mystifeid

Five, seven?? Sheesh, I musta read the rules wrong because it looks like hundreds and hundreds are possible - you know, how good is your computer sort of thing. Anyway, I am only barely literate so have probably got things wrong. You can watch the video below and tell me how I screwed up. If by some miracle I didn't screw up, then I'm not very slick at arithmetic either and scoring looks kinda complicated...and besides, this will end up being a low score. 65 MK1 pod group landing. Interesting how only half the pods have the red stuff around them...

I do not have the slightest hesitation in believing @jinnantonix. Besides the fact that with challenges I think you really do have to take people at their word, what is there to gain? There is no scoring, no badge. This challenge is something we have both done solely for amusement and distraction. And if you look at @jinnantonix's other accomplishments and ongoing endeavours you would have to say this has been but a momentary diversion.

You could also try enabling crossfeed on the decouplers - that way you could remove those yellow fuel hoses. Just have to make sure the fuel flow priorities on each fuel tank are set correctly - ie highest number for first tank to be decoupled, second highest number for second tank to be decoupled ... and so on. You will also have to open the PAW for each tank when flying to know when they are empty. I apologize if you already knew this but chose to use the hoses anyway.

I think I'm gonna need to see some cheaper designs. One sure way to get them seems to be to provide some incentive. Here it is : "Flipper" may look familiar but costs only 2450. While it is easily possible to remove some fuel from the (full) tanks and still make orbit, Flipper likes nothing better than a prograde dive into the surface...

This is the "RUsureaboutthis" - it has a low dV of 1279 on the launchpad. It is also the first entry of mine to have a launchpad cost of less than 5000. The ship squeeks into orbit and has 62m/s left with which to deorbit.

This is "Guzzler" cos it's so thirsty. A pleasure to fly. (And doesn't usually oscillate when burning off speed on reentry - only after keeping physics warp on too long.) Cost at launch - 5036 Recovered - 4742 Total Cost - 294

Noticed too that @bayesian_acolytehas a very low dV.

I think it's a bug. When it happens, I use the alt-F12 cheat menu to complete the contract. But I've learned to look at the required ap/pe before accepting a sentinel contract in the first place.

I think I'd really prefer someone else did it. Like I said, it is very easy to beat - even landing some distance from KSC.

Just to clarify - on my last entry you may have seen that the parachutes were clipped into the pod. You have my word that after I did this I noticed absolutely zero difference but kept them there because I liked the look. After moving them back out, again I noticed no difference. If you like I can very quickly replace that entry with one that does not included clipped chutes and with an identical score. I have not been using an optimal ascent profile but have been using one that is very easy to replicate. On top of that I have left myself - and you - quite a bit of wriggle room in terms of how much fuel I carry. So, 733 should be an easybeat.

Maybe. But then there would be no incentive to land close to or at KSC.

Looks sort of ... familiar. Never mind. Good job.

I think @TheFlyingKermanis probably right. A command seat and either a fairing or a Type A Advanced Nose Cone on top of a 1.25m tank weighs more than 600kg less than a Mk1 pod and costs maybe bit less too. Often you can notice a 5kg difference. Generally I try to stay away from them because they are probably in a class of their own and if anything like to go heavier because Kerbals really have no truck with this idea that less is more - they believe that more is more. (I've never tried to launch a command seat under a nose cone but the Kerbal fits) Maybe you can decide when the time comes but possibly having their own class is the answer. Do I care about being replaced on the leaderboard? Certainly not ... and hurry up about it !

Very good but you clipped poor Raymy inside a fuel tank! I think he'll be having words with you later.

Check this out - congratulations, you have landed at the SPH - 98% recovery. Arrrrggghhh!!!!

@Chequers - it might be worth pointing out that it takes a couple of minutes to set up a new career for this challenge. - before starting the career, in the career options, max out the starting funds and starting science. - after starting the career, use the alt-F12 cheat menu to complete contracts. Use the funds to upgrade buildings. Keep going until they are upgraded to your satisfaction. - use the alt-F12 cheat menu to create a 5 star pilot for your rocket/plane. Give him/her a cool name. - the starting science will be more than enough to unlock sufficient tech nodes for this challenge. - make a named save of the game at a time of day with convenient light levels for your screenshots/video. Within 5 minutes you will be able to see the recovered cost of your attempts.

Doesn't matter if you are going to land it - anything you land anywhere near KSC will mean the majority of the cost is recovered. I looked at a landing 30.3km from KSC and I still recovered 96.6% of the cost of the landed parts.

Landed at Mission Control this time - still 98% recovery. That 2% is worth about 100 kredits. I can consistently hit the area around KSC now and I've just missed that blasted runway on both sides. Name - Bootcamp 2 Cost at launch - 5143 Cost of parts recovered - 4410 Total cost - 733

Like I said, it was a pretty obvious design choice. Is that a Spark in the last stage? That's what I started out with but it was amazing how much drag that gap between the Thumper and the fuel tank above created - that's why I went with the Terrier.

I still haven't looked at any other attempts at this challenge and may not yet because I might have another go at it. This seemed like a pretty obvious design choice. Please tell me if I have copied anyone and feel free to disqualify me. It took quite a few attempts to get this close a landing (and each attempt included a launch - there was no save scumming). Interesting that the crew report taken after landing says I'm in Kerbin Shores. Anyway, 98% recovery of the cost of the landed parts is not too shabby. Name - Bootcamp (!) Parts - 9 Science experiments performed - Temperature, Pressure Max tech level - 4 (Terrier and Small Inline Reaction Wheel) Atmo dV at 0m (VAB) - 1974 Atmo dV at 79m (Launchpad) - 1992 Launch cost - 5105 Recovered - 3883 Total cost - 1222

I assumed at the time it was using the right hand rule for determining torque direction.

Yeah, not gonna happen. Anyway, watch "Bring Them Home!" below - the Safety Orange Rescue mission to the Solar Polar Station and back again. It was a little surprising how little waiting around there was in this mission. The longest I waited was nearly a full orbit or 7 years for an intercept burn to the space station. When leaving Kerbin there is considerable latitude in the position of Jool simply by adding radial in/out to the burn and by adjusting the position of the manaeuver node around Kerbin. In real time the thing that took the longest by far was making this video. One day I promise to start adding soundtracks. One day.

Ah yes - MJ won't autostage when using crossfeed for asparagus staging. You must use fuel hoses (external fuel ducts). I seem to recall that crossfeed is ok for drop tanks but as soon as you put engines underneath them it doesn't work. But I could be wrong.

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Stopped using it when autostruts became a thing.

So, autostaging is enabled in both the Ascent Guidance and the Utilities modules? (Unlike the Ascent Guidance module, autostaging must be enabled in the Utilities module every launch - I wish there was a way for MJ to remember this setting.)