Jestersage

Yea, I am playing that in career mode, and I guess the contract broke... I will just restart it.

I guess I should just restart the career. Just in case.

So that means it's harder than before? Or is there a mod that reenable it?

I am not sure what happened, but somehow, I am lacking a "test" button in career mode, for the Flea engine and Mk16 parachute. Is that normal?

Question: Does Solid rocket boosters (of all size, including the Sepraton and LES) count as an engine or not?

So... where is the craft?

Is there any parts new in 1.2.9? (If not, i will just change the line in craft file to fool KSP 1.2.2)

The reason i am asking is not because I am inpatient (okay, a little bit...), But also because I recently downloaded "Kream Mun" from KerbalX, and I noticed it stated 1.2.9. However, my steam version doesn't seems like it's up to date.

Mental note to myself: Do not say "best design", because someone will always challenge it...

Oops. Forgot the ITS would fly back. Since this (as I stated in another post) is more to think in terms of the Orbiter Derived Station, the booster itself can have the heatshield and aero surface, etc. Sorry for costing your booster. (the station itself should still not have extra stuff -- I would expect Elon would remove the heatshields etc from an old HoG that stay in orbit, but not the ITS booster. And dare I say it's the BEST design, balancing looks with part counts... though I am not exactly sure how I feel about the station is being suspended in the clamshell. That being said, it was so well done I will accept this entry. The scoring may not be that good, but functionality and looks wise I actually love it. Easy to fly and resembles a real space station... nothing more I can say. But I still have more fuel count

Thank you for the new participants! In case anyone complain about Wanderfound's design, its launcher is very similar to NLS/Jupiter III. Plus it stay with in the rules Ultimately, I blame it on the fact that it's my first challenge, so the points are over estimated for some and under estimated for others. I blame the lack of fuel capacity to my poorly worded rules, which caused people to keep missing the fuel requirement. Many of the rules derived from my desire to have my own Freedom/ISS like all-in-one Mega space station. I started out playing with Matt Lowe and RasTech All-in-one solutions, and I want to see if it's possible to have similar performance and looks without additional assembly. So when I researched Freedom (since Matt Lowe's design resembled it and ISS), I found the Orbiter Derived Station patent, and many of this challenge's rules evolved from there. The no-assembly rules is one of them. The part count bonus is to make sure that people keep the part count low. One of my pet peeve is people who gone authentic and looks too much that they have too much part counts, and in fact some of the local forum builders also starting to venture into it even though they used to be my go-to craft builders. Also, the count is related to the control surface rule. The control surface rule comes about due to my entry, the Orbiter Derived Station. As I want to keep the realism, I decided that it needs to mimic that of RL proposal, in that the heatshield and control surface would be removed from Columbia. However, for the players that actually flew my design, they will realized that the Orbiter Derived Station would be difficult to fly, with a torque of around 200. However, one can make it easier to fly by adding wings -- and what stop them from saying "it is my radiator/solar panels" and cover them with said panels? Hence the part count scoring and control surface/heat shield anti scores. In a sense, it's an obvious rule patch to force a design similar to how a RL design would go. I did forgot to add communications and propulsion in the rules, since I thought that was naturally need. I am not going to change this one this time, but in the future, if I decide to revisit this challenge, I will definitely add that in. The crew capacity is to make things easier -- to stop people going completely overboard. the 16+2 would be equivalent to the Mk3 cabin and lab. It started from "What if I replace the Mk3 cockpit with a Crew cab". As an aside, my very first station in KSP is based on raptor9's intepretation of Spacelab, with the refinery right underneath it

I will calculate it for you, using the second picture (the final picture have no LF/O fueltank): Scoring: -Part count score: Since not submit, Quick glance estimation seems to be 50; So 200-50= 150point -Kerbal capacity (excluding lab): 5 -Fuel capacity: (4860 / 1000) + (5940/ 1000) + (760 / 100) = 18.4 (how did I got 71 in first calculation...) -Ore capacity: 0 -Refinery: 0 -Have a Tug with KLAW: 0 -Each Science Experiment (excluding the atmospheric and surface only sensors): Can't tell, 0 point -Rearrangement NOT required: 10 points Total: 150 + 5 + 18.4 + 10 = 183.4 Thanks by the way. It's probably easier to fly then my shuttle-based solution!

Sometimes it's due to laziness. Sometimes it's due to budget crunch. But sometimes, a single launch station can be more than enough. And to make it easier? One that does not need to be reassemble in space. So let's see your one shot stations, fellow Kerbalnauts! Minimum requirement: -delivery: It must be in a payload faring, or Orbiter-Derived type - So none of those "6 stacks of Mammoth surround an unprotected Von-Braun station". In short, it need to look plausible in real life, or had been proposed in real life. Otherwise you will need to challenge your claim, with reference. Fortunately for you I can't think of a way to exclude an ITS based solution (and knowing Elon, he will just use the empty tank as wet workshop too). Edit: And there are quite a lot of solutions that would fit Kerbal's spirit! -Module-Crew: It must have a lab, and crew space. How many? See scoring below. -Module-Fuel: It must function as a Fuel Depot, with LFO capacity of at least 2 orange tank (5760/7040) AND 750 for Monoprop (logic "and", btw. That means both. Not logic "or") -Stable Orbit: In a stable Kerbin orbit minimum (aka you can have it in Mun/Minmus orbit, but it will be judged all the same as one in Kerbin Orbit.) Failure to satisfy above will render the entry null and void. Scoring: (These are not the absolute minimum requirements - The above section is) (NOTE: These are for the stations, not your flyback boosters, unless you do want to attach the thing to the station) -Each heatshield parts, -5. -Each control surface, except the Delta Wing, FAT series, the Big-S series: -5 -Each Delta Wing, Big-S series, and FAT series: -10 -Part count score: 200-x, where x is your End part counts. KER will help with part counts. If you get negative, you have negative points. -Kerbal capacity: for each non-lab crew space, +1, Up to 16 points -Fuel Capacity Score: (total LF capacity / 1000) + (total O2 capacity / 1000) + (total mono capacity / 100). (Hey, It's a refuel station too) -Ore capacity Score: (capacity/100), up to 30 points -Refinery: Small = 5, Large = 10 -Have a Tug with KLAW: 10 -Each Science Experiment (excluding the atmospheric and surface only sensors): +2 per type. (Aka: 2 Sci Jr = 1 Sci Jr = 2 points) -No rearrangement: 10 points -Have it on KerbalX, or an easy to find website or thread: Instant 100 points. Leaderboard (stock): Scarecrow (second entry) 639.6 Physics Student:474.6 Wanderfound: 346.5 sdj64: 282 Jestersage: 280 Scarecrow (1st entry): 183.4 Leaderboard (Mod) Nothing for now Other Notes: Mods are welcome, but will be a seperate category Example: Mine: Orbiter Derived Station-C 2 control surface (at the Mk3 engine mount): -10 points In orbit part count: 144, thus 200-144 = 56 points Capacity: Total of 19 = 16 points Fuel capacity: (20185/1000) + (16515/1000) + (2630/100) = 63 points Ore Capacity: 1500/100 = 15 points Refinery, Large: 10 points Tug with KLAW: 10 points Science experiment: All 4 basic sensor and Science Jr + Narrow band scanner: 10 points Rearrangement Not required = 10 points On KerbalX: 100 points: https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/Orbiter-Derived-Station-C Final Score for me: 280 P.S. Should I put my Orbiter Derived Station C on Spacecraft exchange too, I wonder?

You have to use imgur. Or Steam image library.

The only thing I am sure is that, given the designed maximum payload, it should not have less than a TRW of 1. That being said, TRW of 1 is slooow... So what is the best TRW would you consider? I am guessing it would actually be a bell curve in terms of Delta-V, but can someone give me a ball part? The ship I am building currently have a TRW of 1.42 with the payload.

Thanks for showing it just won't work.

但KSP中文版是簡體，行嗎？

Real world explanation: During the design phase of Space Station Freedom, a proposal is to utilize an old space shuttle (typically Columbia) with all the space station parts assembled and launch in one piece. (Reference: https://www.wired.com/2012/03/space-station-columbia-1991/) . Some, such as the version mentioned in the WIRED article, is merely man-tended, in that it cannot be fully used unless it was docked with a shuttle/Command module, and require additional station modules. Some others, such as the one on patent US5350138, proposed an all-up solution, having all parts permanently attached to the orbiter. The patent further stated that such scheme allows all parts to be tested on the ground, therefore reducing the complexity (and budget). A personal cross-reference to The 1993 Study imply it evolved into the Option C, which is launched on a Shuttle Derived HLV with parts cannibalized by Columbia. If so, this plan is not that popular, as Option C would minimize the involvement of international contribution to the station. In the end, that plan was not accepted, with the Freedom Study Option-A and and Mir-2 merged into ISS. In universe explanation: After KSP received a bunch of surplus and atmosphere-burned Mk3 parts, Max Kerman proposed the reuse of these barely-held together parts for a ready made space station. His proposal was instantly accepted under "Dual Hull-1", and he was made to be the supervisor of the launch in its cockpit. Plan to retrieve Max Kerman from the station is yet to be determined. https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/Orbiter-Derived-Station-C Would someone please comment whether the station is good or not?

A famous line given in Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy is: "There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." As we now know, that's pretty much the act of orbiting, and had been used by some astrophysicists to describe orbiting. The question is: Who first coined this description (or some form of it)? Is it Newton? Someone else in the astrophysicist field? or is it really coined by Douglas Adams, and other people realized that it is a good description and start to employ the saying?

Well, it's high noon somewhere in the world...

Thanks for answering my question. That being said, Since I know the amount of torque (and when I get home, will use RCSBuildAid), what amount of torque would you consider to be "beginner friendly" aside from 0.0? I am trying to build this orbiter derived stations, aside from replicating history, as a way to provide an easy to launch beginner/novice dual-hull station.

It was only reacently did I realized there is the value call Torque, due to an attempt to make a shuttle. All I know is that on the one with relative success, my torque is less than 500 and I adjusted by moving the EAT and booster up and down. So I want to know: Is torque only for one axis or all 3 axis? What would you consider to be the upper limit of torque for shuttles?

Related: does small hardpoint have less drag then tt38k decoupler?

If I ignore aethestic, When should I consider TWR and when to consider drag, for a VAB rocket plane? Debating between using small hardpoint and decopulers

Did you forget to post the link to your craft?