sumrex

Well I guess I should finally do a challenge or two. Anyway, my submission is Jabby. Basically build as a trainer/automated kerbal recovery plane. Super predictable through stalls, good handling, mountains of acceleration, and the ability to lift off the ground at 30 m/s. Max altitude is 500k with fine tuning of oxidizer. (less than full tanks) All science modules present. In short, if you cant hit space in this girl, then I don't know what to say. The download link is below should you wish to try it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbf4vt2w2txh69m/Jabby.craft?dl=0

Fine Tuned a light ssto to suffer dramatic weight loss to become a tug once back in orbit. All the wings structure and jet engine can be ditched after use. Handles well and lifts off at 30 m/s. To fly it just put it in a 20 degree climb out at 10,000m once you reach 25,000 engage the rocket engines alongside the jet and hit orbit. If you want to try it out here you go. https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wtoreuw54on556/Winner%20sub%203.craft?dl=0

Messed around with one of my good performance if a bit unorthodox mini SSTO's.

I got the brilliant idea I would build a ship to harvest XP for all Kerbal Kind astronauts simultaneously. While Immensely effective the ship above accidentally ended the entire kerbal universe when two kerbs tried to occupy the door at the same time. A quick save back showed the KSP program effectively dead. All crew listed as dead. Only Jeb and Bill remained. Unfortunately for them though they were solo pilots on space stations with no one to recover them. After starting universe 2.0 I built the following: An Early Mun Base... Behold the Cramo-Matic Base.... Holds 17 Kerbals in a very small package to blast off to far away locales.

Since Jeb is parked around Laythe I am shooting Bill to another Far reach of the universe around Duna. He was shot there solo with a new Space station. He almost managed to almost destroy my nearly indestructible lander, planting it face down at 20 m/s and amazingly only blowing 5 out of 12 tires. Unfortunately it seems he lacks the "experience" to change tires...... Some solar arrays are missing as well, but it seems Bill likes walking across them on EVA.

I sent a new station to Laythe (twice) after an Accidental F5 restore to an old save. [

Spent most of my day refining a few spaceplanes. 2 Designs are bulletproof now but technical difficulties were encountered along the way. The Kerbal Double-Wide program resurfaces and encounters heating problems Good thing it had 16 engines. Eight blew up.... Jeb flies only the cockpit and two canards home after a midair explosion. A Duna flight gets ready for departure... The Firefox running shakedown flights The Jabby plane. 500k altitude stock 1.5 million with the piggback fuel tank / intake. Also seen above getting ready to dock with a Duna explorer ship... Living proof the the gals that are not the prettiest are usually the best dancers. I just like the little gal.

I'll have to double check my rocket, but needless to say I did not burn one ounce on science modules and could not be at all picky about where I landed. If it indeed fits the bill I'll post a file for the rocket.

I must be dense tonight. Why can't I transfer fuel inflight between some radial tanks and a central tank. I got a kerbal going to crash because the old way does not work.

The opening rounds in Normal is grindy..... Need lotsa cash okay. a 210k building upgrade with a lot of missions paying 1000 or less. cant build anything over 35 parts to get those big payoff jobs. oops cant launch anything over 25 tons. the upgrade bill climbs sharply while income does not. A lot of initial missions seem scaled for when you are later in career. Fly over spot x at 17000 m and make a report. Rockets run out of fuel quick trying to do this, this is better for planes which are not available at the start. Precision orbit jobs with no rcs or solar panels, and bare minimum rockets due to building restrictions is definitely a challenge. There are things I like, but definitely things that should work better. I finally resigned Jeb to a one way Mun shot to get cash to get past that blasted 35 part limit.

Oddly enough .90 is irritating to bejesus out of me. Survey quests suck. can launch this need money overweight need money lack of missions with meaningful pay for upgrades on Normal..... Irritating Irritating Irritating Cant even EVA when every science point counts...

After loading up on mountains of good food I finally sent my new base out to EVE. Return fliers are loaded up to the Alan Parsons Project... Transfer stage fires to get my new base, fliers, and landers under way. Eve's new Home arrives.... Flier one grabs my Gilly Lander for the return home. Lander 2 resides on EVE with Jeb due to his incessant rocket hoarding every time a ship was launched. My tow truck releases it's cargo all we gotta do is pop the chutes on the truck. Of course not everything went off without a hitch. A "flight departure sequence" arises due to one extra spacebar click... Six ready to fire parachutes separate along with the explosive winglets. Bob watches in horror as Jack Lithobrakes at over 200 meters per second. At least Jack had the presence to transmit all his science before impact.

I took my basic landers for a spin. The lander can land and return from mun, minimus, duna and other lesser bodies. They are very sturdy and handle great even with no RCS rockets. I also revived the alan parsons project base to rocket off to various locales. Of course blowing a few things up never hurts.

I kinda miss it as well. They should add it back as a difficulty setting. It made the game somewhat harder and created epic failures which could be appreciated the same as successes. Getting to space now is almost a bit too automatic.

I did and had the right ship, just a hair to little fuel for the descent stage. The ship had to burn 70 percent of the ascent stage's fuel as well. Thankfully the ascent stage had so much delta V I limped into a suborbit where my RCS could circularize. Wehrmy's victory was short lived however as a rescue ship could not reach him before the great extinction of .24 hit. Version 2 of my descent module has about 20 seconds more of fuel for braking.

Yep, I'm gonna up the game from the last contest. I did not put Cadzilla in the last contest but here she is. She flies well with FAR NEAR or STOCK!!! I am putting her forward in best looking and best use of Firespitter. She's fast tough and is an easy flier. Requires the full version of Firespitter not the abbreviated one in B9 and Spaceplane Plus Dropbox Link: Cadzilla Part Count 242 On takeoff accelerate to 130 m/s and liftoff. If using Far fly her to 10k and proceed in a approximately a 15 degree climb. If using stock aero have at it she is fast all the way around and flies solid. In the ascent when you hear the jets spool down hit custom action group 4 to cut the jets. When the rapiers switch cycles quickly throttle down to 70 to 75 percent thrust to avoid overheating of nuke and rapier engines. Note: If you fly stock and need a lower part count version the regular (Version not entered for the contest) Cadzilla file can be downloaded from here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c4dcdfsgxiat0zp/AAAwIfB4R-qASJUh20YYKR82a/KSP/Mod%20Ships?dl=0

I finally got B9 running on my rig. I finished my XB-70 design. Unfortunately it almost seemed my engines did not spool up to 100 percent for some reason. They were even making noses which are usually created at two thirds power, so reluctantly I ditched the whole package for now. Lots of promise in it, but a few tweaks still are needed. On a side note I would like to personally thank the individual who was doing all the tweakscale shots and providing some inspiration. I updated my infernal robotics which requires it and put it to use. I see lots of shenanigans potential as well as air hogging taken to new extremes, oversized 48-7 engines and nukes. Landing gears scaled to make a plane look correct as well as larger intakes so they are not spammed as much on the fuselage. Cadzillas high stance, high speed, high weight and good behavior are chosen as a baseline for some jacked up plane additions. Of course that reentry bit with oversize parts does have a tendency to rip stuff off.

It was a vast slaughter of Kerbals today. I decided to get crackin on getting NEAR loaded so I can run with the new B9 parts pack and finish up the Valkyrie I am building. Lesson 1 recover all existing ships first before installing. An existing Valkyrie makes a good touchdown. (I thought it would fly well anyway due to its shape being based on a real plane and adjustable wings which could increase lift or stability.) The Wedgie stock plane from the SSTO contest I was testing shatters on reentry, miraculously the crew survives a vicious spin and lithobrake using the venerable "Distributed Landing Sequence". Melbes survives with pure tenacity and an overabundance of horsepower used to somewhat control his crash. (ironically enough my SSTO stock entry ) Cadzilla flys home a bit low on fuel but flawless. Now only a few more to go. Luckily most of the constellation is rescue ships Anyway, it was a fun learning experience and more importantly my big SSTO's are still very viable. Anyhow, my question would be this, what item did you find you usually had to fix on your craft when cutting over to NEAR or FAR.

Fine tuning an SSTO

Well since I accidentally voted 3 polls as soon as voting began. (THought the 3 polls were gonna be combined later for a winner. ) Just to clarify my final pick was the Alrai.

Yeah I noticed that as well the other day. Looks like I am going to have to load NEAR or FAR as well to give the new B9 version parts a try. :\ Anyway, still making progress though, the shape is still refining and the robotic wing tips have been added in. I still have the bottom panels off though to add the occasional strut or addition in the meantime. At least I was smart enough this time to build the plane as a subassembly so I can tack whatever front I want on to it quickly. Anyway, a few addons a bit of KerbPaint and I'll have a XB-70 Valkyrie before you know it. Anyway, I would be curious how it would fly with FAR. The XB-70 shape was made for high Mach numbers and I wonder if the FAR software would make the same interpretations at high mach. Basically the V-shape of the bottom of the fuselage and the wing tips that rotated down were set up so the air deflected by the fuselage would be directed to the wingtips which then diverted it down to create lift. The fold down wings also trapped the shock wave the plane created as well so the plane could increase its lift and ride its own shockwave.

Dang those are some serious rockets. Well my exercise in frustration at scaling an XB-70 Valkyrie to KSP standards is starting to see some results. I am starting to get a feel for the part clipping I am going to need. Not to say a few crews have had technical difficulties.

Doing serious mockups so I can have myself a B-70 Valkyrie. Best plane the US never produced. A little robotics for the foldup wings etc. etc... On a side note, if any of my fellow Kerbs know of an addon that has a concord/Valkyrie style nose, I would greatly appreciate a heads up.

Spaceplane decided on a "distributed launch" sequence.

Meh, they can seem that way at times. Over time my SSTO's have evlolved to carry a mix of engines. What it usually comes down to for me is a slightly different way of assessing my planes. If my planes need more thrust at low altitude I will be more inclined to substitute in some jets. If I am hitting the wall higher up in the ascent profile I will mix in more rapiers or aerospikes. It just comes down to me making a determination at what altitude is the vehicle suffering and which engine at that altitude is the best fit. But concerning your original question the rapier should run through oxider fast at altitude since it sips it at lower altitudes. If it did not it would be the only engine used. The way you need to look at the rapier is that it is an engine type that can provide consistent power through most of the ascent profile. Jets are light and powerful, but hit the wall on average between 25 and 40km altitude; after that they are dead weight which have to be lugged around Kerbin or interplanetary orbits by other engines. Aerospikes provide consistent thrust and are more beneficial at higher altitudes and space, but are inefficient compared to the other engines at lower altitudes. Of course once you have all that down you may discover occasionally you are so efficient at keeping fuel your plane may become more inefficient lugging around dead weight, but that is a story for another day grasshopper.