Kerolyov

I don't think you're missing anything. The conditions of the test are that you must only stage that part type under the correct conditions (ie green ticks next to all conditions on the contracts tab in toolbar), so to do that you need to have a special stage on your rocket that contains the test part and not fire any of that part type until you are ready to test it. So for your splash down test I recommend building a wide ship (less likely to topple) with plenty of parachutes and either different type of booster or liquid fueled rocket to take off with. Then like Strainbom says just take off and parachute into the sea, splashdown then activate the test part and recover. I gather the devs decided to make the contracts a challenge by forcing you to design a ship that allows you carry out the test, its not meant to replicate real world rocket testing, so you're right its more like a procedurally generated puzzle.

I think this is a great solution as avoids the user having big windows of data open all the time. So is a very unobstrusive way of adding much needed information to the VAB. Only slight issue is whether dV is vacuum or atmospheric and what body the TWR is relative to, not sure where would be best to put these options other than either a VAB button or on the toolbar.

I do sometimes feel the new parts affect the learning curve of the game, as Hannu says you really had to think and learn to get anything big in orbit before ARM. Launching huge 1000 part rockets that are always on the verge of disaster is soooo Kerbal, I'm sure easy routine launches are not something Jeb enjoys Anyway I like orange tanks because they're orange, which is a very Kerbal reason to use them

Love the word kerfuffle, should be used more often Well done Harv and the Squad team for getting into mainstream media, also think this is good for NASA, the ARM mission is now getting publicity through KSP

Really impressed with your gravity assists. Never tried anything like your Kerbin - Eve - Kerbin -Jool assist. How did you work out the phase angles of Eve, Kerbin and Jool relative to each to get this to work? I'm assuming you can't just do this anytime?

Me neither

Mainly the science no longer being able to get full science by spamming transmissions + the lab module (not that these used directly in this challenge but I guess the science values have been retuned). Other change is the Sabre / Rapier as a possible Laythe ascent engine. So no change in the challenge itself but science points for Jeb level of the challenge may not be comparable.

This looks a really interesting challenge and I'm going to enter once 0.23 is out, only question will the challenge still be open bearing in mind the changes in 0.23? If not I'll keep my 0.22 install on my HD and start right away instead.

Wow is all I can say, you guys have all created some amazing rover + skycrane designs, I'm really really impressed! Been so busy recently I really don't have time to test and vote and would rather not repeat my hurried assessment of the BSC Kerbal X designs so I'll sit this one out but sit out very much in admiration of the design skill on these forums.

The landing described by Kasuha is the way I do it, while it is possible to land with 3000dv (or even less) its best to pack at least 3300dv as any slight mistake would otherwise result in a failure (ie crash) by running out of fuel. Here is a video by Kosmo-not on the landing method For Tylo I'd set a periapsis of around 5-6km and check in map view you don't clip into the surface, then start burning retrograde at the periapsis, as you vertical speed starts to increase then pitch up to keep it under control (around -10m/s). Then keep doing that until your horizontal velocity is almost zero (so you're retrograde marker is near centre of blue part of navball) and then gently descend burning retrograde. Once you have the technique sorted then you can start to play with it to improve efficiency.

You can calculate which option is best in Kulebron's chapter on whether separate lander is better than all-in-one http://flyonbudget.onegiantleap.info/chapter3.html Most Mun landing are better all in one, unless particularly heavy.

Congratulations sgt_flyer! Also to the 2 runners up! Thanks to everyone took part and Xeldrak for taking time to run this thread and the voting process. So many good designs and in a way we're all winners for having so many design ideas to look at, and the chance to endlessly debate what Kerbal X was meant to be Any chance you have some good threads to recommend ? I'd be interested in reading more on this.

Interesting I'd always got the impression from reading various threads on here that just under TWR of 2 for Kerbin launch was best balance of minimising gravitional vs aerodynamics losses with TWR dropping lower for each successive stage. As long as you stay below terminal velocity I always went by the principle of getting through thick part of atmosphere quickly and with Kerbal G having initial TWR of 1.1-1.2 (if I remember correctly) I assumed it was losing too much to grav losses. Certainly be interesting to read the payload fraction thread to see why low TWR stages can be efficient. Of top of my head I'm wondering if high TWR saves delta-V but if high TWR translates into more engine mass maybe that means less delta-v (vs grav) but more actual fuel or is losses to grav at low altitude balanced by gains higher up? Maybe totally wrong as just thinking aloud with getting calculator out.... Low TWR means a different ascent profile and big changes in TWR from one stage to the next can be an issue as I found flying sgt_flyers rocket when I hit the last stage the sudden drop in TWR to 1.14 meant I had to pitch up to avoid overtaking the apoapsis. My only issue with your post is I now can't stop trying to imagine a Kerbal Jeremy Clarkson actually you can also hear Jeremy Kerkson asking for moar horsepower/boosters!

I only had time to fly each of the 6 once and flew manually so I might have not managed the most efficiently piloted ascent which maybe why last stage burned out before I had munar intercept. Time for me is short to test even these 6 as thoroughly as I'd like but felt 1 quick trip would replicate a newbie better than more careful less rushed testing and/or using mech jeb. Yeah has good ISP but its real heavy for its thrust meaning you use more fuel/dv just to shift the weight of the engine. Take a look at taverts thread on this http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/45155-Mass-optimal-engine-type-vs-delta-V-payload-and-min-TWR Your design uses Poodle in its best role (upper stage), as a lander engine it sucks as you add a lot of mass to the lander, so it didn't count against you much at all., in the end the Antbin's low part usage was the key decider for my vote. Anyway I'm surprised you didn't get more votes Deathsoul, great design Anyway great work to everyone I've gained so many new ideas from you all!

I voted for antbin in the end as fot me his was the best overall design of both lifter and orbiter Here are the finalists ranked in order after my test flying:- 6) Orbiter X - Gregroxmun For me the wasteful extra mass in form of big RCS tank and Poodle meant I felt the orbiter was drastically overweight. Smaller RCS tanks and using either LV909 or 487S engines would have brought this much higher ranking. Nice looking design with real world rocket feel. 5) Kerbal G - Giggleplex Lifter waaay too underpowered needs much higher TWR, but despite that it does make it into orbit ok. Could use better engine than poodle. If had better lifter TWR and saved weight by switching poodle for LV909 or 487S would be much better ranked. Looks nice and really does have the Delta Heavy feel about it, like the escape tower. 4) CROME - Xeldrak I absolutely love the lander design (great performer and easy to land) on this but the lifter seems pretty inefficient if needs 5 orange tanks which is way more than anyone else. 3) sft_flyer - Kerbal Y Very nice tidy efficient design, not ranked higher though as the last lifter stage with only 1.14 TWR is a bit low and means you need quite a bit of orbiter fuel to get into orbit leaving only just enough to get to Mun and back, beginner might find the lifter design and lack of delta-v a bit frustrating, like the escape tower. Also I prefer stock craft not to have science parts as for use in sandbox too. 2) Deathsoul - Kerbal Z_Z Really like this design and it was very close to getting my vote. Love the real rocket feel to the lifter and takes off well, like the novel landing leg placement. Loses some credit for Poodle and not a big fan of the oddly placed docking port. 1) Antbin - KerbalXX Again another nice looking lifter and with great TWR. Slightly drifts even with SAS on but can be easily brought back, better control once boosters gone. Very smart and efficient lander design that does same as Kerbal X for less. Biggest issue is the last stage burns out too late to be returned to Kerbin but too early to dump into Mun or Minmus. Finally as Andrew says uses so few parts and great strut work.

Yeah must be a nuisance, doesn't occur everytime, if I come across a workaround I'll let you know

Poodles are inefficient engines even in vacuum, tavert has shown instead that the small Rockomax 48-7S or LV-N (nuclear) are generally the best engines for fuel efficiency. Exact choice of engine that needs least fuel depends on how much dV you need, the mass you're trying to shift and how much TWR you want. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/45155-Mass-optimal-engine-type-vs-delta-V-payload-and-min-TWR

Ok this is a bug and one known about by squad (here is a similar issue on the bugtracker) http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/1629, hopefully fixed in 0.23

If you haven't researched solar panels then you can use an engine that generates power see here for a list http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Electric_charge. Try and limit science transmission to when you need to burn. As for your battery issue I'm a bit puzzled, usually when you add batteries you can access its power from your pod no problem, I seem to remember reading somewhere about various power issue bugs so this could be a bug. Can you double check your pod torque is still on? Do that by right-clicking the pod.

As others have said things that could cause this are timewarp, toggling off command pod torque (hard to do accidentally) or running out of electric charge. If you're using mods that can sometimes cause loss of control if the mod has input focus.

I entered for same reasons, thought be fun to design a pure orbiter even though I knew it would mean I wouldn't get many votes, actually I'm surprised I got 4 votes must be some orbiter fans out there! I voted for 8 craft 1 vote each, I automatically ruled out anything that used the Poodle as its really heavy cumbersome engine, I also only voted for 3 man orbiters or landers as felt 1 man wasn't very Kerbal X, I also favoured asparagus designs as demonstrating that design concept was key to the Kerbal X in my view. Overall I'm impressed with the quality and creativity of everyones designs.

Here is my entry the Kerolyov X! Craft file can be downloaded from dropbox here This is a vision of Kerbal X which specialises as an orbiter, although landing legs for Minmus landing could be added easily. Orbiter stats:- 11.9 tons 2400 vacuum dV Thrust of 0.5 Kerbin g at max fuel load Demonstrates a simple efficient design with plenty of dV to help out beginning Kerbal Mun pilots. Shows how 48-7S engine can be very efficient engine for smaller ships as it has a very good thrust to weight ratio and good ISP. Very stable launcher, with the single Skipper providing more than enough control. Has unmanned unit on the launcher so launcher can easily be de-orbited once orbiter is in circular Kerbin orbit. Demonstrates the use of asparagus design and use of aerospikes in atmosphere to increase efficiency. Action groups:- Abort - shuts down all engines and decouples command pod and deploys parachute (for use in case of launch emergencies such as crew realising they forgot snacks!) Key 1 - toggles solar panels open/close

Hmmmm that guide is a bit basic as doesn't have very accurate figures, particularly Moho you'd likely need more unless your interplanetary intercept is bang on. I use http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ for transfers to other planets and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/41652-A-more-accurate-delta-v-map?highlight=delta can help with transfer between a planet and its moons

Very good stuff Kulebron, I've been flying KSP for over 6 months and been just about everywhere and still learnt quite a lot from your guide, keep it going! I have a few suggestions for tweaks to the lander chapter if you're interested I'll PM you.

The wiki here and wikipedia are your best friend for questions such as these. Try:- http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Orbit http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/KEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit