wibou7

Members
  • Content count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wibou7

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. The contract said "pass out" not "liquify"
  5. While it MIGHT be possible to do even lighter, you already pushed it quite to the limit. I don't think there will be many challenger to try and beat you. Very impressive indeed.
  6. Don't take offense, but if your challenge designs were a little bit more polished, you wouldn't get a link to the challenge submission guide everytime. The guide is not just "proof that a challenge is possible", it also requires for a challenge to be fun. And to be an original idea. And to have a way to determine how to win (if applicable). And to be detailled clearly so that everybody understand what to do easily. ... In their current forms, pretty much all of your challenges end up on the "second page of forgetness". Almost nobody ever try them. Ask yourself : could it be because of the points above? Take a look at the challenges @Rath posted. They are all great exemples that had hundred of challengers and that were re-posted on several different KSP versions. If I take a look at this very challenge: - Is it original? Actually, it might be! There was some "how high can you go on starting tech" in the past but I haven't seen that in a while... Maybe we are due for a reboot? - How do we win? "Go farthest" or "go as fast and as high as you can" are both very VERY vague. Farthest from what? In altitude? From KSP? Straight Up? What if I escape Kerbin SOI, how will you count then? Fastest as you can.. ok, but how do that add up to "farthest"? Should I try to go higher or faster? A rocket could go highest but be slower than another one, would I win then? What if I launch with an angle to make orbit? What if somebody actually make orbit, how will you count then? Scott Manley once made it to Minmus with starting tech... How "far" is that? If that's not clearly defined, people won't try OR you will get tons of people that simply find loop-hole. - Is is detailled clearly? Not quite, as I pointed out in "How do we win". But there is more to say... By "tier one", I understand you mean "the first tech node you start carrer with". But that's really NOT obvious, as @Rath pointed out, it could meant "tier one building" just like the cavemen challenge... Maybe you should define exactly what you meant? Are mod permitted? If so, to what extend? Can I use auto-pilot? Modded part ok? What is "powered separation"? Do you meant using exhaust to "explode" a spent stage? That might not be obvious to everyone... I could go on but I think you understand my point (I hope!) Take a look at the challenges posted as example, then compare to this one... this one is clearly lacking in details.
  7. I find the attachment is quite rigid, the joint less so... I often had rigidity problems if a large ship was anchored sliiiightly off-center. However, this is no longer an issue in 1.2 with the magical "auto-strut" feature. The biggest mass is pretty much always the asteroid in tow, so "auto-strut - biggest mass" work quite well there. Full disclaimer: auto-strut is known to be Kraken-bait (so was the Klaw *long sigh*). Use cautiously. Make numerous quicksaves while using. Reboot KSP periodically.
  8. This is typically caused by the "control" being transferred to the docking ports or some other ill placed part. The problem is cause by the part being vertical while the wheels are horizontal... Hence the motor control are confused. The easy fix is to select the probe core (or any other part oritented in a sane way compared to the wheel), to right click and to select "control from here". By the way, welcome to the forum
  9. Minimum "safe" distance is 7061m: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mun (see "Terrain") That's the lowest you can go without any risk of hitting a mountain. Putting a craft in a 7062m x 7062m orbit does not seem like a challenge to me... it would be easier than mun landing in any case. Orbits that don't cross high point coordinates could even go lower... But once below 5000m, your craft would be at risk of being deleted if you switch focus and you wouldn't be able to timewarp without switching focus. Personnally, I wouldn't have the patience to wait for a full orbit to complete without timewarp. There might be matter for a challenge there, but not in its current form
  10. What were you expecti... ooooh riiiiiiight. I'd like to call a vote... Anyone in favor of banning @Majorjim! from posting ANY picture on this thread post, please stand.
  11. Probably for the same reason you don't want to? You do realize you could (or anyone) create an account and fix the page, right?
  12. Soooo, I've been trying to make up a plane that could stay up without the need for an engineer but no dice so far. I've chosen the ultra-light path so I can keep in the air with minimal airspeed (around 60 m/s on this one). I can keep this baby up with a level 1 engineer or better. Still, with a pilot I don't split even (yet).
  13. Level 5 engineer make it quite easy... What about reworking the challenge a little? Just add a special difficulty "I ain't no engineer" ?
  14. We want pictures!
  15. It's just impossible to answer that without at least some details: - What's a "girandola"? Is it a pre-made part from a mod, if so which mod? Otherwise how much does it weight? Is it a fairing or not? Do you have any other payload? - To lift where? 1m from the ground? In orbit? The mun? Elsewere? - Do you have any other mission (antenna, power, ...) that we should know of? More importantly, what did you try so far? Do you have any picture of your failed tries? Unclear question always lead to unclear answer...
  16. Soooo something that can withstand a collision of a couple thousand m/s? Sorry, it is just impossible unless you count cheat and cheaty modding.
  17. Interesting! I will definitely try that! Have some reps.
  18. Ah right, I never thought about gravity assist. Assist from the moon is so weak I never use it, at least coming from interplanetary. But I guess it can be enough for asteroids coming in, it probably explains it!
  19. Free fuel for you! I wonder if there is something other than floating point errors that cause asteroid to get captured naturally. I mean, KSP only consider the gravity of one body at a time, so it's impossible to get naturally captured unless you aerobrake... Riiiight? But somehow, naturally captured asteroid are somewhat common. Puzzled!
  20. Hmm... right the drag is going to slow you quite a lot, I didn't think about that. Then it's true that a perfectly timed suicide burn could do it, ideally over the ocean (water forgive more than grass). But the margin are going to be so tight there won't have any room for error, you litterally need the perfect suicide burn there. I guess it is doable but it will most likely be a one-short thing, hardly something you will be able to reproduce.
  21. aaaaand you lost me there. 5470 m/s to reach orbit is enough, but no way you will have enough fuel left to land by rocket propulsion alone.
  22. DISCLAIMER: Side effect of BULK KERBAL DELIVERY ESCAPE POD© may include, but are not limited to : - Be quantum teleported outside pod walls possibly, but not limited to, into start-hot plasma - Be catapulted at superluminal speed out of kerbol system - Be spagetti-teared while alive before being turned back to normal (turning back is indicative only, not guaranteed by pod system) - Be unpleasantly eaten by space Kraken - Break physic as we know it forcing solar system to a complete stop - Cause universe to segfault in protest This pod is as Kerbal as it can be! A++++ would buy again
  23. I find hilarious that you did the challenge on what would be considered "super hard" difficulty without even reading the whole thing Nice design btw... How come you have a TWR < 1.0 in Mechjeb for stage 2? Isn't that a problem, on Eve of all place?
  24. Kind of interesting, but: - I had to read half the thing just to figure out what this challenge was even about... A short description of what need to be accomplished might be useful - There is a huge difference in difficulty if your ring is 2km or 20m in diameter. Maybe you should provide a standard ring craft file for everyone to use? Of of that.. The challenge is pretty hard, going through a ring around the moon from Kerbin orbit without propulsion past Kerbin is barely possible atmo, you'd need a lot of math a near perfect timing... I doubt anyone could manage to do it for a ring in orbit of another body. Did you actually manage to do it, even for the Mun? Can we see your succesful attempt?
  25. It's one of your mod acting weird. It's either corrupted or it is not compatible with your current KSP version. What mods are you running?