Jump to content

jinnantonix

Members
  • Posts

    686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

580 Excellent

6 Followers

About jinnantonix

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pretending to be at work

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Total cost for the Duna-1 launch is 26,585. This includes 2250 kg of fuel which will later be used to boost the ISRU facility to the Mun, and also the very expensive RA-15 relays. The SLV costs 11,134 fully fuelled, with the fairing which I include as it is not for aesthetics, it provides a necessary aerodynamic function.
  2. Here is a video of my first launch. I am using a SRB based standard launch vehicle (SLV) for all my launches, capable of lifting a payload of 10 tons. My mission architecture requires 6 launches of my SLV to complete three Duna missions.
  3. Apologies, right you are. Airlock is not required! Either way, it is not a requirement to include in the score.
  4. I don't believe there is any means to exit the crew cabins unless you include an airlock. It is arguable that the inclusion of the airlock is aesthetic, so may be deleted from the craft cost. The idea of the aesthetics rule is to ensure that the craft "appear" fully functional and realistic, but does not penalise your score.
  5. Apologies, I thought you were referring to visualisation mods as being worthy of aesthetics points. My bad. Setting up a relay station at the Mun south pole is not an aesthetics issue, but rather an issue of good mission design. I like your thinking, but best not to mandate a relay on the Mun, and so over-complicate the rules. The whole point of aesthetics is to avoid unrealistic design. Try to imagine, would NASA design a re-entry schema with four separate capsules? No? Then it's not realistic. The ring design is clever, but fails the aesthetics test. Each crew cabin is separate, and so crew clearly can't move between them, and there is no airlock, so no means for the crew to move from the launch vehicle to the habitat. Here is a habitat design that might pass the aesthetics test.
  6. 1. Yes. Each orbital craft with 8 seats represents a staging point with fuel pumping capability. You need a minimum of one craft, but can have as many as you wish. 2. Absolutely yes. The rule about solar power is only for surface operations. So you can drill for ore (no solar) and refine in orbit (with solar). 3. The aim of aesthetics is to ensure that all of the craft functions are realistic. You should be aiming for 8 points. If any of your craft have deficits in function or form, you will lose points. I recommend that you PM me with questions to ensure your designs pass the 8 point test prior to submission.
  7. Obviously, no. I added the aesthetics score to address the problem that the proposed low cost entries just looked ridiculous. I am hoping for this challenge to really think about what a real mission in 2030 might look like.
  8. Any more comments before I post this as an official challenge?
  9. @camacju I have set the rules so that direct to Duna entry is valid, you lose 8 points by not building the Mun mining facility, but this may be offset by 80k lower costs. This hopefully accounts for the unusually high cost of ISRU in KSP. The only thing that I would need to see is that the resupply missions are fully sustainable, and include all of the fuel needed for that mission, so that the same resupply launch could be used for additional subsequent missions.
  10. Not sure why that would be a good thing to do.
  11. Here is an example of the aesthetics standard required for full points.
  12. Good point, I only briefly tested the RA-2 and it worked. But i didn't take into account Kerbin-Duna distance. I will mandate 3 x RA-15 as a minimum.
  13. Any chance you can show the images with the fairings deleted? Note, you need to drop a probe onto Duna with each mission. Also I added a requirement that Kerbals returning to Kerbin must directly re-enter the atmosphere. You no longer need ore.
  14. If you want it harder, then my inclination is toward rules like : no aerobraking for any craft with Kerbals aboard, except Duna direct re-entry at Kerbin. (I am seriously considering this one) adjust settings to increase sensitivity to re-entry heating set part pressure and G-force limits Thoughts?
  15. Thanks @The_Nico I really like the idea of using Starship replicas as you have suggested. Please note that there is no recovery of costs for craft landing at Kerbin, it is assumed that re-entry makes them uneconomical for re-use. The focus is on re-usability of infrastructure once launched, with minimisation of expendables - being launch vehicles and re-entry capsules.
×
×
  • Create New...