Right

Maybe try those hooligans over at add-on affairs or development.

Yeah, I've had this problem too. Aside from just burning a ton of fuel to slow down the asteroid adequately, my best bet would be to use air brakes to help bleed off as much speed as possible before hitting those lethal altitudes.

If you're rocket is rolling (pointing up but twirling) If its only spinning at the very start of the launch, use launch clamps. Use radial symmetry mode (default mode in the VAB) When adding struts, sometimes if you only support one side of a booster stage, it can tilt a little bit and cause spinning. If all else fails, a sufficient amount of control surfaces or RCS can counteract If you're rocket is having a hard time pointing up: Try adding more and larger fins at the bottom of the craft.

Which one of these crafts would you guess preforms better? http://imgur.com/CBq2HLf Turns out its the on the right. Not because its floating out besides the craft, turns out that doesn't make any difference at all. It being upside down reduces drag more than right side up! Given this, I'd give an arm and leg for a wind tunnel or some sort of drag preview, especially with respect to drag occlusion. Testing aerodynamics is becoming a bit laborious. Anyone know of any tools or tips besides doing comparative dry runs?

I've found the radiator panels to be great heat shields for re-entry actually. Much more mass efficient than the ablative stuff. They still won't stop you from disintegrating during aerocapture on Eve or Jool though.

Driving my car uphill fast reduces gravitational d/V (fuel) losses! Even if it means flooring it to get up to the speed limit at the base of the hill LOL

Love all the answers, I'm very impressed and flattered. So I found this short video that sort of clears up up some questions as it explains the two competing explanations of lift. The first explanation covered was my understanding, but now I realize its more nuanced. NathanKell and especially GoSlash, nailed the crux of my concern. Thanks everyone for the replies!

I'm not 100% sure what the game means by lift, but I typically see a colloquial usage and a fluid dynamics usage. Colloquial usage seems to often mistake lift with 'change in vector due to angle of attack'. In principle, a flat wing cannot generate lift. An airfoil can. I think my question can be most easily answered in this form: is there an advantage in game to using a fixed wing, over say a structural panel if it had equal mass and surface area? Along similar lines, if the game employs the fluid mechanical behavior of lift, a light craft traveling parallel to the horizon at sufficient speeds should ascend slowly. (0° Angle of attack for the craft & wings) I could be wildly overestimating my understanding of the concept though.

Thanks for the tip! I know this was 3 months ago and I apologize for all the minutia. If you're uninterested I won't be offended. XD I assume you're referring to surface prograde to reduce atmospheric drag losses. I hope you don't mind a few questions as I'm still failing. Is this KSP 1.0.4? Are you running stock aerodynamics? Is the ascent in the pictures and the ascent that succeeded the same? Are you full throttle until you reach orbital speed? I'm noticing at T+20s I am moving faster at a higher altitude and with less mass/dV. I believe this indicates you're throttling down at some point. I've double checked my fuel flows. I'm having trouble adhering to your tip between the first and second stages (technically stage 3 and 2), I think this is the key to success. You're facing surface prograde at T+20 and T+47, but if I match you at T+20, I have to deviate from prograde by 10° for more than 15 seconds to match you're heading at T+47. At this point I'm 50m/s behind you.

Greetings! So I'm late to the KSP 1.0+ party, but better late than never. This challenge represents the bread and butter of KSP rocket science, and thus is my first stop haha. My primary attention at the moment is focused on duplicating or surpassing the most efficient rocket designs. I've reconstructed Nefrums "Bigger is Better" I believe exactly (part count, mass, dV, TWR, etc...) but I can't quite get it into orbit. Best I can do is 49k/18k Ap/Per. @Nefrums I've tried matching your flight path from the screen shots, but I lose 50-100 m/s between stage 1 and 2 that I haven't figured out how to eek out. Any tips? Hopefully I can improve upon 28.48%

I actually did this for the Laythe capitalism challenge. I had to edit the persistent file to increase the patched conics limit. The horrible part about this is mentalizing and warping to a point where 2 (or in my case 3) different transfer windows line up. First, the optimal Laythe>Tylo angle to prograde, then the optimal Tylo>Kerbin angle to prograde. Its less difficult with a circular orbit, but also less efficient. My low laythe orbit was achieved with only a jet engine, and maybe 5 dV of rocket fuel. This grants you a respectably high apoapsis, but then you need to sync a 3rd transfer window to burn at the Laythe periapsis. However, getting to Kerbin from a low Laythe circular orbit ~60k with only 700dV sounds beyond reach. As I think you suggested, it could be possible orbiting Jool for several years getting several carefully plotted gravity assists from the moons. Sounds like a real headache lol. Someone should try!

Love the challenge! Part welding does offer a potentially significant advantage, but I kind of wish people would reconsider it as a "better-than-stock" advantage. To me, the most notable and by far the primary advantage it offers, is enabling you to do certain tasks without buying a $2000 computer. Lol, that probably sounds passive-aggressive. I should ask, is there another advantage you have in mind other than this?

The faster your going, the more efficient your fuel is. Lower orbit means faster orbital speed.

Point taken. I was talking about increasing the maximum warp. Its very important to get to the outermost bodies. But TimeControl has bugs and I theres no ETA. You could make OPM warp rails a toggle-able setting, defaulted to off. However, I know OPM doesn't have a settings window so this might be a lot of work. I don't know if its possible, but you could make patching a new set of warp rails conditional: TimeControl not detected->Patch improved rails. I'm sure you've got plenty on your plate, I just want to keep the ideas flowing.

Xaiier, Is there anything we can do to help? I personally don't have much programming experience, but I can isolate bugs or possibly other tasks. Click the small question mark "?" at the top right of of the TimeControl pane.

Low yes, but bigger when you combine lost Oberth effect for the return Hohmann, especially considering that a safe orbit can be as low as 8k.

I think this is probably it. They aren't as old as 0.17, but I'm not sure anyone noticed.

Why do delta-v maps use 50km as low Moho orbit? It's got no atmosphere, and its highest peaks appear to be ~6km. So why not use 16km as low orbit?

For anyone interested, here are my delta-v requirement findings for ascending to low orbit of each body. Hale: 42 Ovok: 80 Eeloo: 600 Slate: 2670 Tekto: 2600 Plock: 450 Sarnus, Urlum, & Neidon: Like Jool, no way to land! However, from the theoretical surface ~9km dV for Urlum & Neidon, ~20km dV for Sarnus. Double the dV requirements for a lander + back to orbit (Minus Tekto, it has an atmosphere) If someone feels like putting a dV map together, heres the rest of the numbers... Hohmann Transfer (AKA Intercept) dV Requirements (This includes low orbit escape burn): Kerbin->Sarnus: 2270 Kerbin->Urlum: 2470 Kerbin->Neidon: 2580 Kerbin->Plock: 2588 Sarnus->Hale: 540 Sarnus->Ovok: 650 Sarnus->Eeloo: 1120 Sarnus->Slate: 1460 Sarnus->Tekto: 1540 Low Orbit (Circularization Burn): Sarnus: 1980 (Aerobraking Possible) Urlum: 1310 (Aerobraking Possible) Neidon: 1310 (Aerobraking Possible) Plock: 1190 [From Low Sarnus Orbit] Hale: 420 Ovok: 480 Eeloo: 470 Slate:880 Tekto: 360 (Aerobraking Possible) Low orbit is defined, as it traditionally is, 10km above the highest obstacle or atmosphere (whichever is higher) One really needs time controller to get these values though. You have to wait ~180 years for ideal Plock transfer window, and its a 40+ year transit. Wow that took a long time to get all that. - - - Updated - - - Also, I should mention that something is off with Tekto's atmosphere. Trajectories thinks it starts at 138km, the stock 'knowledge base' says its 119.5km, but its actually 100.5km. Some food for thought: since you include a change to the power curve for solar panels, why not set up your own Kerbol warp rails? Maybe something that can be switched on/off.

Very cool designs. Much tuning I'm sure. Gears are possible, just horribly inefficient.

Maybe, but karbonite engines compensate for this a bit. If you construct two ships with a TWR: 2, one on Karbonite and one on LFO, they will have similar dVs though the karbonite one will be much heavier. It makes sense that a raw material would weigh more before refinement too. Besides, I delete parts from every part mod I download (maybe except ScanSAT). Theres almost always stuff you don't need.

Its possible. The key is using very low mass, high efficiency landers whenever possible, and making a smart mission plan. Two example respectively: using ion engine landers on any body with gravity weaker than Vall (which is a lot of them), and I recently discovered that using an alternate method from the basic hohmann->circularize->hohmann->circularize from Eve to Moho, the dV requirement can be reduced from ~1200dV to ~200dV. I ran the tests a couple weeks ago so memory might be off a bit, but the savings were significant. But if it really can't be done, we always have ISRU which is not prohibited. And the refueling rule can always be revised. @ Christoph Outer Planets changes the stock power curve for solar panels. Is it acceptable to use the stock one instead?

You might want to update your links and suggested challenges based on working planet packs. I would be grateful anyways!

You listed the Kaiser system twice on the Kraken-Jeb challenge. Also, I can't download the Kerbolis pack. Something must be buggy with that Mediafire link. The Kaiser system makes my KSP crash just after loading. Same goes for Super Eve, though it may be because I didn't install the other mods it asks for (they're all out of date). Might want to take it out if you experience the same problem. This is all for my 0.90 installation.

Thanks! Yes Mechjeb and Trajectories for planning. I wonder if bringing the pod and nuke engine for a direct ascent is more efficient than leaving them in LKO/LLO without a direct ascent.