so i need to send a satellite to orbit the mun

[putnamto]

but i dont have fairings yet, and i dont have the science to get fairings.

yes i could land on the mun, get some science, or get some kerbin science, etc. but wheres the fun in that.

so, whats the most kerbal way of getting a sattelite to the mun withought using fairings?

 

[MaxwellsDemon]

Launch it without fairings.       Seriously.   Fairings (in the more recent releases) do help you aerodynamically, but you can launch without them.  If you do lose the payload on the way up from atmospheric heating (or at least a needed part like a solar panel or an antenna), try using an engine with slightly less thrust-- that will accelerate your rocket more slowly and help keep the extra heating under control.

[putnamto]

2 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Launch it without fairings.       Seriously.   Fairings (in the more recent releases) do help you aerodynamically, but you can launch without them.  If you do lose the payload on the way up from atmospheric heating (or at least a needed part like a solar panel or an antenna), try using an engine with slightly less thrust-- that will accelerate your rocket more slowly and help keep the extra heating under control.

Poo.

The  game  challenges  me  to  no  end  setting  it  up  and  getting  it  running  correctly  with  mods  etc.

Then  the  game  gives  me  a  challenge  that  I'm  prepared  for, and  the  best  I  get  is "dude  that's  not  a  challenge"

Lol

[MaxwellsDemon]

I wouldn't worry in that regard.  I'm sure you'll get an entirely different curve ball coming in from another blind spot.       Murphy's Law applies double on Kerbin, evidently.

[Terwin]

3 minutes ago, putnamto said:

Poo.

The  game  challenges  me  to  no  end  setting  it  up  and  getting  it  running  correctly  with  mods  etc.

Then  the  game  gives  me  a  challenge  that  I'm  prepared  for, and  the  best  I  get  is "dude  that's  not  a  challenge"

Lol

It is more 'that part you are worried about is not a hard part of the challenge'.

Orbiting the mun is harder than getting to orbit but not as hard as landing on the mun(assuming you do not just smash your vessel into the surface).

Just remember that deployable solar panels are much more delicate when deployed, and should generally be kept stowed when in atmosphere.

[Guest]

Design it to be as aerodynamic as you can with what you have. If you have any conical structural bits and the Mk 1 utility bay, put the probe core in the utility bay under a conical nose built with the conical structural bits. Make your tanks drain from the bottom up, and put some fins on the bottom. Then launch it and go to the Mun. 

[MaxwellsDemon]

Personally, I hate launching without fairings, just from an aesthetics point of view.   I like pretty rockets.   (But I'll launch an ugly one if that's what gets the job done.)

[Antstar]

6 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Personally, I hate launching without fairings, just from an aesthetics point of view.   I like pretty rockets.   (But I'll launch an ugly one if that's what gets the job done.)

Yeah, in stock especially,  you wind up needing to asparagus stage a lot when something heavy needs to go to space. And it usually looks ridiculous,  but works.

Just don't go too fast below 30 km and it will be fine. So no 2 TWR at the launchpad

[Gilph]

I have probably launched close to 500 ships, only 2-3 had fairings.

KSP players often set their own restrictions and rules.  Many players will not launch without fairings. But, since fairings are not in the very first science node, you have to do without sometimes.

[Gargamel]

Poor Man's Fairings:

Nose Cone  --  Sepatrons

       |

Decoupler, Flipped over

       |

Payload

 

You can either stage the Seps/decouper, or use an action group to decouple and fire the Engines.  I usually prefer this method for payloads that are pretty aerodynamic on their own, but have a blunt end.  Your probe should be pretty aerodynamic when it's folded up, just might have flat end, just add a pointy bit that can fly off.

[purpleivan]

1 hour ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Launch it without fairings.       Seriously.   Fairings (in the more recent releases) do help you aerodynamically, but you can launch without them.  If you do lose the payload on the way up from atmospheric heating (or at least a needed part like a solar panel or an antenna), try using an engine with slightly less thrust-- that will accelerate your rocket more slowly and help keep the extra heating under control.

Given enough thrust you can launch just about anything in KSP, regardless of the aerodynamics.

I put this (something I built for a much older version of the game) into orbit yesterday.

[RizzoTheRat]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Poor Man's Fairings:

Nose Cone  --  Sepatrons

       |

Decoupler, Flipped over

       |

Payload

 

You can either stage the Seps/decouper, or use an action group to decouple and fire the Engines.  I usually prefer this method for payloads that are pretty aerodynamic on their own, but have a blunt end.  Your probe should be pretty aerodynamic when it's folded up, just might have flat end, just add a pointy bit that can fly off.

You can get away without the seperatrons on that kind of design if you eject the nose cone as soon as you clear atmosphere, you're still climbing at that point so the decoupler will accelerate it away from you, and you'll point your nose down a bit more before circularizing so won't run in to it.  I eve do it with docking rings, there's no force pushing the nosecone away but as soon as you start to turn it slips off the side.

I only ever use farings for really off shaped probes, ie telescopes or scansat sensors hanging on the side.  Someone on here (sorry, can't remember who) has done some fantastic Arianne replicas using farings all over the place to get beautiful smote surfaced rockets.  I'm an engineer not an artist though

Edited March 2, 2018 by RizzoTheRat

[Starman4308]

1 hour ago, purpleivan said:

Given enough thrust you can launch just about anything in KSP, regardless of the aerodynamics.

I put this (something I built for a much older version of the game) into orbit yesterday.

Ah, good old asparagus pancakes, just the way Mom used to make them. I remember when I was a wee little boy, maintaining a 2.0 TWR for the first 10 km of atmosphere, impatient to get out of the soup.

One thing I'd warn people about is that clipping does not protect you from aerodynamic consequences. If you place a fuel tank on the side of your payload and then clip it into the stack, KSP still treats it as though that fuel tank was attached to the side of your payload, with spectacular consequences on drag.

Still, with enough delta-V, you can brute-force your way past high drag losses and other inefficiencies caused by not protecting unaerodynamic payloads with a fairing.

[GrouchyDevotee]

If you just throttle down a bit to minimize the mach and thermal effects you don't need a fairing, it will also help to do your turn much higher up... but you will ultimately use more fuel since more of your acceleration will happen higher up.

[Vanamonde]

Fairings are an aid but not a necessity. You can fly any old monstrosity with enough control authority. 

[GoSlash27]

11 hours ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Launch it without fairings.       Seriously.   Fairings (in the more recent releases) do help you aerodynamically, but you can launch without them.  If you do lose the payload on the way up from atmospheric heating (or at least a needed part like a solar panel or an antenna), try using an engine with slightly less thrust-- that will accelerate your rocket more slowly and help keep the extra heating under control.

^This. Fairings are a recent addition to KSP. Before we had them, we simply made our payloads more aerodynamic, and relied on limiting our thrust, ensured that we had adequate steering authority, and made our rockets stable in prograde flight.

Best,
-Slashy

 

[memes in space]

Slap a large nosecone on it. That usually works.

[KerikBalm]

I'm assuming you're using the roughly 0.625m octo or hex probe cores.

If you have this part: FL-A10 adapter

You can put your probe on top of that, and a 1.25m stack underneath. If you don't have a 0.625m nose cone, you can use a 0.625m intake- they are actually pretty aerodynamic. A 0.625m chute also works, particularly if you intend to recover the probe

Alternately, put it inside this part: Service Bay (1.25m)

You can put the small fixed solar panels on the probe core inside it, and open the doors once in space, you have to be a bit careful with orientation to keep them exposed. Its enough to power the probe core, but you'll want more solar panels if you'll be transmitting lots of science without significant timewarps to regenerate EC (I'd also recommend stuffing some batteries in there (on the sides of the probe core that don't face the openings/ the interior side walls of the service bay where you wouldn't put solar panels anyway).

Then, for the top, cover it as you cover your other rockets.

Its not such a problem.

[Harry Rhodan]

8 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

^This. Fairings are a recent addition to KSP. Before we had them, we simply made our payloads more aerodynamic, and relied on limiting our thrust, ensured that we had adequate steering authority, and made our rockets stable in prograde flight.

Actually fairings were added in 1.0 together with aerodynamics. Beforehand people just wouldn't care about the shape of the payload or steering authority because drag was based on mass and was applied directly to the CoM.