Ekku Zakku

My boat ended up going over half the mountain there somehow lol, but you should be fine so long as you're staying north of those hills. Then again, with the recent terrain update for Kerbin, idk what that area looks like now XD

Yup haha XD I've been wanting to do something with a group in KSP for a while now, and this seems more interesting than anything else I've seen so far, I just hope I will have the time for it with school and work lol. My workload should be lessening though, so we'll see how that goes XD

I'm not great at coming up with stuff, but I'm generally pretty good at figuring out if something will be good or bad. I'll see if I can help at all in that way =3

AmpsterMan gets my vote, I voted for him in the preliminary vote as well. It's something that I would have made, given more time =3 For Xeldrak's, love it, but even as you said, it seems a bit edgy for a trainer. Antbin's, probably my second choice, but I don't like the adapter fuel tank as it is like somebody else mentioned. I hate flat edges like that, even though you did pull it off well! The rest: too much clipping, but I do like Mulbin's design.

It's still a thing so long as people want to do it! If you've got the time for it, we'd love to see you try and succeed XD I've already circumnavigated without refueling, pretty easy. All you need to do is figure out your average speed, divide the circumference of Kerbin by that speed to give you your travel time, then calculate how long your engines will run with the amount of fuel you have (throttle your engines up to full and look at the fuel drain per second in the resource menu at the top-right) and then add fuel (and maybe engines to keep up the average speed) until you have enough fuel to make the whole trip. Example: 130 m/s average speed = 468 kph circumference of Kerbin = 3770 km (I add 430 km to make up for not travelling in a straight line, so make it 4200 km) travel time = 4200 km / 468 kph = 9 hours basic jet engine uses .3 units/s according to the wiki (but you should calculate your actual rate in-game) let's say 3 jet engines uses ~1 units/s of fuel, so if you average 130 m/s, 9 hours being 32400 seconds, you would need 32400 units of fuel to make the journey. Of course, this can be optimized by adding stages (I had 6 pontoons of fuel and engines that I ditched as they ran dry), but it makes calculating much more difficult. At least, that's how I calculated that my boat would make the trip XD I'm excited to see that other people are taking on this challenge even way after us first two people (I think ever) made the trip =3 I was the second ever, but the first to do it without refueling. It's a journey that I think every hardcore KSP player should do, it's so rewarding when you finish! Just make sure to have all the fuel you need on the outset, you REALLY don't want to have to do it twice lol

Definitely going to be following this as well, seems really cool! =3

Sirine wins the challenge, simply because we would anger the Gods of Chaos if we did not chose his entry as the winner. In all seriousness, WTF!? XD

Well, I've gone through about 4 majorly different designs with at least 5 revisions each and didn't come up with anything I really liked (not to mention some of them flew more poorly than I knew could even be made in KSP!). I learned from this that I struggle making anything that looks good, flies well, and is simple when it comes to small craft. I could have easily gone into lots of part clipping and used all of my VAB/SPH knowledge, but since that isn't in the spirit of the challenge, I'm accepting defeat here XD maybe 3rd time's the charm for me. I know I'll do better with larger planes, since there's more area to work with, but this one I can't do in such a short time! Good luck to all the contestants who have some design sense and actually got something submitted XD

AS17-140-21370HR -Photo from the Moon!

Not as brilliant as an actual ejection seat (which mine will have) >w>

Actually I agree with Rhomphaia, the Ravenspear series are more for the extremes; high altitude for Mk1, suborbital high altitude testing for the Mk3, and low altitude high speed for the Mk4. The Aeris 3a is at the very top of the list of stock crafts in alphabetical order, so it's even the one most newbies look at first and is the easiest to fly. It's even described as the "training craft" for Kerbal pilots.

Not if you just keep it simple! KISS rule applies here lol, I just came up with a reasonably nice looking plane around my standard ejection seat design, and it didn't take me too long XD

Sorry, saw Texas in my search and had to post this XD

It seems like everybody is looking over Xeldrak's lander lol, it's easily the most "stock" and most simple lander out of all the entries.

Thanks for posting this! I follow all of the SpaceX launches, but I like watching other launches too when I get the chance. I wouldn't have known about it if it weren't for this thread lol

Nice Killing Floor reference there! I've been hooked on that game for God knows how long XD also, interesting landing design to always land right way up, I like it! Might use it in the future as well

I voted for MiniMatt's design as well, but Xeldrak's lander is also very much what this challenge is all about and would have gotten my vote if he had a better picture of his craft that I didn't overlook because it was so dark and at a mediocre angle. Sorry, that was my reason XD I wish I had voted for it though, it greatly resembles the two-stage landers that I used to make back in .16; I had a bit of nostalgia after I really looked at the design (and unfortunately after I had already voted). If it makes it past the primary election, I'm definitely going to vote for it with my final vote. Going back now, I wish I had gone for simplicity like my old two-stage designs that I used back when I was a beginner at the game, it definitely would have made more sense and I wouldn't have run into the problems I did with the design I went for. Oh well! The one reason why I don't like MiniMatt's design though is how the descent stage breaks into 4 pieces, I always avoided that when I made two-stage landers. I feel like the descent stage should remain as if untouched, for future explorers to see and be reminded of their predecessors. Also, another reason why I wish I had voted for Xeldrak... =P Good luck to everybody =3

Unfortunately I ran into a couple of unfixable things with my lander, so I won't be submitting it (it's just not going to be usable by anyone =P), but I will submit some pictures later so you guys can enjoy the concept =3

Below is a preview of my submission (I won't get to finish it until tomorrow, my girlfriend really wants to Skype right now and watch Doctor Who lol). I just need to put some solar panels on and maybe a battery or two, and sort out the rest of what needs to be sorted so I know it'll fly when other people use it. The ascent stage doesn't have much fuel, because it's so hard to fit it under the command pods due to the design. More details on that when I submit it tomorrow XD

Meanwhile, I've come up with a very interesting and unique design that I'm really excited about, although it's not without its own hurdles. I'm still trying to sort out some small annoyances while also trying to get it into a flyable state; it's a very difficult design to work around.

Oh man, YES, I've been wanting to do one of these challenges since I saw the last one, gonna start working now XD

I really would love to start over again; a good portion of the thrill is gone for me now, simply because I can do anything I want in the game. It's no longer a challenge! I'm a pretty smart cookie, it really wouldn't take me long to get back to where I am now, so I would be perfectly fine with it and most likely enjoy it! Are there any psychological studies on deleting memories going on right now? I'd love to participate lmao

Of course the reaction wheels are intended to spend electricity, that's kinda the point; it's an improvement to the previous "magic force" that was implemented long before electricity was, which didn't spend any electricity until the latest update. It only makes sense, and I thought it was kinda obvious just from reading the patch notes (which EVERYBODY should read btw, it really saddens me when people get confused or upset with something that was changed in an update, simply because they didn't spend 5 minutes to read the patch notes). Also, the chase camera in atmosphere was there ever since chase camera was put in the game, but it was given an incorrect name or was bugged somehow and was "Orbital Camera" or something instead of "Chase Camera" (thus why you probably thought it didn't exist in atmosphere until recently). I guess they fixed the naming issue in a recent patch. The more you know!

HA, YES!!!!! The Reliant Robin flies! Erm... How well does it fly, exactly? And can it actually land? p.s. I freaking love Top Gear

I actually wanted my first moon landing to go badly so I could rescue the stranded Kerbals, but nope, everything went well and they were fine XD I leave that down to watching YouTubers playing KSP before I started playing lol. I caught on quickly! I'm a smartypants =P