Evanitis

Strange. Landing guidance is one of the features of MJ that I feel I have no chance of beating manually in efficiency. My only problem with is was when the ship wasn't controled from the pod I though it was, so MJ confused the directions. But I don't think that's the case with your craft - it looks ok on that screen. The autopilot should do the landing just as you described - besides the very end. A scary fast descent and a last-second burn. You didn't change the 'touchdown speed' value of the landing guidance by chance, right? Not sure what's the default number there, but if you see a two digit one, try lowering it. If that doesn't help I can only assist further if you upload the craft-file. Unless someone spots something on those two screenshots that I missed.

Restarted with 50% science gain and extra limitations.

I'd name them Bob, Cardboard, Poof and Stuff. Or something. Jokes aside, never confused my stages before. I always activate them from bottom to top.

Just started a new career with 50% science gain, plane-tech unlocked up to turboramjets. Ahh, and no VAB or Launchpad. I expect to have much fun before I get my hands on rapiers.

Phew, done it. Hope you forgive me that I posted the challenge without proving that it's possible - though we all knew that it was. What I didn't know is how difficult it can be with low-level tech. I thought it will be a light, half an hour task... Well, maybe it is for you, but I definately struggled much with it. Even when the final craft was built and I -knew- that both of it's components can work, it took me like a dozen tries to take down both targets in one launch. It's definately not the most efficient method - I was *this* close to completing the mission with a substantially cheaper craft of a totally different design. So beat me! Launch cost: 4525 Nodes unlocked: 1 (for the decoupler) Final score: 4525 * 1.05 = 4751.25 (used a calculator to not make the same mistake twice in a row )

I think you misunderstood - I blame my rusty English. Probably I could have worded better. Since the base of the scoring equation is the craft cost, lower final numbers are better. Unlocking nodes results in a higher number, while untouched (locked) nodes make no difference. EDIT: Nope, you were totally right, it was my rusty math skills. I was thinking about a multiplier of 1.05 and not 0.05. Sorry about that, it was like 10 years ago when I had to do math the last time. Hope I didn't cause too much confusion. Editing the equation in the op with the correct constant. Also, the sticky launchpad bug is indeed affecting light rockets too. But I still think that working around it is more fun than just a fix.

Not directly, as multiple rockets are inherently more costy anyways. Not to mention another difficulty of two launches that I don't want to spoil for those who didn't realize it instantly.

1. As much as you want, though if you check the scoring equation, you'll notice that each unlocked node increases the number by 5% - and the lowest one wins. I hope the 1.05 multiplier allows enough flexibility while rewarding low-tech solutions. Of course, the initial level 0 node doesn't count as 'unlocked' - I edited the OP for disambiguation. 2. I don't think CTT touches the default nodes, even less likely that it tampers with the early ones. It's OK. 3. I'd rather ban KJR - it falls in the 'physics/part changing' category. C'mon, those joins shouldn't last all the way to Jool or something. 4. Sure thing, I wouldn't limit someone's explosive creativity. The upgrade cost shouldn't be included in the score either - that would be too costy. Makes me wonder if leveling the target structures makes them any sturdier... 5. I'd rather disallow Stock Bugfix. It just does too many changes for me to check how it affects the challenge. The sticky launchpad bug is only relevant with a lv2 pad and a pretty heavy rocket. I assure you, that's not required to complete the task.

Goal: Destroy the VAB and the Launchpad in a fresh career game - by using the most basic technology and the least of funds. Scoring: total cost of required launches * (1.05 * [number of unlocked tech nodes]) + the repair cost of other damaged buildings The lowest number wins of course. The initial level 0 node doesn't count as 'unlocked', so the lowest tech solution's score equals the launch costs (if no other building is damaged). You are free to upgrade facilities, upgrade costs won't affect scoring. A flock of rabid lawyers will help you to cover the evidence of any casualty that may accidentally happen, so these won't change the score either. Rules: Stock parts only - though if you need a MechJeb module or something similar for *that*, noone will judge you. No tampering with physics, savegames, part values and such. Not sure how could it help, but please don't touch the debug menu either. Background: Let me skip names and details for plausible deniability. Our company recently acquired a nice, equitorial facility that will house our shiney space program. We also managed to sign a contract with a certain 'J. Kerman' - totally not the Kerbin-famous pilot. One of his (not his) terms of employment was to only use spaceplanes for whatever we do, as vertical launches bore him to death. To show our goodwill, we decided to ritually demolish the buildings required for using conventional rockets before he arrives to our premises. But efficiency is the most important thing for our company, so we are looking for the least demanding solution for this task. Your efforts will be well rewarded - we thought of handing out nice looking badges. Feel free to grab it from my sig. What's more - the winner will get one embrodied with golden colored thread. Deal of the century I must say. Don't let me keep it! Leaderboard: - Draradech (2050) - Evanitis (4751.25) - - -

Considering that Laythe is smaller than Kerbin, taking off from there with an SSTO requires less dV than a regular one. Not sure about the exact numbers - I tend to just take Kerbin capable planes there. Also, if it can takeoff from Kerbin, after refueling it should have enough dV to get to your Vall station. Roughly. I'm not sure how safe aerobraking is, but gravity assists can slow you down with minimal fuel spent. Of course using a tug makes it easier. My hint is to pull the craft instead of pushing it - having the tug on the back means vobbling, that can make the transfer difficult.

In my opinion, Minmus surface is the most convenient for fueling while LKO is the most convenient for launching. I used a station on Minmus orbit for a while, but I found it too tedious to shoot for ideal ideal transfer angles from that inclination. These days I refine on LKO. Getting the ore there might be a hassle, but I don't have to do that too often and it's easy compared to an interplanetary mission. It would be the same if I kept the ISRU on Minmus and I only transfered the fuel. I believe that's the most cost-effective way, as the ships I launch only have to carry enough fuel to reach Kerbin orbit.

I'd guess they can't, at least not without a plethora of heat shields. Maybe aerobrake to orbit in a few passes - really carefully. I'm yet to actually test that on Laythe, as Jool space has so many moons around that getting gravity assist for slowing down is no big deal - and it's perfectly safe.

I'm far from being an SSTO expert - I built my first one in 1.0.2, and still struggling to finish one that can reliably get some payload to orbit. So I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I heard that air-hogging (as in adding more intakes to reach 30k) doesn't work since 1.0. My test flight shown the same: while no. 4 was breathing more than happily on 24-26K, it stopped accelerating at that height with a 10 degree pitch. It didn't even reach 1100 m/s before rocket mode. In my experience, an optimalized rapier SSTO can reach even 1400 on 25k with one shock-cone or two radials / engine. Since 1.0.4, atmosphere is so light that I don't even need to level out for acceleration with high TTW spaceplanes. My rescue craft's user's manual: takeoff, point nose to 30 degrees, circularize at 75k. Too easy, but fits someone who prefers perfect engineering to perfect piloting.

Got no. 4 to orbit on the second try. I had to remove 1500 oxidizer before launch - that was the remaining amount on my first go. I also used up the payload's tank - I guess that's intended as you didn't close it off. That organ made of radial intakes felt like an overkill. Maybe the wings too, though it wouldn't feel right to tweak someone else's construction, so I didn't. Neither I tried landing, but I'm pretty sure that if you can lift the nose just a bit, than the drag from all those wings will make you laugh at 1.0.4's reentry heat. Maybe I didn't use it as intended - not sure what did you mean by 'reopening intakes', those were open until like 24k when I had to switch to rocket mode. BTW that part count made me upgrade my career SPH and nearly broke my potato computer. Also I heard that rapiers ignore crossfeed rules, so I think fuel lines weren't needed. I think I leave the other three for others to test, so they can have their fun too. EDIT: just re-read your post - did you specifically want 1.0 testing? Current version is 1.0.4. I thought those were 1.0 planes. These days air-hogging doesn't work anymore, 4 radial intakes should be enough. Also I think you could also do well with like 1/3 wing area too. Bottom line is - I think your planes will work on the newest version too, though I'd certainly optimize them for the current setup. Damn, building these is half the fun if not more..

Wish there were screenshots. Anyways, no. 4 sounds interesting, gonna try now. Though I'm a bad pilot, so a negative result will be unreliable from me.

I'd consider an airbreathing Laythe SSTO miner with an ISRU base in orbit. Probably not more efficient than Vall, but the scenery is better and spaceplanes never get old. Also Laythe is somehow always in the way regardless of where I'm going. Think I'll establish that in my career. At least Jeb will have something to do - poor guy was mostly a tourist guide in the last 10 years or so.

Congratulations - first landing is no small feat. Minmus is indeed easier - the required dV to get there is almost the same, but since it's smaller, it has a lower gravity. This means the landing and returning requires less fuel.

MJ was invaluable in my learning process. These days I minimalize it's autopiloting feature, it's mostly there for the readouts and calculations. Though if I fly a really steady or overengineered craft, I sometimes still use it to do some burns or simple manuvers for me. Guess I could do just as well with KER, but 'jeb is what I got used to. And just *thinking* about making an ion transfer manually gives me shivers. How do purists use that propulsion?

Well, the loading screen says 'Adding K to every word'. BTW Mortal Kombat did it first.

I prefer orbital refining, as I can just move the whole thing on a whim. My very first ISRU is currently orbiting Vall. The rest of the operation returned home or got scrapped. The lander and drill couldn't stay, so it's pretty useless, I just thought that it might get handy one day. My recent method is having my ISRU on LKO. Not the most efficient way I presume, but that's where refilling outbound ships is the most practical.

I just -love- tourist contracts. Not by themeselves, but by taking them along with more serious missions. I tend to include so many civilians on various tasks that I keep forgeting they are there. A Duna expedition just returned with two tourists that only wanted a Mun flyby. It's their fault telling me they had 6 years of free time. There's a guy on my Minmus mining rig too. I should keep in mind to drop him off with the next ore-load that leaves the place. Ahh, and my last 6-8 rescued LKO kerbonauts were greeted by tourists. Jeb is a bit envy, but what can one do? Advanced probes can fly my SSTOs just as well, so I can close 3-4 contracts in a zero cost flight. My only related wish is if could strap the hitch-hikers into external command seats. I'd prefer my valuable kerbonauts to use the safer and more comfy spots.

I got the exact same message on Minmus when mining on the same spot fo a while. The displayed ore density and mining times stayed the same as before. I use no related mods - maybe it's the stock bugfix module that made depletion actually happen. BTW I prefer to refine in orbit, as I can just move the whole mining operation on a whim when I lack the mood or funds to launch a brand new one.

Had that disappearence too - I associate it with ram filling up (I play KSP on a potato). Since you use texture replacer, I suspect you probably not playing it on a nuclear rig either. I usually experience that loading difficulty when I want to switch to a big constuction during long playing sessions. Screen goes mostly black besides some UI elements. Closing the program these times usually corrupted my save, more precisely destroyed or reverted the craft in question. My pre-emptive solution (besides using multiple saves by alt-f5) is restarting KSP before loading up a bigger craft. BTW, those buggy loadings finish sooner or later if you are patient (in case you forgot to make multiple saves).

Everything but this seems to be answered. MJ doesn't activate RCS when doing manuvers, but it rapidly consumes it's fuel if you allow it. In my experience, if I need 100 units for a docking, 'jeb will use like 6-800. You can help it conserve the fuel for simpler manuvers by manually turning it on and off. So if I instruct MJ to turn a bulky rocket 180 degrees, I switch it on only at the start and the end of the turn. Otherwise it just burns during the whole turn.

I feel I'm reading a heated argument and I agree with -both- sides. I loved KSP when it was only sandbox, loved the limitations that science mode brought, and loved the more severe limitations introduced by the career mode. Not that I disagree with that career could use more varied missions and some story arc... I agree that immersion-breaking and downright impossible missions shouldn't appear... ...but I'd miss the -stupid- ones. It's good to know that I (as a director of a space-program) am not the only silly being on Kerbin with access to huge assets. And if some silly wants to pay me for shooting tons of ore out of the solar system, I'd thank him for giving me a reason to do so. Sane players can just turn down the offer, and wait for one that makes more sense. Wait, did I just write that about a game that's easily moddable? I don't mind whatever happens to stock until I can DL a pack of stoopid missions. And probably sunglasses too for my Kerbals. Disregard me.