Scarecrow

Just as proof that if necessary you can keep things quite simple and still get to Duna, I built this after reading your thread and noting that you are intending to make it a one way trip. Without the requirement to have a vessel capable of returning, it removes quite a lot of what you need to launch in the first place. If you want details of the craft, I'd be happy to provide them, but I am hoping it shows that you don't need to go really big just because you are flying beyond Kerbin's system. As a break down, the first stage is enough to get the vehicle in to a parking orbit around Kerbin, so effectively a SSTO. The second stage gets what's left to Duna, and puts it in orbit once it gets there. The third stage is the lander.

Just a few posts back you were saying that the idea wasn't to make the best replica, but to be creative. Well I've been creative and used as few parts as I can get away with whilst still making it flyable, and now you're asking if someone would identify it as a replica if it was placed next to the real thing. Make your mind up. Too many moving goalposts in this challenge, I'm out.

Minimalist Mirage III 19 parts

Two conflicting statements - it either needs to be a replica or it doesn't, so yes I admit I don't understand the challenge.

My bad, I only saw the bit listing several types. My point stands about low count beating a higher count, even though the higher count may be a much better facsimile.

A ship capable of getting to Mun and back is certainly capable of getting to Duna, especially if you have no intention of returning. In fact I used a Mun ship a while back to go to Duna, the only change I made was to add some chutes to the lander. Job done.

The problem with a 'lowest part count wins' is that it is going to preclude a lot of aircraft. To build a plane that bears a passing resemblance to the original is going to take a lot more parts for some than it is for others. The scoring makes some sense if the challenge was to build a replica of a specific plane, but even then is it right that a 15 part count creation should beat a 35 part count plane, especially if the 15 count plane only bore a passing resemblance but the 35 part plane was pretty spot on? Take these three : ME163 Komet F104 Starfighter Hawker Harrier I'd like to think that all 3 bear a reasonable resemblance to the aircraft they were based on, but there's no way I could build the Harrier with a part count anywhere near the other two. So even though I consider the Harrier one of my better attempts at copying a real aircraft, it's penalised at the outset.

Should definitely give it a go. I've been playing KSP for a number of years, and have sent manned missions to, and returned from, all the landable bodies in the system, but I still get a lot of enjoyment out of sending missions to Mun.

Although I have already had one go at this, I used a modified lander can and omitted the science experiments and satellite. This was principally because I used an existing Apollo type craft and couldn't be bothered to modify it to include the missing components. I've now amended that error, completely rebuilding the lander to include the science experiments, and a service bay on the CSM to hold a satellite for deployment in Mun orbit. All aspects of the challenge have now been completed, for a score of 218 points.

All returned safely, only thing missing is the fuel used to get there and back.

New submission to meet the spirit of the challenge. Basically the same airframe as before, but with the engines now definitely mounted separately. 78k x 150k orbit.

I just stacked the rocket and jet engine in line. Job done. 72k x 90k orbit with fuel to spare. Engines used are LV-T45 rocket and JX-4 Ramjet jet.

If you are downloading the latest update from the Squad shop rather than Steam, you don't need to uninstall previous versions. Just download the latest and put a shortcut on your desktop. I still have several versions installed and can play any of them with ease, though I tend to stick with the newest version.

Sandbox all the way. I just find Career too restrictive.

I have updated the craft since and have used the lights in Junior as well to make the indication that flaps are deployed more obvious.

Last time I went to one of the poles I flew there (atmospheric)

@Castille7 I actually use a mod called Kerbal Joint Reinforcement rather than strut everything, as wet noodle wobbly rockets really peeve me, and have no idea why Squad would allow craft to be built in KSP that wobble so badly. Unfortunately this means I have no idea how bad any of my craft wobble in a completely vanilla game without the use of struts, so my apologies for not mentioning that in my original response. If you don't like using struts, then I can heartily recommend KJR, which I feel allows rockets to be built as they should be without relying on adding scaffolding everywhere to make them fly properly.

I think it was 0.21 for me. Definitely before destroyable buildings.

No it's not a Star Wars craft, but a replica of a fictional rocket/spaceship from a different TV series, from a much earlier period. From responses here, I'm guessing it's not as popular as genuine Star Wars replicas because no one remembers the original. HvP I have no plans to try any of the Thunderbirds craft, though T3 shouldn't be too difficult. The difficulty with XL5 was getting the 2 craft able to fly in the atmosphere, as well as when they were joined together, as the CoL and CoM moved around depending on whether they were joined or not. Whilst I eventually overcame the problem this was giving me, Fireball Junior still has the flying characteristics of an overweight penguin. I've not mastered how to make a hinged wing capable of sweeping in flight, which rules out T1, but T2 might be viable if I could work out what to use to replicate that beautiful curved shape.

Can I ask a question of everyone? Are these fantasy style ships not particularly popular, or do they need to do something other than just look the part? Or maybe it's because this particular ship needs Infinite Propellant to be switched on to make it viable that means no one is interested. The reason I ask is that this thread hasn't had very many views and, as you can see, no comments. Or maybe it's because it's from a time way before most of the people on this forum were born, as replica Star Wars craft always seem to do quite well, and I would put Fireball XL5 in the same genre, but it isn't stirring wistful memories because no one remembers it.

Thanks Wallygator. I didn't even think about the rocket bikes, though I did once make a vehicle for getting around Minmus that worked on the same principal, so I'm sure they would be feasible on planets/moons with low gravity. It was fun putting it together, the difficult bit was to make Fireball Junior and the main body capable of atmospheric flight independently, as well as still being able to fly when they were joined together.

I'm thinking I need to do a Grand Tour.

I recently created a replica of Fireball XL5, from the early 1960s puppet show, and thought I would fly it to Mun and back, just because. If anyone is interested, a description and craft download file is available over in the Spacecraft Exchange thread The video of this mission was captured in a single take and rendered at 10x actual speed, so lasts for a smidgeon over 4 minutes.

I guess there are a few players from an older generation who will remember this craft from a puppet show for kids from the early 1960's. Produced by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, who went on to give us Thunderbirds amongst others, I guess you could call Fireball XL5 the forerunner of it's more well known cousin. Fireball XL5 in KSP is a recreation designed to give a flavour of the original, rather than be an attempt to produce a nuts and bolts faithful replica. Having said that, the complete craft has reasonably docile flying characteristics in Kerbin's atmosphere, and Fireball Junior and the main Fireball body can be both flown independently. Fireball Junior is the trickiest to fly; it's not too difficult flying around, but it has the glide characteristics of a brick which makes landings tricky. When flying Fireball Junior I recommend it be done with flaps deployed as this improves the flying characteristics at the expense of maximum speed, as they do slow the craft down. It's not recommended that the complete craft be flown with flaps deployed however, as the flaps are all situated in Fireball Junior, and deploying them can make the craft unstable when using large amounts of elevator input. Action group keys : 1 Toggle Fireball Junior rocket engines 2 Toggle flaps 3 Toggle Fireball Junior landing wheels 4 Toggle ladder 6 Undock Fireball Junior 7 Toggle Fireball Junior landing legs (for vertical landings) Finally, it is important that Infinite Propellant is switched on in the Alt F12 cheats menu, as this craft doesn't have a lot of wing area to keep it airborne with full tanks, so the tanks have only been filled to maintain balance and flight characteristics, which requires infinite fuel be used if you want a flight lasting longer than a couple of minutes. Download Fireball XL5 craft file : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y6drj4mc870ui7s/AADdGdGNViDYBnFFFt-RVMHwa?dl=0

Voodoo Originally built in KSP v0.90 in April 2015, and still being used in the latest version. The reason I have kept it is because I think it looks quite good, and it flies really well. It's not particularly fast and nor does it serve any particular purpose, but it's just nice to fly. Still available as a download here if anyone is interested. https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3ir9sr9v5548iq/Voodoo.craft?dl=0 Action group keys are easy. 1 toggles the engine mode, and 2 toggles the flaps.