M5000

Actually, OP, I'm quite glad you re-started the poll, as, after closer deliberation in deciding how I was going to vote, I've changed around my votes quite a bit, especially with the new system. I ended up actually voting for 11 of the 22 entries, but two were tied for first place, so there are ten "ranks". I decided to vote on who sold their rover the best, as well as the core functionality of the rover as it applies to a stock game. I came in a two-way tie for the actual "first place" as it was extremely hard to decide between the two. I will list the votes I actually ordered in order from last to first place. (10th to the tie for 1st. There would be 11 positions, but I tied the first two.) I also was looking for a rover that could more or less fit on a 2.5m framed lifter. 10th: Antbin "The One Way Ticket": This one had to grow on me, I like it the more I look at it, actually. However, it's quite a bit bigger than what I would have considered an optimal setup. It's also a rover based on stranding Kerbs on an off-world location. Those facts can be dampened by the amount of character it has, and the way you've sold it to me. It is truly a very Kerbal rover. Unforgettable, at the very least. A good design, Antbin. 9th: Zekes "Lorrie": Visually, I really love the design you've put into your delivery system and lifter. However, this is scoring based on the rover and skycrane only, so, regrettably, I had to force myself to completely ignore the transfer stage. The biggest hangup was that there was not a whole lot of really good pictures of your rover. While I'd assume it can land and do all kinds of things, I didn't see much documentation, so I couldn't offer an "exceptional" score. Regardless, your rover and skycrane were well designed and simple, so I had to include it in my top 11. An example of fine design work. Good job, Zekes. 8th: SaplingPick "SkyBug Mk1 Rover": You've gone and made your system very adaptable, with the ability to land on Mun, Duna, and Laythe, your rover will be used extensively elsewhere in the sytem, I'd reckon. Your entire system is encapsulated in a tidy little fairing and does quite well. The redundancy of multiple sources of power generation is nice, too. The only place I've docked points is on the rover, which appears to be topheavy, and appears to be putting those tiny wheels to near their weight limit for the suspension. Another issue is one you demonstrated yourself, in that it can break off its own panels very easily. Static panels only would have done better, in my opinion. However, it's still a neat, compact, and simple package that deserves recognition. Good job, SaplingPick. 7th: Kasuha "BSC Skycrane and Rover": Your rover has a quite different design than most of the others on this list. It's a fair bit larger, and that's what really hurt the others' scores from me who didn't make it to the list, but your rover manages to beat the odds because it has a lot to offer for its size. It can support crew, and is self-righting. It also has a lot of open space to which a payload could be added, it appears. Your largest selling points were: -Your rover is rugged, extremely versatile, and self-righting. -Your skycrane is extremely simple. -You provided excellent documentation and examples of your rover in action. The only thing that I counted as a hangup was the size, which is one of the most important things I was looking for. The versatility you included was actually what contributed to the fairly bulky size, however, it is still an excellent entry. Well done, Kasuha. 6th: Tarmenius "SCAR": Now here's a simple design if I ever did see one. The rover looks stable and extremely well-designed. The skycrane is beautifully simple, and they all fit into a fairly compact package. The only thing that isn't quite fitting in is that this system is kind of limited in where it looks like it would be easy to land. Obviously it can land on Duna, but you claim a 736m/s of delta-V, which, yes, should get most things down on the Mun. However, if this is supposed to be a system to be used by a newer player, it's not quite as friendly if there's not a whole lot of breathing room for mistakes. So, the extreme simplicity of the skycrane is also its biggest downfall, as it lacks a bit more delta-V which would have made it optimal. However, one must take it for what it is: It's still a VERY simple and lightweight system, so for that you get consideration. Excellent job Tarmenius. 5th: Spartwo "Endeavor": Oh god where do I start with this one? It's so tiny. It's so lightweight. I feel like I could just frisbee that whole assembly at a celestial body and it'd make it. I mean, there isn't much to say other than this is an extremely efficient looking and simple design. It looks just like one of the rovers I had designed, in that it's tiny, efficient, and it's simply well done. Nothing to be said other than it sets unrealistically high standards of beauty for newbies Excellent job, Spartwo. 4th: Speeding Mullet "Skycon Crumple Zone": First impressions: It's big. Taking a second look: This is an extremely well thought-out and easy to use looking design that supports a robust mission architecture. The biggest complaint I have is that it is extremely large. However, just like Kasuha's rover above, for what it accomplishes, this is more than excusable. While it doesn't look like your rover can self-right, there shouldn't be a need to, as it doesn't look like it's tipping over any time soon. The fact that the skycrane handles the whole de-orbit and landing, as well as placing both sections on the ground is a huge plus for simplicity. It also appears to have plenty of fuel for the inevitable course correction. The returnable habitat is also a great feature. The only thing that lost points was the sheer size of the assembly. This may be a better craft for a later mission, after one had mastered landing an unmanned rover/skycrane. Exceptional entry, Speeding Mullet. 3rd: Deathsoul097 "Sojourner": An entry that I've dropped slightly from the lead, but still stands out as an exceptionally beautiful design. The simplicity behind this design is humbling, but, as said yourself, the skycrane is overpowered. This could be a true masterpiece if the efficiency would be increased by using the "ant" engines, or less of the radial oranges. This hitch may make it hard to fly for a newbie. Still, one of my favorite entries due to the compact size and beautiful design work. Still an exceptional entry, Deathsoul097. 2nd: Sploden "Kuriosity": While I love the entire craft, I had to disregard everything up to the final ascent capsule. The heatshield and shielded skycrane are where I started judging. This is actually a two-part skycrane/landercrane, it seems. One for the E, and the other for the D and L, in "EDL". I really REALLY like this design. In fact, it looks like what I probably would have come up with had I entered this challenge. It's rugged looking, and the rover is well designed. I really like the final descent..lander..thing. I'm not sure what to call it. It's not really a skycrane, but if the OP takes it, that's all that matters. This is actually a much better landing method than a skycrane to begin with, it waits until the rover is stable on the ground, and releases it from a known height to avoid damage, then moves away. Much safer, so I appreciate that. It's optimal for a newbie to use, and it comes in a compact, 2.5m sized capsule. Very great design, Sploden! My personal favorite entry! 1st: Tie between Andrew Hansen "NOKERB Exploring Machine" and Ravenchant "R-31 Dustmarcher & Heron Skycrane". Andrew Hansen: This was another design that had to grow on me. At first, I saw the large wheels and thought it unnecessarily bulky, especially for not carrying any science equipment. Count in the fairly large skycrane, and it starts to become very big and ungainly. But then I watched the video. That's when everything changed. Seeing that rover being able to cover immense distances and survive the extreme bumps and dings that would have meant game over for any other rover, I instantly changed my mind. Your entry went from one I wasn't even considering, to first-place tie with another great entry. I then thought "Who sends out a rover to do science anyway? Humans, that's who, and we don't like them." At which point, I completely disregarded your lack of any science equipment on the rover and took it for what it is: An extremely rugged and durable rover able to cross any obstacle it comes across. I figure this is one of the best rovers for noobs, because what does every new player do the first time they go roving? They flip it. They get it stuck or get bored because it's so slow. You've made a tedious process such as driving a rover into an enjoyable psuedo-flight experience. Not to mention the excellent amount of character you sold it under. You also included an objective comparison sheet to all the other entries for judgement, it's not pretentious, it's not excessive, it's fun in every sense of the word. I like to think of this one like a Tonka toy. It's tough, takes a bit of abuse, and it's fun for everyone. Extremely well done, Andrew Hansen! Ravenchant: Your entry is the absolute most beautiful entry of all of them, from a visual and a design perspective. It's tiny, yet it can totally carry a Kerb. It uses static panels that are more durable than the expandable ones, and it has a skycrane that looks exactly appropriate for the job. It's wide, it carries all the science equipment, and it's adaptable. This appears to be for the other kind of new player, who more or less can fly well, but is more interested in seriously playing the game with realistic and well designed craft. I also love that you used the ant engines, as they're highly underappreciated. Your design is excellent and is why it's placed in a sort of yin-yang relationship with the NOKERB. Very well done, all of you, even those not on this list! -M5K

Let's see, first it depends on whether you're more interested in Spaceplanes or Rockets. I love both B9 Aerospace AND KW rocketry, but I cannot seem to run them along-side of each other without frequent RAM crashes. So, that's your first decision, as they are large packs. B9 might not play well with other packs, but I've gotten KW to run alongside several other mods. I don't mess with mods that don't provide a part I will use frequently. I also will NOT sacrifice and install PART of a mod. It's all or nothing. So, here's what I run on my current install... -KW Rocketry. (This is the absolute staple of my space program, everything else takes on a lower priority for this to run.) -RLA Stockalike pack, Electric Engines pack, and Power Generation pack. (Provides a nice selection of additional ion engines, as well as a complete .625m set of fuel tanks and engines, plus some other bits I've found very useful for making tiny craft, or increasing the efficiency of my operations. I liken this to a sort of newer version of KSPX, since KSPX has had most of its vital parts more or less integrated to stock.) -Near Future Propulsion pack. (Introduces several more engines that run on Xenon, or one of two new resources: Argon and Hydrogen. They are rage-inducing to provide power for, but Nertea has implemented some interesting solutions to the problem of the power hungry engines. They're relatively balanced, and reasonably not bugged. -FusTek Karmony station modules. (It's a pack of station modules and it comes with a pretty useful large static solar panel.) -FusTek Expansion pack. (More, varied station modules that are based on the FusTek style and (I believe) use the same textures, so this doesn't use a TON of RAM, to my knowledge. Also includes a common berthing mechanism that's based on Fusty's old one, but behaves much better. Think of it as a super-rigid docking port. There's not many IVA's yet as they are a WIP, but that's okay because the basic functionality is there. Not sure if my install will be able to handle the added RAM usage from the IVAs when implemented, so we'll see.) -Kommit Nucleonics. (A small pack of a few nuke engines and a larger toroidal fuel tank. Expands upon the nuke engine and gives several new options for a low-thrust, comparatively high efficiency LF/O fueled engine.) -Kerbal Attachment System. (While not quite as complete as I might like it to be, it's quite a good mod and adds a whole lot of functionality that I think is necessary to have.) -PWings. (Procedural Wings, make wings of any size or shape you need! ) -Crew Manifest. (Move Kerbals between modules without EVA, do a bit of other cool stuff. Plugin only, no part associated with it so it's low RAM usage. I have a lot of little plugin-based things that really add a lot of good stuff to the game.) -Kerbal Engineer Redux. (Yes, it has a few parts, but it's useful to me in the editor to see how a craft might perform on another world. A useful build aid, I might say.) -KerbCam. (A camera pathing tool that a lot of video makers use. I've not yet used it to create anything meaningful, but it's there and takes up almost no memory space since there are no parts to associate with, so it's like "Why not?" Mostly a result of my half-baked ideas to make Youtube videos.) -SelectRoot. (It lets you select the root part of a vessel to something new without manually rebuilding the whole craft. Another useful little plugin, and REALLY useful since the new subassembly feature has been implemented.) -Editor Extensions. (Adds a few cool things to the editor that really should be in the stock game, but meh. I don't know if this is even updated anymore, as the version I'm running has a plugin in the legacy "Plugins" folder in the root KSP directory. It's the only /old/ mod I'm running. Also, if someone ever tells you that the legacy folder structure doesn't work, they're lying. It's in there and it still works, though it's largely unused. Butttt.. If you try to load up an old mod from way back when, it might actually work. Maybe.) -Improved Maneuver Nodes. (Helps with maneuver nodes and lets you change your conics patch mode on-the-fly.) -Improved NavBall. (Makes markers ghost on the edges so you always know where to turn for retro/prograde, and adds normal/radial +/- markers.) -NovaSilisko's Audio Muffler Plugin. (It's a simple plugin that filters out sound, making it more muffled as you approach vacuum. In vacuum, sounds are much different with this, though it affects all the audio channels in the game, so it also muffles the music in-game. Rocket engines are a low rumble, decouplers sound like a distant TNT explosion, explosions sound more like a loud thud, and some of the engines in the Near Future pack sound like a low droning sound.) -MechJeb 2.1. (Use it if you want. It's really not that bad. I don't use it for all the automated features, but the Smart ASS, Translatotron, and the Utilities window, as well as the simple, sparse, yet informative in-editor and in-flight Delta-V/Vessel Info are staples to all but the simplest flights. Since I use a lot of low-thrust ion engines, my burn times take forever. Smart ASS is very helpful to keep the craft pointed prograde precisely through the burns, and the Translatotron is extremely useful for hovering landers. I still fly all my launches to orbit manually, and do mostly manual landings, but some of these tools are indispensible, especially for testing/debugging of craft. Don't let other people's opinions influence your decision on whether or not to use MechJeb, it's a tool, not a crutch, and it's very useful. That's the objective truth.) I'm also currently following development of two new small part mods, and am considering adding them... See below: A small, 2-man command pod not unlike Gemini: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60974-Stock-alike-two-man-command-pod-%28for-1-25m-parts%29 Service compartments to make craft way cleaner: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61040-6S-Service-Compartment-Tubes-Design-smooth! Those are all the mods I'm using currently. It looks like a long list, but those little plugin mods add a ton of functionality for a tiny bit of RAM usage. I'd highly suggest looking into more of those, if you find yourself strapped for RAM. -M5K

I've cast my four votes, and, despite not being in the challenge myself, there are quite a few really good entries. But, I only had four votes, so let me explain how I cast my votes. Rather than go through each entry, I will explain the general guidelines for what I think the best entries have. There seem to be a lot of entries that are focusing on doing too much too quickly. I believe that an effective stock craft can serve as an example to new players to have an optimally designed craft, whilst still being able to be playable for the masses. I voted for rovers that were based on a smaller frame, and appeared to be efficient in their build quality. I also tended to shy away from manned rovers, as there isn't too much reason to have a manned "My first rover". I also searched for rovers that appeared to be able to be mounted atop a 2.5 meter lifter and still be completely covered by fairings, for a more polished look. Rovers that tended to be excessively bulky were not as high on my list. Yes, I understand that looks are not necessarily part of the challenge and entrants were not instructed to design for such a thing, but there's something to be said for a good looking rover, so that certainly swayed my vote in their favor. Besides, the game's stock maximum size is based on a 2.5 meter frame, so why shouldn't the rovers, too, be? I also searched for rovers that landed on their wheels. As stated before, if this craft is likely to be used by a newbie to the game, I believe that having the rover deployed with some sort of complex mechanism just will add to confusion and frustration on an otherwise simple landing. These rovers gained extra consideration. In general, I was looking for a design that was well thought-out, clean, and simple, without the added (often unneccessary, while nice) features that more advanced rovers will bring to the table. I was looking for something that could land, and do roving. In that, I've voted for the following entries: -SaplingPick -Tarmenius -Deathsoul097 -Ravenchant My favorite of these is the entry by Deathsoul097, as it seems to be the simplest yet most robust of all the rovers. -M5K

Oh... I haven't been to the Fanworks section in forever, so I decide to pop in and see this thread. Will be monitoring, as I like what I've seen thus far!

Are you sure it's blueshift? Don't you have to be going quite a bit faster for blueshift to occur?

What about Mods not having personalities? We were all regular members at some point! D: I mean, maybe you SEE moderators as being "the ones who show up and lock threads" because, you know, that's the last post in the thread and everyone looks at that. What's to say you wouldn't have skipped it over had we been normal players pleading for the thread to get back on topic. Point is, respect your fellow players, moderator or otherwise. c: -M5K

You can keep the nose pointed north, and have it rotate about its central "shaft" just rotate to the normal/antinormal position and, while the craft will still roll, at least the nose/engine will always point north/south depending on how you place it. This assumes an equatorial orbit, though, else it won't be perfectly North or South.

Unfortunately, I haven't done much in the way of sending a Kerb anywhere but the Mun or Minmus, due to the fact that I haven't yet found an efficient way to transport a Kerb (or multiple) interplanetary. However, that may be about to change. That says something, though. I usually will shoot unmanned probes off to wherever. I haven't yet designed the mission architecture for a long-term mission to another planet, though, I think Dres may be my next target, as it's fairly close and decently easy to land on. Or Duna, like normal people do.

Would have to agree that all stock engines are absolutely NOT antiquated by KW's implementation of efficiency and high thrust. There is still a great margin for the Mainsail and the Skipper alike, as well as the T-45 and T-30, you'd just have to use something like Mechjeb's in-editor stats, or Kerbal Engineer to see which engine will give you the TWR you want, while maximizing the delta-V. There ARE occasions, albeit I find these less common than they used to be, that the Mainsail or Skipper is the best engine for the job. They're simply not replaceable quite yet.

I'd have to echo with the requests for a few new SRBs. I'd love a huge Space Shuttle Booster type one, with insane power and thrust but being very awkward to incorporate into a design that isn't totally massive. Also, a shorter SRB that could be repeatedly stacked, yet is able to still have some lifting power, such as the Minotaur V's design would be pretty cool.

I'm particularly a fan of Billy-Bobgas Kerman, it's just the name, I can't say it without laughing.

Landing an unmanned rover on the Mun was one of the first things I did. Albeit, I play with mod parts. I forget what my lifter even looked like, to be honest. However, that was long ago before KSP was even on Steam, so I can't say for sure what my hours were when I first touched down...

I have only ever landed one thing on Eve, a single lone unmanned rover. An odd planet, it is...

Personally, I love the look of probe landers, but it's always such a disappointment when I land. It's like this big, adrenaline rush while landing, then it touches down and it's like "Oh... I guess that's it then..." *snaps screenshots and goes back to tracking station* Whereas if I land a rover, it's an event.. "Ah.. Okay, we're safe on the ground.. Now.. About that skycrane I was supposed to decouple while still in the air..." I then proceed to drive around and do science until the monotony of the terrain begins to drive me insane (approx. 4 hours of driving) at which point, I go to the tracking station and pretty much forget that I have a rover wherever I just landed that rover.

I came here to post exactly this. I was going to start typing but there's really no way to more accurately describe my abort procedure.

RanZ you would be correct on that. Come on guys, .22 like, just came out, and .23 is the next one, we're still not 100% sure what'll be in that update until it's out. Until .23 is released, maybe then we'll have a bit of speculation on .24, until then, let's calm down a bit. -M5K

Make that another echo, sounds like a great idea to me. I love using the baby Vesta for OTVs, but it does provide a lot of thrust that may not be necessary for OTV application, and could subsequently be turned into a smaller, higher Isp engine. One more set to really round out the otherwise perfect selection. Also, B787_300, for your NERVA needs, why not check out Kommitz' Nucleonics engines for at least the time being? They're modeled to the same standard of quality and actually a similar modeling STYLE to the KW pack, and the fairings that auto-create for them are white with black checkers. Very cool. -M5K

Pack Oreos, Larry.

I've arrived into Mun orbit multiple times going the wrong way (In fact, almost EVERY time I'm coming in the wrong way...) Just burn retrograde until it becomes prograde and you're going the same speed you started out as. Will totally reverse your orbit. The higher you are, the easier this will be, since there's less change in velocity, and there's more time to "fall"

This is going to sound really stupid but basically a cocktail of things about horizontal velocity. -If you decrease your horizontal velocity to zero, you're not moving forward anymore so just drop down for the final landing. -If you zero out your horizontal velocity, you'll fall straight down. -If you're on a low gravity world and enter orbit going the wrong way, burn retrograde until it becomes prograde and your orbital velocity is the same as it was before, guess what? You just did a cartoon-esque switcharoo and are going the right way! (Most crafts I design for missions have plenty of excess fuel to make this type of maneuver trivial in comparison to consumption.)

Obviously they're made of depleted Uranium panels that contain reactive explosive charges, like on the M1A2 TUSK, to deflect any incoming Kerba-I mean projectiles sent from KSC2 obviously. Totally not for destroying evidence as it fails.

Apologize not! That you gave ANY info in the first place is enough for me. However it turns out, I'm sure it will be one of those things I absolutely must have. -M5K

Well, there's no physics in the editor, so why not remove all those ugly struts and start from scratch? I can't really tell you specifically where to put struts since I have no picture of your craft, but I can offer these guidelines.. -Triangles. Strut in triangles. -If you have a particularly long part, such as a tank attached to another tank, put two on the top, and two on the bottom to the main stack. As well as one more between tanks on top/bottom. But to answer the core of your question, there's no way that I know of to remove all of one part at once, other than doing it all by hand.

I'll go ahead and post this, from the B9 Aerospace thread. I believe this is still within context. That means.. Longer decouplers will not help the situation. A stronger attachment point? Sure, though. So there you have it. I believe the only time you get explosions is when a part falls OFF or is no longer "part of the craft." When that happens, it may have been clipping and been just fine if it were still attached, but as soon as it falls off... BOOM. That's how I've come to understand the craft hierarchy.

I feel your problem, and I have a bit of good news, a bit of bad news, and a bit of news that isn't quite one or the other. The good news: Yes, using docking ports along the sides of your rocket may work for multiple attachment points. While they will NOT be attached in the editor technically, they SHOULD dock almost instantly upon physics enable. Only thing you'll need to watch for is uniform distance from the center stack, so you may need to get rid of the radial decoupler and opt for docking port-only connections. Again, the pieces, if built correctly, will not connect in the editor, but will dock upon physics load. However, this really isn't the best option. The bad news: It won't matter how long you make the decoupler, unfortunately, since you'll still only attach at one point. The tank would pivot around there and just clip through it as it bows/bends under the weight (just like any other time you'd do this with a teeny tiny decoupler). So, a really long decoupler isn't going to help. The neutral: It looks like strutting is your only real option, unless something fundamental to the way the game calculates collisions and craft trees is changed. However, strutting doesn't have to be ugly. Put two struts on top and two struts on bottom of each radial tank, connecting to the central stack. Put one strut on top and one on bottom connecting to the next tank over (if you're using more than two tanks). Add some separation motors to push them out of the way (since the struts will kill your decoupler force) and that should be all you need. This method (using the KW heavy struts for me, but I've no reason to believe it wouldn't work for stock ones) holds two orange tanks stacked atop each other to a central 3.75m core. I'm sure you can adapt it in your own way. So yeah, looks like strutting is going to be your only valid option.