H2O.

My next project is a Duna compact space station. The main action feature is an artificial gravity generator for the habitat modules (habitat modules rotate while the science lab stay still). Fully Stock. On the pad, with enough fuel to go to Duna:

Yeah... I am like you: I don't like having to make complicated manoeuvre. I really did try to build this ship with convenience in mind. As I said in the OP, the difficulty should lie in the mission, not in the way your spacecraft rotate (or manoeuvre). I hope I did succeed.

I guess it is because they use the burn-time of the vulcain for calculations and don't want to be disturbed by another number on TV that will simply be burn time + 7 (just a guess).

Thanks! The ship is slightly unbalanced, but to a very low extend (it is irrelevant for flying). I did use KER to be fair (this give an indication of the offset force applied by your engine, if it is not zero, it is unbalanced). The reasons to put the ion engines on top are multiple: it is not part intensive, it makes it easier to balance RCS, it makes the ship more compact (so less fairings, lighter launch vehicle, etc.) and it gives the ship a distinct personality. There is a probe core between the xenon tank and the docking port that faces the correct direction.

Thanks inigma. To clarify the rule: who should nominate an Epic Engineer? You or anyone on the forum?

Very interesting (I did use subtitles because my Russian is... inexistant ). I am in admiration before the R-7, and not ashamed to say it. It is elegant, convenient, reliable and beautiful.

Launch window: 18:16 - 19:40 (Kourou) 23:16 - 00:40 (Paris) 21:23 - 22:40 (UTC/GMT) 5:23PM - 6:40PM (Eastern Time Zone, US) You can see the livestream here: www.cnes.fr

I don't know, I don't use mechjeb. But honestly, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work. Set it for a 100 km circular orbit. Jettison the fairings ("Action Group 1") once you are above 40 km and everything should be alright. The ascent profile I describe in the manual is not the most efficient, just the most simple. I'm interested to see if it works correctly with mechjeb. Could you tell me after your run?

Ok so it is 75° relative to the horizon. Wich means that you turn just a little bit. Actually, just a regular (for 1.02 at least) ascent profile (like in Scott Manley's videos) will work perfectly. Because the rocket has a rather high TWR, you can be a bit agressive, but really, the ascent is pretty standard.

Ok, I'll try to rephrase: Lift-Off Push the throttle to maximum, activate SAS and press “spaceâ€Â. Ascent is typical: go straight up until your velocity is 50 m/s turn (direction 90) until your inclination is ~75° relative to the horizon Wait for the yellow prograde marker to line up with your attitude marker (i.e.: the prograde marker is at the very center of the navball) Activate the “follow prograde†SAS and let the rocket fly by itself. (At these point, you normally don't have to steer by yourself) You should be at an altitude between 7500 and 8500 meters once your inclination reach 45° relative to the horizon. When the boosters are empty, stage. Keep on burning until your apoapse reach 100 km, then stop burning. Once you are out of the atmosphere, press "Action Group 1". Circularize (once it is done, you should have roughly 150 m/s left of deltav in your second stage) I hope it is clearer.

Yeah, the nuclear stage is a bit on the bland side. And yes, I tried just what you propose, but it was not enough. We definitively need a topic where we explain the compromises we had to make:). So it goes like this: With fuel (and whatever the solution I chose) the Kassandra is in the 60 tons range in LKO. I have no other realistic solution but to go nuclear. One of my first problem was the overheating: to counterbalance that I choose to go with 3 engines. But Now, whatever I do, they don't fit under the lander. So I went radical: ditch the interplanetary transfer stage and go nuclear-only until final approach. With that in mind, let's add the fact that as of today, liquid-fuel-only tanks choices are limited. I ended up choosing the Mk3 liquid fuel tank. Now the solution works, but the launch vehicle is totally inadequate! Impossible from an aesthetic point of view to have big gaps between the main core and the side-boosters. So I went for a 3.75 m main core. To sum up: I did sacrifice a bit on the nuclear stage aesthetic for delta-v and simplicity reasons (1 nuclear stage instead of 1 interplanetary + 1 nuclear) and aesthetic reasons (but for the launch vehicle). I did try to give it a little "2001: A Space Odyssey" feel (with 3 lined up big engines at the back and a antenna at the top), but it doesn't seems to have worked, because nobody said something about it . @ Brownhair2: Nice pictures, and thanks again for finding those problems yesterday. @ nfpinto: please, go ahead!

You don't need the nuclear stage to reach LKO with version 2.11! You should easily reach a circular 100 km orbit with the second stage with 150 m/s to spare.

Ok, so I released a minor modification 2.11 version Nuclear engines heating allow for a 5 minutes burn at full throttle (against 3 min 30 s before) Little changes in the manual to make clearer the fact that you should use "Action Group 1" to jettisoned the fairing during launch. The rover is now capable of caring the mystery goo! (so a long drive is more rewarding in term of science harvest). Parachutes on boosters are not "stowed" anymore 133 parts instead of 136 imgur album modifications to match changes I hope it will solves the problems Brownhair2 found. Enjoy!

Thanks for your feedback Brownhair2. So, If I understand correctly, it wasn't clear enough that you are supposed to press "Action Group 1" to jettisson the fairing and the escape tower during launch? I will see if I can do something about the parachutes on the boosters, I don't remember any problem while I was testing, but that bug is sleaky. response to the unrelated edit: be gentle on the throttle ! More seriously, I am not happy with that, I am currently in a test phase to see if I can manage the overheating better.

Thanks guys, it is very much appreciated. Version 2.1 is out! Launch vehicle now entirely recoverable... ... with an almost entirely automated procedure (really, you just have to throttle up at one point) 136 parts instead of 137 re-factoring of the attachment system for the scout and the satellite imgur album modifications to match changes rewriting of some of the manual's sections to match changes Ok so I wanted to make the launch vehicle recoverable, but not tedious. No problem for the boosters as they are on a suborbital trajectory when jettisoned. But the second stage? I came up with a solution that I call: Automated Space Handbrake U-Turn . Because it is better to have some pictures than a long paragraph of text, here we go: Tell me what you think, and enjoy!

I just flew the Mirage III (thank you btw) and if I may, I would like to make a suggestion: If you make a small modification, you could improve manoeuvrability, massively: _use only the pair of wings exterior elevons for roll _use both pair of wings elevons for pitch (as it is now actually) _use only tail elevons for yaw Try it, you will be surprised!

Thanks for you input! The ship doesn't technically accelerate too fast (it never reaches terminal velocity), but it does goes fast enough in the atmosphere to produce re-entry effect which I think is unfortunate, so I hear you on that. And yes, there is room for a few tons more into LKO, I already have some ideas on how to use it . I am not yet 100% comfortable with the new atmosphere (and since it might slightly change again) so I let some (quite huge, admittedly) margins. Anyway, thank you so much for your feedback, it is much appreciated!

Sometimes dropbox doesn't work, yes. It is generally for a very short period of time. I've just tried and it works. Tell me if it still doesn't work.

Does it lag when on the launchpad? If yes, that is weird. A bit of lag with re-entry effect is normal, but otherwise a 137 parts ship shouldn't lag at all on your computer. Do you have any mod installed? Are your graphic card software up to date? Does other ships with similar part count lag too? @the others Enjoy it! Look at the build in the VAB, I'm pretty proud of how I managed to squeeze the satellite (shameless self-promotion ).

Yeah, mono-propellant is so heavy. Carrying too much mono-propellant has an important impact on your delta-v budget. Removing it is usually the simplest way to share weight out of a design: ditch 3/4 of your mono-propellant (don't forget that there is mono-propellant in the lander can too). Glad I could help!

Numbers indicate that it should be OK, although if I were you, I'll use what is left on the transit stage to do your Duna descent, and I'll drop the parachutes on the lander (heavy and inefficient on Duna). Oh and you have way too much RCS (you don't need any on the lander, and you could easily halve the quantity on your command module).

It is definitively late career. You need: _big fuel tanks _big landing gears _Mainsails engines I didn't think about that to be honest, I'm more of a sandbox player. But it is a nice challenge: make at least the 18 tons version available much sooner! ... if only there were more than 24 hours a day

I love what you did on the fuel tanks .

Yes, yes, I observed the same phenomenon. Yet I whatever I do, books are stacking up. As of today, if I buy a book, the waiting list for me to read it is 2 years (I did the math ).

Very nice indeed but... no legendary Mirage III? Rep for you sir!