• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

505 Excellent

1 Follower

About sdj64

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. I guess I missed the Naval Battle Club reunion by a week. My most recent combat ships have fuel lines, so they have to be about a year old. Both of these performed okay in the current version of KSP. The armor does get shot off more easily using I-beams as was mentioned already, and also I need a new 1.25m missile since the current one does no damage in this version.
  2. Yes, Deep Freeze is fine, it doesn't add anything that would give an advantage over a stock game. Is this a bug? If it is, you can hyperedit another capsule to replace it. If your mission can continue and finish successfully despite the broken capsule, that would be cool to see too. Your choice.
  3. The mothership itself looks awesome! and the clipping is not bad in the couple of places I can see. Watch for clipping in your Tylo lander? (the one in the right side cargo bay near the dish) and you'll be all set. 10k dv is enough for a mothership that doesn't use ISRU. I'm not aware that anyone did. If someone was successful I probably would have made a note in the description on the leaderboard. A search for "life support" in the OP brings up only one entry: EBAO in 1.0.4. Unfortunately the link in the OP is broken but I found the post for you. He used USI life support, which is much less complicated, and his craft was an all-in-one SSTO.
  4. Welcome to the Forums! I think you are becoming confused because your ship includes jet engines, so its atmospheric delta-V is high. However, jet engines only work on Kerbin and Laythe, so they would be no help on Eve. Look at your vacuum delta-V, it is only 1593. Even on Kerbin I suspect your ship will have trouble because the jets you used only work at low altitude and it may not have enough to get through the upper atmosphere and into orbit. Doing this on Eve is impossible with any craft, even though stock Eve SSTOs have been done, stock Eve SSTOs that can make it to Gilly to refuel have never been done and it's beyond the laws of physics for stock parts. Most of these "all-in-one" crafts are spaceplanes that use rapiers on Kerbin then go to Minmus to refuel. A few rocket designs have been done but it is much harder to do. You need about 4800 vacuum m/s to get to Minmus on all rockets, or about 1500 left in orbit after you reach it with jets. Most rapier-using spaceplanes can't do Tylo either, but rocket ones can. I have, in fact, tried to do exactly what you want to do (except Eve). My ship was a rocket-only winged design that carried some 40 Kerbals, a lander, a small plane, a rover, and a scanning satellite. It had some major issues though which made it terrible to fly and had way too many parts. Never got farther than this picture.
  5. 1984 Mercedes E300 Turbo Diesel - not my car but my girlfriend used to have one and I thought it would be easier to make in KSP than a more modern car. It was very slow and struggled to get up hills. This one performs a little better on the hills but retains the slow acceleration of its real-life counterpart owing to a single Juno engine and some draggy wing panels. Top speed of my replica is around 80 mph, and it's a bit bigger than human scale, about 1.3x. It has a boost flap, as well as lights, brake lights, high beams, and turn signals. I have a 2003 Volvo s60 which I tried to build, but it didn't come out nearly as well.
  6. I was inspired. It's probably too big for this challenge, and loses points as well for extra aesthetic constructions. But it gains lots of points as well. Part count 94 = +106 Kerbal capacity 48 = +16 Fuel 9720LF, 11880Ox, 1000mono = +30 Large refinery = +10 Science Jr, goo, thermometer, barometer, accelerometer, gravioli = +10 No rearrangement = +10 = +100 Total = 282 points The ITS, unfortunately, was lost because it had no heat shields because there was a point reduction for having them... and no point reduction for burning it up in the atmosphere. If the ITS stays attached I get 404 points though, because of all the extra fuel capacity.
  7. Kerbals are from Duna! I think that it's actually supported by "evidence" in game. Kerbals' large heads and small bodies would be well suited for lower gravity than Kerbin has. On Duna they can run just as fast as on Kerbin, they aren't slowed down like they are on the Mun or other lower gravity moons. Also their jetpacks are conveniently just powerful enough to be used on Duna. Their green color allows their skin to absorb more sunlight which is predominantly red on Duna (green is reflected but red is absorbed by Kerbals' skin) so they can warm up and make vitamin D more efficiently. Kerbals also probably hibernate, that's why they don't need life support for long missions (in stock KSP). It would be a good adaptation for living on a cold planet like Duna. And now for the non-gameplay origin story. Kerbals live underground on Kerbin because as Duna's atmosphere became thin and unbreathable, they were forced to go underground there. Eventually after hundreds of years they realized they couldn't stay underground on Duna forever, so they built many ships to travel from Duna to Kerbin to colonize it. When they got to Kerbin, despite the breathable atmosphere their culture was already built around living underground so they just live underground on Kerbin too. It took the Kerbals a long time to become established on Kerbin, and during that time they forgot most of the knowledge of space travel. However, the spirit of courage and exploration has always been a part of their culture, only the bravest Kerbals made the trip from Duna to Kerbin long ago. The space center on Kerbin was built above ground for practicality, the only reason Kerbals build above ground is aerospace related buildings. They could use underground trains for transportation between their cities and trucks like the VAB ones for cargo movement. It's also why off-road rover wheels take so long to develop in the tech tree. Planes take longer than rockets to develop because Kerbals are initially stuck in the Duna mindset and they never used planes or jet engines there because the atmosphere is so thin and lacks oxygen. As for Easter eggs...
  8. @-DDD- A very nice looking mission! It seemed well planned and thought out, and proved the usefulness of KAS in keeping weight down for maximum performance. I liked the single-Vector Eve lander, that's something I haven't seen before. Now for the bad news: Poor Bill must have been really uncomfortable after sitting in a spacesuit all the way to Moho and back. But other than that a fine mission and definitely deserving of an Ultimate Challenge badge, at least. Now for some questions: Yes, KW rocketry is not on the prohibited list and it's fairly balanced so it's all good. The Jupiter 4 is a really cool concept but very different than the Jool 5. If you complete it, you can post it on this thread for recognition if you want, but it won't go on the same leaderboard. Yes, just the B9 Aerospace Pack is banned. The wings are fine. And finally, sorry to hear about the setbacks, @McQuacker and @Jack Joseph Kerman, glad to hear you have plans to fix it and try again!
  9. Here's a two seat lander that you might like. The higher mass of the 2 man lander can needs two aerospikes, but it should do Laythe no problem. It doesn't SSTO on Kerbin so you'll need to make a lower stage for it to send it up to the mothership. Really anything with a shielded docking port on top will work well reentering forwards. It's incredibly heat resistant and doesn't depend on ablator so it's fully reusable.
  10. A long while ago I tried to build a "bobsled" space shuttle that has a side-mounted tank without a side-skewed center of mass. Today I revisited that concept with a much smaller shuttle, and it works! It's nice to use a Mainsail again, I've barely used them since Mammoths and Vectors were introduced, but it was exactly what this shuttle needed. This isn't officially an entry but it does complete STS-1. I'll keep using my Mk3 shuttle for the real missions since this shuttle's cargo bay is too small for the later ones.
  11. The problem is really that KSP doesn't model terrain hardness. You can't have all terrain wheels without... terrain. The grass field next to the runway is just as unyeilding as the tarmac. It would be great if different surfaces reflected their properties. It should be really easy to get the little landing gear stuck in the sand on Laythe or Duna, or sinking in the mud on Kerbin, reducing your speed dramatically if the vehicle is heavy and the tires are small. On the other hand, a light vehicle with big tires wouldn't get slowed much. Once that is implemented, give plane landing gear the chance to pop their tires if they exceed a certain speed on certain surfaces. The Mun's surface is hard and rocky so it wouldn't get the landing gear stuck, but sharp rocks and bumpy terrain can easily puncture the tires. Ideally each biome would be its own surface.
  12. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The Viper and the Supernova are both obviously overpowered and comparable to other mods on the banned list. I'm afraid DSEV will have to go there too.
  13. Sorry question-askers, I've been traveling this weekend and haven't had time to respond. Good luck to you all who are preparing your missions! @TheHacker000 Your mission uses several prohibited mods as eloquentJane said. It's cool to do it your own way, but it won't be in the leaderboard. @Galacticvoyager Your rocket looks great. The mammoth engines are fine for the clipping rule, their 3.75m body isn't clipped and it looks like they could be rotated to not clip at all, but you don't have to mess with it. @ProtoJeb21 As rkarmark said, mining and processing on any planet or moon is allowed. You will get the ISRU tag if you mine outside of Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus.
  14. Completed STS-10 with a small manned base and without ISRU. Unfortunately had some aerodynamic instability on the way home and couldn't land back at KSC. It performs very well in the low atmosphere but apparently doesn't have the control authority to reenter well. I'll be moving the wings back and doing more tests before the next mission.
  15. It's been great running the challenge and still seeing continuing interest and new entries all the time. Thanks for your continuing support! @HarrySeaward Congratulations, you have completed the Jool 5 Challenge on Level 1! Sorry it took so long to review, I had to find time to watch your 2.5 hours of video. Your plane was impressive and compact, and I liked the minimalist rover integrated into your Tylo lander. It must have taken a lot of dedication to complete all of the long drives. I have to ask, though, is there a reason for using parachutes rather than horizontal landing? Does the plane not have enough lift from its wings?