GoSlash27

I agree with Levelord. LV-Ns are not unfairly nerfed at all. They have an optimal range of DV, acceleration, and payload where they are the best engine to use. Attempting to use them outside of this range makes them less efficient than other engines and that's exactly how it should be. The more troubling problem is the heat management issue. KSP doesn't have dedicated heat exchangers like we have IRL and an LV-N shouldn't be overheating anyway so long as it has fuel. I do hope it gets fixed, because I don't use LV-Ns even when they're the best engine for the job due to this issue. Best, -Slashy

Meithan, Looks good from my house. No weird behavior to report. Best, -Slashy

-Your early missions are geared toward money instead of science because the facilities are hampering you more than the parts. Best, -Slashy

pincushionman, Since you're already using Apple, you're probably best served to stick with it. You already have all your files and hardware geared towards that. Best, -Slashy Expanding on the above for those who are not already in an ecosystem... The "best" way to go really depends on what you're trying to do. If you merely want something that serves as a phone/ text interface then really a smartphone is overkill and it doesn't matter a whole lot which way you go. In my case, I wanted to use a smartphone to simplify my life rather than complicating it. That means that it needed to replace every other electronic device I had used previously. Camera, MP3 player, GPS, portable DVD viewer, AV remotes, guitar tuner, e-reader, portable gaming system, calculator, watch, etc. Most smart phones are capable of tackling most (if not all) of the jobs that other devices do, but attempting to use them in that role would quickly lead to battery life and memory capacity issues. In this role, Apple is at a distinct disadvantage (if you're not already in their ecosystem) because the files aren't in the apple proprietary format. But more importantly... Most smart phones (regardless of OS) are incapable of accepting expansion battery and memory capacity. I've been using Samsungs for this very reason, and so long as they keep the removable back/ battery/ and micro SD, I'm going to stick with them. There are some other manufacturers that share this advantage, but sadly Apple isn't on the list. I don't consider "intuitive" to be much of an issue. All interfaces are pretty darn intuitive these days. Your mileage may (and probably will) vary. Best, -Slashy

I've found the opposite to be true. in .90 and earlier there were only a handful of engines that were good for anything at all and most engines were useless in *any* application. Now a lot more engines are optimal for niche applications and very few are filler. Best, -Slashy

I like the early career part limitation. It doesn't stop you from doing what you're trying to do, it just forces you to find ways to make do with less and gives you a reason to want to upgrade the VAB. I was able to do LKO science, orbit, rescue, and munar flyby with the 30 part limit. By the time all that's done, there's plenty of money to upgrade and nothing competing for the funds. Best, -Slashy

Honestly... without adversity there is no incentive for creativity. Or in the more familiar form "necessity is the mother of invention". Squad changed everything up and gave us a fresh series of challenges to overcome. As a result, my new solutions don't bear much resemblance to my old solutions. That's pretty much proof IMO that the adjustments have fostered creativity. My $0.02 -Slashy

Starhawk, Stick around! The next challenge is going to be a doozy and I don't think dark arts are going to help much... I'm going to save the next one for after the holiday. Best, -Slashy

Verry interesting... *scratches chin* I wonder what would happen if the parts were offset just one pixel from their original position. In theory, couldn't you make a low drag version of a craft that's virtually indistinguishable from the original? Best, -Slashy

Levelord, Could the difference be in which rocket you're focusing on? Debris follows different aero rules than focused craft. Best, -Slashy

Juzeris, That's preposterous! We'll take it... Best, -Slashy

DC WarHound, You'll have to launch into the plane of the target orbit as described above. If you try to launch east and then correct it afterwards, you're looking at 2300 m/sec DV to fix it. And of course... make sure you're going the right way. People often make the mistake of trying to orbit backwards. After you're lined up under the target Pe, burn prograde until you've matched the target Ap. once at Ap, burn prograde to match Pe. Best, -Slashy

Juzeris, With KASA's extremely tight budget and critical mission goals, we're not inclined to look this gift horse in the mouth. If you can make drag disappear, we're just fine with that. By the way... Some intern at engineering suggests that you try a "sea level prograde injection burn" (whatever that is). He explained it to us and I thought I understood it at the time, but I forget now. Nobody really likes him anyway... Best, -Slashy

Personally, I think RAPIERs and turbos are still both a bit OP. It really shouldn't be practical to use them in vertical-lift SSTO designs. Best, -Slashy

Oh, that webapp is gonna be very handy indeed! This is above and beyond the call of duty! Best, -Slashy

gpisic, Actually, which approach works better is an objective fact so long as both are utilized to their full potential. The fact that turbojets and aerospikes work better in your designs tells me that there's something about your designs or profile that's interfering with your ability to utilize the RAPIER to it's full potential. What kind of payload fractions are you achieving? Best, -Slashy

Juzeris, I will happily take your word for it. If anybody would like a review, they are free to IM me and it will remain confidential. I also don't see MechJeb giving any advantage in this challenge. Congrats, -Slashy

AaronLS, You've already hit on how the Oberth effect works, but the gravity well doesn't actually have anything to do with it. We think of our budget to go places as a "delta vee", but in reality it's a "delta Ek". We think of it as an "effect" because we intuitively think in terms of velocity, but it's not actually an "effect" so much as a discrepancy. Since (as you point out) adding velocity when you're going fast adds more kinetic energy than when you're going slow, you can generate your required kinetic energy more efficiently at periapsis than you can at apoapsis. Best, -Slashy

Wow, you folks are good! When I put this together, I didn't figure that anybody could get 10... Best, -Slashy

Starhawk, You're first on the boards. It'll be interesting to see what people come up with for this... Best, -Slashy

All of my spaceplane designs use RAPIERs and they are by far more mass-efficient than any design I can come up with using turbojet/ rocket hybrids. The ascent profile is different now... Best, -Slashy

Mesklin, Excellent design, but unfortunately round #1 is closed and we can't accept any more entries. Good luck on round 2! Best, -Slashy

Juzeris, I have an error in your tally. Cost for fuel in stage 2 is $92, not $29. Adjusted, you still have an outrageously high adjusted score of 255.00. Correction: Your original figures are correct. It's stage 1 that has $29 worth of fuel, not stage 2. Apologies! Well-done! Mesklin, Do you have a name for your company? I put in a filler and will change it if you prefer a different one. Best, -Slashy

Wow, what an absolutely incredible batch of last-minute entries! I'll need a little bit of time to process these, then I'll post the next challenge. Best, -Slashy

Pipcard, The way I read this, you started this thread to let everybody know that you "get tired" of what you perceive to be pessimism. You also imply rather strongly that such attitudes have no place on this forum. If it were up to me, I'd just say suck it up; this is a big community and there's room for all of our viewpoints. However, it's your thread.... so what is your proposed solution? What viewpoint must we all believe so that you won't be "tired" anymore?