Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'challenge'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 233 results

  1. Welcome to the... KSP Stock Prop Design Challenge! The aim of this challenge is to create the coolest looking stock prop designs you can! Your plane will be judged mostly on appearance and as such, speed and performance won't be judged very harshly; as long as it flies, and flies well enough it's okay (though good performance is always good to have). The goal of this challenge is to create a plane that fits both the requirements and aesthetics of what a contract of your choice says. The contracts will range from 1920s-30s biplanes to post WW2 superprops. There will be no definitive winner to this challenge, but aircraft I especially enjoy will have a spot on this original post. Please lay out your submission like this: [Contact No. XY][Generation (biplane, ww2 etc)][Manufacturer name/author(s)][Craft name][Description][Pictures (max 3)][Download link (preferably on KerbalX)] Guidelines/Rules 1) Unless otherwise stated in the contract, the plane must fly only with stock propellers. 2) The Design MUST be original and NOT a replica. 3) Stock designs only. DLC is not allowed. 4) Part clipping/craft file editing is allowed. ----- The Idea The idea for this challenge was blatantly ripped off HB Stratos' and Servo's Original Jet Fighter challenge. If you've stumbled here but aren't a fan, or don't know how to make props, visit their challenge instead: Major thanks to HB Stratos for letting me actually make this challenge even it's literally the same thing. ----- The Contracts Biplane Era ----- WW2 Era ----- Postwar Era --- Hall of Fame! (no one's submitted yet!)
  2. Welcome to the KSP Original Design Competition, brought to you by @Servo and @HB Stratos! The Idea Servo came up with a challenge for his own to build an original design for each jet fighter generation. I was inspired by this and in collaboration with Servo we made background information/guoverment contract for each jet plane generation. The Contracts 1. Generation 2. Generation 3. Generation 4. Generation 4.5. Generation 5. Generation 6. Generation Few rules Part clipping is allowed Craft File Editing is allowed Stock craft only No Making History Expansion How to win I can´t really say there will be a definite winner, but I will probably make a video on my YouTube channel featuring the 3-5 best aircrafts of each generation. How to submit your Planes You are allowed to submit as may planes as you want, but just one is also fine Template for submitting stuff, coupy this and replace with content to contribute. [contact no. xy] [generation] [author(s)] [craft name] [description] [pictures (max 3)] [Download link (if possible KerbalX)] HB Stratos over and out
  3. Johnster_Space_Program

    Extreme Career Mode Challenge

    Hello! I have a new challenge that I would like you to try called Extreme Career Mode! As it sounds, its like a hard career mode but more extreme and difficult. So far I've only done suborbital flights in the extreme mode, but I will try orbital flights soon. The 2 most important things you need to get in this custom settings mode in extreme career are funds and science. Here are the settings you need when starting a new career to attempt my Extreme Career Mode: Re-entry heating: 120% Starting Funds: 5,000 Science Rewards: 20% (1/5 of the normal science you'd get) Funds Rewards: 30% (About 1/3 of the normal funds you'd get) Reputation Rewards: 30% (About 1/3 normal reputation you'd get) Funds Penalties: 300% (3x average penalty) Reputation Penalties: 300% (3x average reputation penalty) Decline Penalty: 4 (Bigger losses if you decline a contract) As you play through this challenge in career and attempt it, tell me below how its going (via pictures or a reply)! I will also update you on how i'm doing in Extreme Career Mode as well, I hope you try it! Also, like Iso-Polaris said, I recommend you do this challenge with these mods, to make it more fair/balanced:
  4. Original challenge by @keptin First thread of this challenge by @Mjp1050 Kerbal Express Airlines is in need of updating its aging fleet of regional jets and turboprops. It's a big client, operating at hundreds of airports around Kerbin, and that means big fleet sales. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job? Kerbal Express wants profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes. The Rules: KSP version 1.3/1.4 compatible Stock parts + Airplane Plus + Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (optional - and no, we can't include some other mod you suggest, sorry. If we did that it would be hideously complicated) Making History Expansion is NOT allowed, due to it not being freely available to everyone. TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it. The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots. Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them. No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only. You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories. Electric propellers are allowed providing the power comes from fuel cells. Minor clipping is allowed, within reason. A rolling runway takeoff is required. Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water. Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.] Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered. 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet category What is a variant? To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and emmpanage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission. What Kerbal Express Air Wants, By Category: For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude. Seaplane Must be able to land on and take off from water and land Range of at least 600km Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s 16+ Passengers Turboprop Range of at least 800km Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s 24+ Passengers Small Regional Jet Range of at least 1000km Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s 40+ Passengers Small Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 180 m/s 56+ Passengers See 'Hopper Information' below. Medium Regional Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s 72+ Passengers Supersonic Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s 40+ Passengers Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 210 m/s 104+ Passengers Jumbo Jet Range of at least 4000km 152+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Super Jumbo Range of at least 4000km 800+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Hopper information: Hoppers are a class added more recently than other classes, a hopper is judged very differently. A hopper is an aircraft designed to be very compact to save space in big inner cities, where land can be absurdly expensive, while ferrying passengers out of the city. (hence a short range is okay, range above 400km is largely unnecessary for hoppers.) Climb rate should also be maximized, to clear skyscrapers. Judging Criteria: Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from Kerbal Express Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later) How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements Cost of Aircraft Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude Ease of maintenance; fewer parts and fewer engines are preferred Passenger comfort How to Submit. Your post must include the following: The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me. The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.) The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the Kerbal Express Airlines executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional). ========================================================================== The Judges: @panzerknoef @neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy @NightshineRecorralis @no_intelligence (Judge of last thread) @1Revenger1 (Judge of last thread) @Mjp1050 (OP of last thread) Challenge Submissions Seaplane @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-24 - A very high performing, albeit pricey, seaplane. @Samwise Potato's SF-A232 "Lupin" - Deceptively powerful and high-performing, and can take off and land from just about anywhere. The Lupin has all the qualities we're looking for in a seaplane. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Wanderfound's Kerbski - It's a fast, and fairly good flying boat, but it costs a fair bit. @TaRebelSheep's Kessna T-170 - It's very small, but safe and very easy to fly, and it's cheap. The cockpit seats two, so it's an ideal training aircraft. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI K-38\52 - A safe, fast float-plane that flies well, is comfortable and cheap, and it has a very long range. @CrazyJebGuy's K-61\a - A cheaper version of the K-38\52, carries more passengers, but the new passengers have an unpleasant ride. @Haruspex's K57D Tern - The seaplane variant of the successful land Tern, but it's a bit of a let down, being much more expensive, slower and now with a short range. It sacrificed all the things we liked about previous Tern planes, so that it could take off and land on water. @Andetch's ADX Type G - It needs a huge runway to take off, and on landing it can easily kill half the passengers, so it's limited to sea only, where it is average, which is not good enough to justify only being able to land on water. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Dragon Series - Very large seaplanes, the small ones fly fairly well but when they expanded it they didn't add engines, so the larger ones perform badly. It's a prime example of expanding a plane done wrong. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series - It's high maintenance and uncomfortable, ruling it out for economy and luxury routes, and the pontoons fall off, but once they do it makes a great land plane, and so we bought some of the cargo variant. @hoioh's Skikull - It looks very old, and it's very slow.But it is very comfortable, and it makes a good short range island hopper. @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-16 Splashy - It's really pretty average, excepting the range and price. It's quite cheap, but the range does not meet the 600km requirement. @Samwise Potato's SF-A116 Tulip - It's tiny and very cute, it looks almost silly, but trust us - it is not a silly choice for a seaplane to buy. @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 - Looks 80 years old. None the less, lives up to our standards well, except it costs a small fortune. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Long - It's just a Skots Medium but we told you it can land on water. That's the only difference. Turboprop @Eidahlil's Dusty Turboprop - A dirt cheap but surprisingly fast design, and it gets the job done. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-12 series - Inefficient and insanely unreliable. Not recommended unless the engines are replaced. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 300 series - Very hardy, and can take off and land on just about any surface. @GDJ's AVRO Prop-Star - Very solidly built, comfortable, with a surprisingly long range. @AeroGav's "Fulmar" Turboprop - An aircraft with some puzzling design choices, but ultimately a wonderful turboprop with a long range and easy takeoffs and landings. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic - Offers good performance and a very appealing exterior. This plane is also quite large for a turboprop. @panzerknoef's Bx-1/2 "Shoebox" series - Very inexpensive and they do get the job done, but you'd better be a good pilot because the Shoebox lacks functional windows in the cockpit. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-32 (and 24) Regional - Well rounded aircraft, in almost every way. @panzerknoef's CL-2-RRE - A fairly standard turboprop. Slow, but climbs and accelerated very fast. Perfect for short haul smaller routes. @CrazyJebGuy's PAT Postman and Stubs - Very cheap, very fast, and uncomfortable. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220 - A dirt cheap but very capable turboprop, can even take off from water. It would make a solid fleet workhorse. Improved off of K-210. @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 - Engineer one: "Hey, you know how they buy good planes?" Engineer 2: "Yeah?" Engineer 1: "What if we made it not like that?" @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1 - A tiny plane, performs like heaven, climbs and flies and turns like a dream. Unfortunately has an abominable range of just 250km! @JosephKerman's WCT BJ-1 - Very small, very fast and with a very, very long range. A bit uncomfortable though. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI TurboXL Classic C - A cheaper Turbo-XL Classic, a bit slower but it has fixed a few issues and has a range of just 760km. @HamnavoePer's CNRE-458 - The drop-tanks are a novel idea, but it doesn't seem like the tech is quite there yet, and it's too slow. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 - At only $10 mill it is very cheap, it is very versatile and can act as a flying boat, while cruising at 300m/s. Unfortunately it has very poor cockpit visibilty. @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) - It's meant to operate off of bad airfields and rural areas in the wilderness, and would be really good for this, if it didn't tail strike so often. @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra P - A cheap, speedy plane. Unfortunately it is a bit tough to fly, and it has a short range. @Andetch's Chalduro - It's got an insanely long range, but it is very difficult to fly. Would recommend if your pilots are very skilled. @TaRebelSheep's AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer - Utterly bizarre, and has odd handling, but it's actually a decent turboprop. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32b - A really good plane, fast maneuverable comfortable with no faults we could see! Even a bit cheap. @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech CAL- 4 - It's really not very good.... Except for comfort, which will provide good advertising material. @HamnavoePer's Keinheim Passenger Transport - Mediocre turboprop, but it can do stunts! Small Regional Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A very fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a supersonic jet. @tsgaerospace's SP-32-1 "Arrow" - An absolute delight to fly, and quite reasonably priced. The Arrow has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @dundun92's URJ-101 - A well-priced, 4-dimensional aircraft that defies all known laws of physics. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32 - Offers wonderful performance, but at the expense of Kerbal comfort. @aerodis's AerLeeker 3.6 - Offers a comfortable and smooth ride, but is quite expensive. @Cabbink's Alice - We're not entirely sure what this is supposed to be, but it does make for a very versatile, if expensive small regional jet. @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft NEO - Unique in looks and above average in all other categories. The Starcraft NEO has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 400 series - Offers a neo-futuristic aesthetic and wonderful performance all around. Except on landings: it bounces. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Thor Wotansen's Nomad - This aircraft is a decent regional jet, but it can also land and take off near enough anywhere, even the sea. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32-200 - It is uncomfortable and expensive, but it has a range that would put most Jumbo jets to shame! @valens's EK-4e Teal - A fairly long ranged, inexpensive machine, it's a solid choice for a small regional jet. @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper - Very very expensive, very slow, and it is powered with a nuclear reactor. But it has a practically unlimited range. @Haruspex's K57A Tern - " A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit." @TaRebelSheep's B3 Lance - High capacity, long range, very comfortable aircraft for an average price. It's a strong contender certainly. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Small - Jack of all trades, master of none, and it's expensive. Also looks like it was built 80 years ago. @NightshineRecorralis's Dash Series - They maneuver very nicely and are comfortable, just really good planes; unfortunately they are a bit pricey. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32 - Really good range and comfort, bit above average price, but let down by poor handling. @sdj64's Bluejay 32 - A pretty typical, but very practical design, for a fair price. Would recommend. @1Revenger1's SPP-1a/b Phoenix - A really odd plane. Two cockpits, both mounted on top in a weird way, and wings that are normal until they extend all the way back. Very poor maneuverability, but it has a crazy long range. @alric8's Cathiogac 2.- A classy, yet ordinary and cheap aircraft. Bit slow. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Kalcing - Capable of going up to 322m/s with a great range saves this from being just another mediocre SRJ. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper - Outdated, but there is one model which can produce it's own fuel. @shdwlrd's Monarc P4 - Expensive but classy with a very long range. Medium Regional Jet @SuicidalInsanity's IA-720 - Offers an innovative design at a reasonable price. The IA-720 has all the qualities that we're looking for in a medium regional jet. @logman's Kerman Dove - Unreliable and very unsafe: it's not uncommon for the rear cabins to be destroyed on landing. Avoid this plane. @logman's Kerman Stingray - Very solidly built, reliable, and handles wonderfully. Hampered only by its large price tag. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-62 - Sturdy and reliable, but suffers from a large price tag and low fuel efficiency. Its exterior is reminiscent of designs from 50 years ago, too. @Bombstar10's Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B) - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-72 Medium - A bit expensive, but powerful fast and comfortable. @Gaarst's Kerbalespace C-1K - An expensive, but reliable and luxurious passenger liner. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-20 - It's comfortable, but it's slow, and it's quite cheap. Would recommend. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Medium - Uncomfortable, but turns well and has a long range. Expensive though. @FleshJeb's Klonkorde - It's a pretty good plane, very long and sleek, but it's not extremely cheap. It is though, very pleasant to fly in. @panzerknoef's Lassen - A pretty standard medium regional, it can take off from small runways and flies pretty well. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 100 Series - Nice looking, well built aircraft, but it comes at a steep price. @sdj64's Goosewing 80 - A modern looking design, a dream to fly, but it's not so good at passenger comfort. @no_intelligence's Kombardier 200 - Cheap to maintain, long range and good fuel economy are nice, but don't outweigh the fact flying it is a suicide mission. Supersonic Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a small regional jet. @Bob_Saget54's SAI Concorde Mark II - Very fast with a long range, but suffers from an inferior airframe and high maintenance costs. @TheEpicSquared's ISSJ-40 - Blindingly fast, inexpensive, and high-performing, but sacrifices some Kerbal comfort. @shdwlrd's Hope series - Very fun to fly, and is just plain cool to look at, but suffers from a high fuel consumption. @reachmac's Karvo 370 - Handles well, but requires a larger runway than most airports currently have. Not recommended unless the buyer is absolutely sure the airports can support it. @Laie's Sonic - This thing can basically fly itself, it's that stable in the air. Maintenance costs are high, though. @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit - Insanely difficult to control, and the landing gear is insufficient for such a large aircraft. Not recommended. @Eidahlil's Potato - Understandably difficult to fly, but offers good Kerbal comfort at a low price and enough range to circumnavigate the planet. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @HamnavoePer's Zoomer - It deserves the name. A compact, fast and reliable jet, done on the cheap. And it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice on one tank of fuel. @panzerknoef's Dotsero - A very cheap Supersonic, it's competent, and very cheap. Many seaplanes cost over double the price of a Dotsero. @MostExcellent's 2707 - A well rounded versatile supersonic jet, we like this. You couldn't go far wrong with these. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Speedmaster - A fast, long ranged, but very uncomfortable, expensive, over-engineered, and very inefficient design. @HamnavoePer's Delta II - It's a great plane, but it's absurdly expensive, and not the best at passenger comfort. @SpacePigeon's Rapid 1-100 and 1-200 - Flies very low, by supersonic standards, even floatplane standards! Would not recommend for flying over populated areas. @NightshineRecorralis's Pegasus - A decent supersonic, but it climbs very slowly. Although when up there, it's a long ranged luxurious liner. @panzerknoef's Lassen B - It was a decent medium regional jet, but then they made it into a high capacity, long range fuel efficient SST and we like it! @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 - BOOM, WHIZZZ, AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! THUNK! @Jimbimbibble's Daxworks Lightning Cruiser - A well made plane, exactly what a luxury supersonic jet should be. Fast, and reasonably comfortable. @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 - A flying pancake, it's very uncomfortable but it's a nice airshow plane. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 - A very cheap, very fast and comfortable plane, it's a solid workhorse. We would absolutely recommend it. @Samwise Potato's SF-S240 Marigold - It's got a crazy long range, and is pretty well rounded. Would recommend. Good workhorse. @notsodeadjeb's PBY Katalina - It's a supersonic, INCREDIBLY long ranged float plane. Unfortunately costs a few pretty pennies. @qzgy's Kramer - SSTP-34 Benirshke - Long ranged, really good plane, sadly very expensive. Also they somehow managed to create a randomly powerful pitch control. @AtomicSnails's FF-Shockcone - A decent SST, it's very versatile and can fill a fair few different roles. @Samwise Potato's SF-J240 - A supersonic powered by wheeslies? What magic is this? Good magic, that's what. @panzerknoef's Arenal - A practical well balanced aircraft. But what does it look like? The only picture has it covered in sight obscuring flames. @no_intelligence's Kupolev KU-100 - Decent plane, comfortable but a bit slower than most of its supersonic competition. @Magzimum's MAD TF-3a Swift - It's cheap, has spectacular range and great mileage. @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4 - Expensive to buy and operate, but comfy safe and fast. Only worth considering for 1st class flights. Jumbo Jet @Andetch's Day Fury - It's very fast an maneuverable, but with a range that is easily exceeded by seaplanes, and it takes off at very high speed. @NightshineRecorralis's Challenger Seaplane - A bit lacking at everything except being a HUGE FLYING BOAT. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Skots Mouse - Somebody added wings and a few jet engines to a ship, and it's cheap. @NildimensionalString's Winter Tech Humpback Superheavy Passenger Airliner - It's expensive, slow, short ranged, will probably explode and it's obvious why the original company who designed it went bankrupt. @sh1pman's Keladi Corporation Albatross II - It has very long range, and is generally pretty good, but it comes with a steep price tag. @Cols's A797 - It's slow, handles poorly, it climbs slowly and has a very short range, but it's dirt cheap, so we bought 3. @AeroGav's Screehcraft Grande Dumbo - A wonderful plane, it's luxurious, flies like a dream, but it's expensive. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI GP-1a - This jumbo carries cargo too - apart from that it just looks odd and is otherwise fairly normal. @Andetch's X Series Night Fury - It's a really big fighter jet with passenger cabins, and a short range by Jumbo standards. @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super - Hard to fly, very short range and expensive, but with comfort and luxury straight out of the golden age of air travel. @Not sure's B-1337 Swift Moon - A very unpleasant, loud airplane. It costs a lot of money. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 250 - A fat version of the 100, carries more passengers but with a shorter range and it can tail-strike if you aren't careful. @macktruck6666's L-1011 Jumbo Jet - It's very expensive and doesn't perform well, but it does have luxury seating! @Kneves's WH-04 - A short ranged, very hard to fly thing, it needs a tremendously big runway too and we will not buy any. @Bombstar10's Grizzly ST - 3 Civilian - It costs an arm, leg 4 fingers and a left toe, for a plane that is guaranteed to explode, it is slow and uncomfortable and is absolutely, undoubtedly the worst plane we have tested. So far. Yours could beat it and be King Krap. @TaRebelSheep's Trifecta Aeronautics C5 "RePurpose" - Only 140 seats, but there's a lot of space in the cargo bay to pull a Skots Economy, so it's a jumbo anyway. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Ratt - It's slow, but fairly good at all the other stuff, except price. Super Jumbo @NightshineRecorralis's Colossus - It's flipping massive, 1152 passengers, gets off the runway like a turbo-prop, flies like a cruise ship. @CrazyJebGuy's Sky Titanic - A wonderful idea on paper, but in turns the wings fall off and everybody dies. Other @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Cool Corporate Jet - Not sure to have a meeting or an air show? Now you can have both at once! Wunderwaffe* @qzgy's Kramer Starmachine - No windows, supersonic jumbo and passenger cabins are upside down. Please someone review that plane I made by super-gluing one of Niestridlar's jets to one of my own. It's the very epitome of this section. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper Scout - It can produce it's own fuel. Isn't that nifty? *Not really but this is for special planes that remind me of some of the mad German stuff; this section is for weird and wonderful things that may or may not work. How your Plane will be judged This information is only accurate for my reviews, it is however pretty close likely to other reviewers. We will not modify your plane in any way, except action groups sometimes and in flight controls. (Such as changing the braking slider on a landing gear) To get a good review from me, your plane should have most of these qualities: -Be cheap, at least per passenger -Fly well -Be reasonably fast -Have a long range -Be a comfortable plane to fly in (I explain this in detail later) -Be reasonably fuel efficient -Not hit the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing -Be safe (important), doesn't need to be overly good at it, just needs to not spin itself out of the sky or have the wings fall off or something With comfort, three things are taken into account, noise, vibrations and views. Noise is essentially how close an engine is to the cabins. Vibrations is affected by structure a bit more, but distance is important too. An engine mounted directly to the back of a cabin is very bad for vibrations, or if it is mounted on side. If there is a lot of parts in between them, vibrations are probably not an issue. Views are less important, we don't deduct marks for them, but if it's good it will help a craft's review. This thread was started because OP of previous thread went away, and we needed to update this. Any and all suggestions to improve this challenge are welcome.
  5. NASA recently landed its InSight probe on Mars to study its interior. Tagging along behind are two CubeSats intended to record InSight during its landing sequence, and to act as a relay while the already-in-place Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is out of position. So, onto the challenge! This is my first time running one, so please let me know if anything seems unclear or whatever. Leaderboard Stock Parts Rank 1 @Xurkitree 57 points bonuses: +20 for lowest mass (2345 kg), +20 for lowest cost (24,775), +7 for science @Johnster_Space_Program 40 points bonus: +20 for lowest dV usage (3425 m/s) @PrvDancer85 10 points (console) Rank 2 @RogerC 111 points bonuses: +40 for lowest mass (108 t) +40 for lowest cost (82,534) +1 for Ike flyby @Ultimate Steve 30 points Rank 3 @Will-ferret 106 points (console) bonuses: +1 for Ike flyby, +45 for full mission recovery @Death Engineering 89 points bonuses: +29 for flybys of Ike, Dres, Jool, and Tylo @The Aziz 60 points Rank 4 Modded Rank 1 Rank 2 @sturmhauke 30 points Rank 3 @Kerbiter 61 points bonuses: +1 for Ike flyby Rank 4 @dire 528.4 points, qualified by concurrent DOMA mission bonuses: +80 for lowest mass (678 t) +80 for lowest cost (685 k) +268.4 for science Allowed Mods And Other Rules Your submission should include screenshots or video demonstrating each important phase (launch, transfers, landing, science transmission, flybys, etc.). For Rank 2 and up, you must use CommNet at the default settings. Part of the challenge at higher ranks is to demonstrate the ability to build a network. Note that at Rank 1, you still need an antenna capable of transmitting science data back to Kerbin, even if CommNet is disabled. Please note whether your entry uses stock or modded parts. No FTL or other super advanced or exploit-based propulsion (kraken drives etc.). No HyperEdit or other cheats for anything related to scoring (ok for testing or additional infrastructure unrelated to mission objectives). Autopilot and other flight assistant mods (MechJeb, Throttle Controlled Avionics, etc.) are ok, but it must be possible to fly all craft manually. The intentionally terrible VTOL craft in the TCA intro video would not be allowed, for instance. Planet packs should not alter the stock planets' parameters, for scoring purposes. If you are really enthusiastic about GPP or whatever, maybe we can work something out, but I'm not really familiar with those. Other mods allowed, as long as it's not too outlandish. No refueling. ISRU is allowed if you are attempting some sort of Jeb madness (see below). If you are playing for bonus science points, you may not use labs, contracts, difficulty settings, or other means to multiply the science gathered. Only default points from experiment + body + situation count. Primary Objective (Rank 1) Build an unmanned lander capable of reaching Duna's surface. The lander must include a thermometer, seismic accelerometer, and negative gravioli detector. It must also include sufficient solar panels and antennas to transmit its data back to Kerbin. The lander must be launched into LKO with a rocket, and then use a transfer stage to get to Duna. Secondary Objective (Rank 2) As above, with the following changes. The lander only needs enough antenna power to reach Duna orbit. Build two identical mini-satellites, with sufficient relay antennas and solar power to extend the comm network to the landing site. These mini-sats must be launched together with the lander, as a single payload. Once reaching LKO, the lander and mini-sats must all travel independently to Duna. The mini-sats' trajectories should be arranged such that they perform a flyby of Duna at the correct time and place for the lander to transmit its initial data to one or both satellites. Bonus Objectives (Rank 3) Ahead of the main mission, launch a Duna Reconnaissance Orbiter satellite. It must be launched via rocket and reach Duna orbit ahead of the lander, and have sufficient solar power and relay antennas to extend the comm network to the landing site. It must also carry one or more experiments suitable for unmanned orbital science (your choice). Extend the mission of the two mini-sats. Put experiments on them and collect more science, and/or flyby additional bodies. Jeb's Objectives (Rank 4) Do something insane. Build a Duna colony, send 100 kerbals, use an SSTA, I dunno. Impress me. But whatever you do, you may not use any additional launches; you have to piggyback on the main mission launch or the DRO launch. Additional Objectives (Unranked) Retrieve the lander and/or mini-sats at the end of the mission. They can return under their own power, or you can launch a recovery mission, at your discretion. Compete on science, mass, cost, and dV usage. See the scoring list for details. Scoring Most scores are based solely on the entry's individual performance. Some are competitive scores, and can only be earned by one entry per category. These will be marked. +10 points for Primary Objective +20 points for Secondary Objective +30 points for DRO objective +40 points for each feat of awesome insanity successfully completed (involvement of Jeb optional but recommended) +10 points for tiebreakers in case of similar feats from separate entries (competitive, granted up to one entry per similar feat) For additional flybys of mini-sats (must still reach Duna in time for Secondary Objective) scores loosely based on flyby dV as calculated by Alex Moon's Launch Window Planner +1 point for Ike +7 points for Mun or Minmus (+8 for both) +9 points for Dres +11 points for Eve +1 point for Gilly +14 points for Jool +5 points per each Joolian moon +15 points for Eeloo +20 points for Moho Additional Bonus Scoring +15 points for safe retrieval of lander on Kerbin +15 points for safe retrieval of mini-sat on Kerbin (+30 for both) +(total science gathered / 20) points (please include a screenshot of starting and ending science points) +(20 * highest rank attained) points for lowest total launch mass (competitive, granted to one entry per category) +(20 * highest rank attained) points for lowest total mission cost (competitive, granted to one entry per category) +(20 * highest rank attained) points for lowest total mission dV used (please include screenshots of KER, MechJeb, or similar to demonstrate dV used) (competitive, granted to one entry per category) Badges full size:
  6. Hello Fellow Kerbonauts, We know from the Impact the Mun challenge that it is possible to fly to and crash something on the Mun in a mere 12 min. This is a great first step towards adding boosters to stuff in order to go fast, but only shooting the Mun isn’t that useful, right? This challenge aims at proving that our rockets can be fast and useful. So for this challenge, you’ll not only need to reach the surface of the Mun as fast as possible, but to also bring a rock back to Kerbin as a proof you got there and to demonstrate the scientific relevance of adding moar boosters. Rules : Depart from KSC Reach the surface of the Mun Take a surface sample Bring it home Your place on the leaderboard depends on your mission time when the sample lands on the ground Challenge ends on the 28/02/2019 at 00h00 UTC (just one month; how handy) Not limit on the number of boosters used (obviously) Rockets or planes, It doesn’t matter Undock/dock as many times as you want Launch as many vessels as you want, but the timer starts when the first vehicle takes/lifts off and ends when the sample gets to the ground (show METs on the tracking station screen if you used multiple vessels) Land, bounce or lithobrake on the Mun, as long as you manage to take a sample and bring it back Only the surface sample has to make it to Kerbin’s surface (but the Kerbal can land as well) No Kerbal should be armed in the process, though. This includes the command chair; no prolonged use, not in harmful environment. The surface of the ocean is part of Kerbin’s surface We need the sample (mostly) intact for the science we’ll get from it, so smashing it on the ground doesn’t count if whatever contains/carries it gets destroyed/killed No fiddling with the cfg files, hyperedit, Kraken exploit, etc. Stay fairplay. Latest versions of the game only (when was the last aerodynamics update? 1.0.5?) No DLC engines or fuel tanks Pictures are good, videos are good(er). In any case, make us understand and enjoy. Multiple submissions are allowed. Mods : If you used any, provide the list Stock aerodynamics Stock engines and fuel tanks Modded fairings and wings are allowed Nothing that messes with the physics engine Ask the permission to use anything else than mods that blatantly do not interfere with the challenge (RemoteTech is OK, Alcubierre drive is not OK) Awards : Precision delivery : Have the sample landing next to the KSC facilities so that our scientists can start analyzing it as fast as possible. Relay race : Bring the sample back with a different ship that the one which brought your Kerbal to the Mun Sepratron : I like the separation (who doesn’t?). Use sepratrons as a significant source of thrust in your design to please me and earn this award. Full throttle : Do it the most kerbal way and maintain full throttle for all the duration of the mission (with empty stages for the landing?). It probably is not possible and certainly is not reasonable, but I know how crazy some people are. Vanilla addict : Stock and only stock. No mod award. Temporary leaderboard (last edit : 04/02) : @Laie - 1h 19m with a good amount of boosters and an interesting packaging design. (Prev. time : 1h 30m 43sec) Rewards : No pics, no submits Nice badges like this one : I will make some with medals and awards when I find the time. Feel free to recommend other awards if you think of any. Same for rules amendment if I missed anything. Also, if anyone else feels like remaking/improving the badges or making medals, please go ahead, I’m not that confident with Gimp Photoshop. Fly fast!
  7. Landing and return for once, something really satisfying, but usually not so challenging, because of small lazy rockets to get there, however, since it's quite easy, it's possible to land on a certain body for at least TWICE, TWICE the ascent, TWICE the landing and TWICE the re-entry. Rules : -No Docking. (except if your PC cant handle a Mun and back 2x vessel) -No ISRU. -No Trivializing Mods (mods that make it trivial), structural Mods are welcome. -Have screenshots of important moments. (Videos are welcome) -NO CHEATING (Debug menu or Hyperedit or such). -Seabed landings are fine. -No external seats (except if you have a good reason for that). -All versions are welcome, all details will be listed. -No vessel recovering, except when you're done, but you need to land on Kerbin before another launch. This Challenge was inspired by : The Gamer Alchemist, Hazard-ish and @Stratzenblitz75 and also @EvermoreAlpaca Links : Mun and back twice. Mun and back 3 times (probably cheating, but still good). Duna and back 3 times (The Gamer Alchemist). Duna and back 3 times (Stratzenblitz75). Eeloo and back twice. LIST OF SUCCESFUL ENTRIES (ONLY KERBAL FORUM USERS THAT ARE MENTIONED) Rocket Division (Vertical launch, ISP up to 800) : -@Stratzenblitz75 (Duna and back 3 times, used an IMMENSE full chemical beast that also visited Minmus during second mission, Video up there) -@GRS (Dres and back 2 times, Album here) Spaceplane Division (Horizontal launch, ISP at least 800 except RAPIER's closed cycle mode) : -@EvermoreAlpaca (Eeloo and back 2 times, used an small-ish ion SSTO with a "seat in service bay" Video up there)
  8. "The future of Kerbality is going to bifurcate in two directions: Either it's going to become multi-planetary, or it's going to remain confined to one planet and eventually there's going to be an extinction event." - Elon Kerman Duna Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge Those baleful words spoken by Elon Kerman at a recent event featuring his latest rocket design inspired the Kerbal Federation to fully support an effort to establish a continuously Kerballed outpost on Duna. In order to accomplish this goal, Elon Kerman has offered an unlimited supply of his company's latest heavy lifter, with some restrictions and requirements. The basic requirement is to land a minimum of 4 kerbals on Duna before Year 5, Day 1, and then to develop and implement the mission architecture for a permanently Kerballed outpost on Duna before Year 10, Day 1. There is already one prototype of the heavy lifter on its way to the VAB and will be ready with payload for launch pad roll-out on Day 40. New lifters will be delivered on a regular, fixed schedule. Excitement is high for this endeavor but in order to keep hardware contractors satisfied, achieving certain mission objectives will benefit the campaign's public opinion and ensure the rocket supplier will continue to provide new lifters beyond Year 10 Day 1. Rules Launch Vehicle The lifter is of your design and must not vary throughout the challenge. This lifter is referred to as the Standard Launch Vehicle (SLV). All mission hardware and all fuel used for interplanetary transfers must be launched using the SLV. The only exception to this rule is for ferrying crew to Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO), which is defined as Apoapsis between 75km - 180km. Ready to launch lifters with installed payloads are prepared based on design and determined by Nominal Payload Mass (NPM). The NPM is the maximum payload that the SLV can deliver to LKO, without using any fuel of the payload itself. A payload may be used to perform final orbital insertion, but payloads cannot be deployed or activated until above 70km. Launch pad SLV roll-out rate is calculated as: NPM * 8 for non-reusable or NPM * 6 for reusable designs. For example, a reusable SLV with a NMP of 30t will have a 180 day delivery cycle. A non-reusable SLV with the same NMP will have a 240 day delivery cycle. In order to qualify as "reusable", recovered launch stages must have comprised of at least 50% of the vehicles original lift-off mass (including payload). Recovery of spent stages can be passive or active but must be demonstrated successfully at least once. There are no fuel transfers from the SLV to payload. Payload fairing is not part of payload mass, unless it leaves LKO. Any part that leaves LKO is NPM. Any type of shuttle can be used to deliver crew to LKO and there is no limit on how many crew shuttle missions can be launched, however only crew may be launched on these missions; no fuel or any other supplies may be transferred on crew launches. Habitation/Life Support Habitation: Any crewed mission exceeding 10 days will require extra habitation space for the crew to work and maintain their senses. This means short trips like launches to LKO, trips between Duna's orbit and surface and brief excursions on Duna's surface do not require any extra space. However, trips between Kerbin and Duna and long-term stays on Duna's surface will require extra habitation space for each crew member. Crewed mining, rescue/contingency missions in Kerbin/Duna/Sol orbit also need habitation space if their missions exceed 10 days. Habitation space is modeled by providing one extra kerbal seat for each kerbal. For example, a long term mission with a crew of four will require a vessel with seats for eight Kerbals. Life Support: Any mission exceeding 10 days will also require life support supplies. Life support supplies can be modeled with stock parts by using the Ore resource. If life support is modeled in this way, supplies (Ore) will need to be included in the SLV launches. None of the Ore that is designated as life support can be utilized for ISRU production and any Ore harvested for ISRU cannot be used as life support. Ore (life support mass) should be jettisoned as it is "consumed". Life support mass for each kerbal is calculated as: 0.04 Ore / day / kerbal. This means for a typical transfer from Kerbin to Duna with four crew will require 45 units of Ore as life support for the journey. Life support includes electrical needs. For stock, any module that lands on Duna or Ike require three days of power to survive the night if using solar power. This is modeled in stock by having a minimum of 2400 EC units on board or using fuel cell/PK-NUK generators with minimum output of 2.2 EC/minute. EVA limitation: The EVA suit has a maximum of one Kerbal day (6 hours) of life support. A Kerbal exceeding that is counted as a fatality. Alternately, any mainstream life support mod can be used to manage life support/EVA limits and electrical needs. For reference, the mass value for Ore equivalence and EC needs are based on "TAC Life Support" values. Mods that render Kerbals "inert" (i.e. "DeepFreeze) as an alternative way to move crew around effectively turn Kerbals into cargo: Crew in this state do not accumulate "Mission Value" points. Crew in this state do not count towards requirements for the "Interplanetary expertise" achievement. Freezer pods (parts that store the Kerbals) do not count towards any Achievement or as Habitation space. Mission end rules All SLV missions that are launched before Year 10 Day 1 count towards achievement points. As long as the SLV/payload is launched before Year 10, Day 1, it is part of the 'implement' step of the primary goal, but that mission must be successful in order to earn the achievement. (Note, there is a handy Duna transfer window on Year 10, Day 20). All Kerbals on the surface of Duna on Year 10, Day 1 must be returned to Kerbin (or be returnable) safely in order to earn their Mission Value points. ('Over-stressed crew' 4 year rule applies) You may "play it out" so that all kerbals are safely recovered, or demonstrate that they can be returned safely, but either way no kerbal may be stranded. Document your 'mission architecture' in a post describing the launch schedule beyond Year 10, Day 1 which will keep the outpost active. Other rules Any nuclear/NERVA engine that is launched cannot enter either Kerbin's or Duna's atmosphere at any time once it has been activated. This means that any vessel with a nuclear engine that has been activated cannot aerobrake or land/disposed of at either Duna or Kerbin. Nuclear propulsion modules are required to use propulsive or gravity assist captures at Duna and Kerbin. (Kerbals are already green enough.) The continuously Kerballed outpost requires a minimum of two kerbals on Duna at all times after the initial landing of four Kerbals. If a Kerbal is left at the outpost alone (for any reason) for more than 10 days, they suffer 'Over-stressed crew' penalty. A Kerbal may be left alone at the Outpost without suffering from "Over-stressed crew" penalty, as long as there is another Kerbal within driving distance. This rule can be ignored once "Contingency Plans" is achieved, permitting the outpost to be remain 'crewed' by one Kerbal. The outpost may be comprised of one or more modules and may be located anywhere on Duna's surface. Not all modules need to be occupied, but there must always be at least one kerbal on Duna after the initial landing. ISRU can be used on Minmus, Duna or Ike or with asteroids. All ISRU missions must be part of the SLV launch schedule. Any balanced mod is acceptable. Please list all part/gameplay mods used. Game difficulty settings: 'Enable Comm Network' ON, 'Re-entry heating' 100%. Advanced settings: 'Part pressure limits' ON, 'Part g-force limits' ON, 'Kerbal g-force limits' ON. External Command Seats do not count towards habitation space and cannot be used for landing or launching on Duna/Ike or for interplanetary transfers. Rescue/contingency missions may ignore this rule, but any crew utilizing a command seat to land on or launch from Duna/Ike will void their score for Mission Value. Over-stressed crew penalty: Crew member resigned from KSC due to stress. Any crew receiving this will suffer a 50% Mission Value penalty. If you look carefully on the EVA suit label, it has the warning "Must be not be used for atmospheric flight!". If a Kerbal is subjected to atmospheric flight (excluding EVA thrusters, jumps, etc.), they suffer 'Over-stressed crew' penalty. Vacuum-only use is fine. Any kerbal fatality for any reason will void that kerbal's Mission Value score. Extraplanetary Launchpad and other extra-Kerbin / orbital construction mods are prohibited. All parts and spacecraft must be launched from Kerbin. Stock alternate launch sites are permitted. "Basic rover": A rover that utilizes external command seat(s). "Pressurized rover": A rover that uses crewed module parts for crew quarters. "Contingency Plans": Complete achievements "Backup plan", "Duna Space Station", "Duna Space Bus", and "Positive uplink". Note that the spacecraft for each achievement must be unique, or for modular designs must remain viable, at all times. Primary Scoring Mission Value: Based on how many Kerbal-days spent on Duna before Year 10 Day 1 (eg. two kerbals on Duna for 100 days equals 200 kerbal days on Duna). Calculated as: ("Kerbal days on Duna before Year 5 Day 1" * 2 ) + "Kerbal Days on Duna from Year 5 Day 1 until Year 10 Day 1". Four-year rule: Crew members need to be recovered on Kerbin within 4 years of being launched or receive the 'Over-stressed crew' penalty. This rule can be ignored once "Contingency Plans" is achieved. Mission Efficiency: Based on how much Mission Value can be earned per launch. Calculated as: Mission Value / total NMP value of all launches. Note, this is not the accumulated payload mass of all launches but simply the NMP of the SLV * number of launches before Year 10 Day 1. Achievement Scoring Note that the spacecraft for each achievement must be unique, or for modular designs must remain viable, at all times. Crew safety (add all that apply): Interplanetary expertise: All crewed interplanetary missions have at least two crew on board. (+1) Backup plan: Duna outpost has a backup ascent system to return all kerbals to Duna orbit separate from the primary Duna ascent module. (+2) Emergency Evac: if the 'Backup plan' ascent system is utilized with any kerbal on board. (+3) *Note any kerbal(s) on board during the Emergency Evac will suffer the 'Over-stressed crew penalty'. Mission robustness (add all that apply): Duna Space Station: Place a space station in orbit around Duna. The space station must have room for minimum of 3 kerbals (Habitation rule applies). (+1) Duna space bus: Deliver a fully reusable shuttle service to Duna that can ferry at least four crew between Duna's surface and Ike's surface (refueling permitted). (+2) *Provided missions do not exceed 10 days, 'Habitation space' rule does not apply. Deep space transit: Implement a fully reusable crew transfer vehicle that can complete a Kerbin <-> Duna round trip without refueling (either direction). Must be capable of carrying a minimum of 4 crew. (+3) Science value (add all that apply): Deep space laboratory: Duna outpost must include at least one Science Lab module. If 'Duna Space Station' is scored, it must also include a Science Lab module. (+1) Early mission prestige: Safely return at least two kerbals to Kerbin's surface from a Duna mission before Year 5 Day 1. At least one of the crew members must have walked on either Ike or Duna and return a surface sample with them. (+2) Biome diversity: Return surface samples from at least five of Duna's biomes. (+3) *This can be done all at once or separate. If scored, "Early Mission Prestige" sample does not counts toward the five. Advanced mission objectives (add all that apply): Kerbin space station: Using SLV launch(es), place a space station in orbit around Kerbin. The station must support at least 4 kerbals and may be used as a staging platform for crew to and from Duna, although not required. (+1) Positive uplink: Place a minimum of three relay satellites in orbit around Duna and one around Ike. One of the Duna satellites must be in polar orbit. This also requires Advanced game setting 'Require Signal for Control' ON. (+2) Advanced deep space transit: If 'Deep space transit' is scored, it must support a minimum of 5 kerbals and refuel only in Duna SOI (travels from Duna -> Kerbin -> Duna without refueling) (+3) Surface Mobility (add all that apply): At least 50% of the Duna crew have access to a seat in a Basic Rover during their outpost surface mission. (+1) Every crew member has access to a Pressurized Rover seat. (+2) The outpost is land-mobile/Pressurized Rover (Habitation rule applies). (+3) Negative Publicity (add all that apply): "Can we do this?" Less than four crew land on Duna before Year 5 Day 1. (-1) "We will never forget them.." For every kerbal fatality for any reason (-1) each to max of (-5) "Perhaps we should make cookware instead" More than 5 kerbals are lost (deduct ALL but 1 Achievement point) Outpost Success Rating You have taken on a mammoth undertaking and have earned your retirement on the Duna outpost! Adding all Achievement points: 29-30: The outpost delighted the Federation with your exceptional achievement. Your retirement will be luxurious! 26-28: The outpost succeeded...extremely well. You can now retire in elegant estates! 24-27: The outpost succeeded. The Federation is pleased by your efforts. You will live comfortably! 19-23: The outpost was a success. You have met the minimum standards set by the Federation, but your life will not be easy! 14-18: The outpost survived...barely. You will be living in tents. Few supply ships will come your way! 8-13: The outpost failed...The Federation will no longer send supply ships. You are on your own! 1-7: The outpost failed...dismally. The Federation debtors' prison is your new home! "You need to live in a dome initially, but over time you could kerraform Duna ... So it's a fixer-upper of a planet." - Elon Kerman Helpful info and links: Thanks to @Mad Rocket Scientist for this planning spreadsheet. Plug in your SLV's NPM and watch the magic! Thanks to @michal.don for developing these great timelines (.PDF) which present easy to read launch window and transit information. The Alex Moon Launch Window Planner which uses an advanced model of the solar system to produce pork-chop plots. (Mmmm.. pork chops). There are 4 Hohmann transfer windows before Year 10 Day 1. Some notes on this challenge.. This is inspired by and is largely based on this challenge, now long retired. Similar success can be achieved by using larger or smaller NPM lifter designs. It's all about mission execution.. In order to earn maximum Achievement points, sacrifices to Mission Value will be made. Overall leaderboard ranking based on: Achievement score * Mission Efficiency or something similar (may include a balance modifier). "But my SLV is 100% reusable with rapid turn around." It still takes time to build the payload and install it. A reusable SLV with NMP of 65t will have 9 launches. A reusable SLV with NMP of 30t will have 21 launches. There are benefits to using a life support mod over simulating with Ore. For example, they include build aids in the VAB/SPH for determining LS needs. Many also include recyclers, purifiers and greenhouses. If used carefully, these may provide an edge in Mission Value. Mission Report Threads: @michal.don : My take on the "Duna Outpost Mission Architecture" challenge @Kerbolitto : Duna Outpost Mission Architecture, Kerbolitto's stuff @dire : DOMA Arigato, Duna! Completed Entries: Here lists the esteemed, brave and dedicated adventurers who have brought Elon Kerman's dreams to reality... @jinnantonix Mission Value: 157380 NPM: 31 tons (21 launches) Efficiency: 157380 / (31*21) = 249.8 Achievements: 29 Mission Plan: https://imgur.com/a/AjdNjto Video Video Video Video Video Using stock parts plus TAC Life Support, this mission highlights high capacity crew modules with awesome aesthetics. Some of the scenes from the videos and images make my computer's fan kick in just thinking about the part-counts! This appears to be a pretty high bar for the first completed entry and was obviously a big effort not only in playing but designing and even producing videos, which I highly recommend checking out. Death Engineering Mission Value: 62464 NPM: 40 tons (16 launches) Efficiency: 62464 / (40*16) = 97.6 Achievements: 26 Images Images Images Images Images TAC-LS entry using some Near Future modules for outpost parts and all-nuclear interplanetary transfer mechanics.
  9. Johnster_Space_Program

    The Smallest Mun Lander Spacecraft

    Today im challenging you to try and beat my 0.4 ton unmanned mun lander satellite/spacecraft (aka the smallest satellite w/engine), which was originally supposed to be just a satellite that would orbit kerbin but when I decided to try and land it on the mun it was able to with extra fuel to return back to kerbin! This is the craft, you download it if you want: https://kerbalx.com/JohnsterSpaceProgram/Smallest-Satellite-wEngine
  10. Hi all, this is my first challenge, so hope it works out... To celebrate the success of the Carbart Lithobraker, the engineers at the VAB have cooked up a prize, the Pizza. There's just one small issue: for "structural integrity", the engineers used aerodynamic fins. Of course, this was fine until the manager of the KSC revealed that they wanted the pizza to be sliced live. So now, they need something to 'cut' it. Basically, destroy all of the gray/yellow aero fins. Rules: You must destroy all of the yellow fins. This can be done by pointing an engine at it, hitting it with something, etc. By no means are these the only methods, though. Do not destroy any other parts on the 'pizza' No HyperEdit, debug cheats, or using part offset to spawn the craft high up, to the side, etc No Whack-a-Kerbal No two-capsule rollers or the like (ex. two mk1 capsules attached together and spun around) VesselMover is recommended to move the 'pizza' to any location; however, VesselMover can't be used to move your craft that will complete the challenge; if the pizza cutter is connected to the pizza, then VesselMover can't be used; VesselMover is only allowed for just the pizza (eg placing it on the VAB helipad or off the runway). Modded crafts are allowed but will be put on their own leaderboard Parts can be detached (such as bombs), the scoring will count for both the detached part and the craft that carries it to the target The craft can be unmanned Provide video evidence or a screenshots, including one of your craft and the cut-up pizza. Get the pizza here: https://kerbalx.com/Alienonawall/Pizza. Just load it and place it wherever you want. *note: the part count is relatively high (104 parts) Scoring: Leaderboard: Example entry: Badge: For completing the challenge (regardless of score,) here's the badge: (here's what it was from)
  11. After looking at falcon 9 videos, I decided to make this challenge MISSION: Mission today is to build a rocket that nearly every part is recoverable. DIFFICULTY: Easy: Get to the mun and back Difficult: Get to mun AND Minmus and back Hard: See where you can go. RULES: NO SSTO's they are 100% reusable also too easy. No fairings (engine ones are allowed) You can't recover a fairing. No Cheats No debug menu, no hyperedit. No Decouplers unless they stay WITH the rocket All things recoverable MUST land on kerbin. No trivial mods (FMRS is not trivial) Lets see how this goes...
  12. adsii1970's sandbox micro-challenges A couple of days ago I was asked on one of the Facebook groups if I would post some micro-challenge/mission ideas for those who are looking for some sort of objective in playing a sandbox game. I asked around as a profile status post to see what everyone's thoughts were. And after careful consideration, I've decided to create an entire thread of micro-challenges for those interested. I play with mods and expect that many of you do, too. Here are the mods which will make the micro-challenges easier for you: Kerbal Engineer Redux Mechjeb for all Kerbal Planetary Base Systems Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux Buffalo: NASA Inspired Modular Space Exploration Vehicle Mark One Laboratory Extensions (M.O.L.E.) By no means do you have to complete the challenges with mods, you can complete them without mods.* And you can use other mods besides these. For many of us "older" KSP players, these challenges are pretty easy but still fun. For a newbie who is just getting the hang of the game, they can be challenging and rewarding. For now, the sandbox micro-challenges will only include the stock system. If there's interest in more development of the challenges, I will add missions which will incorporate the Outer Planets Mod. Each micro-challenge will fall into one or more categories. Each micro-challenge will come with it's own leader board and signature image. And each week, I will release a new micro-challenge. You do not have to do all the micro-challenges posted; simply choose the ones which interest you. Once you've completed the micro-challenge, simply post to this thread and share images or video which shows your progress and completion of the challenge. On that challenge's post, I'll add your name to the leader board and a link to your post for others to easily find what was done to complete the micro-challenge. Sandbox micro-challenges within Kerbin's sphere of influence: Kerbin Mun Minmus Mün Arch Settlement micro-challenge Minmus space station micro-challenge
  13. After starting a permanent outpost on Eve, I remembered (much to my relief) that I remembered to build a surface-return vehicle. However, it's completely disposable and horribly unsuited for rotating crew on/off Eve to an orbital station (then back home). The cost to return all those homesick Kerbals, let alone rotate crew, would be astronomical... Goal: Build a reusable vessel that can land on Eve, refuel (with pre-existing infrastructure), take a Kerbal to LEO (Low Eve Orbit), then land to refuel and repeat. Required payload: 1 Kerbal. That's it! However you bring him up is... up to you! The idea is to have a crew shuttle that can be reused within the Eve system infinitely (until you break something ). Note: Your vessel doesn't have to be an SSTEO! Reassembly (with parts you already launched) is allowed. To save time, you will be allowed to cheat in pre-existing infrastructure (see rules). Winning criteria: Completing the challenge earns you a spot here. Entries ranked byspent. If the design is an SSTEO (SSTO but for Eve), I will create a 2nd list. Rules: You may cheat in pre-existing infrastructure. Your vessel may start at LEO. Disable commnet (built-in antennas will reach LEO anyways in career). You may simulate refuels with Hyperedit, but only when: 1) In a stable orbit around Eve (simulating refueling at a station). 2) Landed on Eve (simulating refueling at an ISRU base). Take screenshots. Upload your craft so we can use it too. I have several Kerbals stuck on Eve... Normal difficulty or harder. PIlot aid/build aid/planning/cosmetic mods are allowed. If I can use your vessel with similar results in pure vanilla, it's OK! Stage recovery mods are allowed. If your rocket isn't an SSTEO, you must reassemble your rocket (with the same old parts you originally launched) in some way so that you can reuse and refuel it infinitely within Eve's SOI without shipping new parts. There's one reasonable way I can think of to do this, and one that requires Jeb's piloting skills and precision landings! Good luck!
  14. This challenge is pretty simple. Build a plane powered only by J-20 Juno Basic Jet Engines, and try and get it to the fastest speed possible. There is a manned (or kerballed) leaderboard-- I'll put you on the applicable one depending on your craft. Rules: 1. No cheats, e.g infinite fuel or hacking gravity. 2. Only Juno engines are allowed, e.g no rocket engines. 3. Stock parts only, however I'll allow a KER chip if you're playing in career. 4. Have fun!!! There's no real scoring system for this, just submit a screenshot of your aircraft at maximum speed and I'll put you on the leaderboard---make sure I can see the velocity readout though!!! Here's my entry-- the 'Junissile' to kick things off: On the runway---it has no landing gear to save weight. I reached 330 m/s, so almost mach 1. But I'm sure you guys can do much better--good luck Probe: 1. @TheFlyingKerman 820 m/s 2. @qzgy 814 m/s 3. @neistridlar 813 m/s 4. @ZLM-Master 811 m/s 5. @panzerknoef 811 m/s 6. @Vanamonde 745 m/s 7. @Dark Lion 711 m/s 8. @Gman_builder 519 m/s Manned: 1. @swjr-swis 820 m/s 2. @neistridlar 818 m/s 3. @Servo 813 m/s 4. @Andetch 801 m/s 5. @Lisias 797 m/s 6. @Val 777 m/s 7. @GDJ 765 m/s 8. @ZLM-Master 762 m/s 9. @GDJ 743 m/s 10. @FunThomas 719 m/s 11. @Aetharan 630 m/s 12. @Klapaucius 570 m/s 13. @tonimark 340 m/s 14. @RealKerbal3x 330 m/s
  15. Hello everyone, This thread is going to chronicle my hopefully not too hilarious attempt to complete one (or more) circumnavigations of Kerbin. A little about myself: I'm still very new to Kerbal Space Program (16 days + about 2 months with the demo) and this will be my first long distance ground journey, so please enjoy the comedy of errors that will surely follow! I'm in my Junior year (6th semester) earning a Baccalaureate in Aerospace Engineering. Between that and my passion for aircraft, I've gotten reasonably good at designing aircraft and spacecraft in KSP. However I find my rover designs to be very... lacking. Especially my amphibious rovers. I'm hoping to complete an equatorial circumnavigation with as little deviation as possible, and then complete a polar circumnavigation. Originally I was just hoping to just complete one circumnavigation, but my 6th rover design was a real winner. Without further ado, I will get on with the narrative of my journey.
  16. Challenge is closed. Dear potential business partners Our company is looking to expand our efforts and the sky is not the limit. We want you to create a safe reusable spacecraft that can deliver our customers in style to orbit and beyond. Requirements: *= for side mounted spacecraft 1. Complete safety and redundancy: This means a proper abort system with no dead zones during the acent. A backup parachute system. At least 200 m/s left in orbit. Plenty of battery power and if used plenty of rcs fuel. Must also be aerodynamicly stable on reentry in case the power does go out. *on side mounted spacecraft the abort system is allowed to turn off the engine on the booster. 2. Craft must be piloted. 3. The spacecraft itself must me completely reusable. The booster may be expendable but points are gained for recovery. 4. The craft must carry AT LEAST 10 kerbals (excluding the pilot(s) ) in relative comfort. So no command seats. 5. Make it an aestetically pleasing spacecraft. You will be awarded style points. RULES: 1. A stock game. Although kerbal engineer is allowed. 2. No excessive part clipping. 3. It must be a two (or more) stage design. We already have a thread for ssto's. 4. Must take of from the launchpad. Horizontal landing, however is allowed. But don't forget the two parachute systems in case something does go wrong. 5. MH is allowed but it has to be noted in your entry. SCORING: +1000 points for every kerbal ex pilots -1 point for every unit of propellant used. If the booster and spacecraft are both reusable -1% (credits=points) of the cost of the craft If the booster is not reusable the cost of the entire booster in points will be subtracted from your total score. Up to 10,000 points for a stable and easy to handle spacecraft. I will test this myself. Up to 5000 points for style. Our paying frogs customers want a ride to space in style. Capability: 150x150 lko 500 points Mun orbit 2000 points Minmus orbit 2200 points We will be glad to hear from you! Please post some pictures and a craft file and we will judge your craft and give you a score!
  17. Basically it’s simple: cover the outlined canyon in the mountains to the west of the kerbal space center in a manned repulsor type Podracer (repulsor pads via kerbal Foundries). Command pod can be fixed at the front with a maximum of two engine pods, OR at the back attached via flexible chains (I-beams, Infernal Robotics uncontrolled joints). Video Below to Demonstrate. Requirements: -Craft Max Weight 25 tons. Layout: -Fixed Forward control pod, limit two engine components (i.e. two panthers only). -Rear control pod with flexible chains, limit 4 engine components (i.e four panthers). (More are allowed for laughs but cannot compete). -Engines Can be any engine component, rocket or jet based. Rules -Can tweakscale any component EXCEPT the engines and control seat/cockpit. -For chained Podracers, I-beams limited to a minimum of 50% (1/2 scale) and a minimum of 4 links with uncontrolled pivotrons in between and uncontrolled rotatrons at both ends. -Cannot use infinite electricity OR fuel/ox. -Cannot use any lifting or control surfaces in a manner which allows true flight (controlled/limited pitch glide only). This means your craft has the ability to land from large jumps but cannot reliably fly. The control pod alone is allowed the use of true flight surfaces. A craft can use as many control and stabilizing surfaces as the user desires. So long as the above requirements are followed. Submit a reply with a pic of your start time and your end time as well as statistics of your run at the finish line (F3) and an up-close picture of picture of your craft in the space plane hangar with the statistics panel enabled (shows weight, length etc). Even better, submit a video containing the aforementioned information. Best Time Gets Bragging Rights. ALLOWED MODS -Take Command (Spawn Kerbal in control chair) -Vessel Mover (to get to the starting line) -Infernal Robotics -Kerbal Foundries -Tweakscale
  18. Aquaticfantastic

    KSC Christmas Challenge!

    Tis Christmas eve and Santa AKA Nicholas Kerman has Crashed his sleigh into the Northern Ice shelf after his elf's forgot to feed the reindeers. Out of desperation Santa has requested the help of the KSC to save Christmas! Your mission, If you choose to accept, is as follows: Rescue Santa and his reindeers and return them to the north pole for 'regeneration', then complete his Christmas deliveries. Santa Rescue: Due to his robust size Santa cannot fly on non magical craft so you must deliver a rover to collect Santa and his 8 reindeers and drop them at the north pole. Santa requires the space of 6 kerbals (too many mince pies) and cannot fit inside parts less than 2.5m in diameter, his reindeers require the space of 2 Kerbals each and cannot share a part with Santa. Christmas Delivery: Santa cannot complete his Christmas deliveries due to the crash and has requested the help of the KSC! Unfortunately, as a result of the impact, all the presents are buried deep in the ice shelf, to recover them you must drill into the ice and collect all 750 presents (ore) once recovered the gifts must be delivered to each runway (island, dessert and KSC runway, 250 ore each) Santa's failure must not be made public therefore this part of the mission is to be carried out covertly, to avoid radar detectors a maximum altitude of 1500m above sea level is permissible, you must avoid any land mass that will force you above this height. Sonic booms will alert the media therefore a maximum speed of 300m/s over land is allowed during the deliveries. There is no speed limit over water. You have six hours to collect the presents and make all deliveries. Rules: 1) Mods are allowed unless they give an unfair advantage. 2) The presents must be delivered using one craft, refuelling is allowed but the 'present' ore cannot be used for this. 3)Santa and all reindeer must be recovered to the north pole using one rover. 4) Santa can be collected anywhere within the northern ice shelf biome and the rover can be delivered with any craft you wish, plant a flag as close to the centre of the ice cap as (exact coordinate are not necessary. 5)Mission reports including screenshots or video's of important milestones shown. 6) Extra Kudos for using 'christmasy' craft!
  19. GOAL: Build an asymmetrical aircraft that can take off and land horizontally. Use at least 10 parts and do not use any parts more than once. RULES: 1. You may not use any part more than once. This means no symmetry--no matched pairs of wings. A right and a left lifting surface count as the same part. That goes for landing gear as well. 2. No reaction wheels or fly-by-wire. Internal SAS only, and bonus kudos if you can fly it with SAS off. 3. The plane must takeoff and land horizontally. No VTOL. 4. Anything else goes. All mods that do not alter physics are fine. 5. Keep in mind the spirit of the challenge. I cannot foresee every loophole. Be clever and innovative, but remember, this is about creating something unique using your building skill to achieve it. 6. Post photos, or if you can, video. 7. Impress your friends with this collector's item badge. The plane below does not technically follow the rules, since it uses some of the same parts more than once, but you get the idea of what is possible... It's on KerbalX if you are interested. https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Pablo-Cubist-Dadaist-aircraft Also, check out @ZobrAz's FrankenPlane, which inspired me in my ventures into asymmetry in the first place. https://kerbalx.com/ZobrAz/abomination-Friday-13-FrankenPlane The video below that is some old footage of the Blohm & Voss BV 141, a German asymmetrical plane from WWII.
  20. Welcome to the first annual KSC Car and Air show. This is a special contest for builders of cars, trucks, planes, and other wacky stuff. It is a community driven air show where KSP players can upload their craft here to be a part of this event. After all the slots are full, I will set up all the stuff in a save file, and then I will announce the winners of each category. I will also share the save file with everyone else, so they can find all the craft in one place. Have fun! Uploading guidlines: PLEASE INCLUDE A CRAFT FILE!! Also, please include screenshots, a good description, and the category of entry. (Cars/trucks/small aircraft/large aircraft/crazy wacky stuff) No more than 1 entry per category per user. STOCK ONLY! (Ven's stock revamp and BDarmory are allowed, as well as Airplane plus, KAX, Tweakscale, SXT.) DEADLINE: THERE IS NO DEADLINE! HA HA HAHA!! Open slots: Light Aircraft: 0 SLOTS OPEN. SUBMISSION IS CLOSED. Heavy aircraft: 0 SLOTS OPEN. SUBMISSION IS CLOSED. Cars: 3 slots open. Trucks: 4 slots open. Wacky stuff: 5 slots open. Sponsors: Thanks to our sponsors, Forests Inc., And Bullseye LLC. ALL RIGHTS GO TO SQUAD for the images. Current entries: "Heavy Aircraft:" Haruspex. (Condor) Thor_Wotansen. (Borr) drtricky. (ABH-17 Rapture) ShadowWolf56. (Boeing 737) Skylon. (SB-1 Dragonfly) EpicSpaceTroll139. (Airbus A380) DarkLion. (Batwing-SSTO) Draconiator. (KTR-10NP) DunDun92. (KC-1 Transport) ImmaStegosaurus. (AN-12E) "Light Aircraft:" Triop. (F-20 TigerShark) NotAnAimbot. (F-2F) LazySoUseHyperedit. (Cessna) TheEpicSquared. (AF-1) GDJ (Kraken-MK1-Disarmed) DunDun92. (F-10 Striker) Mumbro Kerman. (F-16C-50 Fighting Falcon) Draconiator. (Kerbtrolite-K-1) PaperAviator. (MIG-21) Draconiator. (IHNCWTNT) (I have no clue what to name this) "Cars:" Azimech. (Charger RT-31) tgaerospace. (TSG Zelion) qzgy. (BAC-Mono type 5) 53Miner53. (Formula-Solar-Stock) GDJ. (Avro-G-Prix Special) Dark Lion. (Kustom-Krazer) doggonemess. https://kerbalx.com/LevAerospace/M8-SpyRover-II-ORV(M8-Spy-Rover-II-ORV) "Trucks/tanks/trains:" KenjiKrafts. (10-15-Hllensturm-HDMT---32) Qzgy. (Mallard V3) NotAnAimbot. (Wolverine-2A1) EpicSpaceTroll139. (Oskar-Mayer-Wiener-Mobile) 53Miner53. (Deora-II) Ozelui. (Cargo-mate tractor) (Exo-Trailer) "Wacky stuff:" PaperAviator. (Canada Goose) EpicSpaceTroll139. (E-50A - Triton) DarkLion. (Bo) HB Stratos (BAC-Concorde) Andetech. (ADX-FJC Flying Car)
  21. Rover 6428

    FedEx CHALLENGE

    AIM: Make a stock ship that would be able to deliver cargo of ore to Laythe from Kerbin. RULES: The ship must be fully stock, no cheating, the cargo must survive, no abusing of the game engine, if manned: it must have some living space and crew must survive, the whole cargo must be carried by one ship PS: (empty fuel tanks may be removed, but apart from them and the cargo containers, all of the ship must survive (fuel tanks cannot make up the whole of the ship.) PPS: ("ship" starts only after it is in LKO, the lifting stage can be dumped) Challenge modes: Participation award: just get to Laythe Noob mode: take your time, land safely 10 tons of ore to Laythe. Easy mode: maximum time 5 yrs, land safely 20 tons of ore to Laythe Hard mode: max time 4 yrs, land safely 30 tons of ore to Laythe, land on land, ship must survive, must be manned Super hard mode: max time 3 yrs, land safely 60 tons of ore, land on land, ship must survive and return safely, must be manned Matt Lowne mode: impress me
  22. Hello All, New to this forum and would like to suggest a challenge. So, I looked for videos of anyone that has landed on the Mun on the default "To the Mun" training/mission and couldn't find any! (share link if you know one)This one guy tried it and successfully got to the Mun but exploded on landing,... as have I multiple times now. Now, the mission may seem like quite a simple one to the more advanced players,... and it might well be. But i think maneuvering with limited fuel for the landing might present an added challenge. It could also be a great contribution for novices like me to learn from, and for the person who does it, to flaunt their awesome skills and be hailed as a hero by the community for their awesome accomplishment So without further ado, I challenge anyone to: Land the Landing Module on the default "To the Mun - Part 1" training/mission, and post a link to the video on this thread God speed and good luck!
  23. Rover 6428

    MANIACS CHALLENGE

    AIM: make half of the Statue of Liberty and land it on Eve Rules: must be stock, must be delivered safely. Modes: Easy mode: land a 10 meter high half a statue of liberty on Eve Medium mode: land a 25 meter high half a statue of liberty on Eve, must be on the shore Hard mode: land a 50 meter high half a statue of liberty on Eve, must be on the shore, must look old, have Jeb reenact the last scene from "Planet of The Apes" ("https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPbjPOgRtyA") https://imgur.com/a/EMDRzQv
  24. Try using this as your system to start off with in Career mode. Every planet in a highly elliptical, inclined orbit Have them all be on different sides of Kerbol Change moons around and planetary settings for lower gravities Make them far enough apart that you really need to be planning if you want to properly intercept a world Only use the first few tech tree levels (5-ish tiers) If it's too hard or easy let me know because I want a reasonable challenge. Thanks! -Noah
  25. Note: This isn't being played as part of a campaign, so there pretty much isn't any RP. I'm coming at it as an engineering exercise, since that's pretty much my play style. So there's going to be a lot of dry reporting on engineering, testing, and development. Comments and questions are welcome! A week or so back, I came across a mention of the Jool 5 Challenge. I've played KSP since 0.19, so it's not like I haven't heard of it before - but for some reason, this time the bug bit. I decided to take on the Challenge, even though I've never attempted anything nearly so big before. Since the Challenge requires some form of log or report, I'm starting this thread to first keep track of my design decisions (in case someone is ever interested) and then to eventually serve as the required report. My current plan is that even if I don't fly it as a Challenge, I'm going to fly it as flotilla mission. I'm going to start with a series of posts detailing how I got to where I stand today, then I'll follow with updates daily or as warranted. Next up: The Tylo lander.