Krenn

I know of at least two ways to take of from the mun and return to kerbin, assuming you start on the far side of the mun. my prefferred method is to take off and aim due west, aiming for an escape orbit with a perigee of about 2 kilometers, which shows a final path roughly parallel to, but in the opposite direction of, the mun\'s orbit. once i shut of the engines, the movement of the mun updates that escape orbit, so it actually alters course \'in\' towards kerbin, and when i leave the mun\'s sphere of influence, I\'m usually on an elliptical orbit, which either impacts kerbin, or passes very close by. The other method i\'ve heard of involves setting up a 5 km stable orbit EAST, passing in front of the mun\'s orbit. Then you set your course to 40 degrees up pitch when you cross the muns orbit, turn SAS on, and wait until your nose touches the horizon: THEN burn to return to kerbin. Does anyone know which is more fuel efficient?

yes, i\'ve been using it consistently.

I\'m using this to calculate munar intercepts, and it works fine... except i keep reaching the munar sphere of influence while I\'m in front of the moon. How do i calculate when to burn in order to aproach the Mun from slightly behind, giving me a gravity boost?

I\'d appreciate it. I\'d love to see what you consider the most efficient flight plan... I haven\'t been able to reproduce your success yet

ASAS has the same gryoscope as normal SAS, and weighs the same. he probably has a fuel line from the tank to the engine on the other side of the rocket.

you mean sacrificing part of your craft during kerbin landing, to survive touchdown? that\'s fine.

This challenge is to use the fewest possible fuel tanks and engines, in order to land a command pod on the Mun and then return it to kerbin. Rules: Only one RCS tank is permitted, although you may have as many RCS thrusters as you like. you may use whichever stock components you like, and only tanks, engines, and boosters count towards your total. All stock parts, but the landing legs mod is permitted. Liquid engines are 2 points, fuel tanks are 2.5, and solid boosters are 1.8 The goal is to build a craft with the fewest number of points, and complete the mission. my current record: 4 engines, 17 fuel tanks, with 12 of the tanks configured as drop-tanks. total: 50.5 points

which part of that video am i supposed to be watching?

I\'ve already done this once, so i know it\'s possible. Take a rocket into Kerbal orbit, with at least two stages: a large \'orbital lift\' stage\', and a smaller \'orbital manuever\' stage. decouple the \'lift stage\' in a stable orbit, and wait a few seconds for it to move a small distance away from you. then, use your \'orbital manuever\' stage to match velocities, and \'bump\' (or crash) into the side of your previous stage. any reasonable mods are permissible: I used lander legs to stabilize my rocket on the launchpad, and the MPC small tank and small engine for the orbital manuevers.

anyway to just make all flows go in reverse? other than possibly having \'full\' tanks in strange positions on the stack, possibly throwing of center of gravity, i think it would work...

huh. you're also firing your rockets in 2-2-1-1-1 . I wish i knew what staging the current record holder used.

cool. can we get a launchpad photo, or a copy of the the ship file? I'm interested to see what you used.

Actually, the third stage rocket was so close to overheating no matter what i did, that I could get away with firing the fourth stage WITHOUT detaching.. the third stage would blow up in seconds anyway. it just cost me delta-V if i did it that way.

I reached 42,955, but in order to do it, I had to time things so my third stage engine would explode from overheat on it's last second of fuel. Which was convenient, since i didn't have any other way to seperate it so the fourth stage could fire. if my timing was off, I would only make it to about 36,000. I noticed that frogger staged his engines as 2-2-1-1-1. My staging was 3-2-1-1, although i tried several other configurations before settling on that one. images: on the launchpad after dropping the second stage, I count to EIGHT before igniting the third stage, otherwise the engine will overheat too early. This engine is going to explode at exactly the right moment. at peak altitude

The Challenge: This challenge is to see who can make the most efficient use possible of 7 solid booster rockets, by reaching the highest possible altitude Cargo Your cargo is 1 command module, 1 parachute, and 1 SAS module. Engines You have exactly Seven Solid Fuel Boosters. you may using as many stock couplers, de-couplers, and struts as you like. Goal The goal is to reach the highest altitude possible, using any staging series you like. Stock parts only. Background: When reading through the thread on calculating ideal first stage thrust/mass ratios, http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=2230.0 I realized that firing three SRB's one after another in the lower atmosphere was probably more efficient than firing all three at once. Then, when I was designing a rocket to test that, I noticed that an 'expended' solid rocket booster weighs 0.36, but a radial decoupler weighs 0.4, and a stack decoupler weighs 0.8. I figured that might mean that discarding a solid rocket booster after use might be LESS efficient than discarding it later, since you would need to ration how much weight of decouplers you were willing to carry. Thus, this challenge. What is the most efficient order to fire solid rockets in, and what is the most efficient way to discard them?