Ehco Corrallo

I've played KSP on two different macs. I'm convinced that the graphics are slightly different from on windows (even though I'm probably wrong).

An engineering mechanic in No Man's Sky...would add too much clutter. Procedural generation in KSP though... *salivates* I've got to say though, KSP is exactly what I want it to be. I feel that it's the perfect mix of game and simulator. I only wish I was better at it.

Because unfortunately, it's plural. And unfortunately he/she is a travesty worthy of comparison with the exclamation point/question mark combo. [!?] The grammatical convention is to use "he" unless the situation demands otherwise. Yes, this is slightly patriarchal, but grammar isn't fair or reasonable, and it had to be something.

BEHOLD THE DUNE RUNNER MK III! DOWNLOAD IT ON KERBALX! The Dune Runner Mk III is only a departure from the original formula in a conventional sense. It's more utilitarian, and has ditched the inadvertently aerodynamic hood for a more aesthetically laconic plate of sheet metal. It rides slightly smoother, and is slightly more durable than either of the previous models. The Dune Runner Mk. III is an excellent support vehicle, and is massively capable of long range journeys across Kerbin. Low gravity version not yet available. Paradroppable Edition not yet available. Carries 4 Kerbals, can be modified for larger capacity.

BEHOLD THE DUNE RUNNER MK. II! DOWNLOAD IT ON KERBALX! The Dune Runner Mk II is a lighter, lower, cooler, simpler take on the original. Ditching the truck-ish stylings of the Mk 1 in favor of a rustic buggy look, the Dune Runner Mk II is a real joy to drive. It's far more stable than the Mk 1, has a lower part count, and can tackle even steeper slopes thanks to its low CoM. It's nuclear powered, too, so you don't have to worry about fuel. Ever. The Foundry Works put this beauty through its paces in an unprecedented test run. The Mk II crossed mountains and foothills and highlands with ease, and all without dropping below 10 m/s. (Typical cruising speed on slopes: 16 m/s. Typical cruising speed on flat ground 22 m/s.) The Dune Runner Mk II isn't quite the sturdiest thing, but it's stable and tenacious as a really large pug or perhaps a hammerhead shark.

Here's a few I could find: http://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/TIE-fighter-12b http://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/TIE-fighter-10b http://kerbalx.com/erasmusguy/RasTech-X-Wing-Prototype http://kerbalx.com/erasmusguy/RasTech-Y-Wing http://kerbalx.com/USMCAv8r/T-47-Air-Speeder http://kerbalx.com/flipnascar/Corellian-Corvette---Tantalus-III http://kerbalx.com/Beesoldier/B-Wing

You might have wanted to post this under the spacecraft exchange. On another note: http://kerbalx.com/ is a good place to look. There are a number of tie fighter designs on the front page currently.

I didn't play career before. Now I do slightly. Otherwise it's basically the same: I build semi-suicidal planes, semi-suicidal jeeps, and launch semi-suicidal Mun missions. Occasionally I go into space.

76 [+] Woo! We're moving now!

I wasn't quite comfortable with my submission, because I though it was hugely underweight. So I've decided that It'll be a three (possibly four) phase conquest of the Munar surface. I made four more launches and sent down another 8 landers to act as scout stations. I now have a reasonable grasp of the Mun's topology. I'll be sending an assault wave next. Dropships probably. I have a lot of landers on the Mun now. EDIT: Well, the save broke while I was prototyping dropships. Bummer. I'll leave it at 8 missions and 15 landings unless someone says something along the lines of: "You suck! You started a challenge about doing something interesting and you did something boring instead! Do something interesting!" Or unless I say something along the lines of: "That sucked! I started a challenge about doing something interesting and did something boring instead! Boring is the opposite of interesting and creative and exorbitant! Finish the challenge properly!" EDIT PART TWO: Ignore that bit up there. The save is fine apparently, and the Great Crusade is resumed! Into the breach!

Yes. Yes it is. 56[+]

I built a rover. Then I crashed it. Then I changed it. Then I crashed it and changed it and crashed it and changed it until... The Dune Runner Mk III! This is not the Dune Runner Mk III, this is the Dune Runner Mk II, which I managed to get about a fifth of the way from KSC to the north pole before it rolled. It does really well on hills and mountains and it looks great.

52 [+] *knocks on wood*

There's no good way to say this: That doesn't count. If you look at any other submission but mine (which I feel ashamed of and have vowed to expand) you'll see extravagant, unnecessary, and thoroughly over the top mission plans. I hate to say it, but a there-and-back science gathering mission doesn't cut it. While I'm aware you undertook the mission in a rescaled solar system, this challenge is more about creativity than difficulty. Congratulations on the successful trip, but regrettably, I can't accept this entry to this challenge. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

I found a reference to The Martian in the description of the RTG.

BEHOLD THE DUNE RUNNER Mk I! DOWNLOAD IT ON KERBALX! The Flaming Goat Foundry Works has once again leapt to action and developed a reliable rally truck for transporting teams of up to 8 Kerbals. The Dune Runner is lightweight and powerful, and can cross slopes with relative ease. Loading up the crew can be finicky and frustrating, but once you get it running, the Dune Runner is relaxation itself, allowing a cushy ride at speeds in excess of 20 m/s. The Mk. I suffers from some stability issues, but nothing major enough to impede your enjoyment. The Dune Runner is built to jump, though it doesn't always land. The Dune Runner Mk I is only the first step on the stairway to rally truck heaven. Stay tuned for updates and upgrades.

Landing on the Mun, definitely. I got a ship to Pol recently and decided that Pol is an excellent little moon, but nothing beats the triumph of a Mun landing. Another moment I'm particularly proud of was when I recovered the crew of a Munar science station in polar orbit, with a ship that was in equatorial orbit.

I would agree that the vector is OP, but considering it's on the farthest end of the research tree and costs a small fortune, I don't mind the balancing. As it's been said before a number of times in this thread: it's a very specialized engine. I don't build shuttles or asymmetric lifters, so I haven't actually used it very much. On another note: has anyone noticed how quickly the KSP community can take a thread about the vector and turn it into a discussion about engine progression, all while they do large numbers of math to almost agree with one another, all while using terms like ISP and T/W. I don't mind, I just think it's...really endearing honestly. Yeah... Bigger SRBs... 2.5m perhaps... Horrible ISP, insane TWR... Just like the vector... *sighs* There's always .cfg editing!

Quoting Stalin, now that's low. 47 [+]

I'm not excellent at designing rockets, but I have found that the FAT-455 tail fin is great for bigger launches. They provide plenty of control and don't bump up the part count too drastically. This is not a bigger launch, but it is easily the least stressful rocket I've ever flown.

A surprising amount of games use it as a button (instead of select, which has been replaced by the share button. It typically opens the map. It's better for swiping, but it can almost be used as an analog control (though it takes some getting used to). KSP will probably be the first game to use it with any sort of frequency; SQUAD's going to need all the buttons they can get. (FYI, I do own a PS4) That said, I'm really excited to see how they implement KSP on console. Especially the controls. It's possible to hook a PS4 controller up to my computer, and it was a real challenge mapping the buttons. That said, once I got the controller to work (notionally) the game worked pretty well.

40 [+] Wow, progress.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and It's quite possible that I am) but won't heating kill your ship long before you hit 6 km/s? I don't feel like the engines are the problem so much as the aerodynamics and overheating. I've dabbled slightly (very slightly) with high-speed high-altitude aircraft, and their top speed was usually determined by how many radiators I'd strapped to them, not how powerful their engines were. Basically what I'm attempting to assume here is: when you encounter the atmosphere at 600000 cm/s (hooray for the metric system!) you die. Period. Also, did the OP just say "stock?" When did the engines have to be jets? (Other than in the title).

Guess what? I finally got around to making an entry! Here it is: I themed it after a viral infection of the Mun, partially because I'm still angry at the Mun for being difficult to get to when I was still a tender noob, mostly because that's what the landers ended up looking like. The general goal was instead of landing one gigantic ship, I would land a very large number of smaller ships. I started with on design, which would deploy twelve landers in a single trip, but shoddy engineering killed that, and a bizarrely tall design that would carry six in a single trip. Eventually I scaled back to something that my reasonably limited engineering skill could manage properly. (The larger designs also consisted of hundreds of parts. KSP doesn't like ships made from hundreds of parts). The long story short: I sent four ships carrying two landers each. In the end the mission was relatively easy, but incredibly fun. This is the launch vehicle I used (sans fairing). It's not terribly large or extravagant, but it has large fins with the Australian Air Force symbol on them, because I could put the Australian Air Force symbol on them. The game didn't crash even once while I was using this design (unlike the horribly, horribly bloated, terribly, terribly designed launch vehicles I built previously) and I didn't have any trouble carrying the payload into to orbit and over to Kerbin's faithful (if sadistic) satellite. And here are all four ships, arrived at the Mun and ready to land (eight ships land, but four go to the Mun). They were in the shape of a trinity before the last ship arrived. Here's the second stage coasting over the surface of the Mun with its two virus cargo. Here's the decent burn for one of the ships. All of the decent burns are exactly the same so just imagine this eight times over. Nice view from this altitude. The first landing didn't go too well, but it went better than the second landing, which I botched horribly and destroyed. The second landing site. Much flatter. The fourth lander came down in a beautiful canyon, just as the sun was going down. The fifth lander came down in the same plain as the second did. The lander can ran dry of electricity on the way down, and the reaction wheels stopped working. It was a little nerve wracking, but the lander set down safely. The sixth lander came down in the same plain as the fifth and second did. No issues with the landing. The seventh lander put down in the east crater. It almost tipped, but after a number of moments of nail-biting, it settled out nicely. All seven landers, in a nice neat line across the face of the Mun. The only real hitch was that the tug drained fuel from the landers. In the end though, they still had enough fuel to get down to the surface safely. It's possible I'll do a follow up mission and send a rover down the line of landers to do a check up on the pilots. We'll see... Ehco Corrallo's Score: One botched landing.

Everyone who's taken part in this challenge has gone far and beyond the call of duty. You've done thing with really large rockets that I couldn't even dream about being ambitious enough to plan. I've seen bases and dropships and ordinance-driven takeovers and giant rockets and science stations and giant rockets and toolbox themed shuttle missions and also giant rockets. Mostly the giant rockets thing ; ) Thank you everyone.