Speeding Mullet

In a lot of cases where something is eminently possible it's not needed. I don't think anyone would argue building a jetpack in KSP is difficult so it's superfluous to this particular challenge. @The_Cat_In_Space I've played KSP for so long but have never even thought of building a jetpack - May have a crack this weekend . Also, might make it more fun to include some optional extras (for points of course). Maybe: Change "optional requirements" to Bonus Awards and add some fun categories such as (only examples): Rubber Ducky - Demonstrate water landing capability - x points Boomerang - Return to KSC to complete your flight - x points Precision landing - Land on VAB roof - x points Tourist visa - Visit any easter egg - x points Spaceman - Achieve sub orbital trajectory with out of atmosphere flight - x points Seriously Righteous Bro - Build a jetpack powered by sepatrons - x points Submariner - your Jetpack can be a submarine too - x points Under the Bridge - fly under the Skywalk at KSC - x points and so on and so forth. Maybe also a shiny jetpack badge Looks like the beginning of a fun challenge to me! SM

Sorry I've been so rubbish with getting round to judging entries recently. Just have to bear with me a little longer. RL very busy and haven't been well also. Will get round to it asap for you all! SM

I think you'll pick up a few entries from the Shuttle Challenge here, as one of the missions is to capture an asteroid (using a shuttle). Problem is when I told people to redirect it, I told people to land it also, so you had people like @Nefrums landing Class D's all over the shop: Much fun was had - This looks like a great challenge SM

Hi @C7 SPACE DIVISION welcome to the forums! Congratulations on reaching Duna - It's always a nice feeling when you make it to another planet, even if you don't arrive in one piece. Maybe next time! Challenges on this forum will really only pick up steam if they are well thought out, easy to understand, and (generally) have some sort of ranking / badge / scoring system. It's also a good idea to post your own attempt (partially if the challenge is difficult to understand, or people might think it's not possible) Have a look at this challenge submission guidelines: Maybe also check into a couple of popular challenges to see how people have constructed theirs: It looks like your challenge is based around burning to Duna off window, but it really needs fleshing out a little for people to start entering the challenge. Good luck! SM

Ball

I've been to 4 The user below me has a degree in a STEM field SM

I destroy balloons with a pin. SM

This thread might have some useful information for you - It's nearly as old as that laptop: Otherwise I'm stumped sorry SM

From the KSP Wiki - In the real world, there exists a sun-synchronous orbit. It's important to note that, although the name implies it, the orbit is not synchronous around the Sun. Instead, it describes an orbit around Earth which itself rotates, such that it appears the orbiting object is motionless relative to the Sun. Since it requires objects to have uneven gravitational fields, it is impossible to simulate in KSP. However, there are a few threads with some detail, this one is one of the better ones, explanation wise: Regarding getting into a polar orbit around a planet that you are transiting to from Kerbin, as long as you make your burns way out from the planet you can do it for almost no Delta-v, so when you arrive in system you are already on the right orbit. EDIT - Just read the after transfer bit. If you are already in system then the best way of doing it is to burn to a highly elliptical orbit, then make your plane change at the furthest point away from the body. This will minimise the Dv requirement. Hope that helps! SM

SM

I am actually working. that's also not true . The user below me is frustrated over the size of their cars cup holders. SM

OP hasn't been around since April 2016 so this thread should find a nice crackling log fire to sleep by in my opinion. I'm sure there's an interesting challenge in it for someone to refresh! SM

Hi there! You are supposed to make your own. It used to be a provided sub-assembly, but I wanted to see what people came up with and so it's on you now 5-8 have to be separate launches... SM

Part of the challenge is in designing payloads that fit in the shuttle's cargo bay, as it places pretty restrictive limitations, and forces you to be creative. Having said that there's been precedent set in this version and past versions of the challenge where people have made their cargo bay "fairing style". with that in mind I'm happy for you to create a shuttle that integrates fairings into it's over all cargo capacity design, but I'd be against a shuttle with a massive bulbous 1000 part payload stuck onto the nose, as it's not really in the spirit of the challenge (apart from missions which allow "support launches", in which case you can sling up a huge ball of fairings to dock with the shuttle if you like). Hopefully that answers your questions. Basically yes you can as long as it looks like it's part of the shuttle, and not the shuttle part of the payload! I like creativity and am willing for people to push the boundaries @biomecaman - Hopefully that also answers your question. If you want further clarity please post a screenshot of roughly what you are proposing and I will yes or no it. Everyone else - Will get round to judging entries this weekend SM

Much obliged, muchly! SM

Congratulations everyone, great set of threads! As a side note - you will see that I'm not shy of badges. If someone has had a TOTM previously, would they be eligible for a badge? If yes, is there any chance can you make them all available? SM

Hi everyone haven't forgotten about you! Will have to play catch up once the weekly challenge has passed, so will be checking in probably closer to the weekend to catch up with some judging! Keep them coming in the mean time! Totally fine to use the mining equipment to refuel your shuttle. Support package is just a single separate launch that doesn't even have to be a shuttle. You could just throw 20 orange tanks at laythe in one launch if you wanted to! Please bear in mind that the missions are supposed to be done in order from the first one onwards. The offer to do a single mission without following the order is only valid until Wednesday as part of the Weekly Challenge! SM

Drop over to the Shuttle Challenge when you make the breakthrough (or before if you like, we love helping and advising as much as building and flying). Would love to see what you come up with. SM

Agreed, and I've just found an old screenshot of where I was clearly using PF to form probe shells, which is exactly what I was thinking PF couldn't do. In fact it can: Jeez, I forgot how versatile it is... SM EDIT - I forgot it also hides the fairing part within the fairing, which looks so much nicer.

I've made three recently, and am quite enjoying making replica aircraft instead of going to space for a while. Here's A Very Personal Jet, based on the Maverick Personal Jet: Here's my Beriev Be-10 Flying Boat Replica: And the hardest to make of the three, the Bartini Beriev VVA-14 VTOL Ekranoplan: SM

Banned for confusing location SM

Interesting to see the voting so far. Obviously a majority for those on the side of thinning down the part at this point, and some good points made. Definitely agree with this, it would mean you could make decent looking probes with the 1.25m heatshield as well. You are correct, I was talking in main about the thickness rather than the diameter of the part, but I could definitely see a case for making it flush as well. Thanks for bringing your humble opinion to the thread! I used to use procedural fairings, then when stock fairings came a long I sort of got used to using them and now I can't remember how procedural fairings used to do things (better probably). Did you have an option for procedural fairings doing anything but building a big bulb around your part (picture from the Procedural Fairings OP to illustrate below)? I know you could inter-stage very nicely with them, but I'm not sure about building probe bodies etc. The only thing I actually like about stock fairings is the ability to shape their profile by yourself. Everything else is pretty lack luster and even that isn't great... They need a new model to make the profile thinner, but the texture of the base part (as well as the fairing) is mind-bendingly awful too. Good point on the small rockets, it does look silly in almost every application at that scale, and a lot of the parts are designed for larger applications. Building on a small scale is as fine an art as building on a giant scale in KSP. Great discussion so far, although I don't think we've heard form the "leave them be" camp yet. I guess one argument against it is it would be potentially craft destroying for people updating. SM

Disclaimer - I searched links to common suggestions, and title searched the forum back 1 year and couldn't find anything to say that this one had been beaten to death previously. It probably has to be honest as I'm quite surprised nothing came up in a search. Note - This is not a thread to discuss fairings themselves, but specifically the fairing part, or what forms the "base plate" part. Please feel free to discuss, but try and steer away from "boo spaghetti" or "down with orange banding" if possible . Without further ado: FAIRING PARTS SUMMARY The small and medium fairing parts are too thick. I can deal with the thickness of the 3.75m plate as it at least looks like its in proportion, and I can forgive the 2.5m in certain applications such as inter-stages, but the 1.25m plate just feels too ungainly. Aesthetically I'm disappointed when I have to use it, particularly on fairing enclosed probes (see right hand fairing in picture). PROPOSAL I'd like to see the fairing parts themselves overhauled to a much more athletic profile. SM

@Galacticvoyager lmao. Come back with pictures when that sepatron is integrated into the main stack I built a small shuttle today. When I say small, as an inefficient engineer I don't see how I could have made it smaller, but judge for yourselves: Mullet Dyne Micro Screamchaser Parts - 35 Mass - 4.820t Height - 5.5m Width - 2.1m Length - 1.6m Danger Factor - Enormous CRAFT FILE MISSION REPORT: SM

Both Known for rating me 5/10 in "How Famous are you" thread SM