Scarecrow

You are right @invision but most players who haven't been to Duna, but may have gone to the Mun, tend to build on the 'bigger than strictly necessary' end of the scale. My Mun craft was also a nod towards the Apollo missions, which is why it was fitted with a 2-stage lander. As I said at the beginning of the thread, this was not intended as a 'how to get to Duna' or a 'this is the craft that will get you to Duna' type post, but more as an encouragement for people to have a go, building on what they may have already used to go to Mun and to show that it was possible to do so. Even if it only shows that you can use the same lander by the simple expedient of fitting parachutes, I'm hoping that players will be reassured that it doesn't take something beyond their abilities to land on Duna.

Let's clear something up right at the start. This is not a tutorial on how to get to Duna, nor is it going to show you how to build a ship that can get to Duna. What I hope to show is that if you have been to the Mun and safely returned, you probably already have a ship that is capable of going to Duna and returning. Whenever going to any planet or moon, I tend to favour a separate lander, that descends to the surface from orbit, and returns to an orbiting command ship which is used to bring the crew home. If you have been to the Mun in similar style, then there's a very good chance that the ship you used to do that can be adapted with just 2 minor additions for a Duna mission. Let us have a look to see what you can do to turn your Mun ship in to a Duna ship. The only change I have made to the main rocket is to add boosters to the first stage. The Mun ship reaches orbit by using the second stage. The Duna ship can reach orbit with the first stage, after ditching the boosters. In both cases the second stage is used for the injection burn and establishing an orbit at our target Once in orbit, the landing module is extracted and the second stage jettisoned The second addition to the Mun version to convert it was to add parachutes to the lander to allow a fuel efficient landing on Duna. At Duna, the saving on fuel allowed by the use of parachutes means that the entire lander leaves the surface at launch. What is the descent stage on the Mun lander is effectively a 1st stage on the Duna version The lander part that finally performs orbital rendezvous is the same in both cases One thing to be aware of is that the dV required to return from Duna is obviously more than coming from Mun, so if your Mun return vehicle is marginal on fuel, you may need to tweak it for Duna. This one has more than enough for Mun and just enough for Duna. Home safe from both missions So if you are looking to expand your adventures beyond the Kerbin system, Duna is usually the first destination that most people consider. If that is the case for you, don't be put of by thinking that you need something massive or complicated to achieve that goal. If you are comfortable going to the Mun and back, and can do so without wasting lots of fuel with inefficient manoeuvres, the chances are that you already have the basis of a craft that can accomplish that goal.

I still have a few designs where the fuel doesn't flow from some tanks unless I use connecting pipes, and it's not because I have used decouplers. I'm not sure how @Benredder has connected his engines to the wings, but I used the small hardpoint pylons, which act like a decoupler. I have them disabled for staging, so I don't accidentally lose my engines.

When creating a node to intercept the Mun, providing you aren't on an actual collision course, you will get a Mun encounter, and a Mun escape. Between these two points is where your craft will be within the sphere of influence of the Mun. You should also have a Periapsis marker between the encounter and escape markers. If you burn retrograde at that point you should get captured by the Mun and find yourself in orbit around it.

@Benredder I made a replica of your second version, with a few changes, and it flies fine. Start the engines and it rolls down the runway and takes off on its own with no input, and flies pretty smoothly. The changes I made were to reduce the two top tailfins to just one to save weight. I removed the rear two landing legs and replaced them with a single small steerable landing gear. This saves weight and allows the plane to be steered on the ground. It also lowers the back of the craft when sitting on the ground, which is how my version is able to take off on its own. I can't tell from your picture if the three cylinders that make up your fuselage are fuel tanks or just fuselage sections. As fuel tanks won't feed to the engines without the use of connecting pipes, and I can't see any of those on your plane, I used fuselage sections. Again these save weight over fuel tanks, even if the tanks are empty. The last design change was to use a short cone on the rear of the plane to avoid the risk of a tail strike if I had stuck with the longer version that you have. Control wise, I set the inner elevons on the main wing to be used as flaps only. The outer elevons are restricted to roll only. The rear tailplanes I had set to control pitch and roll, and the tailfin was set to control yaw only. With no input it takes off at about 100 m/s, or 75 m/s with flaps deployed. With flaps and a touch of back stick, it will leave the ground at 50-55 m/s. Max speed at low level seems to be around 390 m/s. I haven't tested to see what the ceiling is. I hope that helps. Getting planes to fly nicely in KSP can be quite a challenge but gives quite a sense of achievement when you manage it.

Reaction wheels are fine. The biggest no-no is no engine of any description and no piloting aids.

The idea of Hyperedit was to start directly above the normal launch point on the runway and to have a screen that displays what height you have elected to start from. If you can guarantee and show that your skycrane will not start your entry any closer to the island, and you have some way of showing what height your craft was dropped at (possibly the F3 screen showing max height?) then I would be ok with that. If I'm not happy that your method hasn't given you an advantage, then I will disallow it.

Inspired by @Snark challenge to create a craft with the best glide angle and minimum sink rate, and failing miserably to create my own craft that was capable of meeting his challenge, I decided to come up with an alternative on the same theme. This challenge requires you to build an unpowered craft that is capable of reaching and landing on the island runway. The start point is directly above the runway where vehicles from the SPH normally launch, at a height that you feel is sufficient to meet the challenge. Unfortunately you will need Hyperedit installed to enable your craft to be dropped at the start point. The idea is to reach and land on the island from the lowest start height that you are able to complete the mission from. Rules 1. Craft must be completely stock 2. No engines of any description allowed (that includes propeller engines made from stock parts) 3. No dropping or staging of parts. The craft that lands at the island must be exactly the same as when it started 4. No Mechjeb or other piloting aids. All flying must be done manually 5. Use the Hyperedit* 'land ship' function to set your current position when sitting in the normal launch spot on the runway, and set the height you wish to land/drop from 6. No use of infini-glide (no idea if that still works in 1.3, but no using it if it does) * It's been mentioned in a post below that there may be a glitch in Hyperedit in KSP 1.3.1 and that the 'land at current location' may in fact put you somewhere completely different. The basis of the challenge is to start above the normal runway launch position at your chosen height, and with the aircraft in a level attitude with zero airspeed. If you can achieve that without using Hyperedit, then that's OK as long as you can submit your entry with proof of your starting position/attitude/speed. Hyperedit set to current position, and 5000m drop height selected Half way there and plenty of height in hand Safely landed My own entry is a design that would be relatively efficient in the real world, but I am not so sure that it is the best design for the conditions in KSP. I also arrived at the island with plenty of height in hand, so could definitely have started lower. ETA. I have achieved this challenge from a lower starting height than the one I have posted on the leaderboard, so that you know my score can be beaten and to encourage people to have a go. However, I did fail on my very first attempt from 5000m. As a tip I would suggest that getting your glide established after hitting the drop button, before you lose too much height, is certainly what helped me to make a successful flight. Leaderboard: 1: Not Sure - 2900m 2: Rocket In My Pocket - 3000m 3 : Scarecrow - 5000m

I built this one some time ago in the style of the old Vampire aircraft. It still works in 1.3 and has pretty docile flying characteristics. It uses action group keys, but only two. 1 toggles the afterburner on the engine and 2 toggles the flaps. The flaps really help slowing the craft down when coming in for landing. https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3ir9sr9v5548iq/Voodoo.craft?dl=0 Or something a bit bigger, which is capable of flying 1/2 way round Kerbin and back, which I use for recovering returning Kerbonauts who miss landing back at KSC. Video in another KSP thread here : https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/140861-supersonic-plane-challenge-results-are-out/&page=2 Craft file : https://www.dropbox.com/s/zawb97dektsfrhj/Twingo LDRV.craft?dl=0 With perseverance and a bit of tinkering, it's amazing what you can get to fly in KSP, so don't give up and don't be afraid to experiment.

Maybe I should do a video to show that mine isn't porpoising or anything like that, just gliding serenely along and then the stabilizing message pops up.

The problem I have is that my design will only fly with SAS on, but it will do so for several minutes completely hands off. Unfortunately it isn't able to reach it's max LD and minimum sink before the stabilizing message appears, counting up from 1%, which makes it look as if there has been some control input.

Thought it would look cool without them. Enabling yaw on the control surfaces gave plenty of authority, although it did have a slight tendency to sideslip if it had any bank on at all. Wheels on mine were completely symmetrical, 2 at the front and 2 at the rear.

Yep. It's got some strange flying characteristics - lowering the undercarriage at high speed seems to make it poop its pants, but overall it isn't too bad. Even tried changing flight direction in mid flight which wasn't too bad, but best achieved by flying vertically, and then changing engines/cockpit as the speed falls to zero and it starts to drop back towards the ground.

Felt like it could be fun to do this. Ready to go On the way to the island Landed Control swapped to rear cockpit - now facing due west Back at KSC

OK. Didn't realise SAS needs to be switched off, as in the image posted by the OP it's switched on. Actually having just re-read the rules it would appear there are two categories - for SAS on or off.

I'm having a problem with this. Have a pod and boom traditional style glider that flies quite happily hands off. The little app shows the glide ratio is still going up slowly and the sink rate is decreasing slowly, so I am holding off taking my screen shot until they reach max values. Unfortunately, as anyone knows who has done long distance flights on Kerbin, as you progress in your flight, your nose starts to rise relative to the horizon and this seems to be causing my craft a problem. While I am waiting for my figures to reach peak, the nose is getting close to the horizon and then suddenly, with absolutely no input from me (and none for several minutes previously) the stabilizing message comes up and starts increasing slowly. I don't think this is the phugoids mentioned above, as the craft is settled in a steady flight, so curious if anyone else has experienced this.

I agree with selfish_meme, you don't need mod parts to build a submarine. I built this one in stock a few versions ago, but I have just downloaded it again from Dropbox, and it still works in 1.3

Kerbcam also works

I've been a member of this forum for a while now, but I had no idea this thread existed. I have just completed my first cinematic, inspired by someone asking in another thread for links to short KSP videos that he could show to a friend to give them a taste of what KSP was all about. I didn't post in that thread as it was a while after it was posted before I finished my effort, so I put it in a separate thread, but I hope no one minds if I post it again in this thread, which is where I should have put it in the first place.

Thanks for the comments MaxxQ. I did have some footage from inside the VAB, but I had to lose it as the piece of music I chose dictated how much video I could use, and the VAB footage lost out to the bits I was able to include. This was also the first time that I had tried to choreograph the footage to the music, which was another constriction to how I put it all together. It's a bit off most noticeably at the first couple of failed launches, but I'm happy where it coincided with the crashes/explosions.

Thanks for the kind comments guys. It's rewarding to think I was on the right track with this attempt.

A short while back someone posted up a thread asking if anyone could recommend a short Youtube video that concisely showed what KSP was all about that he could show his friend with a view to getting said friend interested in playing KSP. I was really impressed by some of the videos that people recommended, and it inspired me to having a go at making something similar myself. I have no illusions that my effort is anywhere near as good as the videos suggested in the other thread, but for a first attempt at making a semi-cinematic style video rather than just pure gameplay footage, I'm rather pleased with the end result. I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks, and to receive constructive feedback so that I may improve for future efforts.

I made an Apollo style ship to go to the Mun, and by adding a couple of boosters to the first stage, and parachutes to the lander, the same ship was able to go to Duna and back. Landing on Duna can be done with very little fuel due to being able to use the parachutes, so a lander that is capable of landing on Mun and returning to orbit should be able to do the same at Duna. All you need then is a ship to get the lander to Duna, and that is capable of returning the pilots to Kerbin.

That's interesting as I had already tried that download, and was having the same problem as someone else in the thread you linked to i.e. the Kerbcam button wasn't showing up. However, to be thorough I thought I would give it another go and, lo and behold, it's now working. Very strange.

I have been playing KSP for quite a while now, but only recently have I considered trying to record some of my adventures in a more cinematic style rather than raw gameplay footage from the default camera point of view. Looking in to what mods are available for altering the camera POV, Kerbcam seemed to offer all that I was looking for, but it would appear that it is no longer supported and isn't compatible with KSP 1.3. I've not been able to find a realistic alternative that does all that Kerbcam seemed to offer, and was wondering what mods other creators of cinematic style KSP gameplay were using?