dnbattley

Okay, so two more craft to throw into the mix: 1. 4 part, exploit-(but not kraken-) powered, so infinite range (as long as the battery holds out, anyway). It was more stable when I moved the aileron to the back, but flew in either configuration: 2. A actually legitimate entry, although I still haven't managed to land it successfully (it's highly unstable): 3 parts

Sounds a fun challenge. I made a rover that was designed to drive up walls a while back, but the speed element of the challenge certainly adds a new twist... https://youtu.be/oxdzuN80AbI

I feel like this would be my most appropriate vessel to enter this challenge with:

That's fair: I didn't see it in the original rules, but you did subsequently comment that way. I think I can do a three part unmanned version which doesn't use a Kraken engine, but does equally exploit Ksp's engine...

And, while I'm at it, a flyable lightweight version. 251kg, without pilot. Flag is not used as a lifting surface, so I believe this is still within the rules. Flys quite nicely Though landing is a little bit hairy - and no reaction wheel to assist...

Here you go Raw video footage of me taking it for a spin to the island and back.

I won't submit anything technically legal, but physics-defying, but suffice to say 3-part or <500kg manned flight can be achieved... >:D I will, however post a link to a micro VTOL I made some time back, rated for 3 minutes of relatively fun flying...

As a long time player (since 1.0), I am aware of many memory leaks which have been reported over the years: some patched, some not. However, I have noticed a specific issue which may (or may not!) help any dev's reading this, or at the very least may help to make life easier for some other players. That realisation is that: the SPH (in the linux version [unmodded, but with all DLC] in particular, but I suspect this is not just a linux issue) has a specific memory hole, and working in it too long will cause odd effects, and eventually failure. Here's the bullet point rundown: Historically I've worked 99% of my time in the VAB. Couldn't ever really get the hang of the SPH controls. I've spent many happy hours designing vessels. Some small, some large, and very rarely encountered any issues. In the last week I've been working specifically on planes, in the SPH for extended periods of time. In this time I have noticed a number of issues: KAL not saving schemes when launching; in extreme cases being unable to launch or load other vessels. This does not seem to happen until I have been in the SPH for some time. The biggest issue: after a long SPH session, closing down KSP seems to take a *very* long time (i.e. there is a large pause between initiating closedown and the program fully terminating), compared to normal. Here's the oddest one: after working in the SPH, and starting to notice issues, I opened the VAB (which took longer than normal), closing it immediately and then quit the game. Quitting after this procedure was very quick. The weird thing is how this appears to be unique to the SPH, and potentially undone by switching to the VAB. Is there something in those background animations that is slowly but surely killing performance? I post this more as a discussion than a specific technical question (though if there were a solution I'd love to hear it). If this is better suited to other forums please feel free to move it.

Does the spacecraft have any functional requirements once it is on final approach? E.g. carrying capacity? Manned/unmanned? And can it jettison all rockets and fuel before hitting the atmosphere?

With a mode of torture transport something like this, it may be feasible to propel the "swimming" kerbal at a rate that cuts down the transit time to mere days, as opposed to weeks. But it's still a hard no from me...

Structural pieces directly attached to a rotor, particularly when using higher than 8x symmetry, also has the same sort of "explode on the runway"-type effect. Kraken drives have a bad rep amongst many in the KSP community, but I agree that flying a silent, stable drive around Kerbing and the wider solar system, can be immensely satisfying...

While this is some serious necro post revival, I missed it the first time, and have one additional data point that may add to the body of knowledge: the five second limit corresponds to a limit which affects landing leg Kraken drives in high SOI environments, whereby they can suffer a sudden and catastrophic stress overload if operated continuously for that time, after previously working fine. Cycling the Kraken drive (pulsing it off even for a fraction of a second, every e.g. four seconds) overcomes this limitation, and I wonder if any testing with a "caterpillar leg" effect on the wheels (i.e. switching between the ones in contact with the ground), could generate any beneficial effect...

It's only watching this for the second time a month later that I recognised the FTL music. Bravo sir, truly bravo.

1.11.1 looks to have made many of the bugfixes changes needed to help with this challenge...

I've put together a slightly left-field (and kraken-based) video on this topic:

Magnificent. I am loving the variety of designs the weight limitation encourages. A very neat and tidy solution: great work. No worries: your gameplay does all the talking necessary! I'm not clear if you were only able to make the vessels you showcase using KIS/KAS or whether engineering mode could have worked, but in either way I'm grateful for your sharing in this challenge which I'm sure will inspire others.

Incredible! I love the ingenuity throughout this submission: a shipping container, replete with patriotic decals, extra parts and even a crane to assist the engineer? Brilliant! Thanks for sharing it, and I'm glad you had fun with it. And I also just noticed the reentry speed... crazy!!!

To clarify I'm happy with lawn chairs, but the kerbals must leave the target body on a vessel which has been created in situ. Whether and when they then EVA is up to the mission planner. I have the (unproven) theory that it might be calculating absolute symmetry relative to the VAB: Which is obviously moving in any other reference frame except Kerbin, and meaning "absolute" is anything but...

Firstly: apologies for taking so long to actually comment, but congratulations on the first truly successful submission! An impressively efficient mission demonstrating your process, and well done getting the symmetry on those solar panels looking so good! I know what a pain that can be in engineering mode... I don't want to derail the thread by inviting legalistic interpretations of my original wording, but in short I agree with this entirely.

You may be interested in this then: https://youtu.be/HRNBOVkbNUo But more seriously, moving a large object like an orbital station in a single flight is tricky (with or without Kraken drives) if it is not fundamentally built like a rocket with (mass-balanced) appendages.

Mission update: as expected, the drive type is important here. Now I did take your comment about "orbital station" literally, and download a ISS replica from Steam workshop and put it up with some kraken drives to power it. Inevitably, the chief problem was a) finding centre of mass and b) ensuring the whole station was sufficiently "strutted up" to avoid excessive flexing during the burn. Here's what happened: So... in summary a double landing leg drive seems to be fine for the purpose, but ensuring a strong enough connection to the core superstructure is the key challenge. As to the second part of the challenge: to demonstrate how they are made, I'll direct you to my video on the topic:

Unrelated to any submission, I would note that it is technically possible to build a Kraken drive in space, but it's really really awkward...

There are a few tutorials out there for creating different types of Kraken drives, but for a massive object like a space station, the KAL thrust exploit is likely to be the most stable (the alternatives being zompi- which is typically too weak to achieve large acceleration on a massive vessel) and landing leg (which runs the risk of breaking if over-stressed). I'm happy to submit something to this challenge to exemplify that.

Infinite score = 0 kg mass rescue package. Hmmm... are you thinking about just escaping a low mass body using just a jet pack? If so then does this clause: impact that plan?

Available to download now, but a how-to-build it guide to the all-new continuously variable kraken power drive used will be coming out later this month.