Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ManEatingApe

  1. Another way to test the comparison is to simulate a descent similar to how KSP models it. TL;DR A constant altitude descent consistently uses less delta-v than a suicide burn. The difference is bigger the lower the TWR of the craft, closing very rapidly to negligible values as TWR increases. Here's a chart showing values simulated for Tylo: I modeled the descent trajectory using the differential equations from the paper: Optimal Trajectory Planning for the Apollo MoonLanding: Descent, Ascent, and Aborts by Duncan Miller A kOS script integrated the differential equations num
  2. It's an fun problem, optimizing for mission simplicity (or working around script limitations). Not totally sure on the overall mission profile yet but one idea I'm thinking of is parking a mothership in circular Jool orbit just outside Tylo, then 5 separate landers (one per moon). Not the most efficient delta-v wise but would keep mission profile relatively simple.
  3. Description There has been plenty of healthy debate on this forum about the merits of flying missions manually versus various forms of autopilot assistance (for example MechJeb). This mission thread will not attempt to address that debate, but instead try something a little different by taking autopilot assistance to the ridiculous extreme: Completing the Jool-5 challenge with no player input whatsoever! Required Mods kOS (Kerbal Operating System) is the core mod enabling this attempt. kOS adds a virtual computer to craft that allows execution of scripts of arbitrary complexity.
  4. The only wrong direction is if you capture into a retrograde orbit of Jool! (have done this by accident) Seriously though, the great thing about KSP is that there are always many ways to accomplish things. Want a pod..use it! Want all the science..do it! Want to use nukes...go for it! You can optimize in any of several areas e.g low mass, low part count, low risk, low mission complexity, low requirements in real time. Then you can always go back and try the same mission in a different way just for kicks. It's not strictly related to your question, but it's also fun to toss a probe int
  5. For the Tylo lander, have you considered a command chair instead of a pod? The mass savings would be considerable. A flags and footprints only Tylo lander can be in the 2 to 2.5 ton range (budget some more than this for the Science Jr) Your plan to re-use the ascent stage of the Tylo lander for Val, Pol and Bop is a good idea and a great way to save some parts and mass.
  6. 4,000 m/s dV should be more than enough to return from Jool to Kerbin, including capturing propulsively into Kerbin orbit. A thought occurs based on your description (but a picture would be even more helpful) - where is your transfer trajectory intercepting Kerbin? You want the PE of your transfer to be a close as possible to the PE of Kerbin. This way your craft's velocity and Kerbin velocity are mostly aligned, so you only need to cancel out the hyperbolic excess. If you're intercepting Kerbin away from the PE of the transfer orbit, then you'll have a significant radial component. Hopeful
  7. This is a fun challenge with plenty of potential! A single stage vessel to Eeloo at periapsis needs about 4,500 to 5,000 m/s from LKO. High but not impossible for an efficient design. The obvious choice of ion engines is feasible but has some drawbacks. Solar power is basically non-existent at Eeloo's apoapsis and Eeloo's gravity is high enough to make landing on the low TWR of ions alone challenging. Best bring some alternate power source and some extra landing engines. A Rapier/Nuke combo would also be quite effective and probably simpler to execute the journey. To get the ball roll
  8. That's gonna be a little tricky (but not impossible)! One idea to consider is a separate tug craft, with RCS and a decent reaction wheel that could wrangle your side by side rockets together.
  9. Nice entry, added you the leader board in the chair category. I liked the truly minimal design and taking advantage of the extra EVA fuel allowed by the new 1.11 inventory system.
  10. That's an ingenious and entertainingly Kerbal discovery! I like the idea of your unfortunate Kerbal clutching an extra tank of fuel all the way down and back. Sure, I'll allow it: I'm intrigued if it will work.
  11. Gotcha - the parts remain outside the bay, but the nosecones are placed inside it. Clever, but I'll have to disallow it. Either live with the drag of the nosecones or streamline things into fewer stacks. Flags producing body lift at an angle is a confirmed bug. The ESA exploit challenge feels like a better home for flag related chicanery.
  12. Thanks for asking for clarification in advance, I appreciate it. This spirit of this challenge is to get as cheap as possible, within the constraints of the normal intended physics of the game. Excessive clipping is just one aspect of that philosophy. Bearing that in mind... Hard no on both of these. (they would come under the Wheaton rule category). The heat shield trick is amusing, but falls under the same category of unintended physics glitches as the (now fixed) drain valve exploit or various other Kraken-tech. Any entry using this would go straight to the Rogue's Gallery. You cou
  13. Nice work on the ruthlessly reduced reusable refinement. You retain the top spot in the category.
  14. Another fun trick - if you get a Kerbal to jump, then run the EVA report while they're in the air, then you'll get the Flying low EVA report (which is per biome).
  15. MOAR Boosters... 2nd mission (first part of six): Checkout the original posts here and here, and the entire Kerpollo sequence of videos at my Vimeo account, set to some crackin' tunes.
  16. A single like just doesn't seem enough for this amazingly creative achievement! KSP will now need it's own version of the Oscars... Awesome work @Makc_Gordon
  17. Nice work and congrats! @Aazard
  18. The goal of this challenge is to play a community game of "reverse" pass the parcel. Players will take turns transporting a parcel back and forth between the KSC and the Island Airfield, using the EVA Construction Mode to add a part to the parcel each time it's shuttled between the KSC and Airfield. The last team to transport the parcel successfully is the victor. Rules: There are 2 notional teams: "Team KSC" and "Team Airfield" Players take turns sequentially. Players can submit entries for one or both teams. Players can enter more than once, the only restriction is t
  19. As always, a neat and efficient entry. Added you to the leaderboard. For anyone who is following this thread, the latest 1.11 version brings in some interesting changes. Kerbal's EVA packs and parachutes now add mass to the craft, which has the following implications: Podded entries are mildly more efficient (you can omit the jetpack and personal parachute) Command chair entries are potentially much more efficient (a 0.05 versus 0.09 ton Kerbal is a more significant change) A personal parachute vs a chute on the command chair entries is now more balanced (both add
  20. Hurray! I look forward to the reign of terror ...erm I mean benevolent dictatorship...no wait...stewardship of respected clan elder @JAFO I think one of the things that make the Caveman challenge such a success is the simplicity of the rules, basically: No building upgrades of any kind Just raw primal KSP with the ever present danger of the sabre-toothed Kraken To encourage innovation I would make 2 suggestions: Explicitly allow EVA construction to inspire creativity and add to the established repertoire of lawn-assembly and orbital assembly. Bring the Break
  21. Now that the 1.11 update is available, I'm curious what the clan thinks of the new EVA construction mode and how "compatible" it is with Caveman? My initial feeling after a short testing session is that it will be a nice addition that will spur further creativity and fun design patterns (which there is already plenty of in this thread ). The largest container available at Caveman tech levels is the SEQ-3 that can fit at most an Oscar fuel tank. It seems most useful for adding small science, batteries, antennas, solar panels, ladders and whatnot to craft after launch where part
  22. I threw a rock at Eeloo back in 1.1 days (a probe into low Eeloo orbit). However I don't think anyone has landed on it. With 9,000 m/s delta-v you could visit Eeloo and...Dres!
  23. Unfortunately with that glitch no-one can know what the actual fuel consumption was - so I can't accept that entry officially but I appreciate your honesty about it. However it's pretty clear that you go can lower than your current 1st place score, perhaps even lower than 160 funds by iterating on your current design. If you want to enter again with a tweaked version of your current 1st place entry, I'm happy to update your slot. (It's fine to do named quicksave regularly just in case that unexplained fuel glitch strikes again, so you could revert to a known good point without having t
  24. Apparently I did visit Moho! Found the album for the mission that delivered a probe into a low polar orbit of Moho. That's technically a little better than a flyby, but not by much. So looks the achievement of landing is still waiting to be claimed in both Kerballed and non-Kerballed categories. And since Commnet was introduced in 1.2 there's an extra challenge if someone would like to attempt another flyby with Commnet on.
  25. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a Caveman landing on Moho...
  • Create New...