wibou7

Members
  • Content count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About wibou7

  • Rank
    Account squashed in the great forum rework of 2015
  1. According to rules, it would qualify if it would be on the runway. There was nothing in the rules about HORIZONTAL take-off / landing anyways EDIT: Ah snot, @RedPandaz ninjaed me and added it
  2. What the hell is a "dab"?? Google points to that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dab_(dance) Could you please just give the basic details in one of your challenge, for once??
  3. Maybe. It's not clearly stated so one can only assume. Vaguely defined challenges rarely take off, I think @RedPandaz might want to fix that.
  4. ...the challenge explicitely states that the parts must land intact. EVA-ing your kerbal won't help. That's pretty much the only option. And even there there is no guarantee (you won't have any mean to control). So strap a heatshield on a seat, drop it from space and pray that it land safely. Rinse and repeat until it does...
  5. Except for the +1000 points for supersonic landing, speed has no impact on score. Thus landing 10 kerbals at 250m/s would give you a lower score than landing 100 kerbal at 50m/s... I think you should review you scoring system.
  6. This is awesome! I want to see you do the race with that thing. And PLEASE use "Born to be wild" as the soundtrack
  7. So the vessel must be exactly 1 stock part + 1 command seat. Both parts must land intact. Soooo no control (would require SAS or control surfaces), no runway landing (no wheel), no parachute (command seat won't attach to chutes). The challenge is to drop something in free fall without any mean to control it and pray that it survives... I fail to see the point or the fun in that.
  8. It is an interesting challenge.. except that KSP physic does not model ground effects which are the very basis of the Real-Life Ekranoplane. I'm curious to see what kind if craft people will build though
  9. Can we see the COM and COT with full tank full and empty? Maybe your COM shift too far out of your COT when your fuel goes low? Also, we do not see the engine on those picture... Do you have one engine or several? Maybe the fuel flow is messed up causing one engine to flame-out, resulting in asymmetric trust.
  10. Ah! Right, sorry about that. I've got to say, I'm surprised you got it that easily. I guess the next step would be to try on Eve
  11. Interesting attempt... That said, on the picture 5, your ascent vehicle seems to be on an escape trajectory out of kerbin already (or maybe I don't get the picture right, but there is no orbit or sub-orbital trajectory there). That vehicle would have easily made orbit by itself... Maybe it's just me but I feel the spirit of the challenge would be to keep the ascent vehicle sub-orbital the whole time, which is quite hard due to time constraint on rendez-vous.
  12. That's your "average rescue mission"? Gosh, I'd hate to be part of your space program! Joke aside, how sub-orbital is your doomed ship, in term of dV? As stated, if you are a hundred or two dV short than orbital velocity, that's quite doable. But then it would be easier to simply add that to your launch vehicle (OP wants to catch an ascent vehicle, not the other way around).
  13. This was proven possible in the past, but it is terribly unpracticable. You have to time you ascent just right so you get within close range (probably within ~5km) of your orbiter. It is possible to achieve on a manual ascent by sheer luck but you would most likely need some automation mods if you wish to reproduce the result. Then your orbiter has to match speed (i.e. goes sub-orbital) as fast a possible, hook the pod and then get back into orbit. All this on a few minutes timerange (depends how high you are and how close to orbital velocity the pod is). The orbiter would need substential TWR both before and after it grab the pod. Then there is the delta-V requirements... If we assume you are missing X m/s to achieve orbit, then your orbit need at least 2*X m/s (1 time to match speed and 1 time to go back into orbit). Achievable but it gets harder and harder the farther your pod is to orbit. If it is very close to orbit it gets way easier to simply add the missing dV to the pod itself. If it is very far from orbit, the dV + TWR requirements on the orbiter makes it a challenge on itself. Soooo... in conclusion, this might seems like a good idea but it's just too terribly hard to be used on a real mission. It might be good challenge material (that's challenging for sure!) but you might want to add some more meat then.
  14. The contract said "pass out" not "liquify"