Inverted Rockets

[Quasar]

What's the only thing more exhilarating than sitting on top of 300 tons of rocket fuel?

Sitting underneath it of course!

The challenge here is to make a rocket in which the capsule is the single lowest part. No other part of the rocket may extend below it when the vehicle is on the launch pad. (Landing Legs and Ladders may do so, but only when deployed)

Manned capsules only. Rockets will be ranked by mission profile. Add 1 to your Rank if you use the 3-man capsule. Stock parts only.

[b]Medals:[/b]

Kerbin Orbiter:                                  Rank 1: Plastic, 
Mun/Minmus/Kerbol Orbiter:                       Rank 2: Bronze,
Mun/Minmus Lander:                               Rank 3: Silver,
Duna/Eve/Ike/Gilly Orbiter:                      Rank 4: Gold,
Duna/Eve/Ike/Gilly Lander:                       Rank 5: Platinum,
All Other Orbiters:                              Rank 6: Neutronium,
All Other Landers:                               Rank 7: Antimatter.

[i](Medals may not actually be made out of advertised material)[/i]

Leaderboard

Rank 4: Gold

Ringer (3-man Mun-return)

Skyrender (3-man Mun-return)

Rank 3: Silver

Quasar (1-man Mun-return)

My own attempt at this challenge, the Pheonix 1 Mun Lander (which garners me a silver medal by my own rankings), is below.

I'd just like to add, I had more fun with this mission than I have with any of the heavier lifts I've been doing lately. It was nice to send up something small and light for a change, and the design challenges of the upside-down approach were way more interesting than "mainsail aspargus stack demands more struts".

Here she is. The Pheonix 1 on ascent. You can probably guess where the name comes from. The "wings" fall apart in a fairly unimaginative order, and serve as the Pheonix's ascent stage.

The tallest stacks are almost dry just as we reach orbit, leaving no debris in space per the Clean Space Act. The munar stage takes over, with enough fuel to get us to the moon and serve as a skycrane on approach.

Munar stage is detached just before it runs out, with the last second or so of burn time carrying it away from the lander.

And Bob makes a successful Mun landing.

Leaving the Mun with more than enough fuel to return to Kerbin, Bob uses it to aim at an obvious target.

OhmigodtoosteepTooSteepTOOSTEEEEEPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

-AAAaaaaa perfect landing! We got lucky: apparently the parachute was overengineered (which is to say, correctly engineered) to withstand deployment at supersonic speeds.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Quasar

[RawChicken]

Nice challenge! Hahaha, reminded me of those old boats/ships where the steering wheel was behind! hahaa

[Holo]

If you make a 3-man Pol lander, you would get rank 8. Which material is that?

[Quasar]

If you make a 3-man Pol lander, you would get rank 8. Which material is that?

It's a choice between a medal made out of atom-sized quantum-computers each simulating a perfect replica of our universe, and one made paradoxically out of the nothingness before the Big Bang whose mere existance in our universe would cause it to instantly vanish and be replaced with something even more absurd.

[Ringer]

I DID IT

I DIIID IT

This wouldn't have been a really hard mission, but my poor planning and forgetfulness made it a close shave. I sent the 3-man pod to the Mun, landed, and returned my crew safely to Kerbin. I did violate stock-only rules, as the longer 1m fuel tanks aren't vanilla. They are balanced with all the others though. Pretty sure that's the only part I used; even resisted using MechJeb, as I'm usually lazy.

Check out the imgur album for the full mission story.

I think this is a rank 4 (gold) medal, but I liked the ranking better when I thought 1 was the best rank, yet had the least valuable medal material; inverted rewards!

[SkyRender]

I actually made this a while ago.

Yeah, it's Mun-landing-capable and can return safely to Kerbin as well.

EDIT: I'm also designing a new, more powerful one...

Rocket Design Secret #10,478: pull-based rockets are actually MORE stable than push-based...

Edited April 20, 2013 by SkyRender

[Syre]

I think this challenge would be more fun with a points system.

D:

[Quasar]

I did violate stock-only rules, as the longer 1m fuel tanks aren't vanilla. They are balanced with all the others though.

Heh, close enough, I'll put you on the leaderboard.

Rocket Design Secret #10,478: pull-based rockets are actually MORE stable than push-based...

Hey that's cool. I didn't know that. I at first thought they were much *less* stable when I was testing the Pheonix 1, but then I realised I'd forgotten to add ASAS. [facepalm]

I'm currently working on the Pheonix 2. It's not going to be pretty...

Edited April 20, 2013 by Quasar

[SkyRender]

So... Since you raise the rank by 1 when you accomplish a task with a 3-man capsule... what would happen if someone landed a 3-man capsule on one of the distant bodies and safely returned to Kerbin? I shall have to find out.

For SCIENCE!

[SkyRender]

The Heavy Inverted takes off, in slightly revised form! (It's just had parachutes added for the return trip.)

It's a long trip out to where we're going. Where are we going, you ask?

We are going to Dres. Oh yes.

Capture maneuver underway many, many days later!

Dres is my secret favorite body in KSP that isn't a moon. It has an awesome aesthetic to it, is fairly tough to get to since it has no atmosphere to aerobrake on, and is actually pretty damn easy to land on.

Anyway! Landing is a breeze. This thing could land on the Mun no problem, so landing on Dres is a cakewalk.

Look at 'em, grinning like maniacs. So tell me, is this sufficiently ambitious for you?

[drakesdoom]

Their maybe an error in the physics but inverted rockets are not more inherently stable. Building one may have gave you a more stable CoM during flight or changed the distance from CoM to CoT compared to your normal stack rocket but that is particular to the designs compared not inherent.

[ZingidyZongxxx]

I have a good design started, but it may require launch clamps... Is that allowed? Also, do I have to return to Kerbin for the landing to count?

Edited April 21, 2013 by ZingidyZongxxx

[Temstar]

Inverted rockets are no more stable than conventional layout rockets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy

[tavert]

Although due to the way KSP's drag model works right now, if your rocket uses aerospikes then it will be more stable if the aerospikes are ahead of the COM.

[Space Banana]

hi everyone!

my recently developed interplanetary rocket had a rocket engine sticking out at the bottom, which i've swapped for a command pod without having to invent an entirely new rocket. I hope it's still inverted enough

After six failed attempts i managed to go to Ike and back, and still had enough fuel left over to make a stop on the Mün. (and do lots of correction burns due to bad navigation skills)

The three kerbals sit in the middle of the white inferno

Now the command pod becomes visible

Separation of the launch stage (lots of "seperator"-SRBs on launch stage)...looks scary, but worked surprisingly well every time

Aerobraking around Duna (too little)

Descent on Ike;

The large fuel tanks can easily be separated one at a time, quite a nice feature on these inverted rockets

Hatch wasn't obstructed by surface; i think i forgot to test this beforehand

Aerobraking around Kerbin for a spontaneous Mun-landing (bit too much braking)

(Note: I didn't get the phase angle right on my way back to Kerbin, so the kerbals had to wait a few orbits until Kerbin was sufficiently close again for "small" correctional burns, so that's why suddenly a few years have passed)

Landed on Mün

In Kerbin atmosphere..again

Three happy kerbals back on Kerbin...my fourth return mission ever without casualties

and my first successful interplanetary mission!

Cheers Alex

PS: I'm sorry i have no idea how many screenshots i should provide or in what size, please tell me if i should delete some of them or upload certain ones for verification (i.e. screens of maneuvers or similar)

[ZingidyZongxxx]

A three man triple landing? 100 points to Space Banana!

I thought I would be ahead with my 3 man Eve lander and no return... Speaking of which, here's my inverted Eve lander. It might not count for anything since they couldn't return, and I used launch clamps, but I had fun

On the launchpad:

Getting into orbit:

One last glimpse of Kerbin:

Arriving at Eve:

Coming in to land:

Parachutes deployed:

Landed!:

Watching the green sunset from Eve:

If I need any other pictures or this doesn't count, just let me know.

Edited April 21, 2013 by ZingidyZongxxx

[SunJumper]

Inverted rockets are no more stable than conventional layout rockets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy

That may be so, but this challenge is about the Rule of Cool.