TimePeriod

I'd argue that I could take a lander and fly those 50km a whole lot faster and land before your rover was even 1/4 way. Landers are best on Minmus in just about every circumstance

Minmus and rovers = bad. Trust me, I tried. Even with 6 orange fuel tanks, gravity was still so low it would bounce around and break stuff. Minmus is best explored with a lander.

Hello fellow Kerbalnauts! After some time I have come the conclusion that a naming system must be made for everything I have created in KSP. It derives from a simple 'family-tree' system I noticed somewhere else while exploring the internet, a long story short I have made a few modifications to it and come up with my own solution. Instructions of use: We start out at what 'Genre'(1#) of video-game we have in mind. After we have made our choice we determine a number of generic topics found in common amongst all the sub-genre's.(2#) From this selection we already have quite a few options to name our rockets from. To further explain how this is used to its fullest, we can derive an even larger amount of names found within each individual sub-genre. In grand total, we can find a humongous amount of names within each sub-genre. So don't come around and say "I can't figure out what to call my rocket"

Angle of attack. As the angle increases so does the lift on that angle thus increasing your lift "upwards". Nose high, backside low and it will go.

Minimalistic? Maybe futuristic? Perhaps gigantisme is your pleasure? What about; way back in the 60's? Organic? No, I'm not talking about Surgeon Simulator. How about plant based, with all those leaves and branches? How we choose to design our rockets, our aircraft or space-stations tell us a lot about who we are. I'm not one for making long posts, so I'm just going to leave you with this question: Do you have a preferd style? Something which shrines through everything you do in Kerbal Space Program?

Can't make my 7 part SSTO if I can't part clip.

Jeb's been holding it since 0.19 Can he has space-toilet? -0.006 mass.

You will fail. The Mun by itself has millions of tons of kethane, it would take weeks of real-life-time to harvest it all.

So now we wait. We wait.

I can go above 1000 parts. Thou I prefer as fewer parts as possible.

I judge in the number of parts used, not the amounts of dV or tW ratio.

I spend around 2-3 hours designing a rocket in sandbox just so I can use the exact same rocket in careerer mode.

11 part SSTO

3 months of research. 12 hours of flight testing. 8 dead Kerbals. The UltraFIDDLE5000 Boasting no more then 11 parts and 4.63 tons at launch this SSTO really puts "bare" in barebone. Contains edited parts: Small gear bay; reduced to 0.1t from 0.5t DragonForge Technologies Why the hell not?

12 part SSTO :3

Thank you, thank you

Science station is my NR1 reason to build them. +Fuel capacity +Refit the science modules +Ship Science back to Kerbin.

The best part, I can go larger. Still some fps to play around with. - I can still lower my part count. - lower some settings. - Do a better orbit burn. - More boosters. Probly some other things to increase final payload and part count.

1406 Parts / 12695 Tons. 100% stable. Hits LKO with some 1600T of final payload. Yes, Jeb did enjoy the trip to orbit.

I use names from various video-game titles. From there I name rockets, aircraft and bases with individual units from that game.

Because 18 part SSTO requires lots of fun and thinking. Still trying to reduce the part count. I use my time constantly trying to reduce the part count to absolute minimum, the smaller, the lighter, the faster. I am the Anti-Whackjob.

Reduce your number of parts.

Nope, never had any safety gear at all. Most of my aircraft/rockets have way too low part count for that.

21 part SSTO, 5.6T at launch. Single seater. Contains edited parts: Small Gear Bay reduced to 0.1 mass. Final notes: This is about as small as I can make an SSTO while it still resembles an aircraft. Quirks It does not glide. It does not land well. It does not take off well. It barely docks. But it has ½ a tank of fuel left once in a 75km orbit. Important note VERY - VERY - VERY Unstable. Will spin wildly out of control if not used with caution. =- ==- =- After a bit of work, I managed to push the part count down a bit more: 18P/4.6T Single Seat SSTO. Quirks Very unstable in space. Very unstable in flight. Very little fuel when in space. Can dock.