Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


523 Excellent


Profile Information

  • Location
    The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Not really: I sent this thing to Eve inside a payload fairing as part of a challenge:
  2. When I build helos I usually build them with a single pair of counter-rotating rotors on a single axis. That type of helo is very stable. Would that work for your Eve ascent vehicle? Example helo using this setup:
  3. My suggestion would be to completely disallow the landers from entering the other moon's SOI. That seems the most consistent ruling to me.
  4. Sounds like fun, count me in! One question about the rules: are EVA jet pack landings allowed? If they are, I think there might be a way to swap Jeb and Val without doing a rendez-vous. Another question: the rules stipulate that "no unapproved ship may even be in orbit around each respective moon". Does this include flybys? I.e., is the Munar lander allowed to go inside Minmus' SOI without entering orbit, and vice versa?
  5. I built a rockoon: Loosely based on this X-Prize contestant: http://www.astronautix.com/w/wildfire.html, a rockoon is a suborbital rocket carried to the stratosphere by a balloon before lighting the rocket engine. I don't think I've ever seen one built in KSP before so I just had to make one.
  6. Among the rather mundane (at least KSP-wise) ballistic suborbital rockets, mothership launched rocket planes and jet / rocket plane hybrids I found one that is so weirdly different from the others that I just had to build it in KSP: http://www.astronautix.com/w/wildfire.html. Wild fire is a rockoon, a rocket that is carried to the stratosphere by a balloon before lighting its engine. The craft is described as To replicate this I used the 3-man Soviet style capsule; Some airbrakes were used to replicate a shuttlecock in form and function. As the landing speed is a bit too high to be survivable, I had to use the engine to slow down just before splashdown. I decided against using the inflatable heatshield to replicate the "inflated shuttlecock" and "inflated blunt conical cone", as the stock inflatable heat shield, while a better fit, is too big for this rocket. As to how I managed to build a stock balloon: it's not a balloon, it just looks like one. Technically it is an octocopter drone, with the propellers clipped inside the cone at the base. The balloon itself is a massive payload fairing on a 5 meter base, with a large stack of reaction wheels inside to keep it stable during ascent.
  7. An improvement over my previous attempt: No in-flight user input of any kind is needed to orbit this rocket. There's one Stayputnik probe core underneath the fairing, no reaction wheels, no RCS, no movable fins, no thrust vectoring, no throttling and no KAL-1000.
  8. My submission: A simple two-stage rocket without any means of steering. Its fixed, non steerable fins keep it on a surface prograde course through the atmosphere, and it has been tilted ever so slightly on the launchpad to initiate the gravity turn. It only needs user input once during its flight, to separate its 1st stage and ignite the upper stage. The reason it works at all is that the rocket keeps pitching down, even when it is above the atmosphere. The result of which is that it points approximately prograde orbital at AP. I think what happens is that the rocket gains a bit of angular momentum from its curved trajectory through the atmosphere that it keeps when in space.
  9. Could you perhaps do something with a flag planted at the North Pole and using that as target?
  10. Incredible! What an epic journey, I'm glad you made it to the pole! My kOS craft isn't fairing so well, but I am intentionally not using any waypoints, as that would make the challenge trivial. I'm running a fairly simple program that just aims North but avoids obstacles: if below 50 meters or above 1000 meters it tries to go around. I'm also using an autothrottle to avoid getting launched by humps in the terrain but that one needs some fine-tuning as my latest attempt crashed at 16 degrees North after going over a hill too fast. My craft does have a self-righting mechanism but it tends to get damaged on hard landings. My rover uses rover wheels, but seeing your attempt I think I'll change to landing gear and props, as landing gear is less prone to being damaged. It also makes a self-righting mechanism redundant: instead you can simply carry a second set of landing gear on top of the craft, and deploy those when coming to rest upside down. And you can swim across water, which comes in handy as well.
  11. Further improvement: The way I got this one is by carefully timing the circularization burn (it's 0.2 seconds earlier than in last night's attempt) so that the end of the burn coincides with the craft hitting AP, and by carefully throttling back the engine by a couple of percent near the end of the burn, in order to be able to control the amount of dv better than with timings alone. Now KSP inaccuracies are taking over again, and a second run produced worse results: In the second run the gravity turn resulted in a slightly higher AP (69927.0 meters compared to 69863.5 meters for the previous run) and I doubt that can be fixed. Fine-tuning the gravity turn to remove small kinks from the launch profile might help but would also be very time-consuming. Here's a video of a third launch with the exact same KAL program: I've tried to capture a video with the KAL editor window open, but it turns out that having the KAL editor window open in flight influences the result, so a screenshot from the VAB will have to do.
  12. Do you allow craft that don't use a KAL? This mission of mine hit the Mun without any steering input: A flyby can be done in the same manner, by launching straight up at the correct time.
  13. With my new KAL-controlled trajectory I've been able to improve on my previous result. I also ditched the two-stage design I used earlier for a single stage rocket, as staging events are bound to add uncertainty. With the new steering mechanism the gravity turn is now very stable, reaching the same AP plus or minus about 100 meters every time. Unfortunately I haven't been able to lower AP below 72 km without PE going below 70: I'm hitting the limit of timing accuracy, as the difference between 72 x 70 km and 71 x 69 km orbits is a single KSP clock tick or 1/50th of a second. Perhaps this can be overcome by lowering the engine thrust for the circularization burn, but for now this will have to do. The good news is that it is repeatable: Second run with the exact same KAL program.
  14. Excellent, nicely done! Very brave of you to forego a separate battery, but you had just about enough electricity for the mission, so well done indeed! With that you gain the top spot for the challenge for Category #1, Unmanned. Since I am not the OP I cannot edit their post to add your name to the scoreboard, I hope that's not too much of a disappointment. No problem, that sounds all too familiar. Nowadays, when doing challenge missions I capture video of the entire mission and select screenshots afterwards with my video editor. That saves me the hassle of taking screenshots during complex maneuvers. Maybe that would work for you as well? Im using OBS Studio and Shotcut, both are open source.
  15. You used the KAL-1000 in that build. Since the current challenge is from 2016 and the Breaking Ground expansion wasn't around back then, the only way to be able to use the KAL-1000 back in 2016 would have been via a parts mod. However, the OP has explicitly forbidden part mods: Therefore I judge your craft to be invalid for this challenge. And as a more general note: by now we are all acutely aware that you know how to abuse the KAL-1000 to over / underclock engine parts. Kindly stop spamming the forums. Henceforth you will assume that every old challenge includes the rule "no KAL-1000 overclocking or underclocking" even if it does not explicitly say so. If you want to build something that uses the KAL-1000 in a legitimate fashion, there have been no less than 4 challenges over the last week or so involving the part.
  • Create New...