV challenge ship, just over 15 tons launched from over 6 km.. Used Nova Punch Aerospikes and 20 kN verniers again. So, I was issued a challenge to do it with stock parts. So, I did this one. The first pic on the pad is only to verify the mass, 22.53 tons. But you can also see the little rover I added to it on top, for the heck of it, which after re-entry over Eve was jettisoned a few KM up to land by chute. After dropping the outer tanks, the core is flying with not only an LV-T45 (Perhaps LV-T30, i did all this stuff over a year ago) at the bottom, but also using a number of Rockomax 24-77 radial engines, in different stacked tanks. Fuel lines run vertically from tank to tank, so fuel is only used from the bottom tank, then it is dropped, and so on. And here it is after making orbit. And finally, this one. Stock, AND an actual capsule, no ladder-riding. Built to fly a 3-kerbal pod. 229.5 tons. The Mechjeb numbers for Delta-V do not add up right, nor do the TWR values (below). They sometimes do not with very complex Asparagus-izing and "upper stage" engines that are fired simultaneously, taking fuel from lower tanks. a "dab burn" to help cushion the landing. The stock aerospikes do not have thrust vectoring and the ship was tricky to get to fly right. ANY tilt at all on the ground and it would tend to over-control at launch. So, I ended up adding some RCS thrusters and small RCS tanks to one of the Asparagus tank pairs, to help control it for the first few KM up, after which it was able to stay under control without RCS. In this image some of the RCS firings are visible. From a test flight on Kerbin, two 1 meter tank/engine pairs just being jettisoned. This one did not have RCS yet, but it's a nice pic of the engines firing. And here it is, in orbit around Eve. - George Gassaway

Here is a copy of a message I posted over a year ago, in the old SEAV challenge. It all got wiped out in the April 2013 forum crash. In the SEAV challenge, the objective was the lowest mass for a lander to land on Eve, then take off to make stable orbit, not to fly a full mission. The screenshot on the pad was only to document the mass as required by the challenge rules. This was done using version 18. This launched from a mountain plateau at 6.4 km ASL. I also did one that took off from Sea Level, same design using more tank/engine pairs asparagus staged. It flew 4 Kerbals, because it could..... ------------------------------------------------ I've been wanting to post an official SEAV claim here for some time. 32.81 ton, 100% rocket powered. For a recent mission to Eve, I made an ascent vehicle that was landed at about 4 km ASL. For this SEAV challenge, I reworked it to optimize it more, to launch at a site over 6.4 km ASL There is one big key to the design. I won't spoil it here, but it won't take many people long to notice it. And a few may have seen my Eve-Gilly mission report already. Vehicle on pad. 32.81 tons. Descending from orbit, into atmosphere, mass still 32.81 as on the pad Two drogues deployed, two mains reefed. Later when the two mains deploy and slow the ship, the rest of the main chutes were deployed by action groups. The crew on the ground at Eve after landing. Later, the crew climbed back aboard. There is a short 1-meter tank (80 liters) on top of each side booster. It is a "top-off" tank that replaces fuel used for the "dab" burn at landing. The top-off tank is mounted to a decoupler. The Top-off tank has all the chutes mounted to it, plus two ladders. So, when the top-off tanks are jettisoned, so is the dead mass of the chute canisters and two ladders on each. Jettisoning the top-off tanks. A sepratron pushes each off. I forgot to retract the ladders in this shot. Pre-launch image with info, including coordinates. Mass is now just under 30 tons. Note that the Delta-Vee calculations are different (accurate), now that the top-off tanks have been jettisoned. Climbout at about 2.4 km true altitude. The lander legs were jettisoned at liftoff, as soon as it left the ground. An uncluttered view of the vehicle, before the outer boosters are separated. After outer boosters were separated, the six Nova Punch 20 kN radial Verniers ignited to provide additional thrust to improve the TWR. The four verniers of the final stage get their fuel from the lower stage. Not long after staging, the upper stage begain a gravity turn at 30 km ASL An uncluttered climb image. Sometimes a Kerbal is angled, looking like they might off, but none ever fell off during an ascent (Any "hard" landing that might knock off a Kerbal , would also have damaged the ship or fallen over) After the engines shut down to coast to apoapsis, I shut down two of the four engines to reduce the G Loads. Again, none ever fell off, but it was a precaution. And on a "real" (OMG) version of this, that would definitely be the thing to do (some BELTS would help too....). When it did reach apoapsis, then two engines fired to complete the orbit. Stable orbit, 101 x 99.6 km. 241 ms of Delta-V left. Mass of 1.09 ton The four Kerbals, safely in orbit, waiting for..... END OK, so, the key is not to use command pods, which weigh so much. A 8/10 ton pod requires a lot of dV to get it into orbit. The entire final stage of this weighs only 1.09 ton in orbit. Vehicle mass of 32.81 tons, divided by four Kerbals, that comes to 8.2025 tons of ship mass per Kerbal. OK, I know, not an official statistic. Onboard a rocket, a Kerbal weighs...... nothing (Some of the test flights seemed to have a little less dV left after making orbit when Kerbals were onboard). And that is not just for this ladder method, try launching a 3-Kerbal pod with only enough fuel to get to about 2 km or so. You will get the same altitude whether it has 3 Kerbals or one Kerbal inside. So, for this, an enclosed official command pod is replaced by the "Spooler Pod", which is an open-air structure that the Kerbals climb onto and ride. The mass of the "Spooler Pod" used on this vehicle is .13 ton. In the VAB it indicated .19. I made a copy of the ship the deleted everything under the BOMP control pod (the part directly under it was a fuel tank), then sent what was left onto the pad, which read .13 ton on the pad. The Kerbals hang on to ladder rungs for dear life, out in the open. For my Eve mission, I explained away the aerodynamics not blowing the Kerbals off, by saying the decoupler in front created a unique Kerbaldynamic phenonmena that caused the airflow directly underneath to be quite low (Eye of the Hurricane kind of thing). Kerbals slide on ladders too easily. Under thrust, they can slide down and off the bottom end. After engine shutdown, they can slide off the front (top). Also in zero G they tend to slide "up". So to keep them on, they stand on the top of the tank, to keep from sliding down under thrust. To keep from sldiing off the front, that is what the 1 meter decoupler at the top is really for. And if two can climb on, then why not four? So, for the SEAV challenge, I added a bit more length (and rungs) to the Spooler Pod, and I flew four. Nobody's done more than one yet, right? Now in theory, a longer Spooler pod could carry 10 Kerbals. Or 20. Or if I took all day to transport that many to climb onboard it, 100 (actually, the small cubic struts used for the backbone of the spool would bend or wobble to much once assembled beyond a really long length). Also at some point, Kerbals might start falling off there was any significant force of Kerbal on top of Kerbal on top of Kerbal (and so on), sliding on the ladder. So, I settled on "just" four. Engines were Nova Punch Aerospikes, and 20 kN radial verniers. The final two stages were stacked on top of each other, but the final stage provided thrust through most of the ascent. For the minimum vehicle, they ignite when the two side tanks separate. A fuel line carries fuel from the lower stage to the final stage. The lander used a B.O.M.P. control pod (.625 meter) for control, plus Mechjeb (Jeb-9000). - George Gassaway

I got the Cleverwalrus dll. What do I need to do to get the DEMV-5 rover to load? Where exactly to put it? I've tried a couple of ways but the game hangs in loading. - GeorgeG

Thanks everyone for your comments. I was less than 200 meters, but the JR docking port is such a tiny target. LameLefty, Targetron was what I was thinking of, though it only targets ships and not docking ports. Still, it is useful, thanks for pointing it out. I have shaken off the rust and have gotten back to being able to rendezvous well enough to be able to select the port. Pecan, that is a GREAT idea for being able to get the desired docking port in view close enough (message #7). Reason why I needed to be able to select the docking port from such a distance is the way I prefer to dock is to use Mechjeb's Target Parallel feature, which holds the ships parallel to each other, then I carry out the docking maneuvers manually. I've now finally gotten around to resetting my avatar and sig. - GeorgeG

Ah, that was it, Smart A.S.S. in TGT mode, to keep them parallel (as I said, been a long time). Thanks. For a docking camera, I'm using the hullcam, from Multiversal Mechatronics, much as I used before. As for JEB 9000, I finally found a thread about it, and it's looking like it's not getting updated. - GeorgeG