Speeding Mullet

Banned for lying about location, I just checked behind me, can't see you.

Hi @Pine after much indecision I've made a choice. Cannot wait to see this realised in your style. Thanks so much! SM

Hi everyone. This isn't a first for me. I tend to sling mission together with little regard for tolerances, especially when I am headed somewhere for the first time. So my situation is this: Orbiting Dres (first time visiting Dres yay!) with about 1067m/s Delta V left in the tanks and a requirement to Kerbin from Dres of around 1.3 km/s. I'm a little short as they say! The mission has gone perfectly up to now with a successful landing, and planned canyon skydive being completed, as well as a rove. I don't really want to get out and push as while possible, I did that the first time I went to Moho and want to try something different. I'm thinking Gravity assist would be the best way. I can get to Jool for around 700m/s by the looks of it so what do I do from there? Do I swing round Tylo (I've heard you can get a free ride home from there under the right circumstances) or has someone got a better solution to get me home within the 1km/s budget? Answers muchly muchly appreciated - I've never really got into Gravity assists so I'm a little out of my depth! EDIT: @Zhetaan wow that's some superb information there so thanks for pretty much dropping an education on my sorry mission to Dres! I will explore this in depth this weekend and report back for you. @PLAD thanks also for your input SM

Ah now this is truly superb, and a big part of why the KSP community is so incredible to be a part of. there's amazing amounts of creativity on this forum and this is a super example thereof! I'm at work at the moment so I can't access my screenshots, but I'd really love to hold a spot until I get home - I have a few that would be very worthy indeed for this kind of attention. *takes ticket and humbly requests @Pine to join the queue before the line grows round the corner and down the street. Can post in about 3-4 hours with my image(s) for you to pick from if that's ok? SM

Good to know! It's quite remarkable that I've never ever seen, heard or discovered it before now, despite playing KSP since zero point one something!! Thought I was genuinely onto something new there I tested quite a large and complex payload yesterday and it was stable on orbit as long as I launched it up there myself. Trying it with hyper-edit produced an odd effect where if I left the LES on and then detached it once I HE'd it to orbit it would wobble severely and the orbit line would disappear, but if I decoupled the LES and then HE'd to orbit it was absolutely fine. That's just reminded me I need to reproduce and report to the HE thread! Haha I'm pretty sure if Danny checked in to this thread he would identify my efforts as sub par and proceed to use the landing legs 25 other ways than how they were intended for comedy effect! SM

I promise I'm not stalking your threads, just genuinely trying to help. It would be a good idea to read the Challenge Submission Guidelines: SM

In that case it belongs in the Spacecraft Exchange. At this point there is nothing to suggest this thread is a challenge or mission idea so it's still in the wrong place. SM

Welcome to the forum and thanks for the information. Unfortunately this has been posted in the wrong section (It really belongs in KSP Discussion). Someone should be along shortly to move it for you - How nice is that! SM

Well done on rearranging the HST package to fit in the cargo bay, it's a great solution to attach them to the MMU's! Re-entries from inclined orbits are definitely more challenging, but even more satisfying when you manage it. I think the first inclined re-entry I did caused a whole design review of my Buran shuttle! Now I'm going to have to be picky here - I can only award you the pilots badge as you haven't met the orbit requirements for the commander badge. Your inclination is over 30 degrees. Still a very impressive mission though so well done! SM

I was testing a lander for a planet that I've never been to in KSP just now and noticed that whenever my jolly little space-vegetable got near a landing leg they would very suddenly shoot off in an unpredictable direction. Usually up, but every now and then sideways either straight through or into the nearest object, usually with disastrous consequences: I did a little more experimentation and tried to create something of a landing leg trampoline which didn't work, other than to accelerate the poor fool sideways to nearly three hundred and sixty Kilometers per hour: So I'm thinking that this must be either well known issue with landing legs (which I haven't found while searching) or there's some massive landing leg catapult party thread that I wasn't invited to? My question is: has anyone else noticed this, and has anyone used it to create something that puts the fear of Kraken into the Kerbals? Note: This is not a bug report, more of a conversation starter! SM P.S. - What is Kermit the Frog doing in the game:

I've been toying around with this having had a pop at it way back when (got as far as a Duna lander that could only release the ascent vehicle by splitting in half, very Kerbal!). Thinking about having another pop at it, and have designed a very very basic Altair lander and slightly more well developed Lunar Ascent Module to get me started, but immediately struck a problem in that without tweakscale it's going to be pretty challenging to create something that looks good around the size of the Altair ascent module. I went for a Hybrid Altair based around a merge of option 1 and 3 from this photo: The good thing about the mono kick away from the lander before the main ascent engine (aerospike) kicks in is that it prevents unwanted explosions occurring. Is stock plus tweakscale allowable for this kind of development, or would you say the entire concept revolves around a stock only package? If that's the case then a re-think is definitely on the cards! SM

Yep that'll do it! Here's your badge: I had a look back through and can't find it either, it's an interesting shuttle and obviously proving itself capable. The bobsled concept looks awesome, are you going to develop it further? Nice visuals provided by KSPRC there! SM

You've definitely got something on your HRO that is pulling you right haven't you? I also noticed it when you landed and applied your brakes. Could be something to do with your right wing gear, as it does appear not to deflect to the under load position when you hit the ground. Anyway another awesome mission and thanks once again for re-working the HST sub-assembly. That was one hairy takeoff I thought you were looking at an F9 right there! Have another badge good Sir! I take it you will be attempting the 168t fuel pod to the edge of the universe?! Awesome, another video to watch with my home from work cup of tea. Loved the feeling of this video - nicely made and funny to watch, possibly because of the addition of the frenetic music! I was I'll admit ready to throw the law down on your lack of cargo bay, but in the spirit of a) this being awesome and b) getting over myself I am delighted to be able to award you the STS Pilot - Rank 1. I've awarded you this badge mostly because despite the lack of cargo bay you still delivered a couple of micro cubesats to space which is commendable, and you also had a land-able first stage, making for a truly re-usable shuttle system. Also I'd like to see you become SpaceshuttleAddict Good to see you back with another challenge entry @Paranoid Shark. Looks like a nice tidy mission boosting your RT Comsats to geostationary orbits. One question - What if the one at 350km fails . Seriously though this is more proof of concept of your well designed shuttle and you can wear your badge with pride. Here it is! Looks like you have quite a lot of things floating up there along with your comsats. What else is going on in the space program and does your shuttle get used regularly outside of this challenge to launch tonnage? SM

Right haha yourself and @Cipher_077 have basically shot the 84t ore pod to limits of the challenge straight away so this has forced me into a position where I needed to re-think things a little. For everyone else: As top of the respective leader-boards for the fuel pod challenge both stock and modded I commissioned these two "Shuttle tonnage to orbit" masters to perform some secret testing for me. I am as a result very happy to present the now de-classified Speeding Mullet 168t Ore Pod: I've updated the OP and the challenge is now open. I suspect (I also hope) that it will possibly be a while before the fuel pod is taken anywhere near the upper limits of the challenge. Please prove me wrong and force me to build a 336t Ore Pod!! After much looking back through the threads and reviewing previous judgments, working out valid loop holes and consulting with various people, as well as looking at shuttle design both historic and future I have decided to over-rule my ruling. @G'th thanks for your input, and @CheckYoStaging this judgement also affects your potential shuttle (and anyone else that had read this judgement that had planned a similar shuttle). I am going to update the Shuttle Definition in the OP to accommodate a wider and more inclusive interpretation of the requirements of making a challenge entry. The main thing that swayed me in the end was one of my own Shuttle replica's the JSC Shuttle IIc. Clearly a shuttle by any definition, but clearly not allowed under the (old) rules of this challenge. The new definition will be as follows: Official definition of a shuttle for this challenge: A "reusable" winged Orbiter which carries Kerbals and cargo to orbit and back and is capable of a horizontal landing. It should have OMS engine(s) for trajectory changes as well as an RCS system for maneuvering. The Orbiter must be lifted into space by a Launch System that decouples or un-docks once expended, allowing the Orbiter to land entirely under it's own power. If anyone feels that this rule re-write is not to the benefit of the challenge and/or is not clear enough then feel free to PM me. I always went into this 3rd gen challenge with the intentions of expanding it and making it more inclusive so I think the above new definition will help with that, but still rules out SSTO entries (there are plenty of SSTO challenges). I will pick back through this thread and add notes that the ruling has changed to relevant posts. SM

Thanks very much indeed for doing this! Due to your consistent patronage of the challenge including developing a number of capable shuttles, providing quality assistance to others, and most recently updating the HST sub-assembly I would like to present you with the STS Engineers badge Oh my, ok I'm going to think about this second payload challenge. Can you check your PM's please! Wow that's a seriously beautiful shuttle you have going on there! Welcome to the challenge. I think this came up a page or few ago as a ruling, let me just go dig out the post. Ah yes here it is: Hmmmmm, very very good question. OK I got this. The answer is no and for one reason only. Your shuttle is lifted into space by carrier vehicles rather than a singular carrier vehicle. If you have a look at this shuttle designed by @robertlong13 you will see a very very similar design to yours, but with one critical difference - The shuttle is attached to a single carrier vehicle rather than two separate drop tanks. Small re-design should see you on your way from here by the looks of it! Let me know if you have any more questions... I'm actually really torn on this ruling as it does limit diversity in carrier vehicles slightly, but I'm going to stick with my guns on this as a ruling has been previously made and it would mean unpicking quite a major rule. Your shuttle uses carrier vehicles rather than a single carrier vehicle and so doesn't meet the requirements for the challenge unfortunately. It sounds like a technicality but when you look closely and compare CheckYoStaging and your shuttles with Robertlong13's you will see the difference between Carrier vehicle and Carrier vehicles. Hope that helps! I don't think it would take much at all for you to alter your carrier vehicles to decouple as one single object, qualifying you for the challenge! EDIT: THIS RULING IS NO LONGER VALID. PLEASE SEE THIS POST FOR MORE INFO, AND THE OP FOR THE MOST RECENT RULES. SM

Welcome to the challenge, that's a very unusual shuttle you have there it's really innovative. Did you take inspiration from anywhere for that one? Also that's one hell of an ET separation mechanism! Well done on the mission to deliver the 42t fuel pod to orbit! I can't place you on the leaderboard as you aren't top 5 for the stock entries, but regardless you still get these two awesome badges. Well done Shuttle Commander! Look forward to this as always! Hmmmm. Ok well you are going to be on the leader-board then lol. I'll add the challenge anyway and if you guys are all just taking it to the edge of the soi and its appearing pointless I will withdraw the 84t payload or add a third pod bonus mission with a 500t dead weight or something The OP is being updated now with the second bonus mission! SM

Nice work!!! Look forward to seeing your entries for mission 1 and 2! Great mission well done! Another detailed report for this massive shuttle! Looks like the re-entry was a little crazy right at the end but you still made it to the runway so good job! Have a badge Seriously how ridiculously capable is that thing! @FCISuperGuy I took your lead on the second challenge pod and to be honest as soon as it had been mentioned that a heavier pod was the way to go it was only a matter of time before I got round to making it. Thanks for the offer though! Without further ado I present to the world the Speeding Mullet 84t Ore Pod: Weighing in at exactly 84t the Speeding Mullet 84t Ore Pod represents the finest in Ore to orbit solutions. In no way a repainted and weighed down @inigma 42t fuel pod, the Speeding Mullet 84t Ore Pod will form the basis of the second "Can You Carry Me" bonus mission. Flight Director - Level 2 mission badges are currently in production and the challenge thread will be updated shortly. The Ore Pod is designed around an identical foot print to the Ore Pod and is exactly twice as heavy. You don't need to create a larger shuttle to boost it to orbit, but if you happen to have one kicking around, then hell why not: Also coming soontm the STS-11 Mission (I promise) EDIT - I've finally brought the leader-boards back up to date. Apologies for the delay! SM

The correct link is here: https://kerbalx.com/Firemetal/The-Taurus-Shuttle-I From what I can see @Firemetal: 1) You have plenty of mono-propellant at the back so you can take the mono out of the cockpit (100 units worth) which will make you nose lighter by 0.4t - Every little helps! You could probably also move your mono tanks inside the cargo bay radially attached to your ASAS unit, or do as I have and placed a virtually empty (depending on how much I need) Mk3 Mono Tank between cockpit and cargo bay: 2) You only need one of those solar panels (or none if you have enough batteries or a fuel cell) so get rid of two of them and that will give you your room for the mono tanks. 3) You only have RCS at the back at the moment. RCS on the X and Y axis will help with keeping everything in line. Also get rid of your quad ports and just go for well placed linear ports. They survive re-entry much better and are nicer to look at. 4) You need to set your split rudder airbrake to the "brakes" action group, or another action group if you want it toggle-able on its own. Currently your split rudder will not split. This is an example of it working correctly (You may need to invert the deployment on one of them by right clicking): 5) You need to move your rear landing gear forwards much closer to your COM when your tanks are empty. They are too far back at this moment which causes some instability. also you could move them a little wider and maybe strut them if you need to. I can land your shuttle, but once landed the gears make it incredibly unstable. Better landing gear placement would be something like this: 6) A body flap will really really help with your situation, giving you stability, and an added wing to help the shuttle flare correctly on landing. This is my body flap, only an example not the best example. Also note what @awfulhumanbeing was talking about with adding wing segments: 7) You've got a docking port on the front of your shuttle, so you don't need another one in the inline clampotron. That will lower your centre of gravity very very slightly, and also give you more space in the cargo bay. With the SA, Battery and the inline clampotron I don't think you'll be able to fit the 42t fuel pod in there. Of course you can clip the ASAS module into your shuttle body if you want to make space. 8) If you want even more authority on your rear Elevons you can right click on them and set the authority limiter to 150. They will deflect far more giving you more chance to correctly flare instead of pancaking Apart from that your shuttle is definitely wobbly on flaring for landing, and has a tendency to sink quite quickly, but apart from that is reasonably flyable which is great! I managed to land it first time but it was really hard to keep hold of it. I think if you systematically go through the above list and implement each one (or as much as you feel you want to), you will have a much more effective base for a shuttle that you can really build on. Hope that helps and of course ask for as much help as you need! SM

Whenever you are ready mate, we aren't going anywhere I hear the AV-R8 winglets calling . Basically it sounds like you don't have enough authority, or the balance is off in some way. Post a few pictures into the thread and we should be able to get a clearer picture of what might be going on. Alternatively share you craft file (if 1.1.2) and I can check out your shuttle when I get home tonight! Woot! Go @SpaceplaneAddict! Time for you to shifty up to the 42t beast me thinks! Also on the second fuel pod challenge I'm settled between two basic ideas: 1) How low can you circularise in orbit of Kerbol 2) Identical to the first challenge, but 2 (yes 2) fuel pods for an "84t bonus fuel pod mission" What does everyone think? I'll also get round to wrapping up development on the next STS mission ready for the weekend. SM

Procrastinator

That would explain one particular need to Quick load my Elcano entry . Seriously though thanks for the clarification. Are there any plans to investigate if it's possible to allow wheel clipping of old without the danger of brisk exit from solar system, or are wheels is wheels is wheels for the foreseeable now? In the meantime there's plenty of other ways of achieving wheel zen when designing craft I think! SM

No problems. Just be sure to route the fuel lines exactly as in the picture (top to bottom) otherwise I don't think it works. Also I routed mine using cubic octagonal struts as it looked neater, but any small part that you can surface attach a fuel line to will work. If you need any more help with it I can provide an in depth picture tutorial after work tomorrow. Sleep calls, then unfortunately work! SM

Awesome, looks like you are well on your way to being able to qualify for the pilots badge. Just need to get that best landing ever tweaked a little . Oh yes, I noticed that you are suffering from the grand spinning shuttle when you are hauling ass on minimal fuel in the external tank. I have a good tip for you in my Buran thread. Credit where credit is due @FCISuperGuy tipped me off on this one but if you follow the fuel line routing tip here and here then you can actually keep your COM much higher during your ET fuel burn which helps MASSIVELY with the stability of your launches. It was a total revelation when I designed it into my Buran. It's not a panacea, but it will help a lot! OK OK Anti-gravity fuel and winglets in the nose both dirty tricks I know, but you work the loopholes with these shuttles! Haha good work good work. I suppose it does qualify, those boosters are attached radially right?! I think, yes, here's your badge, now just do it with a Mk3 shuttle and the fuel pod SM

Warmed two degrees (It's a good necro )

This is a known issue. Please see this post from @NathanKell. Unsure if 1.1.3 has a planned fix. SM