Sean Mirrsen

When your rover is just a command seat with wheels, and you light the way with helmet lights, then you probably can't go any smaller. Maneuverable like you won't believe, as long as you turn off the front wheel motors. Easy to flip upright, too, but hardly ever turns over. And of course, the battery-independent light helps.

The Aerospike is, quite simply, a superior engine type. Smaller and more efficient than the typical bell nozzles. Its main balancing points should be cost (once that matters), mass (it should be heavier than the LV-T30's), and heat generation (shouldn't survive in massed clusters). In other words, it would be a cutting-edge engine that you only really use one or two of. The Mainsail may be less efficient, at low altitudes especially, but it would be much cheaper, slightly lighter for the thrust generated, and would not create a cooling nightmare, once the proper logistics of heat management are implemented.Also, we need linear aerospikes.

Why don't things ever fly as well as they look? Can't seem to find enough of a fuel/engine balance to lift this thing out of the atmosphere efficiently enough. And yes, it features some semi-gratuitous use of clipping to make it slimmer.

No, fuel in a rocket is just reaction mass. Being "reacted" and being "ejected" is the same thing. Newton's third law, remember? Whether fuel is burned (conventional engines), heated to boiling point and ejected (NERVAs) or just plain thrown overboard doesn't matter.Point is, there is to be no propulsion system on the craft whatsoever, at least no functioning one. Also no landing gear, although that is basically a technicality - landing gear aren't a magic unbreakable part, they're just a pretty tough part with no friction problems. Structural pylons are hardly any different from them. In my opinion, just restricting it to "no propulsion of any sort and no parachutes" would work just as well, though having no landing gear certainly does force the pilot to make the approach much more carefully.

Why does landing larger craft yield more points? One would think the other way around would make more sense. Anybody can make a capsule surrounded by wings and control surfaces and land it. Can you land a capsule with just two wings and no ASAS or control surfaces? I did, at one point. Hold on while I try to recreate the thing... edit: On takeoff. Going up. And up. Capsule away! Gliding in. This... counts as a landing, right? Well, any landing you can walk away from... The things that look like skids are leftovers from the decoupler, and they did a lot to contribute to the broken state of the wings, because they exploded as soon as I touched down, and the whole thing tumbled over. :\

Here's mine: I wanted to design a "drop tank rocket", and I think I succeeded. The main body (in the last shot) can get to Jool orbit (in theory - I've yet to time the approach properly), and the top stage theoretically has enough fuel to return from anywhere the main body gets it to. The parachute for the capsule is hidden within the decoupler, as is customary for the MkI cockpit.

Okaaay... the NERVA engine should make deep-space flights easier in theory, but doing anything once there is going to be tricky... edit: That's a very neat design, boolybooly. Simple, yet manages to look interesting.

Okay, this was completely unintended, but this is hilarious. When the Lawndart is on the runway, do these three things in sequence: Extend upper pair of landing legs; Raise nose gear; Extend lower pair of landing legs.Instant nosestand!

Well, it's sorta halfway between regular and advanced, but meh. I was never good at those precision runway landing things. Say hello to the mighty Lawndart. Here's how its flight went: (img limits are stupid. The pics are in link form.) Takeoff! Flipover for first landing. What this was about: Nosestand! Second takeoff! Second flipover! And precision landing on the runway.... er, or somewhere nearby. Flies like a tiny drunken brick. Don't be hasty retracting the landing gear on takeoff, and don't forget to turn off the reverse engines before firing the first stage. The new attachment system is unusable, so here's the craft file on my Dropbox: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4152380/Lawndart_1/Lawndart.craft

Maybe it's an asteroid? There are rather few things you can find in space that are irregularly shaped, and asteroids are one such kind of things.

I didn't go with the landing legs because A) it looks silly, and you can't open or close them while you're on EVA. I believe I tried and failed, at least. Using two pylons instead of one would still probably be an improvement, but it's 0.1 extra mass and a bit of extra drag, for questionable gain.Either way, if your Kerbal detaches and ragdolls while in the pod, he's going to fall through the decoupler. At least that happened when I tested it. The helmet was too big to fit between the pylons though, so the kerbal's head got stuck.

They've got a fairly finicky active area around the boxy part, but if you right click that (the part doesn't highlight when you hover over it), you get a context menu with the option to extend 'em. Unlike all other context menus, this works even if you're EVA, so you can extend a ladder of the craft you're standing next to.

Well, I landed this stack on Minmus... I suppose it wouldn\'t have enough power to safely land on the Mun though.

Um, 500U as cargo? That\'s.. about four times the size of the largest SSTO monstrosity that I have built. I.e., this one. Clarification on that cargo mass, please? 500 mass units delivered to orbit would require a rocket five times the size of the launch tower.

I\'ve got an SSTO that\'s theoretically capable of a double suborbital jump to any location on the planet (within reason, i.e. any reasonably long and flat piece of ground), but it has no space for extra crew (they\'d have to cling to ladders), and they\'d be scared pantsless by the way the thing flies. I\'ll go do a few experimental missions and report what happens.

Be advised, this bug means that you can\'t use PERDs or similar devices if you plan on dropping from beyond 100km. At least it means that you can\'t mount them till that point.

Your single end spoke is on backwards. It should point inwards, otherwise it can\'t hold the Kerbal if he detaches from the ladder. Also, the Kerbal in the picture is likewise sitting on the thing backwards. His head should face the parachute. And besides, it\'s still a largely open cage. Reentering too fast can still throw you out. I could add a landing gear to it, but it\'d make the whole thing a mite too heavy.

I was just about to start a challenge of my own along these lines, but then I saw this thread. Behold, the Personal Escape&Reentry Device. This small (0.81t) and almost reliable device can allow a single Kerbal to safely plummet to the surface of a planet with an atmosphere, and survive the landing. Construction is easy, as the device is comprised of just seven parts. Here is the log of the latest, most complex test performed: The lifter craft stands on the launchpad. Note the lack of conventional crew rescue systems - these pilots are highly paid to trust whatever our R&D division comes up with. Liftoff! Boosters are cast off. And the crew is (nominally) in space. Two crewmembers, Bill and Ludlong, climb out and assume their positions in the available PERDs. Jebediah pulls the PERD release and climbs into one himself before the craft reaches critical altitude. Being the professional that he is, he does it upside-down. Unfortunately, the upright position is recommended for a reason, and Jeb is unceremoniously flung off his PERD, his fate uncertain (but he\'ll be back). Bill and Ludlong keep their grip, and safely descend along with Jeb\'s empty PERD. Parachutes finally open: And here is Bill Kerman, having successfully survived re-entry on nothing but a parachute and a handful of scrap. Ludlong\'s PERD had.. slightly deteriorated during landing... But after a short walk, both accounted-for pilots stand together, ready to be picked up by the next bus to KSC. (Jeb was waiting for them in the cafeteria, and refused to give explanations on how he got there before them)

I lack the patience to fully sit through 11 minutes of slowly loading video, but I\'ve scanned through it and I haven\'t seen anything resembling a craft fit for this challenge. Even if one does appear in some segment that I\'ve missed, the man quite clearly uses mod parts, while this challenge is all stock.

It likely won\'t work come 0.16.1. Going by the craft file (it uses mechjeb so I can\'t open it), it uses aerospikes to fly, so likely doesn\'t use full throttle on ascent and during circularization. In 0.16, this saves you fuel due to a bug. 0.16 craft will only survive the 16.1 update if you can orbit them using full thrust at all times.

I sincerely doubt that my one successful attempt, made last version, will still work in 0.16 (fuel use glitch disregarded), but I will try to do this nonetheless.

It\'s already fixed, alongside a few more related bugs (read the thread), the question is when there\'s going to be a 0.16.1.

It should be noted that there is a curious (and serious) bug in 0.16 that will likely devalue all moon-shot attempts, so we\'ll have to drop the 0.16 list when 0.16.1 rolls out.

6 linear thrusters and a command pod could very nearly reach orbit in 0.15.2. So it\'s really not a challenge at all.

Idle curiosity: does climbing back onto the runway count for an Advanced Precision Award? I made three passes trying to line up to the runway, and then the sun set and I said 'screw it', landed on the ground and taxied back.