Ojimak

How hard did you look? Here is a thread, on this very subforum, specifically about bases/colnies that was made 11 days ago. I apologize for any offense incurred, none was intentional. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with a new thread, considering that the old one is several pages back. -Ojimak

A Kerbal Space needle: -Ojimak

I'm pretty sure it requires less delta-V to get to Minmus and back than to get to the Mun and back due to Minmus' gravity well, so you should in theory be able to make it to Minmus and back without modifications. However, if you want greater efficiency/more piloting leeway, I would add a nerva or two (or three, for that matter, if you don't like long burns) to the transfer stage, which would give you a much nicer fuel budget, as long as your first stage has enough oomph to bring it all to orbit, which it looks like it should. Also, piloting can make a major difference in how much fuel you use. The first Mun rocket I built landed without enough fuel to return, but upon my learning to fly at least slightly better, I later was able to return to Kerbin with some of the transfer stage and all of the lander stage's fuel left. What kind of flight plan do you usually undertake for a Mun trip? I would personally also add a decoupler between the pod and the fuel tank, just because I'm silly and cannot imagine the entire return stage surviving reentry IRL (but hey, this is KSP). -Ojimak (my advice probably isn't the best, but its better than none)

To refuel the EVA packs, simply reboard any capsule. -Ojimak I apologize if you already knew that.

See here for all of the key bindings (the last section is for how to tilt/rotate/move parts in the VAB and SPH) For cars, I don't think you'll find too many cars for version 0.20, but there are several for 19.1 if you look past maybe, page 10 in the spacecraft exchange. For example, here is a Delorian someone made for 19.1. -Ojimak Edit: Just realized that the op was just looking for a small vehicle, not one that looked like a real life vehicle.

My first try: (who needs control when you can just make yourself spin?) score: 4 Kerbals on an escape trajectory out of Kerbin = 8416+100*3 = 8716 On the pad (note the separatrons ready to dispose of the capsules and the crew manifest icon in the top left): With the crew added, dropped to their seats, and the capsules disposed of: altitude after running out of solid fuel: orbiting the sun: I must say, I think it simply boils down to how many Kerbals you can get on an escape trajectory out of Kerbin. -Ojimak

Ok, so just to start this off, here's something I made a while ago posted for fun on the BobCat Colonization challenge (remember me?) On the pad, showing all components on a single 700-ish part rocket: On the Mun (communications device and all sensors are present on the central module): Points: 2 manned rovers = 2*7 = 14 8 hitchhiker storage containers = 8*8 = 64 Total = 14 + 64 = 78 That shouldn't be too hard to beat, especially with all of the new incredibly heavy launchers popping up on the forum. -Ojimak

Link to one I posted 20 days ago on the forum: Here general stats: all stock 1 launch 42 Kerbal capacity 2 rovers 9 modules picture of it on the Mun (see the linked thread for more information): -Ojimak

People at this link have reached the sun with only the RT-10s as part of another challenge. I don't know how that should count for points in your challenge, but I felt like it should at least be mentioned. -Ojimak

Your (and everyone else's) point now has pictures to go with it: On the pad (poor planet Kerbin has no idea what's about to hit it) Somewhere very far from everything else, 30 seconds later (the decoupler itself hit Kerbin with enough force that it says it splashed down, despite hitting land) That sir, if you cannot read it, is 37,045,408,034,834 m. Half a second, and there is a three in the hundred-billions place instead of a zero Had I added just another 0 to end of the ejection force in the decoupler cfg file, or added another zero between the decimal point and the one in the probe core mass, this distance would have been much larger, as if it wasn't large enough. -Ojimak Edit: Just realized that the menu in the image says the maximum g-force was 1.5 g. I wonder if that will ever be fixed.

Yeah, this might get kind of insane. Even without using hyper edit, someone can edit the cfg files of a probe core to have zero mass, zero drag, and a very high damage tolerance, edit a single decoupler to have an ejection force of something monstrous, strap the two together, hit launch, press the spacebar, and watch physics destroy itself. This challenge could get very crazy, very fast. Regardless, here is my submission, with only use of the debug menu. Note: I accidentally made the probe core overheat too quickly and the flight ended at only 25 seconds in, so only 158,258 m resulted, relatively low, even considering that this was my first try. -Ojimak

I already tried doing that for fun, and its not as incredibly easy as it initially seems. Overheating issues occur really quickly and I know that at least my computer has issues where, once a certain amount of separatrons are on a craft, it shakes itself to pieces as if parts are clipped, even when they are not. But it is awfully fun to fly into the sun after only a few minutes of effort.

For making your craft more computer friendly (a plus) and efficient (a debatable plus, I mean, it is KSP...), I'd advise to maybe use a launch vehicle similar to Temstar's NOVA SHLLV. When I launched my own single-ship colonies, I used an indigenous launch design based on Temstar's, and it worked pretty well. Temstar's rocket family, you could choose one or just look at his designs my own one launch colony (much larger in terms of crew, nil in terms of other resources) All in all, its nice to see other people creating monstrous ships for one-launch, at least mostly complete colonies. -Ojimak

For those interested, it's unfortunate to note that despite the awesome power of decouplers, this challenge has probably advanced beyond them. 600ish parts on the pad: 30 seconds in: Check out the highest speed achieved (52,799 m/s, too bad drag on the probe core is enough to slow it down) -Ojimak

You raised your highest by 17 m/s, I raise that by another 17 m/s: 777 m/s Oh, and mine doesn't explode: -Ojimak ....I knew this kind of silliness would eventually result from this challenge, although I must say that I've had my part in it.

The wheels are massless and dragless as far as the KSP physics engine is concerned, so the aircraft wheels are not dead-weight. And although you beat my speed, come on, you don't have the weight or drag of a Kerbal-carrying cockpit on your vessel. But congrats anyways. For now. -Ojimak

More separatron spam = 741 m/s At the beginning of the runway: seconds before a violent launch into the air and subsequent destruction: As a side note, the farthest out pair of separatron clusters only added about 36 m/s, so I think this speed is close to the theoretical separatron limit. -Ojimak

Beautiful, but too bad that either the carrier vehicle or the SpaceShipTwo replica will end up crashing into the surface as only one can be controlled at a time. Oh, and is there a probe core at the center of the WhiteKnightTwo replica for ease of control if one is flying just WhiteKnightTwo? Also too bad that KSP stock parts don't have the hinges required to feather the wings of SpaceShipTwo in the almost-trademark method of Virgin Galactic crafts, although such a design is unneeded (for now) in KSP for a properly aligned reentry. -Ojimak

Some people have created SSTOs that use only jets and ion engines (see this link for an example ion engine powered SSTO that I remember off the top of my head (do a ctrl-f for " ion "), thereby lending their craft ridiculously high delta-V values... Maybe specifying "not including ion engines" might be better. Oh, and just some questions: Why is a large Delta-V good? Shouldn't a smaller delta-V be a better hallmark of an efficient craft? Maybe a better question to ask would be something along the lines of "how great a payload have you hefted to orbit with an SSTO?" or "what is the greatest payload fraction have you achieved with an SSTO?," with both questions revealing some surprisingly well designed craft, if you search through the forums or if people respond. -Ojimak

Before the forum mishap, there was a similar challenge, and it quickly degenerated into separatron spam. If this is to become a construction challenge rather than a "who has the best computer" challenge, then categories like propulsion type would be good. Example: 556 m/s (in the old challenge, some got ~750 m/s) As a random sidenote about this mainly proof of concept rover, it is actually possible to stop it using the wheel brakes before entering the water. And yes, a lighter cockpit with less drag would be better, but, as I wrote, this was just a demonstration. -Ojimak

Just to be snarky, I shall post a completely stock colony with a size greater than some of the Bobcat HOME ones. Questioning the scoring, it is stated that "A colony site needs a minimum of 2 resident Kerbals and 1 HOME habitat to count." If this really means "HOME" habitats only, then my score is zero, however, if the other pods are allowed, then I score at least 20, possibly more, depending on the specificity (that's actually a word) of the rules. For example, the 42 Kerbals of my colony could count for 42 more points if they need not be present in a HOME habitat. On the Mun: I honestly do think the Bobcat HOME products are cool, but like I wrote at the beginning, this is mainly just to be smarta** and demonstrate that stock parts can make very decent colonies, very easily (like one launch, for mine), although Jool shall remain uncolonised if only stock is used. -Ojimak

This is my first answering of a challenge, so pardon any silliness. First, a question: There's no sort of incentive at all for actually large (>20 kerbal) colonies? Anyways, as it seems I might be the only person entering, I'm not going to bother to make my score higher. This was not assembled in orbit, but was rather launched as a single craft. On the Mun: On the launchpad: You want more proof? Full Mission Album Fulfills: Flames Are Overrated (Landed on the Mun) Rolling With Style (2 rovers included) The Gang's All Here (42 Kerbal capacity, 34 used) Total points: 4 (not much, but seriously, I could have made this thing a seventh of its size and still gotten the same number of points, I don't like how this is scored) Oh, and its completely stock except for the crew manifest mod, which was only used to add crew when on the launchpad. -Ojimak

After the forum mishap, I decided to update the single-launch bases that I had previously made, and what better to add to them than a stock rover, or better yet, two stock rovers (in addition, to four more modules, of course) Without further ado, the pictures: On the Mun: On the launchpad (705 parts, so only a low-quality picture): Full Mission Album (The image descriptions have tips/useful flight information) mediafire download link spaceport link pending The base and landing stage itself has only around 300 parts, and weighs 67% more than any prior payload I've tried to land, so it was an interesting experience. The lifter stage is based on images I had seen of Temstar's excellent NOVA SHLLV, but is indigenous in design and therefore much less efficient or elegant. Oh and I like large control surfaces. I especially like the little probe-controlled four-kerbal rovers I made. They were specifically designed to hold four Kerbals while still being relatively lightweight, having a low center of gravity, and looking at least slightly elegant. Oh and I hate the look of the 4-Kerbal pods on small rovers. They look okay on large rovers, but I have no idea how to make them look good on small rovers. Action Groups: 1. toggles solar cells 2. toggles lights 3. toggles ladders 4. toggles antennae and sensors 10. undocks all modules/rovers from the scaffolding The title really is most of the description, and so I'm not gong to bother to go much in depth about it unless anyone specifically asks. Oh and almost any descriptive information can be found in the image descriptions in the album, just scroll past the understood parts. One of the major characteristics, I guess, is that this base has way more fuel than necessary (I had maybe 1500 m/s delta-V unused upon landing) allowing for poor/unaided fliers like me to easily get this base to its destination, regardless of flight plan. It may be able to get to Dres. I need to compare its delta-V to the other bases I've landed there. The crew manifest mod is recommended if one actually wants a full compliment of 42 Kerbals (I personally only flew 34 crew, because I didn't want crew in the rovers before landing) Oh, and you know why I made this? Because I blatantly refuse to learn how to dock, I enjoy building bases, and my computer lags like crazy every time I try to land modules near each other (more so than if I land all the modules at once). -Ojimak