n.b.z.

This thread isn't really lacking recommendations for Minmus, but I'll add another one. What makes Minmus so nice for surface bases is not just the low gravity. It's that this low gravity comes paired with a perfectly flat, absolutely level surface. This makes it possible to stack things on top of each other almost as if you are in zero G. I have been a sandbox-only player most of the time, and am now in my very first career game. Had a contract to make a Minmus base with a lab, and made it a combined science and ore mining / fuel refinery base. Later, I got another contract to add more living space and ore storage capacity to it. My base has a single, medium-size docking port on top, so I made a nice tower and set it on top of the base. The tower itself has another docking port at the top; maybe I get another contract to make this thing even crazier.

So I think I may have qualified for this challenge by taking part in another one. (Again. It wouldn't be the first time this happens.) Hoping for a guest listing for KSP 1.2, I submit my 100% stock, lifting body, SSTO plane "Bonkers Bonsai". And when I say "lifting body", I mean it. There is a submission post in the lifting body challenge thread with the tech details, but just the Imgur album should provide all necessary info for this challenge.

My challenge submission: The Bonkers Bonsai A lifting body SSTO plane Flown for this mission by none less than Valentina herself! And if you know Valentina well, you will know that she needs none of them old-fashioned planks, or some weirdo flappy bits, on her vessel. Not when she's going to spaaaacee! Mass: 8.110 t Height: 2.6 m Width: 3.8 m Length: 7.4 m Size And Mass Indicator™: 592.93832, rounded: 593 Challenge Category: Stock Only (I suspect that the rating for the handling will be utterly atrocious... just in case any test pilot survives and can provide one, that is.) Clipping disclosure: there is a 0.625m cone attached to the rear node of the Rapier, then moved into it with editor gizmos. Also, if the weight sounds suspicious, note that I'm not filling the OX tanks to full capacity. Notable features... or rather... notably absent features: no wings, no fins, no control surfaces. This contraption uses ONLY reaction wheel torque and engine gimbal for control, and ONLY the fuselage parts (the Mk2-parts and the small LF tanks) for lift. And holy Kraken, that was a lot of work to make this vehicle capable of taking off and landing without exploding every time. But it has now reached a degree of maturity where it usually, mostly, isn't exploding a whole lot. At least not every time. I only managed to solve landing at these speeds by deploying drogue chutes while still in the air, a few meters above the runway. However, it's still a horizontal landing on wheels. The entire descent on this mission, from reentry to final approach, was flown in a powerless glide. However, the final approach must be flown under significant power. I will try to get around having to write image captions by posting the detailed flight profile here. Given that, there is a long Imgur album linked at the bottom. Ascent: SAS HOLD, throttle 100% (which will stay there all the way) at 100 m/s: try unloading the nose wheel to reduce risk of fiery death at 200 m/s: strong pitch-up input to rotate - retract gear - keep pitching to about 50°, and allow SAS to fall back to 45° after stopping pitch-up input at 3000 m: SAS PROGRADE (transonic phase begins) at 5000 m, and about 400 m/s: SAS HOLD, pitch should be around 25° at that point at 10000 m: SAS PROGRADE at 15000 m: SAS HOLD, pitch should be around 15° now - allow it to rise from there at 25000 m: switch Rapier to rocket mode (the control group also closes the intakes) when APOAPSIS > 60000 m: SAS PROGRADE when APOAPSIS > 77000 m: Engine Cutoff - Apoapsis is expected to fall back to 75K-ish from there at 70000 m: extend solar panel and antenna, plan circularization maneuver and execute as required Descent: Exactly over the center of the large "west continent" crater (marked by the little island), perform RETROGRADE burn to lower periapsis to ZERO While still above 70000 m: - Retract solar panels and antenna - Switch engine to airbreathing and OPEN THE INTAKES - this is important! - SAS PROGRADE At 50000 m: SAS HOLD - then KEEP HANDS OFF ANYTHING until almost over the mountains west of the KSC. Allow pitch to rise over time Approaching the mountains, use TINY control inputs to decrease pitch by about 20°. (Too little pitch gives not enough lift, but too much pitch will cause too much drag!) Should be passing over mountains at well above 20000 m, and well over 1000 m/s From there, fly visual approach to KSC: maintain some good altitude at first - the powerless subsonic glide will be rather steep! Final Approach: Set engine to about one third throttle for final approach, THEN extend gear Stay well above 130 m/s airspeed, going 150 m/s won't hurt Fly HORIZONTALLY 5 to 10 m above the runway Cut power, IMMEDIATELY deploy drogue chutes, and CLOSE YOUR EYES - whatever happens now... will just happen In case you still live, gently apply wheelbrakes. It would be too bad to just roll into that ocean to die, now that you survived THAT touchdown, wouldn't you think? Link to Imgur album: http://imgur.com/a/fyURw No image captions; this post shall suffice. Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ephrshvehftnbqq/Bonkers Bonsai.craft?dl=0 This vehicle is not for the feint of heart! You have been warned! Action groups: GEAR Toggle gear + landing lights LIGHT Cabin light + vehicle illumination 1 Toggle engine ON / OFF 2 Toggle engine MODE + intakes 6 Toggle solar panel + antenna 7 Park mode: shutdown engine + landing lights OFF

My challenge submission: 1.938 Tons NO use of the jetpack. Initial orbit: 17 km circular Attained orbit: 15 km circular Pilot: Hadster Detailed, commented Imgur album showing all relevant data: http://imgur.com/a/H0wcw (Sorry, Ultimate Steve, for having named my lander "Tiny Tylo". I would have picked something else if I had noticed your vessel's name earlier.)

Question for @JacobJHC about the rules: Is it required to provide a proper crew module / lander can / capsule for the Kerbal? There seems to be no rule about that, so someone could fly his Kerbal around using only a command chair. In fact, I would be tempted to do so. While some participants have used command chairs for their landers — as far as I can tell, every submission to this challenge has provided the Kerbal with a proper accomodation for at least the long interplanetary journey and the Kerbin reentry. May I kindly suggest to add a rule that requires a proper cabin? This would be only fair to everyone who has already participated (as they all followed this rule already, without it being explicitly stated) while keeping the playing field level for everyone who plans to take part in this challenge. You see... for the first time, I'm thinking that I could beat Nefrums in a low mass challenge. However, this just cannot be true. Ridiculous. It would be an unsettling disturbance of the very fabric of the universe. And it would only be possible if I use only a command chair for the entire flight, while he was carrying a proper capsule all the way to the surface of Duna and back. It would feel like cheating.

My attempt at resolving a misunderstanding and to prevent bad vibes: @TheCardinal: I can see Tex_NL's images just fine. He may be linking to his own server (I'm guessing this from the domain name), but he is not linking to his local private file system like some "n00b" would do. In case you still can't see his images, I would guess that you have an ad-blocker running that thinks that Tex_NL's images are ads...? OK... that's enough of me trying to act like a mod... I just want this challenge to remain as cool as it is, because I've got an entry coming this way. I've already flown the mission, and just need to compile an album and write some documentation. I should be posting my submission later today. Spoiler-Teaser: considering we're doing lifting bodies here, I am seeing too many lifting surfaces for my personal taste. I do understand the desire to be able to actually, you know, control your craft, but every aerodynamic control surface is a "wing" in KSP, providing lift when moving through an atmosphere with an angle-of-attack. Not to speak of Tex_NL, who possesses the brazen audacity to mount actual wings on his MicroShuttle! Sir, that is a very nice vehicle you have there, but in my book that's a powered glider and not a lifting body!

While this puzzles me, thank you for your effort testing this. So the bug really is in my head? Oh please, not another one - I'm already bonkers enough!

My test was done in 1.2 preview, but I've had this "suspicion" for a longer time. I agree, but would like to see this confirmed by other players first. So I'd be grateful if someone could quickly slap together some test rocket with some very draggy parts inside a medium-size fairing. The testing itself is easy: hit "Launch" in the VAB, launch rocket straight up, write down max. speed and altitude. Then, revert to launch, repeat same launch procedure, and compare the speed and altitude. The test rocket shown in my album was specifically designed to react strongly to drag differences: Ridiculously high TWR off the pad (so that drag losses are much more pronounced than gravity loss) An insanely draggy part inside the fairing (largest relay antenna dish pointed upwards, which should be an utter insult to aerodynamics if not placed inside a working fairing) It also has a short burn duration, so that test runs to maximum altitude don't last forever.

I've had a longstanding suspicion that the performance of some vehicles is affected - sometimes radically - after reverting to launch. I have often used "Revert to launch", numerous times, while trying to figure out the ascent profile for a rocket or plane. When I think I'm done and have a reliable profile worked out, I later find that the profile does not work at all after loading the same vessel from the VAB/SPH. Recently I made a relay satellite, and slapped some launch stack together to get it to space. At the point when the first stage is spent, there is a velocity difference of about 200 m/s between "load from VAB" and "revert to launch"! What the krak?! So today I made a very silly single stage rocket just to research this phenomenon. To rule out other factors - such as my manual control inputs - I launched it straight up, with SAS HOLD already activated before liftoff. Loading this thing from the VAB: Highest Speed Achieved: 427 m/s Highest Altitude Achieved: 7108 m Then, reverting to launch: Highest Speed Achieved: 836 m/s Highest Altitude Achieved: 38823 m While I suck at math, even I can see that the difference between 7108 and 38823 doesn't exactly look like a rounding error. So I'm now certain that something is borked. However, I have not had the time to research the exact cause. I am guessing that for some parts, drag is calculated even when these parts are inside a fairing. After reverting, this seems to change and the fairing then works as expected. I have not made a bug report, as I'm not sure if this is already known. And I would like other fellow Kerbonauts to verify this issue, to ensure that the bug resides in the game and not in my head. (I am using the medium-sized fairing. I did not see the same effect when I tried this with the small one.) Short Imgur album showing the numbers, and the silly rocket: http://imgur.com/a/l2ZaN

I was already in the middle of building just such a system, when my computer died. Nnnnrrrrrrggghh!!!! The vessel has 300+ parts, and I haven't even started on the booster yet. I'm using a prehistoric notebook as a backup now which can not run this stuff properly. This will have to wait until I have a sufficient computer running it.

It is being discussed here so much because we've just been watching a presentation about a vehicle architecture that's specifically designed for the purpose of enabling Mars colonization, proposed by a company that was founded for the sole purpose of enabling Mars colonization. A vessel that's ridiculously overdesigned for a mission profile of "have some dudes plant a flag and collect some rocks while taking pictures of footprints." Many good reasons can be brought forward why this goal may not be reached in this century. But "that's not a thing" and "just not going to happen" are not reasons at all; these are merely claims.

Musk mentioning the "improbability drive" from the Hitchhiker's Guide, and some of those questions in the Q&A, made me think: "If only we could build a stupidity drive. That is a resource that we will never manage to run out of."

I agree that the video isn't meant to be a scientifically precise engineering simulation, but rather an attempt to illustrate the concept of "rapid reusability" to a broader public. (It didn't help that Musk called it a "simulation".) I would be surprised, for example, if they have a tanker standing right next to the pad while launching the booster. But I'm sure that the pad and booster will use the "launch mount" shown in the video. Maybe not for the first test flights, but the system will be designed for exactly this way of landing. I think this is evident from 1. Musk's explanation about the cost structure of the system, and how they hope to achieve the radical cost-per-payload improvements that are needed to succeed, and 2. Physics. The interplanetary vessel has one "flight" every 26 months and is thus very expensive per flight. The booster can fly any time, which is why it's meant to be flown "a lot". Musk's style of "reasoning upwards from basic physics principles" must have raised the question about the sense of carrying ridiculously massive landing legs on every booster flight. The basic question is: "What is the purpose of landing legs?" Answer: they are the interface between the booster and the planet it is standing on. Followed by the question "do landing legs perform any function for which they must necessarily be attached to the booster instead of the planet?" Musk pointing out how they managed to improve F9 landing accuracy over time seems to indicate that the answer to that question is "no". I would guess that getting rid of the legs is one of the conceptual ingredients that they count on to achieve their performance targets.

Flawed? Probably. We all are. The fact that you contracted psychological difficulties through extended exposure to an environment that's widely known to produce exactly these difficulties for many individuals is not a flaw at all. As much as this sucks, this is firmly in the category called "being a human". I don't know you and have no business to judge people here. But the fact that you identified a mistake you made, came here to apologize for it, and explain yourself in such detail seems to strongly indicate that you're wrong on this one. You have just been dealt some s*** that's difficult to cope with. Well, that, of course, is a dealbraker. Everyone else here has attained all-around perfection! Current threads on the discussion forum's first page alone that revolve around our perfection: What is the biggest mission failure you have ever had? Is it true that most KSP players never go interplanetary? You Will Not Go To Space Today - Post your fails here!

What's so funny? For Gilly and other low-gravity places, the Food Assisted Reaction Thruster often is an efficient propulsion option. It only got the bad reputation because cost-cutting mission planners had forced some crews to use this technology even on medium-gravity worlds, which overstressed the hardware, and caused some crew members to develop a condition known as "circularization burn". (Ladies and Gentlemen: GILLY. Where poop jokes meet orbital mechanics.)

Tried the 1.2 pre-release. Absolutely smashing release in my opinion. Fantastic performance improvement. Trying to figure out to which degree the increased performance could help me expand my insanity, I built me a cute little cargo space plane. Engines not visible in the picture are 20 more Rapiers and 10 more Vectors, mounted inside Mk3 bays as VTOL engines. Yeah, that's a total of 52 Rapiers. I haven't even looked at the part count of this thing. It does impact performance substantially, but I'm sure that this monster would have burned down my computer in any previous release. From a space plane design standpoint, it's probably rubbish, but it's neither completed nor tested. It attains orbit easily, but probably not with a cargo weight that's reasonable given the massive volume of the cargo hold - which is made from 2 of the longest Mk3 bays.

I don't know, but I guess that SAS needs to be off. I'd have to try if trimming does anything at all while SAS is on (which you don't need me for to try yourself). I am guessing that SAS drives the trim setting itself, and I suspect that turning SAS off will auto-reset the trim to neutral, or the setting it had before activating SAS. But I don't know.

Atmospheric bodies only: ◯ Mount rover(s) on expendable, crash resistant platform with some chutes, toss that package away carelessly when nearing the landing site, because you've got stuff to do. (Do this if you're just plain crazy.) (Brief album, but I didn't have time for good screenshots) ◯ Mount expensive, heavy vehicle on platform, then stack even more tons of other crap on top, toss this giant package with chutes off the most valuable asset of your mission architecture, high above the landing site, let your monster asset freefall as far as your nerves can take it, land it pronto, so there's time left to switch to the package, land that thing too if you stand a chance, then ask yourself what the heck you're doing with your life. (Do this if the Kraken calls your head "home".) (Brief album, but I really didn't have time for good screenshots)

I have not actually tried this with planes. I was pointing out what trim can do for rovers. I would guess that if your plane requires a strong "elevator up" input to stay level, switching over to a trim-only way of control is indeed going to be a wild ride, since you would really need to gradually decrease the stick input while trimming. Which won't work with both these things sharing the same key. I'm going to guess that one probably uses "hold down" to generate a faster change (it's slow enough!) while single key inputs are probably good for finetuning. It may be worthwhile to win the wild ride once, to then memorize roughly at what trim setting your plane stays level. With this knowledge, it may be easier to trim it in the future. .....hmmm... can't you just read the correct trim setting off the indicator while SAS holds the plane level, and then imitate that setting manually after turning SAS off?

Oh I hadn't looked there, just in the online wiki. And there it says: "Mod + W/S/A/D/Q/E ----- Trim pitch/yaw/roll" ... so at least the online wiki doesn't really make clear that there is an explicit WHEELTHROTTLETRIM. This is why, when you assign the wheel controls to, say, the IJKL keys, but leave "flying" controls on the default WASD, you can control wheel trim separately from pitch trim! You can build a silly thing that has rover wheels and an airplane elevator, make it drive itself using wheel trim, and then pitch trim the elevator up and down with no effect on the wheels at all. I know this for sure because I just built exactly that silly thing for confirming this. While I was at it, I tested the key-repeat. As long as you hold down the MOD key first (which is the only thing i tested), you can then change both pitch and wheel trim by just holding down the corresponding key. For pitch, you can see the trim setting in the flight UI when the axis input is neutral. Look at how sloooooww the indicator moves while holding the key! This might have thrown you off when trying it with planes. EDIT: I agree with Sharpy. (In the unlikely case that this matters: this is on Win64.)

This is usually not my style, but I'm afraid that the time has come for my first... Public Service Announcement: While Alshain is correct that we have no direct throttle axis control for wheels, we do have wheel throttle trim. Hold down your modifier key, while pressing the key for "drive forward" (default: W) a couple of times. Your rover will add a tiny notch of wheel torque each time this key combination is pressed - and it will keep going with this torque by itself, without further keyboard inputs. This way, you can set your own "cruise" setting for wheel throttle, while still being able to use the forward/reverse keys. This also works for reversing (driving "backwards") and it also works in case you have reassigned the wheel related key bindings away from the WASD group, as some people do to avoid unsolicited entertainment related to SAS and/or reaction wheels. Modifier + X resets the trim to neutral for every axis that has a trim setting, including the wheel throttle. This is, of course, not an automatic "cruise control" or "speed hold" function. But depending on terrain and rover design, it may change your driving style from "fumble with the keyboard constantly" to "enjoy the view while occasionally hitting the brakes". Credit: I learned this from our resident land train expert Overland.

True. However, we can now build a new type of pancakes that could not be made with the old aero model. A fact that I can conveniently illustrate by showing my own craziest KSP invention: the Circular Crackpot Contraption. This stock part, five-Rapiers-and-two-nukes, ISRU capable monster is actually a spaceplane, deriving lift from atmospheric flight - but the only lift surface is that huge, insane, saucer-shaped fairing. Just to make things even crazier, I did not bother with any aerodynamic control surfaces at all, and instead used some shameless amounts of reaction wheels. This design is a nightmare with regards to Center-of-Mass and Center-of-Lift, and only became possible once I decided to balance 5 Rapiers at the back against 2 Nukes pointing forward. This in turn dictates an ascent profile involving a 180° yaw maneuver while still in the atmosphere... which by itself only works because there are no rudders on the ship. The thing can reach Minmus, and go further from there. It carries some Duna-specific hardware, and otherwise has features such as rear landing legs, VTOL rockets etc. that enable it to land almost anywhere. It is also a part count monster with absolutely no practical value (one Kerbal, no other payload) that I abandoned in an old 1.0.5 save, before we got the 1.1 performance increase. Which in turn broke the landing legs, which are mounted in a crazy orientation even by pre-1.1 standarts. Album of abandoned mission (first image shows vessel internals in hangar): http://imgur.com/a/Z8Cmj

Great thread, beautiful pictures! My wallpaper changes every 15 minutes, showing a random picture from a selection of my most memorable vacation / travel photos. The current one is a very poorly cropped photo of my right hiking boot - only the tip of it is visible at the very bottom. I wasn't even hiking when I took the picture...

Today, some progress! For the first time, I dared reloading a savegame of my almost-but-not-really-coupled train while all cars and the locomotive were running my KOS scripts. Surprisingly, that stuff just worked! Brakes off, advance throttle, whole train starts going. So the effort to refactor that first prototype seems to be paying off. Also, I did some screenshots of my "final" couplings:

OK - I will try to make it configurable which action groups can be used. I just need 2 groups (probably) for controlling this stuff.