Pecan

Getting into orbit is 'halfway to anywhere' and quite an achievement in itself :-)

I was so happy when my (aging) graphics card died because it meant I could get a newer one that supported KSP better ^^.

Which is a pity because any judge should look at the design criteria stated for the challenge and how each entry demonstrated its ability to meet them, or doesn't. Of course you can then rate them for other features like artitstic merit, endurance, etc. but only as tie-breaks. Or you could just use politics and vote for your bestest friend ^^. To paraphrase Holmes, "When you have eliminated the ones you're NOT voting for what remains, however unsuitable, is the solution." Not suggesting any of these can't do what's required, btw, I just didn't think that quote through until I was most of the way through typing it, doh! Anyway, no worries - these things usually go that way and I only chucked mine in at the start to illustrate how it could be done. GregroxMun has been active on the forums today so I assume he's not checking-in here.

LV-40-P + Fuel Module Launch Identity: LV-40-P – launch vehicle Purpose: Kerbin launch, 40t. Statistics: 275.75t VAB/85.75 dry, 16 parts, cost 31,780. Design: 2 parallel-staged Construction: RC-L01 RGU, sr. docking port, ADTP-2-3 adapter, S3-3600, S3-7200 and S3-14400 fuel tanks, KR-2L engine. 2 x radial decouplers, LFB-KR1x2 boosters, nosecones. Action Groups: abort:shutdown engines, 3:toggle them Performance: (Kerbin) TWR 2.4. 4,860m/s Chapter 7, section 7 of the tutorial in my signature. As it says above this is parallel staged but what have you got against asparagus?

Because the active 'vehicle' is the Kerbal, and KSP rotates and zooms to that, not the rocket. Scott Manley probably knew exactly which way his Kerbal would be facing so put his camera in that position first.

Necrobones does some nice tutorials.

When/if the OP comes back he'll set up the voting. As to how people will judge for which to vote I hope that they, at least, have read the OP. "Your craft should be easy to use, simple and safe - stock craft are mostly for new players" and "dock either two stock Space Station Cores together, or dock a stock Space Station Core to a pre-existing space station, then either de-orbit or dock to another node on the station", for instance. That would seem to favour the submissions that have demonstrated completing the tasks in the simplest way ^^.

Unlike the others I think your Duna periapsis - 9.25km is probably so low that, unless you're really screaming past, you've about equal chance of crashing anyway. I'd pop the chutes over Duna and call that a landing. For similar cases; avoid them ^^ - check the transfer windows and thrust required.

Now I really want 0.24 to come out! I'm reluctant to add any more mods to my current save and don't want to start a new install until then but this will definitely be in there when I do, well done :-)

As far as I'm concerned unless and until there's a vote all updates are valid.

No (10 char)

Again, so much depends on how much lift is being generated by wings versus thrust, how efficiently you're accelerating through different layers of the atmosphere. There simply is no straightforward way to calculate this for a spaceplane. For a rocket, yes, you broadly follow the rocket equation but the engines that efficiently lift 47 tonnes are probably not the same as you'd use for 67 tonnes so, yet again, you can't just take a working model and expect it to still work after adding just payload and fuel.

Ok, so the question becomes, "what's the most efficient way to plane-change" and the answer to that is a) return when Minmus is at its Kerbin An/Dn, with the plane-change included in the ejection burn, return whenever you like, plane-change at An/Dn as you approach Kerbin.

Remember we're getting a new user interface in 0.24. You probably don't want to put a great amount of effort into changing things now.

I refer you to my earlier answer.

@ advil - right-click lights in the VAB/SPH to tweak their colour and intensity. @ Mathman - thank you; I have been wondering why you and I seem to be the only people who read the OP throughout this thread. On the other hand, GregroxMun seems to have walked away in horror ^^.

And it's a duplicate thread. Mods!

Er, welcome. This is you introducing yourself is it, or trying to help other new people? The wiki has a good page on controls, if you'd like to check it.

Ion engines then - they're (mostly) electric.

Plus some for all the fuel you'll need to lift the fuel, and the fuel you'll need to lift the fuel to lift the fuel, etc. In general, it's the rocket equation but, as many people have asked, it's practically impossible to calculate for atmospheric work because so much depends on your ascent profile, exact TWR and different altitudes, etc, etc, etc. Being a plane just makes it even worse. Possibly not impossible but definitely improbable. Oh, and yes, it's usually VERY significant.

Mathman - I find it hard to follow what you are saying because I don't know to whom these are addressed. Can you please quote the posts you're replying to or at least tell us! (eg; "I had an even more unbalanced conglomeration than manni01's in another personal challenge.")

This is the closest we have to a definitive record -> forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60551-Spoiler-Easter-Egg-Stocktake-0-23-%28Done%21%29-Pic-Heavy/page9. Ask there or report it missing :-)

Yes, if you don't want to wait there's no real point in doing it in career-mode at the moment, unless it's just to point at the completed tech-tree and call it 'win'. Even if 0.24's still a few weeks away you can go for it or practice and plan in sandbox now.

You can 'tweak' several features of different parts by right-clicking them. If this is not an option that appears when you right-click then, no, you'll just have to do ground-tests like the rest of us. They're always handy to see if Kerbals can get out and walk around then get back in, etc. - I habitually forget ladders ^^