selfish_meme

It's been like a day?

From doing the T-Prize - Tylo SSLTO Challenge I know it's just over 2300m/s, more like 2500m/s depending on how good you are at suicide burns.

OK, have added everyone to the scoreboard. The ludicrousness was excellent, I liked that, but in the interest of making it more about good efficient design I have had to redo the points system again! (it seems inventiveness knows no bounds). Hopefully this will steer people towards more rounded craft. I'm really sorry if you feel that this has affected you negatively, I hope you can get with the spirit of good competition and view it as a better challenge.

Did you actually disembark all the crew? It is in the rules though logically I know if you can get one out you can get them all out. - - - Updated - - - How about a kerbal per ton points system as someone else suggested.

Well I keep getting surprised, excellent entry. So I make it 75 points, we have a new chaammmmppppiiiiioooooooooon. Try to imagine there is some echo on that last word.

StockRCSFX I think is the mod you are looking for

I am definately finished with changes and will update the leaderboard when I get back to my comp, too hard from my phone. Edit: OK I tweaked the reward for Jedediah mode, last thing I swear.

I think it may be Ok, yes you may try to spam Kerbals but the engineering is gonna be impressive.

Kaboom, I love this entry, I have decided to award 20 points for Jebediah mode (no autopilot). I know how hard it is. Your score 38 points. - - - Updated - - - OK your right I should encourage the ludicrous, I am keeping Jebediah mode though.

I found Mechjeb and maybe manual you need a TWR over 1.0 to land succesfully or you lithobrake. I think I will institute a negative score at same rate for weight over the reference design, as it seems quite generous.

Make sure you reread the rules, I changed the scoring system this morning. - - - Updated - - - Wow again, I was thinking you had nailed the most efficient design before! I would record this on the leaderboard but it's now outside the rules. Great effort though!

I've seen these things used with a probe core to make articulated Jets for VTOL and Cargo doors etc. Plus the jet engines sgt_flyer used to make

They would be silly not to, the amount of effort they have put into simulating physics has a number of applications. That's why I said Car Factory, it's easy to imagine the work going into wheels also being applied to a lego type car game with realistic aero and physics, or a plane simulator. Kerbal does it all but it could do it better if focused on one thing.

OK, sorry I am in Australia and probably a different time zone to all of you. Thanks for the entry Batz, but as Foxster pointed out the final orbit must be 80x80km. I am amending the rules so the starting orbit must be 80x80km as well. I did I am going to amend some of the rules and change the points, since you are the only one on the leaderboard your position is safe. However I do need more pics from you that show more of the flight, orbits, flag planting etc. Can you do that for me, I think you will have another entry soon. Edit: Ok the new points scoring system is +1 for every 5t below the reference design mass (176.20t). +20 for every additional Kerbal EVA'd to the surface and returned to orbit +15 for a full science module, power and antenna to return science to Kerbin +10 for a Science Jr on a rover which can dock with lander or with it's own power and antenna to return science The only other change is you must start from at least an 80x80km orbit and return to it.

I am thinking of taking Foxsters suggestion on board and allocating a lot more points for extra Kerbals. I can't imagine a much more efficient craft than Foxsters, but then again I didn't think the reference craft would be so easy to beat. I think around 15 points for a Kerbal? That should split the field around Kerbals and mass.

Initial orbit does matter, Hyperedit from KSC is fine, just remember to keep your resource panel open during your descent, EVA and ascent screenshots. The challenge template was based on another excellent challenge - - - Updated - - - That aerospike is the most efficient vacuum engine per kg out of all of them, when did it get vacuum buffed? Two terriers weigh the same but give 60 less thrust for almost the same ISP. I thought it was supposed to be efficient across a range of atmospheric ranges, not the best vacuum goto engine. I have to rethink my Grand Tour Lander now.

That's why I am thinking of a Jebediah level, I could land but never with enough dV to get off again, waste too fuel much easing it down,

Did you land manually?

All with the resources panel open please. I am so building one of these!

Wow, I am blown away that you did that so fast. Sorry to ask but can we get a few screens with resources, not that I doubt you but it is in the rules. Edit: who would have thought to use an AEROspike on an airless world!

Any reason?

My Entry to assure you it can be done, I tried (a lot) without mechjeb, never made it. Craft came from the rocket calculator and a lot of straw and bailing wire. This is the reference design 176t Craft File

Kerbal Car Factory?

You can do it the long way for fun or Hyperedit to orbit, it won't effect your score. Only concerned with the landing and ascent. Obviously no Hyperedit there. I'm thinking about a Jebediah mode with no autopilot because it's extremely difficult.

Use large or medium landing gear on girders with a few struts, put a lander can or capsule inside a service bay near the bottom for easy entry and exit