8MMW

I think designing from a scratch by yourself is what gives the most joy in this game, especially if it gets to work or explode or both. On the other hand, we can often learn some new design tricks from others. Even if you copy nearly an entire landing structure from someone, I think the person will be happy their own design is worth copying (or improved), rather than be angry at you for copying. As it is said, "Imitation is the best form of flattery". So whatever feels alright to you should be OK.

I don't know why it happens (probably a bug), but I can confirm it, I had a similar situation. Quicksaved while falling on Laythe with parachutes deployed. After unsuccessful landing I decided to quickload and use some fuel to slow down and not to crash. I ended up using much more fuel to land without the parachutes that disappeared. Conclusion: quicksave before deploying parachutes.

zarakon, the first stage of the last level somehow reminds me of the hyperdrive ring from Star Wars

Oh, the memories! I'm done with my first, and I think last attempt. Part count = 36. I didn't manage to return, just to land. Although it is not mentioned in OP, I suppose going back was to be included? It definitely was a hard mode with no dV plugin (KER), no manoeuvre nodes, and (nearly) no parts.

Looks like a really pro mission. Especially how you planned the slingshots to minimise dV on Kerbin>Jool and Jool>Kerbin transfers. And landing on Tylo with 4500 dV for which I need 6000 Also, did you perform all dockings using Yellow Jacket's ion only, without RCS?

Seems to be a huge construction. What's the part count of the thing (last screenshot from the orbit?). It won't be much of help for you now, but from what I have recently observed: the Kerbodyne KR-2L engine has an enormous thrust and decent Isp (380), so it seems as a good alternative to LV-N engines (it just needs twice as much fuel ). In your ship however using two of them would be an overkill, and using one is impossible in "pull" configuration, so 4 Skippers (?) are good as well. The Laythe plane seems surreal enough to be functional (as it often is in KSP). One thing I can't imagine is how slowly/unstably that whole thing will rotate in space, with the plane hanging on the small docking port

If you mean the fairings that appear if a decoupler is under the engine (with yellow "LV-N" written on them), then I think they have no mass / their mass is included in decoupler's mass. Those engines are that heavy (2.25t), it somehow balances their enormous Isp.

Huge and impressive mission. I've never used Kethane mod, so I can't tell a lot about that aspect, but here are some other observations: - nice aerobraking shield, matches the ship with its shape, + for making it look good on itself (it could have been just a usual, boring, symmetrical umbrella); - because of the Kethane, the fuel part doesn't take up 80% of the ship, so it looks cool with most of it being sciencey things and add-ons; - nice Laythe-plane design and piloting skills. I have problems with constructing aircrafts / landing controllably on Kerbin, let alone getting such a thing to Laythe; - 20-30 refuelling flights on Pol? You should have got some patience achievement for that ; - considering Pol's low gravity, wasn't it possible to land there with the mining unit with the engine unit on top of it? Or wouldn't the landing struts hold this mass? If that was possible, it would have saved you those 20-30 refuelling cycles; - + for landing at KSC. When I'm back from interplanetary missions I'm usually too happy just because of that and never bother to choose the landing site; - + for bothering to make a cool gif. About the issue SSSPutnik mentioned in Jool-5 thread - I think the low feedback might be also caused by the vast amount of pics you posted. That a good thing by itself, it's difficult to show so much work you've done on a few pics. On the other hand, posting an abstract with ~30 best/most interesting pics on the beginning would draw more attention to the rest of them. Going through all the albums here took me some time, and I admit it was worth to see all those ideas. But I didn't look that interesting in the beginning, maybe that's why many had viewed it, but not many bothered to go through all of it.

I have finally completed my JOOL-5 mission. The challenge motivated me to push my Kerbals forward to where they have never been before - these were my first landings on Jool's moons (except Laythe). Some info: - 3rd level - 5 Kerbals, one for each moon - 0.23.5 - I probably couldn't make it if weren't for the huge NASA parts and accompanying monstrous engines - no refueling, no significant mods (only informative: KER, Enhanced Navball, Docking Alignment & Camera) - 1.75 approaches: -- 1/4 to realise the ship lacks a docking port and can't leave an empty tank when needed -- 1/2 to find out that the lander doesn't have enough dV to reach Laythe orbit -- final approach for the mission was a success from the beginning to the end. Lets assume the previous failures were just simulated on KSC computers _______________ I was playing around with the idea of a "ribbon style" challenge badge. I have created these: (normal size) (small size) They're not as good as the official challenge badge, but are definitely more compact. Feel free to use them if you like or let me know if you have some ideas of making them better

The modding seems to be the most controversial (even the MechJeb itself is). As 5thHorseman's post shows, there are many possible approaches for modding, everything depends on the challenge. However, in order to make a useful standard rule set, the most frequently used option should be included. That would be something in between 5thHorseman's "Type C" and what cantab said. I think there is no need now to create a list of options, because if a challenge poster decides to go further away from ~= Type C, he is also likely to specify some other mod details, so he won't need "the rules" any more.

I agree with above, there are many challenges allowing subjectively non-cheaty mods, which isn't precise at all. The best solution would be as Red Iron Crown and Kasuha mentioned - stock or mentioned non-stock parts only. At the same time "informative" mods should be allowed (like KER, Enhanced Navball, Navyfish Docking Alignment, maybe MechJeb and others I don't know about). The rules in OP are in my opinion very obvious, but often mentioned in challenges. So just for convenience it could be better if the challenge poster could just add a link to those, to remove some clutter. I think the best option now is to focus the discussion on the rules (to make them clear and well-thought) and let the challenge posters decide about their usefulness.

I just checked, and the 11.01 l/s refers to liquid fuel + oxidiser. Assuming you meant 204l of liquid, it should be about 370 liquid + oxidiser; but even then 370/11 = 34 s. One thing I'm sure about is what KER displays (as said above), the time is displayed correctly, taking all fuel lines and asparagus into account, unless of course the fuel is manually transferred between tanks (Alt+RMB). I can't explain why it doesn't match simple calculations. You can always quicksave and check, it should be 41.2s. Edit: Now I see that you're still in atmosphere (below 70 000m), that changes the engine efficiency. While ascending (and changing air pressure) the engines' efficiency and fuel consumption will change, so it would be difficult to calculate it manually. KER should display it correctly however.

In the parentheses after deltaV for each stage the time is shown. It is the time it will take to get displayed dV (by burning all fuel available at that stage) (1001 m/s for current S2) at full throttle, (41.2 seconds in current S2 stage). Is this what you are looking for?

That's a good hin. Here are some other useful things: - while constructing the lander in VAB select the celestial body (e.g. Mun) you're going to land on in Engineer Redux menu, it will adjust TWR display, - as Red Iron Crown mentioned - on relatively small bodies (works on Mun, even better on Minmus) RCS is helpful to kill lateral velocity (if it's not too large) while keeping the lander vertical. That way your thrust is only vertical and easier to control. Tilting the lander to kill lateral velocity also decreases vertical thrust, and makes controlling it harder.