CFYL

Your new scores have been put up, with actually 161.8 points. Another great vessel you made!

When can we see a bright supernovae across our skies... Not this I guess.

I re-calculated your points according to new rules: 31.8+19+20=70.8pts. I just wrote a new set of clearer, simpler rules and scoring. May we run this again! My own entry will come... soon...

I understand this. Thank you for details, they will be updated. To be frank, I thought uploading a craft to KerbalX could be easier than manually writing things, like mods, parts, etc., but doing it “the old way” is always accepted. Thank you for taking part! Maybe... if I deleted the mass for scoring... Going to ask: 1. Delete mass multiplier(currently applied) 2. Make it no chutes and no planes. Which would be better?

Congrats for finishing this mission! Scores: 1, +100; 2, +200; 6, +153.7; 7, +21; 8, +3800(interesting); Criterion 5 calculation: So we get 311.8 pts for that. Take a sum of all points here, it’s an amazing 4570.5 pts. You didn’t give me your part count or KerbalX link, so I can’t do cut points for you. Please mention if you use FAR, or mod parts. {I have no access to imgur so I can’t tell from pics if you included it. Pics can act as proof between you yourselves.} BTW, I didn’t expect landing ships could be this heavy(mine was no more than a ton landed, but still under testing), so this seems to be overwhelming. I would keep it as of now, and here I ask opinions from the community, to tweak scoring to the majority’s needs. The requirement of pe and eccentricity is actually because I wanted your SMA. eccentricity is because, that would be more convenient if you were on a escape orbit. pe is for calculating the exact velocity, and calculating your SMA with pe and eccentricity combined. EDIT: Minus part count points, -31; deleted mass multiplier, -3800, so you actually get... 739.5 points. In full stock entry.

The gas giant Corelian still has its day/night display offset by 90 degrees. All other bodies are correct. Do you need a log to examine, or is this actually a known problem? I can’t seem to access my laptop now so a log and screenshots may be provided some time in the future.

1. If we ignored the theory of relativity, and the lump of the earth in the equator, then... All LEO sats can move meters away from originally calculated trajectory, on a daily basis. 2. There are only 13 countries worldwide, capable of sending a sat to orbit without external assistance. USSR will not be treated as Russia.

In orbital calculations, pe should be the distance to the planetary core. We will add Eve radius to that value.

Just the space bar. Have then on in the editor, or... add the action group to “stage”(hazardous). Edit: on second thoughts, I think it had better just be space bar staging. With no extra AG added.

Ah. Actually, No. I seemed to have forgotten that when writing rules... Thanks for pointing out. Edited in the rules.

As we have made some rocket first stages land by, aggressive lithobraking, it's now time for us to adopt an aggressive aerobraking maneuver. In brief: land a craft on Eve, with no heat shields, radiators or TCS. That includes both ablative ones and inflatable one(s?). Stock parts only. Rules: Scoring: Submission guide: Leaderboards: Feel free to submit your entries as always! (This challenge is basically for creativity and craft building skill.) Tips:

What about LE Tech? Lithobrake Exploration Technologies, by @NecroBones, is a dedicated landing parts pack. Marked as 1.9.1, but is reported to work with 1.10, though I’ve downgraded to 1.9.1, for my planet packs. Spacedock link and Forum thread[1] I believe it is stock-alike, and I am having fun using it. Or, for your convenience after landing, there is a mining extension mod. Stockalike Mining Extension, by @SuicidalInsanity.I don’t currently use it, but I believe it is stock-alike as the name suggests. Spacedock link and Forum thread There are also some mods for you to construct rocket parts directly from ore or dirt, after landing on celestial bodies, but those would be really far away from the landing part. Ah, Just saw the “reusable” part. All right. I’d say it is possible for a lander to be reused, given that it is refueled, somewhere. An ISRU may help.

For this, I gotta say that: 1. If ΔV is still a major problem in space flight, then this Ceres base would not benefit. In fact, on the Earth you could even have a bonus of Obert effect. The additional orbital energy provided by a longer SMA will not make up for this loss of Obert in terms of Uranus and Neptune, obviously; while (reaching) Saturn or Jupiter may be a bit easier, if starting from Ceres instead of Earth. So, I would actually prefer bringing an near-Earth asteroid (or brown dwarf of planets, as you said) to a circular Earth orbit of, say, 2000km, with its inclination turned to the plane of planetary orbits around the Sun. As long as it is not controlled by terrorists to hit the Earth. And then move poisonous industries or those requiring minimal gravity there, with some mining. 2. If ΔV is finally a marginal concern compared to time, then humans can literally populate every single planet, in whatever kind of habitation modules. For a practical base, though, I suggest the use of Pluto-Charon system. A binary system is not just fun, but Pluto is rich in methane. (That, was the topic of a Nature article in 2016, if I didn’t forget) METHANE. The substance of life. I don’t mean there’s any identified life forms there, but we have something to burn. Ah, the burning releases water and carbon dioxide, to flourish (brought-there) life. As long as you have oxygen, of course. Pluto is even closer to the Solar System’s edge, you know that. Why not spin entire dwarf planets fast enough, or comets or asteroids, to make an outwards “artificial gravity”? Just do some planetary reinforcements. Space is not for mining, mind you. The Earth is rich in many resources, including diamond and gold, but some just had their prices controlled by giant corporations or even governments, to gain more profit. You may consider that the same as fake moon landings or flat Earth(s), but the fact is that some resources are simply rich AND easy to mine, and so they have a mass production rate, but still costly. Mining from space would probably be practical only when space has a mass population. And finally, what about Vesta I surly agree with this. Low g is better, despite the hardness of orbital maneuvers to intercept. I wanted to say, why bother building, when you have some built by nature? Use asteroids and comets as a replacement may be more preferable. Just have giant engines or on a larger scale, maybe giant propelling mechanics, to be clear. Dig tunnels(easy with little G, huh), and live in caves. For gravity? Spin it on the roll axis, with carefully-designed RCS for heading control and reinforcements to prevent breaking it. This is suggested to be done in the outer solar system, to prevent your base becoming a chunk of burning, evaporating ice.

About space economy. In the near(?) future, it seems that one viable option is to get rid of earth-polluting industries, to save the earth, at least to some extent. Some industries need high G-force, and now we make use of centrifugal force. That could reach 10000+Gs in most normal machines(that, common university labs use), given that you just put in a small amount of material. Well, Jupiter surface(I mean the surface that we measure Jupiter’s radius with) g is not that high, but some manufacturers may benefit from that. Don’t ask how to take something into orbit from Jupiter, we could do it. Other industries can also benefit from varying Gravity, Temperature(not necessarily though), and Pressure(Venus or Jupiter core) conditions. What industries need most is, of course, a controllable G-force. I also have some comments of the far future, but not seem to match very well with this thread.

Emm... You can say, Tianwen-1 acts a bit like Viking, but added a rover. I was thinking if the lander and rover could do an Insight or Curiosity kind of landing. And for the selection... There are is one sector as the intended landing spot, while another as an alternative. In fact, the whole probe will stay in Mars orbit for 2-3 months, until it lands. While in orbit, it will also make inspections to the intended landing spot, as I said” the final selection”. (Image link) This is an illustration of Tianwen-1 landing, but in Chinese. The figures should be more or less precise though. Also, the two landing areas are now being shown, Although the west is listed as 1, and the east one as sector 2, it is said that the landing spot will be somewhere in sector 2 on the east of the map. (Map image link) Well, it seems that Perseverance is also going to land near the edge of sector 2 in the map. There is also a link for you to see further details. The article is in Chinese, and use a lot of words to explain what is a transfer orbit, but there are some details as well.

As far as I know, The Tianwen-1 mission is expected to act like this, after reaching Mars intercept: So, I was thinking in a way (which, I deem not so Kerbal) that: Personally, I believe the extra ablative substance is not as massive as the cut in fuel needed for circularization, and the extra heating is not such a big deal. Anyways, New-Gen Manned Spacecraft has performed a successful re-entry at 8000km ap above sea level, which may show that CNSA has got some decent techs. I understand that, Mars atmosphere is thick enough to burn the ship up, but still too thin to slow it down significantly, contrary to Duna where heating is piece of cake yet chutes can slow the craft down. So, what exactly is the difficulty of just smashing into Mars atmosphere (I mean, horizontally and gently, but from an escaping orbit), like Curiosity and Perseverance(or other missions without separate orbiters)?

（呃，虽然有翻译软件，我还是翻译一下。） I’m translating this post into English, although I realize that there’re a bunch of softwares for that.<^_^>Oh, also the fact that a lot of people here actually understand Chinese. just trying to help out, According to @Peter JY: Peter JY hoped to write a patch for a wing part (or some wing and aero parts) , which is currently not compatible with FAR. He/she also hopes to upload the patch together with the source code, to this forum as well as Github. Peter JY has also submitted a pull request at Github(#239). BTW, I don't know if I got the wrong Github link, but the only active pull request I see at FAR, Github, is not about this issue. So the link I took was https://github.com/dkavolis/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/pulls

So, This is my "Tiny" SSTO: No docking ports, DV after reaching orbit is not that rich, but it is light enough, at about 8.8 tons. It's the smallest (pure stock, manned) spaceplane I can think of. Whole Craft Image Launched to a 72*75km orbit, it still has an estimated DV of 400m/s (calculated roughly myself as there is no data) Craft in orbit Climbing at 20 degrees right after launch (TWR is 7, as an airplane with one jet engine.) Theoretically, it can have a vertical lift-off, but not what is permitted here. So I took the hard way of a horizontal take-off. Initial Climb Burning like hell when climbing. Jet engine becomes nearly useless at about 20km, so terriers are ignited. To the upper atmosphere Reaching orbit, the solar panels are beginning to generate EC. Hmm, "Orphan" Kerman sits inside the service bay and can't move, for he is stranded by 2 batteries and a RW. The ship mass is still more than 6 tons, so we spent less than 3 tons of fuel. Well, the most massive thing on this SSTO must be the jet. Orfen Kerman in orbit Going home. The re-entry heat may destroy some parts, but not if the trajectory is steep enough. Going back But I failed to land...on the runway. Going onto the bumpy grasslands a bit south to the runway and safely got home. The SSTO was sent "flying" again when passing the lump of KSC internal roads from the lower grasslands. But nothing broke or exploded. Airbrakes are pretty The landing problem may be a effect of too much control on some axis. But I switched off the RW... Possibly the elevons are too capable, which makes the craft almost uncontrollable under 450m/s, during which I chose not to control at all, at take-off. KerbalX Link

Considering stock parts+FAR, is the mod decoupler shroud allowed for better aerodynamic shapes without interstate fairings? I wanted to avoid using heavy engine plates (or, engine plates which are not allowed in stock parts) which I have to carry with the whole stage. Like when I want to put a terrier under a size 2 tank. Well, it’s gonna be hard but I think we don’t need much of aviation. Spaceplanes are almost impossible to reach orbit with much DV to spare, without ion engines. Also, is it allowed to drive, or use jets or home-made helicopters to carry entire rockets to the Everest and launch there? It could save as much as 1.2 km/s of DV. If I wish to land on Mars, stock chutes can simply not deploy. It’ll be hard without realchutes, but we will try our best to slow down without chutes, which ESA failed to deploy in their Mars20202022. (Just asking, I haven’t started yet. Perhaps a month later and I will re-enter this thread, and lose consciousness due to excessive G-forces.)

I’m putting you up. I have to say that, although I can view your videos thumbnail, I can’t see its contents if I press the play button. Sorry for that. Xichang is nowhere near the Everest though it’s on the edge of the Tibetan Plateau. This height problem isn’t quite new to us RSS people but…… I’m not sure if it was because RSS heights counted the “lump” on the equator caused be the earth’s rotation. We all know that the radius expands from about 6360 to 6390 from the poles to the equator, covering an average 6371. This is true on Vesta where I have been, but not quite sure for the earth. If this was true on the earth, I wonder if the moon was made into an egg shape by the earth’s tidal force in RSS… If you want shuttles, Changcheng-1 was promoted by the PRC in the 20th century and was the original vessel in an official craft replica, which I forgot the name. Some changes can bring it to LEO. More recently, around May the fifth, as a far as I know from some of our aerospace tracking websites, CASC launched a “secret” payload on a CZ-2F to LEO, and it was presumed to be a new spaceplane. It’s nature determines that it isn’t known to us because CASC want’s to keep it secret. Launched form Jiuquan. That was not relevant to this challenge, so you may consider keeping it low here but I’d be glad to discuss it with you elsewhere on some specific threads.

@Acea就你一个中国Moderator吗？ 题外话：作为一名初一学生，觉得这里的英语挺好懂啊，所以来这儿啦，来看坎吧小吧在这里的地位…

It's fine, and I too only viewed their release threads for their propulsion sys and launch vehicles but not downloaded due to its massive size. If all that specific impulse isn't enough, we may need KSPIE, which is over-powered for this challenge, and not allowed. You know, NFT is in the "near future" which we may see, but KSPIE is in the "far future", which we would probably be unable to witness. It is interesting anyways, if wee have some engines giving off burned exhausts at freaking high speeds, like what NFT does. Chemical rockets are nearly to its end of development (in payload capabilities) in real life, but not in KSP. I know everyone has different habits, but my gravity turn usually initiates at some 15 seconds after launch, tilting it to 5o at first, and slowly turn it afterwards, until ap exceeds 200km and 2min, for my low TWR second stage to get enough time to get into orbit. BTW, boosters don't have to be symmetrical, and Atlas knows why. If 6 isn't enough and 8 is an overkill, just put 7. Don't really have to care about the deviation, if your gimbal is strong enough. CBC-styled rockets like Delta-IV and FH may also be helpful, if your core stage TWR is over 1. My rockets sometimes end up heavier, and more expensive, using more smaller boosters. Do not explode like N-1. Do not let Jeb poke a hole in your first stage liquid fuel tank. Do not let Bill crash a home-made missile into the engine. Do not try to use f12.

I think this is because I forced quit KSP, but I don't know about such codes.

Well, we still have to push the upper stage away from the payload. Consider tweaking force percent to 0 and attach small SRBs on the upper stage to push it really far. You are free to add reaction wheels, if you can endure the added mass. Consider putting it on the upper stage.

Universe Sandbox is a sandbox simulator of Newton Physics, with features like collision and tidal heating and tidal disintegration and black holes and supernovae and climate and celestial bodies' inner structure and so forth, and supports VR. They are hiring a spacecraft physics developer on the website (is it expired?). If they successfully add the feature, which do you think is better, Universe Sandbox2 or KSP? (Universe Sandbox is in its "2nd" state, like the coming KSP2.)