Mopoii

Test pilot review : @antimatterkill's Antech S.126 Figures as tested : Price : 44513 Fuel : 88 units lf, 72 units ox Cruising speed : 105 m/s Fuel burn rate : 0.01 units/s Passengers carried : 24 Range : 1850 km Review notes : This aircraft has quite an original shape, firstly because of its VTOL design, but also because of a somewhat peculiar layout. The lifting surfaces have a pleasant look and are harmonious in the angular style they provide. They give a dynamic look to the craft, which one may however consider somewhat spoilt by the double-deck configuration, more reminiscent of a heavy cargo vehicle. Vertical take-off is easy and the transition to level flight is consistently well managed, although a bit harsh on the passengers. Once trim is corrected for, the aircraft behaves very well and remains stable. This aspect is appreciated for cruising, but when trying to operate tight manoeuvres at low speeds a bit more dynamic controlling would have been appreciated. Amongst other characteristics rendering true vertical landing somewhat awkward, this is possibly the most prominent. Others include the lack of deployable flaps (the control surfaces are there and unused, might as well use them), floppy & bouncy suspension, and disastrous braking (which can lead to very problematic and potentially dangerous situations when on a slope). Horizontal take-off & landing were also tested, and the team would’ve enjoyed slightly better performance than observed, as stall was experienced at around 60 m/s, and take-off speed being as high as 80 m/s. However, as detailed further, several easy fixes were thought of by the test pilots and mechanics. In the case of failure of one of the 4 engines, it was observed that the VTOL capabilities were expectedly gone. A short landing was achieved, but it was hard for both the vehicle and its occupants. On the other hand, level flight is managed relatively well in this occurrence. Because a lot of the potential wing surface is occupied by the engines and props, the glide characteristics are subsequently quite poor (which is in one way positive in the case of high winds). The verdict : The aircraft is quite notably cheap, especially considering its unique capabilities. However, high maintenance costs were predicted for multiple reasons : structural complexity due to wing and fuel tank positioning relative to the cabins, steering on the main landing gear which wasn’t needed for normal operations and especially the counter-rotating propellers. However, the board was still showing keen interest and with the help of the engineering and mechanical teams, a few modifications are proposed before buying : placing the fuel tanks on the centre of mass for consistent flight characteristics and either above or below the cabins for easier maintenance and structure, moving the wings up for better ground clearance and again especially structure, increasing control surface actuation angle as well as space between front and main gear for increased stability (moving the main gear and wings forwards a bit would also aid horizontal take-off), and possibly removing half of the engines and adding variable angle of attack on the blades for weight, cost and complexity savings. Once at least a few of these of these recommendations are followed, Trans-Kerbin Airways will be glad to enter negotiations for the purchase of several aircraft !

Test Pilot Review : @Maxorin’s SubPar Industries S350 (long-haul airliner) Figures as tested : - Price :570 940 000 - Fuel : 12 250 units - Cruising speed : 190 m/s - Cruising altitude : 8100 m - Fuel burn rate : 0.75 units/s - Passengers carried : 240 passengers - Range : 3000 km Review notes : The test pilot team was delighted to encounter such a polished aircraft, remarking in the process the clear out-of-the-factory appearance and quality of the build. All expressed appreciation for the attention to detail and an overall harmonious shape. In particular, the front view of the wing received abundant acclaim. Many amongst the crew were glad to finally face controls they knew and were familiar with, along with the functionalities that are of common use in the business. As soon as our first pilot began accelerating the aircraft on the runway, he was thankful towards the engineering team which had been sufficiently generous towards provided thrust for take-off to be quick and easy. Well-positioned landing gear allowed for rotation at speeds as low as 25 m/s, followed by lift-off at 45 m/s. This allowed for take-off distances of under 400 metres, which pleasantly opened up the idea of visiting smaller airports with accordingly shorter runways. The ground crew was astonished by the main landing gear’s uncommon folding mechanism, which gave to some the impression the aircraft was leaping into the air in a most elegant manner. Thereafter, good climbing performance, with a pitch angle of up to 30° for 80 m/s vertical velocity, was ensured by the pair of turbofans sitting at a comfortable distance above ground. It was hypothesised that without passengers to complain about the uncomfortable angling of such a manoeuvre, pilots could manage to extract even higher performance to soar into the heavens. However during this phase of flight it was becoming more apparent the aircraft had a tendency to roll as it pitched up. Following initial testing, this was reported to the rest of the team, which subsequently unlocked the horizontal stabiliser’s ability to control roll. A slight tendency to nose up was also noted at first, but this was corrected by the mechanics via trimming. It was noted the aircraft’s behaviour was very consistent between low and high speeds, which was greatly appreciated by the test pilots, who could relax instead of needing to constantly adjust. High-speed testing was also carried out, reaching 225 m/s in horizontal flight at altitude without any effort, and later approaching supersonic speeds during a 45° dive at full throttle (yes this is totally a standard operation in the field) barely overpassing 320 m/s without any structural issues on the horizon. It thereafter handled a 3g recovery excellently, continuing its journey as if nothing were. Multiple cases of failure where tested for. Courageous pilots attempted landing immediately after take-off, and succeeded to do so before reaching the end of the runway, completing the manoeuvre in 1600 m. The aircraft was also tested in the case of a water landing, again just after lift-off. Even at this early stage of flight, the emergency procedure functioned, and a full stop was reached shortly after touching the surface, resulting in a consistent deceleration of 4.6g. Good floatability was achieved, leaving the wings above the surface so to allow passengers to exit the cabin in relative comfort and safety. It was also appreciated that emergency exits had been fitted above the main wing for a more efficient evacuation. Engine failure was also considered, and the test pilots managed to maintain speed and attitude with a single engine at cruising height, although with full yaw and constant pitch & roll corrections being necessary. The crew also measured satisfactory gliding performance during this procedure. Several extreme situations were also thought of by the more imaginative amongst the testing team, and according manoeuvres were performed when possible. First of which sought to determine if water take-off was possible after crash landing in the ocean. After very fine piloting with minute and rapid corrections, the aeroplane lifted off out of the water, undamaged apart from a bit of salt that coated the turbines. The simulation team was given the task of calculating if the aircraft was capable of performing a loop-the-loop at take-off and if it could fly without the main wing. It promptly responded that this was indeed impossible as imagined by the vast majority of the crew, although a few resilient members insisted that they could “easily pull it off”, but authorisations were not accorded. Inverted flying was also tested, but the aircraft could not maintain attitude, nosing down even with full pitch commands. The final verdict : Although all amongst the testing team were delighted by the aircraft, the directing board was somewhat worried by the expenses of such a craft. Understandably, 570 million funds is far from insignificant pricing, and therefore purchase must be thought through with great care. Engineers and mechanics reported that due to the presence of simply two well-known engines and their conventional layout as well as low ground-sitting would allow the company not to ruin itself on maintenance costs. The marketing team also concluded that such an aircraft would improve the company's view from the public, opening the possibility to develop the long-haul sector even more. The board therefore decided on purchasing two S350s, while making the likeliness of later orders clear if predicted success was observed once in operation.

I doubt this is possible, do you have any results of your own ?

I've actually done this before in my Sandbox world. As everything is already designed, it should only be a matter of doing the mission and taking screenshots

You're quite right, some screenshots are missing. Imgur has been kinda been bugging out on me lately so that's probably why they disappeared and why the reentry picture ended up at the 2nd spot. So here's the end of STS-3 : https://imgur.com/gallery/AenzC0Z (should be showing as a link, but at least on my side the URL works) Nope, no reaction wheels, but I can tell you, they can be pretty awful to use in some cases. Should've really looked into better balancing the RCS. Concerning the "parachute shuttle", I've come up with something, but I've still got to overcome terrible instability, caused by all the wing parts used to get the shape right. But if I can fix it, and if I'm allowed to use it, it would be quite fun and very different from most designs !

All my settings also reset every time I restart the game. However, I have noticed better frames and fewer freezes since 1.8

First off, replies : That's right, here's a quick look (the full abort is in the gallery at the end) : Yeah sorry I forgot to screenshot that. I decided to go for an elliptical orbit (what I called KTO [for Keostationary Transfer Orbit] in the gallery), as that's what most rockets seem to go for, and it was safer for the Kerbals to get back down in case of emergency. I had made sure the satellites had plenty of monoprop to reach the desired circular orbit, and allow for corrections if necessary (which in the end proved useful !). You're right. It's particularly visible at launch, and in this one it was quite clear. I believe this is due to the boosters not being as powerful as they should be, but I don't think it's very problematic, as we can easily correct this by pitching up. It's true I wasn't very careful on that one. The correction is shown is the gallery at the end. Now on to STS-3. Again, I used the Shuttle II, as I'm quite fond of it since the start. However, I am also looking into other systems, such as horizontal launch on a larger "carrier" shuttle (such as this one : https://space.nss.org/media/p335-mcdonnel-douglas-design.gif), or an orbiter sitting on top of a more "standard" rocket, and having much smaller wings & relying on parachutes for landing (like this design I found : http://www.buran.ru/htm/str124.htm). I'm unsure if the latter still qualifies as a shuttle according to the challenge's definition though. Here is the full mission gallery for STS-3, the abort test, and the corrected comsat orbits : https://imgur.com/gallery/LyyxCe3 I'll try to be more complete when posting mission reports in the future. I've already completed STS-4 when writing this, so I can't do anything for that one, but the following missions I'll be more careful about. The whole engineering process is great fun, hope to do a fair bit as I'm on holiday atm

Here is my mods list : As you can see, no parts mods, just visual, audio or info mods. Restock does allow for different visual part variants, which is why you probably didn't recognise the Terrier engines that serve as OMS engines (the pods themselves are made of 3 NCS Adapters and 1 Aerodynamic Nose Cone each). As for the bottom of the external tank, it's a 5m fairing (which makes it very un-aerodynamic amongst other things).

Hi again, Here is my STS-2a mission, for which I decided to use the Shuttle Evolution Block II The main tank is the same as the original Space Shuttle, but the wings and control surfaces are changed. Concerning propulsion, the OMS pods are reduced in size, and the two boosters are liquid-fuelled, allowing for overall better efficiency. It's mainly based on this image, and yes, it does have an abort system. Here is the full mission gallery : https://imgur.com/a/zAuWXMr

Hello all, This is the second time I participate in this challenge, but last time was long ago and I consider I have somewhat improved since then. So here is my second entry for STS-1a. For this mission, I decided to go for the Space Transportation System, which I don't find is the most effective or interesting, but it had to be used at some point. Here's the mission recap : https://imgur.com/a/7NBGu0G Glad to have another go at this, more is coming very soon

I've looked in C:\Kerbal Space Program\KSP_x64_Data , where I seem to understand the output_log.txt file should be, however it doesn't seem to be there. First time I do this sry

Hi everyone, I installed JNSQ for the first time when its latest release came out, and I'm really enjoying it. However, a recurring problem is kind of ruining my experience a bit : about a third of the time I Revert to Launch or to VAB/SPH, the game crashes. I have no idea why. Is there a simple fix ? Should I provide crash logs ? Is it a known bug ? Thanks in advance

Right, I'll edit the config then, thanks for your insight

I'm not sure allowing cheats makes the challenge very interesting … just go Ignore Max Temperature and Hack Gravity and it's over

Hello all ! Here is my entry : I tried to make the craft as close to reality as possible. I spent many hours in the VAB and trying to find blueprints & schematics, but that's just what I love ! Here is the GSLV ready for takeoff This is the mission's payload (orbiter & lander) For the rest, check out the mission gallery : https://imgur.com/gallery/3dZ8OIK You mentioned a drill in the challenge guidelines, however, I couldn't find any reference to a drill being part of the mission. Instead, I put a Surface Scanning Module on the rover, and a Thermometer and a Seismic Accelerometer on the lander to simulate the mission's main science instruments, hope you don't mind It was a great project and I'm glad you put this challenge up, wonderful way to fill in my holidays

Hi @linuxgurugamer(I think you're the one to ask here) For some engines, the mods works great, and I absolutely love it ! However, for other engines like the Vector and Rhino, the light seems far too bright and the general result is very contrasted (for example, I get close-to-white spots [that the engine plume is directly shining at] and the rest doesn't seem lit up at all [that should I believe have some kind of emissive lighting]). Is this just a config fix or is it more complex ? Thanks in advance

Glad this came back up ! I'll participate as soon as I get back from holiday

Should I understand that as you are participating?

Yeah, I've already got Restock installed, it's just I really like the feeling these textures give better. And DLC parts, such as the Skiff engine I was talking about, haven't been remodeled yet Might be possible to put something together, but I'm far from sure ...

The models and textures look extremely good ! Does anybody know if it's possible to apply them to stock parts ? For example, applying the Gemini texture to the Mk2 Command Pod, or making the Skiff engine look like a J-2 ?

I've been doing more work on completing the challenge, so here is the showcase of my Ares I, along with the Orion capsule and service module. I tried to make it as close as I could to what it would have been, with a reasonable part count (even though it's all the way up to 200!) and stock-only parts. Here is the gallery showing its capabilities : https://imgur.com/gallery/KnqXOPa The first stage is a cluster of 9 Kickback SRBs. The rest of the first stage is structural and is used for control. As KSP SRBs do not have gimbal, whereas actual Shuttle-derived SRBs do. This makes it necessary to use quite a few reaction wheels, which are stored inside the Structural Tubes. Then, the interstage is made using an engine plate. The first stage has a Rhino engine, simulating the J-2X used in the real world. Now to Orion : the service module has radiators, 1 main engine, 8 auxiliary engines, omnidirectional RCS and four solar panels ; the capsule has 2 drogue chutes and 3 main chutes, all stored inside a cover which is jettisoned for deploy. Finally, it has a functional Launch Abort System, with abort engines, jettison motors and attitude control engines (and a capsule cover obviously). I've also been progressing on various other vehicles, but I'll post about them only once I'm closer to a finished product.

You're quite right, seems perfectly reasonable. As for the order of arrival, this is not critical. The point is just to get the vehicles there at more-or-less the right place. Concerning the Hermes, the presence of an airlock is only required as it is used by the astronauts when doing EVA, as in the story. You don't need to bother making it perfect

Good progress @jinnantonix ! I like the fact that you added DGS, that was well thought. I also love the way you designed Pathfinder's camera, looks fantastic ! I've awarded you with all the according points for Pathfinder, Sojourner and your Delta II. Keen to see the rest ! And yes, that seems perfectly fine to me, if you can fit it into the Ares V's fairing, you might as well do it in a single launch.

I've seen some really cool things being done with Textures Unlimited, but I have no idea how to use it, as there seems to be a complete lack of tutorials or explanations about how to do it. For example, how do you make parts have a metal-like shine ?

Glad to hear you're interested ! Now, here are the answers to your questions : That's a good idea, I'll add that suggestion for extra points The rotating part is quite essential, as it is there to generate artificial gravity, without which the astronauts could barely stand up on Mars after staying in 0g for 6 odd months. However, if you wish to rotate the entire vessel, that's fine for me. Yeah, that's fine, it's just we don't want the inside of the pressurised Hab to be exposed to the low-pressure exterior. Sorry but no Tweakscale (now allowed for SRBs and Fuel Tanks) or Mechjeb for a stock entry. It's really that a stock entry has to obey the stock playstyle (ie using multiple parts when some aren't big enough, making vehicles that are easy enough to fly by hand etc.). If you wanted Mechjeb to get precise landings, I suggest you use the Trajectories mod, it'll be counted as a stock entry. If you want to use mods that add realism, such as a life-support mod (as discussed earlier), a system rescale, or close future parts (as the ion engines used on the Hermes are more advanced than the stock ones), that's all good, it'll just register in a different category. Thanks for saying that, I had no idea. I looked it up and it looks like it needs to bring its own hydrogen with it though. So I'll change the rules and allow ISRU for the DAV, but it'll need to bring at least 1/13th of the total fuel & oxidizer down to the surface (as for every kg of hydrogen, it can make 13 kg of fuel [and oxidizer I suppose]). It is stock, however it consists of an mk3 Command Pod, an mk1 Lander Can and 3 mk1 Inline Cockpits, so it's really a 7 seat capsule. A