Norcalplanner

Hmmm, didn't consider FASA towers or RF topoff tanks. If you're using a mod with extra stuff on the pad, go ahead and use the fueled weight in the VAB or SPH instead, without all the accoutrements.

ExplorerKlatt, Not directly. However, the payload mass fraction should be higher for a spaceplane, so the number of tons on the ground will be lower, so it will score a little bit higher in that aspect. That said, if you're able to put together a decent space station using only spaceplane launches, I'll happily give it some sort of special recognition. Another option would be to tweak the rules to give a points bonus for a station constructed solely from spaceplane launches. I'm open to suggestions.

My wife is a photographer, so I've learned a little bit about what to do. My Eve Rocks album turned out pretty well.

Lou, let's consider yours as a backup position. I think I may have just convinced my daughter to create something - she previously created the flag for my space agency, the Kerbal Administration for Overpowered Orbital Machines (KABOOM).

I think it's good as-is. It's really easy to justify to oneself or anyone else who asks that it's a pure stock-equivalent part. However, if you were going to improve it, I'd simply note the competition you have from PorkJet's nuclear lightbulb. 20 tons, 450 kN thrust, an insane gimbal range, and 1500(!) vacuum Isp.

Agreed. The ability to stack it inline like a Skipper and the reduced part count also gives it a leg up on the competition.

That would certainly be interesting to see! However, the +1,000 points is awarded "if the station has dedicated lander(s) or shuttle(s) that can take at least two Kerbals down to the surface simultaneously, and then return to the station". If there's nothing in orbit to return to, then it wouldn't earn the shuttle points bonus. If you want to make it so half your station detaches, lands, and then returns, that would probably be the upper limit for what is considered a shuttle. I'll add that if the whole station can make it safely back to the surface of Kerbin, it would get the +1,000 for "if all Kerbals on board can make it back safely to the surface of Kerbin without a dedicated rescue craft being dispatched from Kerbin (dedicated lander(s) or shuttle(s), escape pods, or the capability for the entire station to make it back to the surface of Kerbin and have all Kerbals survive the landing)".

Right, I'll freely admit that I have very little direct experience with part welding. My thought is that part of the challenge is making an impressive station with few enough parts that docking a ship to it doesn't turn into a lag fest. Let me think about it a bit more. I'm open to suggestions - maybe a small point penalty for KJR and part welding instead? - - - Updated - - - Lou, I have many talents, but art and graphic design are not my strengths. Ziv made some great badges, but he seems to be stepping away for a bit. If you want to propose something, go ahead.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I'd like to plug NecroBones' MRS mod, simply because it contains the quad-nuke. It's a single 2.5m part with the weight and thrust of four LV-Ns, and works well as part of a main rocket stack. It really helps reduce part count, increase structural stability, and maintain proper aerodynamics.

Perk, I've reviewed your entry, and need a few more photos before I can determine that you've completed the challenge and assign it a score. Please post some photos or add some photos to the linked album which show the following: Number of kerbals actually on board the station Power generating source (stored power appears to be going down over time in the photos) The science lab, scientific instrument, and antenna Once that's added, I can assign the station a score. Full props for the form of the station - it looks like that sphere that would get ejected from a Borg cube every now and then.

I started a challenge back in 0.25, but it seemed to peter out. For some reason, station challenges just don't seem to get as much love. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/100054-The-Grand-Orbital-Space-Station-Challenge

My KSP time has been greatly reduced over the last month. In my case, it's because I started a new job which uses the same part of my brain that used to get its exercise via KSP.

2400, mainly to document various challenges.

Eve is like Mount Everest. Difficult, expensive, and requires a lot of planning and preparation to make a successful round trip. Duna is like Halfdome. Not too difficult, easy to get to and return from, but still an accomplishment worth talking about and has a gorgeous view.

Here are two of my largest, both designed to loft huge fuel depots. A stock 6,400 ton craft will get a 702 ton fuel depot into Mun orbit. Its big brother uses SpaceY parts, weighs 16,500 tons on the pad, and will get a 1,080 ton fuel depot to Jool.

Ziv, I think that MRS should be allowed. It's certainly less game-changing than KW Rocketry. For me, there are two things I love about MRS - the quad nuke, which brings down the part count and can finally be mounted inline without a bunch of shenanigans; and the black and white 2.5m tanks, which look a lot better to my eye when combined with the stock ARM 3.75m tanks. With SpaceY, it's a great pack and I love it. It's a bit OP, but is mostly in the same league as KW Rocketry and Novapunch, which also have 5m parts. My biggest concern would be with the radial decouplers, which are very strong and powerful. When combined with KJR, it's possible to use the decoupler as the only connection point - no struts - between a radial asparagus stage and a main tank. It's also set so that the built-in separatrons do no damage to the center tank, which is a significant advantage compared to stock separatrons.

Implementing stock drag fix would be fairly easy, but I'd really like for nose cones and fairings to have a purpose. FAR is simultaneously a bit too advanced and a bit too polarizing to put into stock, IMHO.

Definitely harder than 0.25. Started an unmodded game on moderate difficulty, and am having a heck of a time getting enough money to upgrade my facilities. The rough runway certainly doesn't help early plane efforts. While it's definitely challenging, I'm not sure if the fun quotient has increased at all. Jury is still out.

Not really. The plan was to take a bunch of Kerbals. The ship design ended up using 3X symmetry, with 9 passenger modules and a two-person cockpit, so 38.

Working on a Jool-5 challenge ship that will take 38 Kerbals down to the surface of each moon. Tylo is a bit of a challenge.

John FX, this looks great. I hope that the stars align correctly so that you can post the final versions.

NecroBones, I'd go with option 2. The F1 designation always makes my brain cramp up for a second, since that designation is so strongly associated with the S-IC.

I've done Jool-5 twice, and made it to Eve and back four times. I found Jool-5 slightly more difficult. Tylo plays a big part, of course, but I think it has to do more with the number of opportunities for catastrophe due to all the maneuvering. It's possible to do Eve without docking a single time. Or to use a racing analogy, I find Eve to be more like a drag race - it's more about the design of the vehicle, then executing well after launch. Jool-5 is more like a lap around the Nurburgring, with many more decision points and critical maneuvers.

Kerbal Construction Time also works well, and I think it's written by the same author as stage recovery. With KCT, it makes even more sense to recover boosters, as the recovered parts can be used to greatly speed up construction of the next rocket.

It all depends on the mass of the rocket, the delta v requirements, and what you're optimizing for. Optimal delta v will push you towards LV-Ns. Optimizing for cost will push you towards Mainsail and Skippers. Optimizing for part count will push you towards the big Kerbodyne engines.