Eve and back?

[techgamer17]

If this is already a topic then my bad. I've done kerbin to duna and back with a realtively large lander and 2 kerbals. It required several stages and an orbit stage to fly around Duna while I land, do experiments then take off and redock with it. After completing this mission, I'm now eager to go to eve but everyone says it's really difficult because of its thick atmosphere like the real Venus. How might one go about landing AND returning with a Kerbals and a lot of science experiments (I use a lot of mods too to make it more realistic e.g mechjeb,scatterer and universal storage) 

[bewing]

If you want a lot of science experiments, then you will probably need a rover. The nice part about that is that you can leave it behind. The hard part is building and testing the rocket that gets your Kerbals back to orbit from the ground. So you start by designing and testing that. So I'd say your mission goes like: launch all the parts from Kerbin, assemble and refuel in Kerbin SOI if necessary, travel to Eve, drop a rover and land it, drop your lander, EVA to the rover, zoom around and take your data, load all the data into your lander, get back to orbit, move all your data into some little Kerbin return vehicle, get back to Kerbin, then maybe transfer your experiments and Kerbonauts to a Kerbin RV, and deorbit.

So maybe a few spacetugs to drag all this junk to Eve, and one to drag your Kerbals and experiments back to Kerbin in some tiny capsule. Maybe expend a spacetug or two to help deorbit your rover and lander at Eve. But definitely that lander is the tricky part.

[Snark]

The main thing is that Eve descent is pretty easy (as long as you have adequate heat-shielding), but Eve ascent to orbit is an incredible bear.

There are all kinds of advice in this forum about designing the Eve ascent vehicle, but very broadly speaking, here's how you should be thinking about your mission design:

• When you start to design your Eve lander, do it from the standpoint of keep the mass you return to orbit to an absolute bare minimum.
  • Don't lift anything off the surface that you don't absolutely have to.
  • For example, if you used any parachutes, heat shields, lander legs, etc. that you don't need on the ascent... seriously consider mounting them on decouplers so you can jettison them before ascent.
  • Unless you want a truly gargantuan lander, don't plan on your ascent stage being some big thing with a large crew.  Think, "what's the smallest possible ship that one kerbal can ride to orbit", at least for your first attempt.
• Don't even think about taking your Kerbin-return stage down to the surface with you.  Your lander's sole mission is just to claw its way back to low Eve orbit.  Leave your Kerbin-return stage parked in orbit, to pick up crew and science from the lander once it gets back off the surface.
• If you can manage to land somewhere that's higher elevation, it's a big win.  Even just a couple of kilometers elevation makes a huge difference.

 

[Blaarkies]

For the first time, you need to iterate this process a bit.

Build a rocket that can barely get your payload(probecore and command seat?) to orbit from Kerbin. Call it K1
Next, build a launcher that can bring K1 up to kerbin orbit as payload(without using any fuel from K1) Call this K2
K2 pieces needs to have around 2.5 TWR(kerbin), because Eve has surface gravity of 1.7g's

Build K3, the re-entry and ground staged section. 10m heatshield, parachutes on decouplers, extendable ladders on decouplers, landing legs on decouplers, parachutes on de.....yes, everything that is not part of K2 gets decoupled on Eve before the Eve accent begins

My lander was 5-stage, 40t, 2.5m stacks from top to bottom(probecore,seat,tiny fuel tank and engine was inside a 2.5m fairing. Ladder outside close enough to the seat allows boarding). On the decouplers were drills,ISRU, radiators, solar panels to fill up the tanks on surface. And a 10m heatshield.

Tips:
-My empty lander was like 14t. That re-enters much easier than a fully fueled ship(landing on less parachutes)
-Drills like to overheat during re-entry if they are not sealed and locked into cargo bays. Even if they are tucked safely behind the heatshield like everything else. To fix this, add a fairing around them. (for me, it was from top to bottom: lander, drill-fairing, 10m-heatshield...kind of like russian dolls)
-To stop flipping during re-entry, leave some(300LF+O) fuel in the bottom most tank
-Don't go to 3.75m parts unless you need to(the biggest cross section part in the rocket generally determines to total wind resistance)
-Don't worry about have only 1.25m part at the top for aerodynamics...at the stage where they become the biggest cross-section parts of the rocket, you are already in thin atmosphere where it doesn't even matter anymore(thin parts mean lots of length, make for a tipping lander)
-Eve atmosphere at sea-level is 5bar(5 times that of kerbin sea-level).
  >Engine ISP and thrust suffer a lot from that(Vector engines give 1000kN thrust, but at Eve sea-level they produce about 550kN)
  >Aerospike is good as second stage(good twr and isp), and still efficient even though you need a 2.5m reaction wheel to help it point up.
  >Terminal velocity is a bit different. 1.7 times Kerbin gravity means you should accent faster(to lose less due to gravity drag), but 5 times atmosphere means you need to     go slower(lose less to air friction). My launch needed 250m/s at start;   300m/s at 10km;   600m/s at 20km and then floor it.
       + For testing purposes: Alt+F12, infinite propelent, then set orbit to Eve. Use engines to cancel orbital velocity, so that you fall straight down(slow down to 1200m/s at             50km using engines, then leave it to free fall, pointy side towards space). Keep an eye on your speed vs altitude while falling. This is your terminal velocity(almost,               but you can go slightly faster because you will fight the wind with a aerodynamic pointy end)
-For luanch, set Navball to "Surface" mode. Select the "Radial out" SAS mode. When in surface mode, this points towards "Up"...yes, the simple up, meaning where the sky/clouds are. Don't aim more than 5 degrees away from the prograde marker(air resistance on Eve is major)
-I started my gravity turn at about 5km. Set SAS to manual, and gently nudge 3 degrees towards the east. Keep that heading/pitch untill the prograde marker fall to the 85 degrees mark, then engage "Prograde" SAS mode. Just focus on having terminal velocity, and see where it ends up(to shallow, then start the turn later *this need to be done when testing)
-Staging vs Dry-mass: Every stage is extra dv, but 10-stage rockets lose out a lot due to carrying around dead engines...but one massive fuel tank also has a lot of dry-mass to carry around. I follow the double fuel rules:> 0.6t capsule. add some empty fuel tank and engine to it. total mass, 2t. Now, if I fill up the fuel tank, the mass should be 4t. Follow this for any stage, and you get a good amount of dv vs the amount of mass you added

[Aegolius13]

There was a similar thread a couple days ago; you might find some useful stuff in there.

As stated elsewhere, high efficiency engines (Vector and Aerospike especially), and a light, aerodynamically clean ascent vehicle are key.  And the radial-out setting on SAS is the best way to not flip over and crash when starting yoru climb.  

When building my rig, I found it hugely helpful to look at Kerbal Engineer Redux's Eve / at sea-level display.  This will give you an approximate idea of your craft's ISP, TWR and delta-v in the soup on Eve.  I say approximate because atmospheric density varies so much by elevation.  And thankfully, you're unlikely to land right at sea-level.  Even 500m extra elevation helps quite a bit.  So the KER surface numbers are really more of worst-case.  I found the SAS

Others have said wings are very helpful, especially if you want to go as low mass as possible, but I haven't tried them on Eve yet.

I did not do this myself, but you can use the debug menu's orbit option to teleport your lander to Eve orbit.  That way you can fine-tune the Eve portion, and then figure out how to launch it from Kerbin.  Doing iterative improvements on the lander the traditional way is quite time-consuming.

 

 

[Foxster]

Some great answers above. Two additional thoughts...

1. Don't go to Eve. No, really, why not go to Gilly instead? I suppose it depends if you are doing it for the science or just for the challenge. If the first, then do Gilly, it's soooo much easier. 

2. You don't have to get your crewman back to orbit to get the science home. You just need to get a Science Storage Unit back to orbit and its contents back to Kerbin, leaving your crew on Eve. It's surprising how much easier getting just a SSU to orbit is than a manned can. Again, that's only if you are doing the mission for the science and/or don't mind leaving the crew on Eve. 

[Blaarkies]

4 hours ago, Foxster said:

Some great answers above. Two additional thoughts...

1. Don't go to Eve. No, really, why not go to Gilly instead? I suppose it depends if you are doing it for the science or just for the challenge. If the first, then do Gilly, it's soooo much easier. 

2. You don't have to get your crewman back to orbit to get the science home. You just need to get a Science Storage Unit back to orbit and its contents back to Kerbin, leaving your crew on Eve. It's surprising how much easier getting just a SSU to orbit is than a manned can. Again, that's only if you are doing the mission for the science and/or don't mind leaving the crew on Eve. 

Gilly yes. Im mad at how much more science gilly has vs eve. There are a lot more binomes on eve, but it isnt nearly as easy to traverse Eve(getting explodium ocean science takes a specialized rover)

A Kerbal could work as "science container", not too sure about mass differences. plus, a kerbal with a Eve flag badge puts the first Mun landing heroes to shame

[Magzimum]

5 hours ago, Foxster said:

Some great answers above. Two additional thoughts...

1. Don't go to Eve. No, really, why not go to Gilly instead? I suppose it depends if you are doing it for the science or just for the challenge. If the first, then do Gilly, it's soooo much easier. 

2. You don't have to get your crewman back to orbit to get the science home. You just need to get a Science Storage Unit back to orbit and its contents back to Kerbin, leaving your crew on Eve. It's surprising how much easier getting just a SSU to orbit is than a manned can. Again, that's only if you are doing the mission for the science and/or don't mind leaving the crew on Eve. 

You, sir, are making a name for yourself as the most evil doctor on the forum.

My Kerbals come home. Always.  

Anyway, more on topic, the alt-F12 menu (check under "orbits") is your best friend. Build the lander, cheat it into orbit of Eve. Then you can try to land and take off, and fix all the problems without the tedious interplanetary travels. Once you've fixed your issues, add the giant launcher and do the real mission.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Magzimum

[Firemetal]

5 hours ago, Foxster said:

Some great answers above. Two additional thoughts...

1. Don't go to Eve. No, really, why not go to Gilly instead? I suppose it depends if you are doing it for the science or just for the challenge. If the first, then do Gilly, it's soooo much easier. 

2. You don't have to get your crewman back to orbit to get the science home. You just need to get a Science Storage Unit back to orbit and its contents back to Kerbin, leaving your crew on Eve. It's surprising how much easier getting just a SSU to orbit is than a manned can. Again, that's only if you are doing the mission for the science and/or don't mind leaving the crew on Eve. 

Yes just tell the Kerbals that they will come back and then on Eve, tell them, its only going to be a couple of decades until you design a lander that can get them off.

Do Eve last. You need as much experience with other planets as you can get. Do either Gilly or Dres next. Gilly is hard to get to as it has next to know gravity and is in a very elliptical and inclined orbit around Eve. Dres is like the moon although it has slightly less gravity, (I think) and is on a very inclined orbit further out from Duna. I also find asteroids easier to catch there than Kerbin because they are orbiting Dres so you have more than one chance to catch them. And there is also a cool canyon to explore.  

Hope this helped.

Fire

[Foxster]

3 hours ago, Magzimum said:

You, sir, are making a name for yourself as the most evil doctor on the forum.

"Evil" is such a strong word. 

I prefer "maliciously motivated". Has more of a ring to it. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Foxster

[bigcalm]

I'm in the same boat at the moment - designing an Eve launcher.  I've got two variants that are on their way currently.   I have done it in the past but not for a couple of versions.

This is probably the most challenging vessel to build in the game.  Tylo is a piece of cake by comparison -- a list of problems and requirements
* It needs 8500 ms delta v from the surface of Eve to reach orbit.
* It needs high thrust to weight ratio - Eve's dense atmosphere and high gravity will mean even getting it off the surface will be a challenge.  In the VAB you can bring up MechJeb's delta v, set it to Eve, and the number you want to concentrate on is "SLT" == Surface level thrust.  This needs to be over 1, and needs to remain over 1 whilst in the atmosphere.  Vector and aerospike engines are your friend here.
* Because the minimum speed you'll hit Eve's atmosphere on entry is going to be 3000ms, heatshields are needed.  Therefore, the whole craft should fit above a 10 metre heatshield.  Fairings are a bad idea because ejecting a fairing whilst in flight generally leads to rapid disassembly (and you can't trigger the parachutes from inside the fairing).  You're may hit issues with spinning out as well on descent, because you're unlikely to be able to get the centre of mass close enough to the heatshield.   Adding additional, ejectable "parachute-like" heatshields at the top can be helpful.  I'll try and post a picture here later as it's hard to explain.
* It can't be too tall, as otherwise it'll topple over on the surface.
* It needs parachutes to land gently, and landing legs to prevent it from toppling over, and as low a centre of gravity as possible.  With the large delta v requirement, it's unlikely to be light.  Naturally, all of these should be on decouplers to reduce weight for the actual launch.
* If the goal is to get a kerbonaut up, they will need ladders to reach the capsule.  (You could put a low capsule that can be ejected before launch and then transfer crew, but you'll lose any science experiments.
* Some power source is needed, and solar panels do not work on Eve's surface. 
* And you need to be able to launch this from Kerbin, and get it to Eve somehow.

Testing on Kerbin:

There's only so much you can do to test on Kerbin, but here's a checklist

* Can you hit Kerbin atmosphere at over 3000 ms and survive the descent unscathed?  (Several sub-tasks, does it survive re-entry heat, ejection of heatshields, parachute firing and finally landing).

* Once down, can it lift off with the engines throttled down to half.

* Does anything go wrong when ejecting the parachutes (they should all be on decouplers!)

* Can a kerbal get from the ground to the main capsule?

* You may want to consider a launcher and a separate ISRU station that can be docked to it.  Otherwise you may struggle with how you transport such a heavy craft to Eve in the first place.

 

 

 

[Firemetal]

5 minutes ago, bigcalm said:

I'm in the same boat at the moment - designing an Eve launcher.  I've got two variants that are on their way currently.   I have done it in the past but not for a couple of versions.

This is probably the most challenging vessel to build in the game.  Tylo is a piece of cake by comparison -- a list of problems and requirements
* It needs 8500 ms delta v from the surface of Eve to reach orbit.
* It needs high thrust to weight ratio - Eve's dense atmosphere and high gravity will mean even getting it off the surface will be a challenge.  In the VAB you can bring up MechJeb's delta v, set it to Eve, and the number you want to concentrate on is "SLT" == Surface level thrust.  This needs to be over 1, and needs to remain over 1 whilst in the atmosphere.  Vector and aerospike engines are your friend here.
* Because the minimum speed you'll hit Eve's atmosphere on entry is going to be 3000ms, heatshields are needed.  Therefore, the whole craft should fit above a 10 metre heatshield.  Fairings are a bad idea because ejecting a fairing whilst in flight generally leads to rapid disassembly (and you can't trigger the parachutes from inside the fairing).  You're may hit issues with spinning out as well on descent, because you're unlikely to be able to get the centre of mass close enough to the heatshield.   Adding additional, ejectable "parachute-like" heatshields at the top can be helpful.  I'll try and post a picture here later as it's hard to explain.
* It can't be too tall, as otherwise it'll topple over on the surface.
* It needs parachutes to land gently, and landing legs to prevent it from toppling over, and as low a centre of gravity as possible.  With the large delta v requirement, it's unlikely to be light.  Naturally, all of these should be on decouplers to reduce weight for the actual launch.
* If the goal is to get a kerbonaut up, they will need ladders to reach the capsule.  (You could put a low capsule that can be ejected before launch and then transfer crew, but you'll lose any science experiments.
* Some power source is needed, and solar panels do not work on Eve's surface. 
* And you need to be able to launch this from Kerbin, and get it to Eve somehow.

Testing on Kerbin:

There's only so much you can do to test on Kerbin, but here's a checklist

* Can you hit Kerbin atmosphere at over 3000 ms and survive the descent unscathed?  (Several sub-tasks, does it survive re-entry heat, ejection of heatshields, parachute firing and finally landing).

* Once down, can it lift off with the engines throttled down to half.

* Does anything go wrong when ejecting the parachutes (they should all be on decouplers!)

* Can a kerbal get from the ground to the main capsule?

* You may want to consider a launcher and a separate ISRU station that can be docked to it.  Otherwise you may struggle with how you transport such a heavy craft to Eve in the first place.

 

 

 

Not 8500. I got one with 7000 to orbit from near sea level and I have seen some with 6000. Just needs a good ascent profile. Also with the new improved debug menu, you can edit yourself into Low Eve Orbit and then test it for both re-entry and ascent! But a lot of good points here. I actually didn't know solar panels didn't work on the surface.

Fire

[Foxster]

37 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Not 8500. I got one with 7000 to orbit from near sea level and I have seen some with 6000. Just needs a good ascent profile. Also with the new improved debug menu, you can edit yourself into Low Eve Orbit and then test it for both re-entry and ascent! But a lot of good points here. I actually didn't know solar panels didn't work on the surface.

Fire

I have a stock man-in-a-can craft that will do it from sea level with about 5400 dV and weighs ~20t. But that is for the serious Eve-ophiles as many, many, many Kerbals died just choosing the paint for this craft. 

[bigcalm]

Yes you're right on the delta-v requirements.  I seem to remember the version I did it in previously was higher - but that's likely down to poor piloting skills.

Anyway, here's a screenshot of what I meant regarding the entry heat-shields:

In addition to the heatshield at the bottom, there's 4 heat-shields at the top acting a little like parachutes.  Despite weighing over 60 tons, this stays rock steady and doesn't attempt to flip.  Screenshot is from entering Kerbin's atmosphere at 3100 ms, so it's typical of the speed that you'd want to enter Eve at.

The heatshields at the top are ejected a little prior to inflating the parachutes - and they're on separatrons to prevent accidents.

The larger solar panels do work on Eve's surface I believe, but I can't afford the weight!

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by bigcalm

[Foxster]

I like how many of the Eve landers I see have elements of those that have come before. Lot's of people have added improvements through threads like this and challenges, with each adding another tweak. 

It has become a sort of unofficial organic community effort. 

[Snark]

I've always kinda liked how although Eve is pretty much the final frontier for manned exploration, it practically in the front of the line for unmanned one-way missions.  Very easy and simple to land a one-way probe on, even with fairly low tech.  Doesn't take too much dV to get there.  Travel time is relatively short, in interplanetary terms.  Has scads of science, especially now in 1.2 that they've added a whole bunch of biomes and jacked up the percentage of science you can return via transmission.

 

[Blaarkies]

9 hours ago, bigcalm said:

Yes you're right on the delta-v requirements.  I seem to remember the version I did it in previously was higher - but that's likely down to poor piloting skills.

Anyway, here's a screenshot of what I meant regarding the entry heat-shields:

In addition to the heatshield at the bottom, there's 4 heat-shields at the top acting a little like parachutes.  Despite weighing over 60 tons, this stays rock steady and doesn't attempt to flip.  Screenshot is from entering Kerbin's atmosphere at 3100 ms, so it's typical of the speed that you'd want to enter Eve at.

The heatshields at the top are ejected a little prior to inflating the parachutes - and they're on separatrons to prevent accidents.

The larger solar panels do work on Eve's surface I believe, but I can't afford the weight!

 

All solar panels work on Eve's surface even at sea level(rover that brought down my kerbal had 1x6 panels still attached to the fairing section, the rover itself used the big  flat solar panels and my Eve lander filled up tanks use gigantors and ISRU)

The solar panel do however provide less power because of the dense atmosphere, they provide about the same amount as you get in Kerbin orbit from them...but in Eve orbit you get a lot more power from them

Be careful with asperagus like that, you get lots of cross-section without much mass. By the time the outer tanks are dropped, you are already in thin atmosphere where a small cross-section doesn't influence aerodynamics much anymore

[techgamer17]

On 12/14/2016 at 7:41 AM, Foxster said:

Some great answers above. Two additional thoughts...

1. Don't go to Eve. No, really, why not go to Gilly instead? I suppose it depends if you are doing it for the science or just for the challenge. If the first, then do Gilly, it's soooo much easier. 

2. You don't have to get your crewman back to orbit to get the science home. You just need to get a Science Storage Unit back to orbit and its contents back to Kerbin, leaving your crew on Eve. It's surprising how much easier getting just a SSU to orbit is than a manned can. Again, that's only if you are doing the mission for the science and/or don't mind leaving the crew on Eve. 

Gilly is a complete b**ch to land on because of its really low gravity.

[Foxster]

52 minutes ago, techgamer17 said:

Gilly is a complete b**ch to land on because of its really low gravity.

Well, a bit, I suppose. But not as hard as Eve and it is a lot easier to get off. 

[foamyesque]

On 2016-12-14 at 10:18 AM, bigcalm said:

I'm in the same boat at the moment - designing an Eve launcher.  I've got two variants that are on their way currently.   I have done it in the past but not for a couple of versions.

This is probably the most challenging vessel to build in the game.  Tylo is a piece of cake by comparison -- a list of problems and requirements
* It needs 8500 ms delta v from the surface of Eve to reach orbit.
* It needs high thrust to weight ratio - Eve's dense atmosphere and high gravity will mean even getting it off the surface will be a challenge.  In the VAB you can bring up MechJeb's delta v, set it to Eve, and the number you want to concentrate on is "SLT" == Surface level thrust.  This needs to be over 1, and needs to remain over 1 whilst in the atmosphere.  Vector and aerospike engines are your friend here.
* Because the minimum speed you'll hit Eve's atmosphere on entry is going to be 3000ms, heatshields are needed.  Therefore, the whole craft should fit above a 10 metre heatshield.  Fairings are a bad idea because ejecting a fairing whilst in flight generally leads to rapid disassembly (and you can't trigger the parachutes from inside the fairing).  You're may hit issues with spinning out as well on descent, because you're unlikely to be able to get the centre of mass close enough to the heatshield.   Adding additional, ejectable "parachute-like" heatshields at the top can be helpful.  I'll try and post a picture here later as it's hard to explain.
* It can't be too tall, as otherwise it'll topple over on the surface.
* It needs parachutes to land gently, and landing legs to prevent it from toppling over, and as low a centre of gravity as possible.  With the large delta v requirement, it's unlikely to be light.  Naturally, all of these should be on decouplers to reduce weight for the actual launch.
* If the goal is to get a kerbonaut up, they will need ladders to reach the capsule.  (You could put a low capsule that can be ejected before launch and then transfer crew, but you'll lose any science experiments.
* Some power source is needed, and solar panels do not work on Eve's surface. 
* And you need to be able to launch this from Kerbin, and get it to Eve somehow.

Wings solve so many of these issues. You don't need heat shields, you won't topple over, you can take off with a TWR < 1, you don't need chutes, you can use gear instead of legs, you can choose your landing site, you can kneel it and avoid needing ladders (or, alternatively, far fewer, depending on sizes)...

EDIT:

Also, solar panels do work on Eve's surface.

Edited December 19, 2016 by foamyesque

[Foxster]

55 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

Wings solve so many of these issues. You don't need heat shields, you won't topple over, you can take off with a TWR < 1, you don't need chutes, you can use gear instead of legs, you can choose your landing site, you can kneel it and avoid needing ladders (or, alternatively, far fewer, depending on sizes)...

EDIT:

Also, solar panels do work on Eve's surface.

Do you have a picture or, preferably, a craft file for a successful wing-based lander capable of orbit return you could post please?

[foamyesque]

2 minutes ago, Foxster said:

Do you have a picture or, preferably, a craft file for a successful wing-based lander capable of orbit return you could post please?

Not as of 1.2, but I don't think the fundamentals have changed, just some of the precise balancings. This worked in 1.1:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qgl2i13gc4wrrb4/Eve Lander.craft?dl=0

[Blaarkies]

2 hours ago, foamyesque said:

Wings solve so many of these issues. You don't need heat shields, you won't topple over, you can take off with a TWR < 1, you don't need chutes, you can use gear instead of legs, you can choose your landing site, you can kneel it and avoid needing ladders (or, alternatively, far fewer, depending on sizes)...

EDIT:

Also, solar panels do work on Eve's surface.

wings as in an ssto spaceplane?
This seems so much easier, except for staging. A few stages makes attaining 7000m/s a piece of cake, but how do you get that in a plane?

...i have no idea how to build even a 3-stage plane 

[Foxster]

Drop pods of fuel tanks and, maybe, engines springs to mind. 

I've tried it before and not had a lot of success i.e. never made orbit.

One problem is that there is no oxygen, so the high isp engines that make space planes useful on Kerbin don't work.

The other problem is drag. The atmosphere is dense on Eve and the ceiling before it drops off is high too. Meaning that a good Eve lander wants a high TWR to punch up out of the thickest layer before you can switch to a lower TWR engine for the rest of the trip to orbit. Using a spaceplane means hanging around in the lower atmosphere for longer. 

2 hours ago, foamyesque said:

Not as of 1.2, but I don't think the fundamentals have changed, just some of the precise balancings. This worked in 1.1:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qgl2i13gc4wrrb4/Eve Lander.craft?dl=0

That behemoth weighs in at 429t. How do you get it to Eve?

I think I'll stick to my lightweight rockets. 

[foamyesque]

9 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

wings as in an ssto spaceplane?
This seems so much easier, except for staging. A few stages makes attaining 7000m/s a piece of cake, but how do you get that in a plane?

...i have no idea how to build even a 3-stage plane 

 

Nah, you don't SSTO. I mean people have but it's a giant pain. You jettison the wings and drop tanks once you've climbed to an altitude where rocket engines develop decent TWR and fly a rocket ascent from there. Also mitigates the concern Foxster has about drag, since you ditch the draggy bits before you start your speed run.

8 hours ago, Foxster said:

That behemoth weighs in at 429t. How do you get it to Eve?

A couple of boosters put it into LKO with enough fuel, even pushing it's return-to-Kerbin tank of gas, to hit Minmus.

Refuels there with the integral ISRU, and since it's an Eve lander it of course has enough deltaV to then act as its own transfer stage to get there. Makes it lighter on entry, too. Refuel on the surface, ditch the ISRU once you've got a smidge of altitude, climb on the wings at a gradually increasing pitch until the drop tanks are empty (at which point the Mammoth is developing TWR of, IIRC, around 1.5, depending on altitude) and you're pitched to about 80 degrees, then jettison the drop tanks/wings and away you go. Nose section docks with a tank of gas left in orbit and uses its Poodle to return to Kerbin and land.