Ryu Gemini

That feeling when you realize ion engines are too annoying to put on an awesome looking cruiser. And when you realize you can't build a flyable aircraft to save Jeb's life (at least not for a while anyway). Speaking of. That time you discover you put the landing gear for an aircraft attached to a canard or similar fully-mobile wing surface. That one is fun. Particularly because you may well try fixing different things 3 or 4 times before realizing its those bloody canards dancing the wheels around that's causing it. And of course, there's that time when you get your mega-aircraft out and about. And then one side flames out a milisecond before the other and you enter an unrecoverable horizontal spin of death. Oh, and lets not forget the time we all tried to put wings on a Jumbo 64.

Here's something I found out. Put a pair of downward facing lamps on things you plan to land somewhere. They light up the area nicely, and additionally because the lights (unless you make minor adjustments) will point down at a slight angle, you can use them as a distance-judge if you are trying to land at night.

One way you could go for it would be to have three sets of wheels instead of two, each at a 120 degree angle from the other two. Or if you can afford a bit more weight, four sets of wheels at 90 degrees to each other. It wouldn't be so much that it can drive upside down, as it would be that it has 3 or 4 upright positions. .

Its something that does need looking at overall though. I mean, I can run my rocket at up to 4x warp when its raring up in the atmosphere, but suddenly when its actually safe and much smaller out in space, I can't warp faster then 1x while throttled up? I hope that's on the look-at-list.

I am reminded of the Pizza Delivery Challenge. Of course, the rules differed a little. .

Jeb and the KSC have always been looking for newer and better lifters. Naturally, by "better" they mean "able to lift more." However, some of the engineers have apparently been going on strike on account of suffering eye damage from having to weld together 500 struts in some of the heaviest pieces of equipment currently available. Thusly, they decided to enlist your help to design lifters that aren't composed of 1000 parts that have to be welded together. In a side dispute that may or may not interfere with the initiative, Jeb and Bob Kerman had an argument regarding the sensibility of using jets for a vertical lifting platform just the other day. A nearby engineer actually made things worse by constantly complaining about the stronger rockomax engine's annoying maintenance characteristics and overly loud noise. Long story short, much ado was said and done, and many kerbals present at the time got into the resulting brawl. Several of the kerbals apparently are serving as judges for this competition, so do be aware that size and simplicity aren't the only things being measured. Stock and mechjeb only. In fact, we strongly recommend mechjeb or a non-parts plugin that similarly tells you your current mass so you can see the final mass of your orbital object. If you lack any such tool, You must instead show that whatever you used as the "proof payload" does not have any fuel missing from it. Rules and such: You must get into an orbit in which the lowest approach to Kerbin is at an altitude of 100k or higher. Then, look at your vessel's mass after achieving this. Your end mass multiplied by your multiplier is your score. i.e. if you get a 60% multiplier (from, say, 4 +20%s and 1 -20%) and get 100 tons into orbit, your score is 160. Your multiplier is determined by what you see below, cumulative for all that apply. In other words, if you have a 650 parts, you incur both a -10% and a -20% penalty (and the reverse for a 350 part vessel). As mentioned above, some of the judges may still be cranky about minor details from yesterday's incident. Just think of it as some fun guidelines to follow. (for parts counts, if you by some odd chance are off by just one and have mechjeb onboard, you can pretend mechjeb isn't there) 500 parts or less. +10% 400 parts or less. +20% 300 parts or less. +20% 200 parts or less. +20% 100 parts or less. +30% Use more then 550 parts. -10% Use more then 600 parts. -20% Use more then 700 parts. -40% Use more then 800 parts. -60% Uses no Jet engines. +20% Uses a solid booster. -20% (sepatrons are not counted) Use no "mainsail" engines. +20% Use no rockomax-size engines at all. +10% Spent decoupled stages do not enter stable orbits. +10% Has docking ports, is capable of being refueled by other vessels. +10% Has not only docking ports, but also RCS systems and remains controllable for any duration. In other words, it can do the refueling itself. +10% Lower orbit (orbit is goes lower then 99km): -30% Functionality bonus: +10% or +20% or +30%. This does not have a "set" criteria, and is decided by the the space program executives. Things that will factor into this include whether or not the ship can serve as more then just a fuel bucket or an interplanetary tug. For instance, can it land on another planet? Can it get off said planet when done there? Can it do anything else particularly interesting? Note that for this criteria, it CAN make use of other vessels to accomplish them. For instance, it CAN be towed to another planet to land on and explore by another ship, and doesn't have to make it under its own power, and it CAN be refueled before it flies off to/lands on another planet under its own power. You will most likely be seeing 10s and 20s here. We will only award a 30 for something truly exceptional. If you qualify for this, we will mention when we update the scoreboard. Evidence of the functionality performing as intended is recommended. Technically, there is also: "Jeb is on board. +999%." As well as "Jeb is on board. -999%." But at that point we told them they were getting ridiculous and pointed an ion engine at them to scare them off. I love how superstitious they get about that thing. Hell, even Jeb gets freaked out by the thing ever since we put that dark flowing cloak on it. Jeb has also been eating a lot of garlic recently. We think he may be confused about which superstition he is supposed to be applying to the engine. But we're getting off track. You have the criteria. Let the games begin. One of the judges by the way insists that if Jeb is on board, that you place an ion engine somewhere he can see it. Main Scores: 1. tavert: 395.7 2. PolecatEZ: 245.6 3. m1xte: 224.8 4. Innuce: 109.8 Special Mentions for particularly interesting craft (qualitative): Optional challenge scores: Heavy-lifting Space-planes (scores calculated the same way as normal rockets): 1. Non-stock allowed (only balanced mods though): Please list the mods you used when you submit for this section. 1. Absolute heaviest lifter (lets see if we can get to a kiloton): High end comp may be necessary, scores for this are simply the tonnage you get up into any stable orbit. 1.

That raises a good question. What is the Kerbal equivalent to the parrot?

That... is quite lifty indeed. No bells and whistles isn't always a bad thing though. I mean, put too many bells and whistles on and you will get stuck with a ship that slows down your computer that much more.

I've messed with this a little too. Had to turn on noclip due to how rockomax boosters interact with decouplers, particularly when using symmetry mode (the same decouplers which you can easily put the smaller-but-same-exact-width boosters on). Other then that its pretty simple. I didn't even use launch pad stuff or structural struts. It does spin a bit and deform slightly during the first stage, but that could easily be fixed with a strut or two. It is capable of launching that little probe thing to planetary escape velocity quite nicely. I'll probably expand it at some point (at which point struts will likely be a must), but as it stands its already a solid boosting system. For that pun, feel free to aim your next rocket in my general direction. edit: Ah, whoops. Didn't realize there was such a taboo on old topic re-emergence. Well, its not like there are other topics like it, so not like there was much harm in saying hi to it again. I'm sure most of us have gone "solid-nutty" at one point.

You could use the flight avionics package if you just want to keep it stable. those strap-on-the-side engines tend to have good vectoring, so you could perhaps use a couple of the smallest ones for steering. Or possibly even an RCS-style configuration of the "ant engines" if you can get some controls set up for it properly. ...in fact, that sounds like it could work pretty well for things outside of this challenge. Not having to set up monopropellant for rapid turning would be pretty nice.

And I thought my pod racer was an insane idea.

A good idea. You often see ships for refueling stuff in orbit, but not many people put out a dedicated lander/base refueling vessel.

No, this is the spartan spaceship exchange.

Insane... or ingenious? Bigger planes must be made!

Indeed, I'm stealing that.

Indeed, I may be new but one thing I picked up from the forums was that you shouldn't expect to get off Eve.

If a ship starts behaving in an interesting fashion, I change its name accordingly. I currently am up to Explodes Pretty IV, and Tornado VI. There was also a What The Heck from when I decided to try to reverse engineer that canard bug, and apparently put way too many on (i.e. it would speed up uncontrollably and spontaneously combust within 15 seconds of liftoff, or if you did nothing it would just hover a few dozen meters in the air, slowly rotating and mocking the planet and its laws of physics). .

Made one. Went with the artistic approach more then the practical one though. Complete with "turrets" and "main cannons." Jeb, the current pilot, asks that you not let any enemies know I am using quotes. He also asks that you not let HIM know. He likes aiming at things. It does have some decent gear on it though. I had planned to just cheat it into space, but then I got caught up in playing around with launchers and eventually managed to build my biggest thing yet (and something somehow capable of getting it up there legit to boot). Oh, as for the main ship itself (i.e. the thing I built for this topic in the first place), it has 8 ion engines and a lot of solar panels. One of the "turrets" has a shielded docking clamp in its construction, along with two nuke power cores, but its on the underside and I seemingly missed it in my screenshots. Technically there are tiny docking clamps on the "cannons" too. The thing also has a second seat available in case you have some lost kerbal someplace it can go (if that kerbal doesn't mind waiting a LONG time). I should probably name it the Lag-o-tron Lifter. Seriously, it gives me an even lower frame-rate then that Ultimate Refueler design I found on the forums a couple days ago. Damn stable though, considering what its lifting. You almost don't need to turn on the SAS. That may be due to having like a 100 strut connectors keeping it together. And about twice as much duct tape. Its really just as well that I put a launcher on. That final stage actually adds a little more versatility to that ship while it still has fuel. And technically, you can fire the ion engines without damaging whats behind them, due to their low thrust, so you could just fly it to a fuel station and refuel both types of fuel when you need in that configuration. Now if only I knew how to intercept something else's orbit... I should probably look at some tutorials or something on that. Or download Mechjeb. Or just launch a few hundred of them at random until one manages to get close. Ion engines are rather power-hungry. Especially if you have 8 of them. And don't worry Jeb, they aren't ACTUALLY powered by witchcraft. Ion engines are actually powered by the souls of kerbals whose rockets exploded on the pad. ...I was kidding, Jeb. Relax. The rear after detaching the last rocket stage, and only on ion power now. Think I should tell Jeb that I built that ship on an indian burial ground? .

Sorry, what does FAR stand for? As I mentioned, I don't know much of anything about the infiniglide bug other then the fact that it seems to favor canard wings in some way, and that the couple videos I saw of it involved spinning or barrel rolling a lot. So I also don't know specifically what avoids it.

We, the Society of People Who Hate Overly Noisy Rockets, are tired of the Kerbal Space Center constantly launching their gigantic, noisy rockets! We are trying to get rest and you whippersnappers always go about ruining that day in and day out. Especially when they randomly EXPLODE right over our home. From what we hear, there are quieter (and less explosive) engines out there. I don't care if they ARE some form of voodoo witchcraft, anything is better then waking up to giant orange shards of metal splitting our building in half! We thusly submit to you a challenge that even if difficult, should be possible. Create an aircraft capable of flying as far and/or high as possible, using ion engines only. Aside from initial boosts which may be provided by other sources up to 1km (rockets, carrier craft, rover wheels, whatever). I mean, it may just be impossible to actually do the take-off itself with ion alone. For rules/challenge points, lets see. As said, you may use any power source to get the thing into the air to begin with, as long as that source is out of the equation before you get up to 1k height. You may use mod parts (a better electrical power source comes to mind, like a bigger nuclear generator or wings that have solar panels built into them), so long as they are balanced. Try to minimize whatever effects are involved with that glide glitch too, if that is still present. Further challenges if you want extra kudos. 100 pts: Use only stock parts 1-50 pts: Get to 1k altitude (stacks). So basically, if you reach 23k, you get 23 points. Yeah, that means you can get a point for just boosting yourself up to 1k as allowed, but its easier this way. 25 pts: Get into stable circular orbit of some sort. +25 more pts if you can actually bring some sort of "useful" payload with you and deploy it. 50 pts: Actually take off from the runway using nothing but ion (I mean, it probably is impossible but may as well make it a challenge). Why do we think its possible? Because of this scrapheap we threw together, which is capable of ALMOST doing it. And by scrapheap I mean a "wow, I stopped making planes that noobish and inefficient after a half dozen or so designs" level of unrefined scrapful wonder. So basically, its an unrefined, likely inefficient scrapheap that also only uses stock parts to boot, and yet it is ALMOST able to stay straight level at low altitudes. And while I don't know the deal with the "infiniglide" glitch or whether it still exists, the design doesn't use any of those canards people always mention, nor am I spinning the thing around or anything during the flight. The design as shown below basically is: batteries, ion engines, a LOT of those 45/min nuclear generators, a "first stage" of a small tank, rocket and some sepetrons (a stage that reminds me of a wasp's abdomen section), a pair of pairs of wings, a lot of small 6-way cubes that are a pain to deal with, and a bunch of connector struts. Yeah, not the prettiest bird out there. And laughably made of over 200 parts, many of which are modular cubes and nuclear generators. If you are wondering, "thunderbird 1" was basically the world's most expensive electric car. No really, considering the "cost" of ion engines, these things probably cost more then most of your top 3 most expensive creations put together (well, unless you tried to make an ion plane before).

My first and laughable mistake with spaceplanes... It was three crashes before I decided to look at a stock one and go "(facepalm) Oh, I need to actually add the landing gear! Duh!" Interesting to note that without such gear, they just sort of skid along a bit before veering off to the right.