Jodo42

Members
  • Content Count

    394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent

About Jodo42

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,536 profile views
  1. I look forward to your improvements! Good thing there wasn't a Kerbal onboard
  2. It seems like every time I complete some big mission, the landing on Kerbin is always in some extremely mountainous region, threatening to destroy my pod in what should be the easiest part of the mission. I guess the curse struck you this time instead of me! Epic mission. I really hate going to those 3 bodies in particular- I don't like small gravity wells and high inclination- and I can't imagine going to all 3 even without direct ascent. I did a Dres landing recently and it was a huge pain to get it down safely because it was so top heavy; my lander was probably half the height of yours! This is pretty much a textbook mission according to my vision for this challenge. I was getting worried because so many people were asking exactly what the rules meant and there were so few submissions, so I'm very glad you got it figured out so well. For anyone who's unclear on how your mission should be set up, please reference this post. One big lander whose upper stages sequentially transfer to, land on, and re-orbit other planets. Congrats cantab for 265 points! That puts you at the top of the leaderboard. You really earned the badge! (if you chose to use it
  3. 66.1km. Still no clue what my velocities or altitudes should be. Double tailfins was a bad idea.
  4. There needs to be at least 1 stage per planet/moon. You need to land the entire mothership whenver you land somewhere. Once a stage of the mothership is empty you can decouple it. If you have a mod in mind let me know, but the challenge is intended for Stock+DLC's only, in terms of engines/capsules/etc. Mechjeb is fine. You get 1 launch. No shuttles. If you could show me what you mean by this it would be helpful, but the answer is probably no. No. No. My submission (which you can see under the badge) only went to Mun and Minmus. Martian Emigrant only went to the Mun. No, because of Rule 9.
  5. If you look at the "scoring" section of the original post, there's a spoiler you can click that has a table that has all the point values for the planets and moons. Your goal is to land on as many planets/moons in 1 mission as possible. Right below the badge I have an example mission showing a Mun+Minmus mission. The Mun lander carries the Minmus lander down with it since the landings are supposed to be done in series. Another example might be a Duna+Ike mission. The Duna lander would have the Ike lander as its upper stage, and the Ike lander would stay attached to the Duna lander during the Duna landing. Once you were done with the Duna landing stage (leave it on Duna or take off with it to burn up remaining fuel), you decouple the Ike lander and fly it to Ike and then home. If you wanted to do 3 landings, then when you landed on the first planet/moon in your trip, that lander would have to carry the 2 later landers down with it as well. And so forth. I hope that answers your question. A grand tour would indeed be extremely difficult, but there's a lot of ways to get more than 400 points, though they're all quite challenging.
  6. Beautiful rocket and especially lander. You didn't have your resources tab open but the rocket is pretty clearly legit. For just a Mun landing you get 36 points. Welcome to the leaderboard!
  7. I hate building or flying planes of any kind anywhere in KSP, and I know almost nothing about watercraft in this game. Sounds like the perfect challenge for me. Inspired by the famous Cessna Caravan. 13.9km. Improvements/redesigns to come.
  8. If it's good enough for Gagarin it's good enough for me! I look forward to seeing submissions soon.
  9. You may find these "advanced" delta-V charts useful. They're ancient, so take the numbers with a grain of salt, especially the atmospheric ones, but for what it's worth, I found them to be quite accurate for my short Mun-Minmus mission.
  10. One: Definitely not. It must be in series. Sorry for not making this clear but that's basically the whole idea of the challenge, you have to carry all of your landers with you wherever you go (making it hard to go very many places without heavily optimizing each stage). If you're planning a Jool 5 and your first landing is on Tylo then the upper stages of your Tylo lander need to be your Laythe, Vall, Bop and Poll landers (and any transfer stages you need). Two: Stock props are fine, and, along with Breaking Ground rotors, are strongly encouraged for anyone attempting a Jool "landing." I know this isn't what you were intending but I also wanted to point out that "fake" stages that exist solely to satisfy Rule 5 or are otherwise in bad spirit are not allowed. An example of this would be an Ion lander that someone would take to Gilly, Bop and Pol that has 3 stack separators attached to cubic octagonals radially attached, that are staged right before each landing- ie the only thing that's changing before each landing is that 1 stack separator is being removed from the craft and nothing else. Don't do that. Decoupling events need to change how the ship operates in some meaningful way. I realize that's ambiguous but hope people get the basic idea; if not just ask. Three and Four: Yes, I should have clarified. Especially since I'm using them in my own submission I should also clarify that just a Jool "landing" won't earn anyone a badge. That was an oversight on my part, especially now that helicopters are more feasible. If I thought a Grand Tour + Jool was possible in the serialized, no ISRU nature of this challenge, I'd probably award the badge for that. But I don't think it so, so a Jool Six would be fine for the custom badge. Will update the OP. If somebody does a Grand Tour + Jool in the serial style... who knows. I'll make a donation of $100 to the charity of their choice.
  11. Hmm... sounds perfect for a Kerbal-sized universe! If you've been playing KSP for very long, you've almost certainly completed a direct ascent mission already, perhaps without even realizing it. Most people's first Mun/Minmus landing are direct ascents, unless they're specifically looking to recreate the Apollo architecture that actually flew. That's because it makes a lot more sense when the scales are so much smaller. But what if the player's mission is more dV intensive, or requires multiple landings? Even in our pocket solar system, Apollo-style architecture (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) and even LKO assembly (Earth Orbit Rendezvous) are often used. What if the player chose to pursue more challenging missions using their earliest design ideology- direct ascent? This challenge dares you to answer that question! Simply put, land on as many bodies as you can with a single stack- decouple only when you're done with a stage- no docking! The formal rules are below: RULES: 1. No cheating during the actual mission. Cheating during testing is fine, but you should not be using F12, Hyperedit, or any abusive mods during the mission showcased in your screenshots. 2. Part clipping should generally be kept to a minimum. Do not clip in ways that don't make sense. Girders inside girders is fine. A fuel tank inside an engine inside a fairing is not. If you're not sure, ask BEFORE you start! 3. You get 1 launch. Reverts/quicksaves are fine. 4. Do not interact with a stage after you have separated from it in any meaningful way. Don't dock to it, don't catch it in some bizarre girder mitt and have it push you, anything like that. This is the crux of the challenge- one single stack. (Radial components and decouplers are fine) 5. You should have at least 1 decoupling event between landings. Don't have 1 lander land on 3 different planets, even if it could. Think of it as landers on top of landers. Don't make fake stages just to satisfy this rule. 6. The Kerbals must be able to walk around on the surface (ie plant a flag) once landed anywhere. Wouldn't be much of a landing if you couldn't get out and kick some dust around! 7. Your difficulty should be on Normal or harder. 8. You need to return all Kerbals you launch on the mission safely back to Kerbin in the rocket they launched in. 9. The vehicle should have at exactly 1 Kerbal on board at all times except when landed on a planet. 10. No ISRU. 11. I'm keeping this a stock challenge for now. Both DLCs allowed. Any mods which don't affect the mission are allowed. If you've got a mod in mind that you really want to use let me know and I'll check it out. SCORING: Scoring is based on the following chart. Simply sum the points from every body you successfully land and return from. Points are very roughly based on dV requirements. Your score is out of 1165 (a Grand Tour minus Jool). Highest point value mission wins. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: Your submission should either be in the form of a series of screenshots showing significant events during the mission (staging, trajectory planning, landings, etc) or an edited video of the mission. Please keep video submissions under 15 minutes unless absolutely necessary (if you're going to more than 4 or 5 bodies, longer videos are fine). Your resources menu (fuel, EC, etc) should be visible at all important moments. You should also include a picture of your craft in the VAB with dV/TWR stats showing, either via stock or a mod's (KER/MechJeb's) windows. Craft files are welcome but not required. Screenshots should have captions describing what's going on, videos should ideally have annotations or voice overs. You can grab this nifty badge to put in your signature: Here's my submission so you can get an idea of how this works: https://imgur.com/a/hBuTB2O Mun and Minmus so 36+24= 60/1165 or about .05. Shouldn't be too hard to beat! LEADERBOARD 1. cantab- 265 link 2. Martian Emigrant- 36 link
  12. SRBs are fine. If a design has both a crewed command pod and a probe core, you can submit to either category, although "Crewed" would probably make more sense. Sure, that's fine.
  13. A long, long time ago, in a KSP far, far away, I made this challenge. 6 years later KSP has a ton of entirely new parts and features, completely revamped wheels and much prettier visuals! I thought I'd return to this simple concept for KSP 1.7. The goal is simple. Create a vehicle which can reach the highest speed possible, and then come safely to a stop, all on the KSC's runway. The rules will be more or less the same as last time, but there are some significant changes: 1. At least 1 part must remain in constant contact with the runway during the entire duration of the run. Don't fly. 2. The vehicle must come to a complete and final stop with at least 1 part still in direct contact with the runway. 3. No bugs, cheats or exploits. Sorry K-drive people. No wildly unrealistic clipping; clipping an engine into a girder is fine, clipping a fuel tank into a fuel tank is not. 4. Your total part count must be less than or equal to 100. 5. This is a stock challenge. DLC parts are fine but may receive their own leaderboards if there's sufficient interest. Mods which do not interfere with the run are fine. 6. The vehicle should remain intact throughout the entire run. No decoupling events or rapid unscheduled disassembly. Again, if there's sufficient interest, there may be a leaderboard for vehicles which break these rules, but they should still be 100% reusable. 7. Manned vehicles must use an enclosed crew capsule of your choosing and not a command chair. You must either include at least 2 screenshots for your run to be considered, one of the vehicle at its spawn point and one of the F3 screen showing its top speed and lack of in-flight events, or a video of the run. Include your resources screen in these screenshots. Video submissions are preferred. Craft files are also welcome but not required. Here is my submission: 283m/s in the manned category. Note that I'm missing the resources window being open. Please include that in your submissions. WINNERS CHARTS Manned: 1. Jodo42- Runway Runner, 283m/s 2. 3. Unmanned: 1. 2. 3.
  14. My first interplanetary mission with Kerbalism, as well as my first interplanetary mission in about a year. The following is a detailed play-by-play of a relatively simple crewed Duna flyby mission. You might want to read the bigger slides but unless you want the nitty gritty or some nice pictures feel free to focus on the summary below. https://imgur.com/a/1n8Pmf5 Altogether I have mixed feelings about this mission. There were surprisingly few mission-critical failures for a ship of over 300 parts on the longest inner-system mission (unless you count Jool, which Heart of Gold is in theory capable of doing from a purely resources-oriented point of view), none of which were high quality. Regardless the mission would have been greatly jeopardized had Bill not come along, with two engine failures (one of which was not shown) and treadmill failures in the Hitchhikers. I'm definitely going to opt for high-quality parts for my next mission. If my ships are to survive multiple interplanetary trips intact they'll need to be highly modular and highly redundant, along with high-quality parts usage. In these regards, Heart of Gold did well. Heart of Gold also demonstrated the viability of using Docking Port Jrs for large orbital construction. This ship was rock-solid the entire time, folks. No wobbling at all. That's in part due to the multitude of ports used (there's 52 on board! only 28 are used at a time though) and in part from rigid connections and auto-strutting from advanced tweakables. Overall I'm very happy with the ship's structural strength. Unfortunately, Heart of Gold had a few glaring flaws which greatly impacted its future usefulness. Roughly in order, from minor to major: -The use of structural tubes may have increased the strength of the ship, but it also prevented some repair jobs once the mission was underway. Although only probe cores were lost on this mission, there's a lot of redundant reaction wheels in those tubes that can't be replaced and that provide a lot more torque. In addition, stuffing all the gas tanks inside a tube meant that refuelling O2 and N2 once returned to LKO was basically impossible without more mods (unable to right-click the tanks for transfer). In the future my service modules will probably be girder based with radial tanks mounted externally. Pressurized tanks don't experience failures (yet), so future service module designs should be reusable for many missions, until their solar panels fail. -The mission's science return was quite low because the Heart of Gold was not equipped with any dedicated science module. I initially decided against the inclusion of such a module because I wanted to include it on my eventual lander, which would fly autonomously to Duna, perform high space science, and rendezvous with the cruiser (Heart of Gold) in LDO, where a scientist could reset the instruments. I think my next design will attempt to include a science module that will only have one or two ports, allowing it to be picked up by the lander during rendezvous and carried to the surface and back. That'll also let us do some solar science. -Low quality parts. As discussed earlier, not as big of an issue as I was expecting it to be, but a permanent AJ10 failure would jeopardize higher delta-v missions like a Jool flyby and also require replacement upon return to LKO. Going forward, all engines and cabins will be made high quality. I'm not too worried about antennas, RCS, solar panels or reaction wheels; all are easy to make highly redundant. They'll be made high quality whenever the budget allows, but not viewed as a priority. -Radiation. The big one. Going into this mission I was expecting to be hit by one storm tops. 4 storms in under 3 years was a huge shocker and very nearly got my crew killed. For now I don't see any way of fixing this with changes to the ship. The entire hab module was coated in 20mm lead; the only thing that could offer us more protection would be active shielding, but that would only decrease the amount of radiation we accrue in between storms rather than during them. A sickbay seems to be the only real option here, but we don't have that unlocked. Until we do, we'll have to make changes in mission design to minimize radiation. That includes the elimination of flyby missions, which keep us in interplanetary space and outside magnetopauses for much longer than orbital missions do. Planets with strong, wide magnetospheres may need to be prioritized over those without. A high altitude Jool orbital mission, beyond the outer belt and inner moons, may be a suitable target, as would a high Moho orbit. An Eve landing would be ideal. All of these missions are quite high in delta-v, however, making them more challenging in other ways. Dres is out of the question. Radiation more or less completely excludes the possibility of using a gravity ring to reduce stress on long-term missions due to the lack of shielding; I may attempt to use it to construct orbital stations within strong magnetospheres that the crew could wait in until they need to perform their ejection burn. It would still need supplementary shielding from other parts, though. For all these reasons, and because of the part failures incurred during the Duna flyby, I decided to deorbit Heart of Gold at the conclusion of this mission in favor of a new cruiser design. I'll probably target an Ike/Duna orbiter next, or perhaps a Gilly/Eve orbiter. Until then. Oh, one more thing only marginally related: certain parts provide extra comfort to the crew through bonuses. For example, the cupola gives panorama, and the gravity ring gives firm ground. IMO, greenhouses should give a bonus for fresh produce. Being able to eat fresh fruits/vegetables/mushrooms that I'd grown myself would certainly be better than eating freeze-dried, reheated, artificially steak-flavored tofu every day for 3 years. I realize the quality of astronaut food has advanced dramatically over the decades IRL, but it would be nice to incentivize using a greenhouse ingame even if it's more mass-efficient to use supply containers. I realize it might be difficult from a coding perspective to make this bonus only apply when the greenhouse is actually working, though.
  15. Does Kerbalism remove biome-specific EVA reports from LKO? I'm just getting "EVA Report from Space Near Kerbin" instead of "EVA Report from Space Just Above [biome]." It also seems like many EVA reports like high and low atmo are just completely gone. Do forgive me if this is now vanilla behavior; it's been over a year since I've played KSP. Another quick question: why aren't my kerbals dying once electric charge runs out? How much time do I have in general? Thanks for everything folks.