• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

476 Excellent

About MarvinKitFox

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist
  1. Its old, but may I humbly submit my: It has a fall from Eeloo, no 'chutes, no wings, no functional engines. Minimal minor survivable damage on "landing"
  2. You start with a completely, utterly false premise, and go off over the horizon from that. (in effect, you are saying that you can reach a speed of 2350, by only speeding up to 1900) And no, the 175m/s of the surface rotation helps, but not that much. Good luck, 'cause you are stuck in a fantasy land.
  3. Actually challenge submission rules *require* one to compete in you own challenge, or at least submit a true effort to achieve the challenge.
  4. If you do want to reward Kerbal passengers, try Kerbals ^ 0.5 (square root of count of passengers) For 9 passengers, you would score 3 times For 100 passengers, you would score 10 times for my sillyness, 3523 passengers would score 59.35 times
  5. Single engine, go and make score , and return safely to Kerbin? Score as distance covered, and you get a 150% multiplier for each additional Kerbal score * 1.5 PER KERBAL PASSENGER!? Challenge accepted. Meet the Single-Engined Kerbal Vehicle, EXPLOIT 3 It starts on the runway, facing south, as it has extreme difficulty in stepping off the runway, plus the turning circle is about 30 times its length.. This is NO agile slinky! Who needs speed, who needs distance. This scoring system is ALL about passenger count. The EXPLOIT 3 is powered by a single mammoth engine, and carries Jeb + 3 fellow kerbonauts, plus 11 columns of 20 passenger compartments of 16 kerbal passengers each. Total passengers = 3 + 11 * 20 * 16 = 3523 paying passengers Starting on the journey. Fuel used = 4050. Fuel remaining = 83070 (4.6 percent fuel used) Distance covered = 10 km Know what? As I said, the important bit here is number of passengers, not distance. And seeing as this monstrosity runs on my potato at 5 second per frame (yes, 5 per frame, not 5 frames per second!), I'm declaring this as good enough My Score should be 10.75 km * 1.5^3523 = approximately 5e621 points
  6. By the current ruleset, any SSTO rocket that is adaptable enough to land on-target, can get an infinite score.
  7. Bah, who needs control keys. Its quite possible to build a ship that gets to orbit by just pressing space to launch, and walking away from it. That would be easier than trying to undo 40000+ hours of neural training to use W A S D Remember, that key combo has been with us in KSP, all the Elder Scrolls, WoW, Everquest, Doom, even CaterPillar on the zx-81.. we are talking DECADES of conditioning!
  8. Sorry about the zillion images, I've been at this for a while, it seems. Back in version .90, I build a Kethane-mining ship that could fly from anywhere, to anywhere. NoNo, that's not it. My fully-equipped Munar base, with multiple relocatable base units, uncrashable rovers and personal escape pods? How about the Modular 1.2 *million* ton orbital station? (image shows one of 15 modules, undergoing ground testing) umm, Solar ion glider? flying soccer city? ( Steam-powered Kerbin Circumnavigation? Lawn chair holiday to Eeloo? nope, thats not it either. I KNOW!!! Its my *Grand Experiment* on the Migratory Habits of the Octo-2!
  9. Ok, Ive done it. Start science only, a multi-tier wedding cake of Fleas with thermal-structural decouplers, and a **lot** of retries. Things I learned: *Structural member is a good decoupler, but a bit heavy. *Angled fins on capsule are essential for spin stabilisation during reentry, but they are a slight problem for rotational stability during launch. Adding a counter-angled fin one stage lower is not a complete cure for this. *If you spin rapidly enough, and you have an expended flea pointing into the wind, you can survive reentry just fine. (rapidly enough is on the order of 2000 rpm.. no idea how Jeb syrvived that!) *When using structural member for launch, launch *gently*.. A 9-tier wedding cake of a rocket will not appreciate the aero or gravity forces of a rapid launch. Disclaimer: The images in the album are representative, and actually sampled from many, many, many attempts. Sequence may be off. Max altitude is the best i managed to survive from. I reached much higher, but died due to non-reentry, or too steep reentry. Many Many deaths. so sad! Achieved: 859101.3m alt Achieved *almost* orbit.. After using allowed jetpack fuel, I was in a 859.1kmx61km almost-orbit.
  10. I still have to see even one entry that fulfills this ridiculous entry rule, none of the above entries do. Note : Be completely safe with redundant landing and abort systems. This means you need *at least* two separate, independent launch abort systems, and at least two separate independent landing systems, that are capable of functioning safely even if the primary abort or landing system fails. . To see if your vehicle is "completely safe", try this simple experiment. At 30 seconds after launch, switch the engine off. Can you safely land your passengers without switching the engines back on? If the answer is no, you have violated rule#4. Landed them safely? Ok, great! Now launch again, and switch off the engines at 30 seconds again. You may NOT use the same method for saving the crew. (*redundant* abort systems, remember?) Now land them safely, again. *redundant* abort and landing systems are very, very, very, very hard to do.
  11. NoNo. a Bunny-hop to 250km is not how you retrain Flattards! Launch them to orbit. THEN ask them how much they are willing to pay you to get them down.
  12. Conceptually, reasonably easy. A 3.6 ton ion drive rescue ship (that's mass in high Kerbin orbit, about 1000km!) Burn prograde with kerbin orbit, head out to the deeeeeeep reaches of space: 3600 m/s Wait 9 years to get to apogee. U-turn, 1830 m/s 9 years later, intercept Res-Q vehicle. Intercept requires 4200 m/s To return, you basically reverse the procedures.. 4200 m/s prograde burn. 1830 u-turn at distant apogee this bring you to an atmospheric meeting with Kerbin at mission time ~ 36 years, and a velocity of some 5.5km/s As my vehicle is nothing more than a command chair on an octo, on an Ion Drive, I chose to use propulsive braking rather than aerodynamic breaking. a messy 6000m/s of burn later, my pilot is safe in a 100x100 orbit around Kerbin. The launcher is a very simplistic thing, just a can and some 'chutes on a Vector. Serves as launch-to-1000Km, and also many years later as recovery-and-landing vessel. Below is the Rescue ship. busy dropping droptank 2 of 5. It is just about out of kerbin on its way to deeep space. And this is the sort of orbit you need to play with, to make the u-turn cost effective. Know what was my biggest obstacle? Getting the power needed for that single ion drive, while at 4x Eeloo orbit distance. it. Next time, I'll sacrifice another 2000m/s of delta-v (i've got plenty to spare, total load is over 26k), and go much less far out. And yes, maybe next time invest in some RTG instead, to heck with the cost! This one weighs in at 123846 cost, and masses 63.4 tons (of which 60.5 tons is launcher/lander)
  13. 300 or 400 should do. Also, remember to run your trip from Earth to Mars, not from Kerbin to Duna. Realism overhaul, including Real Solar System is a must. Remember to include TAC life support or something similar. No nukes allowed. No Ion drive allowed, unless you nerf them down to realistic thrust (about 1/1000000 of current game levels)
  14. OOH, landing speed, **MULTIPLIED** by max passenger count? Flying Soccer City My flying soccer city lands at 12m/s, houses 1841 kerbalnaughts, and uses only 60 parachutes. That should be good for 12 * 1841 - 6000 + 100 + 500 points? (16692 total) If this flying abberation qualifies, i will record a fresh set of images showing the safe landing etc...
  15. Ok, maybe I'm stupid, but I fail to see the challenge? Its just a Twin Boar, command seat, and Val. I fuel-cheated to fly it to orbit, then uncheated and landed it. Could have got it to orbit the hard way, but that didn't seem needed...