Closed for a new version!

[sjwt]

EDIT wrong version number, now 0.141

Have posted a new thread, please see for an update.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=9729.0

*****

A big thanks to Kosmo-not over at for his super light weight mun lander and return craft, I was looking at it and decided to incorporate two mistakes I have made with my current attempts at a mulit-part space station (isn\'t science always full of mistakes that go right!)

Now, I dont know if these are considerd bugs, but in honnor of the magnets that my Kerbals are using to hold this together, I name it \'Faraday MkVI\'

1) The ability to place tanks directly onto tanks with nothing holding them on

2) the ability to use lander legs to push away said tanks like you can with a stage.

A quick comparison..

Weigh Drag Average Manual controlled Apoapsis over 3 attempts @ 1st stage.

Koalemos II 20.7 3.38 210km

FaradayVI 16.6 2.90 286km

I\'ll be damned if I can get back form the Mun at this stage, but I will keep trying.

I do suggest firing the second stage engines before using the \'G\' key to detach the first stage, as sometimes the engine comes away with it! how Kerbal is that!

EDIT: Fixed a broken link.

[Kosmo-not]

It\'s great to see you thinking outside the box. Just wondering; how much fuel is left over after you land on the mun? Also, is the craft you\'re landing on the mun the one with or without the ASAS? It would enable me to determine whether or not a return is possible. My rocket what quite tight on fuel.

Also, a measure of the apoapsis each rocket can achieve when flying vertically isn\'t always a good measure of performance. You\'ll notice this if you design craft that use very strategic staging to increase fuel economy (usually low thrust during the later parts of the ascent to orbit).

Keep up with the clever thought process. If it will help you in the future, check out Deimos and Phoenix II. They are non-radially-symmetric craft that can\'t fly without ASAS and SAS combined. Well, maybe ASAS isn\'t necessary, but it dampens out the oscillations due to the SAS units.

[sjwt]

opps.. my bad, I left in an old picture with the ASAS. thanks.

[Apotheosist]

This is a brilliant way to reduce weight. When it works. It worked on my first try, but every time I try it now the engine is pulled off. I have tried thrusting the engine before pressing G, at 100%, 66%, 50%, 33% but it\'s the same every time. Is there a technique to it? Timing it right, or something? If there is, I\'d be glad if you could teach me.

[sjwt]

This is a brilliant way to reduce weight. When it works. It worked on my first try, but every time I try it now the engine is pulled off. I have tried thrusting the engine before pressing G, at 100%, 66%, 50%, 33% but it\'s the same every time. Is there a technique to it? Timing it right, or something? If there is, I\'d be glad if you could teach me.

I know, it worked 5 times in a row for me, and now its not working.. I believe this might be related to the issues with some rockets working from one way of loading them and not from other ways.. ie working from the VBA to launch, but not from the space centre directly..

I find the best results are found by going from the VBA to a launch, starting it.. then straight away as soon as you are off the pad, aborting, returning to the VBA to relaunch.

Bugs, goto love them!

[Jarnis]

This mostly demonstrates the ridiculous weight of the decoupler more than anything else... in reality the mechanism for separating two stages should be just a tiny fraction of the total stage mass.

...and we all know in rockets every gram that isn\'t fuel is VERY VERY BAD and should be removed if at all possible.

[sal_vager]

I think the stack decoupler is so heavy because it\'s supposed to be a able to bare the weight of the parts above it, shame there isn\'t a stock lightweight decoupler for the upper stages.

[sjwt]

Thanks all, a new updated, improved more efficnt modle is now over at http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=9729.0

Enjoy!