Atanar

Mün, obviously.

Well, that's a viable point they made there. The sounds are only 15 files, with only 6 of those occuring while flying, 1 ambience and the rest is just clicksounds. The game could definitly improved there, and I think squad said it will be.

Definitly the [scenario] Rendezvous With Roche

It only destroys the wing because it only hits the wing, what did you expect to happen? I don't really see a problem. A I-beam with 2 sepatrons could destroy enything for me so far.

To my experience, they are less wobbly but very likely to break.

Just a bump. One of the best challanges out there, deserves more attention.

Step 1: get almost Kerbol escape velocity Step 2: get periapsis to meet up with Jool Should get you the maximum speed possible. Also doable.

I like to use jet boosters for small payloads and then directly to LV-N.

Still quite unrealistic. Why would anyone go to Jool low orbit if he want's to reach Pol?

Are we allowed to use the launch clamps? And if, how high are they allowed? Edit: yeah I am stupid I did not see that you provided a craft

Looks like you got 2 lV 909 engines under there. If that's supposed to land it on the Mun, I think you should add 2 more of them. Also, your landing stage needs to have a good alignment of the center of mass and the center of thrust, the pic looks like you don't have that. Lastly you should look into this thread for different landers: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/34802-Help-with-transporting-rovers

Yeah, you can't really give a finite number. I had to go in well below 70km ( I think it was even less than the screenshot shows) with my big ship at 4,8km/s:

If I am not lifting a super heavy thing I am using skippers and LV-Ns as soon as I can. I agree with the op, if you want to use less than a third of your throttle you build your rocket wrong.

Should work just fine.

Now, would putting the decouplers in the middle better than having them on the top?

Struts can't phisically break in ksp? So basically the stress at the top is lower that it breaks less likely there? Why? That contradicts all other assumption of this thread that the stress at the top must be higher because of the unactivated center rocket pulling the rocket together on the top. I must admit that I was so fascinated by my first discovery that I haven't even looked into how well the decoupler does in the middle.

Back to school with you. Unless you forgot to write the word "noticeable".

When you realise that you forget the parachutes on your return vehicle (many people do it seems).

2 examples: The first one has only parachutes cause it was for duna, but the principle stays the same if you'd put fuel tanks and engines where they are.

I think most people are missing the topic. I was trying to point out that the placement of the decouplers matters in stability. That placing them on the top fuel tanks is better and requires less struts. I wasn't asking for advice, of course I would need more struts on the second design. Could be true, buty why does the log note the structural failure of the decoupler first?

Here you get an example. Does not happen every time but about half the launches. And yes, I build copies with the same setup and they do the same. You should be able to replicate it yourself.

No, the craft explodes because of structural failure somewhere between launch and separation of stage 1.

Good point. But what if you don't get the 2 distances exact? would that not rotate the craft as well? Is it really less chance? It all boils down how close you get the "centre of thrust" of the RCS to the COM. Too bad we can't display that.

Just some thought-food: This craft can launch and make orbit without problems: Whiles this craft repeadetly explodes during first stage: (yes, the only diffrence is the placement of the radial decouplers) Why is that? Can anyone explain? I am going to builld my asparagus like the first one from now on.

Do the ingame tutourials, they are very helpful and explain it better than any text here could.