Scarecrow

Don't know if this challenge is still 'live' but I had Jeb on a station in LKO, and this challenge seemed like a good excuse to build a SSTO to go and fetch him. Ready to go In orbit Docked to the station Leaving with Jeb on board Re-entry judged to perfection Back at base

I've had another go, having read the requirements a bit more thoroughly, and because I'm enjoying the challenge. On the pad Jettisoning boosters Jettisoning first stage Discarding payload shroud - uploaded version deploys as 4 pieces Final station in orbit Scoring: Part count 66 = 134 Kerbal capacity = 16 Ore capacity 6000 = 30 Large refinery = 10 Tug with Klaw = 10 Fuel capacity : LF 11880 = 11.88 O2 14520 = 14.52 Monoprop 3000 = 300 Science experiments : Surface scanning, Atmospheric Fluid, Thermometer, Mystery Goo, Double-C Seismic, Gravioli, Barometer = 14 No rearrangement = 10 Available from Dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yacf4ce1xlr2yj/Single Large Launch Station.craft?dl=0 100 Total score = 639.6 Additional information: the fuel and monoprop tanks are all full, and ready to be utilised. The station also includes 3 docking ports to cater for visiting ships for crew changeovers etc., though one of those is occupied by the tug. As presented, the only debris that remains in orbit is the fairing shroud, though this can be jettisoned while still sub-orbit. The final orbital positioning stage is fitted with a probe so can be de-orbited once finished with. One question regarding fuel and monoprop tanks scoring. Is the scoring based on the fuel/mono carried to orbit on the station, or is it based solely on the capacity of the tanks irrespective of whether they are full or empty. The only reason I ask is that it is way easier to lift a bunch of empty tanks to orbit, and I could easily boost my score by emptying all the fuel out and slapping another 8 monoprop tanks on the design, as suggested by Physics Student.

I think your part count for my effort might be a little bit generous, but I have redone the challenge so that my station now includes a service bay with all the scientific experiments stowed inside, as well as a small tug with a Klaw. The part count on this new station is probably closer to what you estimated. Still no refinery or orange tanks though.

Just noticed some of the additional requirements in the scoring, like tug with klaw and orange fuel tanks. Not sure about the fuel tanks, but I probably could have fitted some sort of tug in there. Could also have added a science bay with some experiments, and a surface scanner, but ultimately I'd never tried a single launch station before and just wanted to give it a quick go. Thanks for the challenge.

Had fun doing this challenge. I won't submit a score, as I found it too difficult to work it all out. I can confirm that the station is enclosed in the fairing, and includes a science lab as well as space for 5 Kerbals. It has a docking port for crew exchange, comms and solar panels to keep the energy levels up. All launch stages were either jettisoned before orbit was achieved (stage 1) or de-orbited once the station was in orbit (stage 2). The final orbit I placed the station in was 250km by 250km, give or take, though the second stage had plenty of fuel to take it higher if required. Complete vehicle on the pad 1st stage jettisoned Fairing shroud jettisoned Station in orbit

All stages fulfilled with the exception of no Munar experiments, and no Munar orbital satellite. Gives a total of 193 points I believe. Craft is slightly modded, as I prefer the Alcor 2-man lander can over the stock one, purely from an aesthetic point of view. Just wondering if there are any bonus points available for taking two rovers, one for each crew member.

I haven't done any specific tests but my overall impression pretty much matches what you are saying. 'Aileron' flaps don't seem to make much difference to the amount of lift, but they are pretty handy for slowing a craft down when coming in to land.

I only use a few mods, and most of those are for additional information such as engineering and alarm clock. I use the docking indicator because I find the navball indications too tedious and imprecise. The only part mod I use is for a 2-man lander can that I find to be more aesthetically pleasing than the stock can, and that's about it. I like to keep things relatively simple.

Can't remember the first time I played it, but I do remember I didn't have a clue what I was doing. I also remember being really impressed with the possibilities and bought the game after just a couple of tries of the demo.

I try to standardise my action group keys so that it is easy to remember. 1 : Toggle multi use engines 2 : Flaps if fitted 3 : Toggle antennas/comms/solar panels 4 : Toggle ladders 5 : Toggle cargo bay doors 6 : Decouple docking port (used on Apollo style craft to decouple the lander) 7 : Avaialble 8 : Available 9 : Discard escape tower 0 : Decouple capsule and pop chutes (used after a launch abort) Abort : Decouple capsule and fire escape tower rockets

Fair few engines I haven't found a use for and quite a few other parts, like radiators don't get used.

A lot of the game isn't particularly intuitive, but there are a lot of Youtube videos out there to help you learn. For me, a lot of the fun of playing this game is the learning and and the understanding that comes with that learning. Be prepared to fail a lot, but if you can learn from each failure and understand where you went wrong each time, you should find it enjoyable too. There are quite a few milestones to achieve, and each one gives a lot of satisfaction - successful launch, finally getting to orbit, making it all the way to Mun, actually landing on Mun, rendezvous and docking in orbit, going interplanetary, successful returns from Mun landings and interplanetary flights. And that's just rocket flight, I haven't mentioned mastering aircraft, or coming up with designs that I am sure the game never intended, such as submarines and helicopters.

KSP is many things to many people. Just because you don't like flying planes in KSP, that doesn't mean that no one else does. Besides, KSP is not primarily a flight simulator, and whilst aircraft may indeed be an afterthought, there's plenty of players more than happy to play it as it is. If you don't like aircraft in KSP, don't build and fly them. Simple.

Couple of days for me, but I was clumsy at it and my craft had to carry a shed load of RCS fuel to prevent running out. I've never used MechJeb though, so have always done it manually - there are so many milestones in this game that I feel achieving each of those yourself gives such a massive boost to your confidence and sense of achievement that it makes playing the game a real delight. Took me quite a bit longer to land a Kerbal on Eve and return him safely though, and I've only done it the once. I guess each of us has his own aspect of the game that seems somewhat more difficult than anything else.

Ok. Well the Probodobodyne HECS2 I am using has Kerbnet access, so I guess that will do the job and I just have to persevere with monitoring several orbits to eventually pick up the anomalies that I know are there.

So if you don't need a survey scanner, what should I be using to find the anomalies?

I'm with you. I don't use modded parts, apart from a lander can that is way better looking than the stock 2-man can and does exactly the same job, so would always be interested in a swing wing aircraft if anyone can build one using stock parts only.

That's a good looking replica. Well done. Of course the real kudos comes when you can get the same plane to transition to swept wing configuration and back. Now that really would be something, and good luck to anyone who attempts it.

I already know where all the anomalies are, and have probably visited them all at some point, but thought it would be fun to build a probe and scanner to fly missions as though finding them for the first time. Problem is, my scanner isn't showing up the anomalies even when I know they are directly beneath my surveying craft. I am currently limiting my flight to orbit Kerbin, as I don't want to go to the effort of visiting other planets/moons until I know that the ship I send is capable of doing the job. As far as I can tell the height of my orbit is within the parameters of the scanner I am using (M700 Survey Scanner) and the probe core I am using (Probodobodyne HECS2) gives me easy access to Kerbnet to view my scanning results. Am I using the right scanner and probe core, or is there something else I am missing? Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

I have found that any of my landers that can land on Mun and return to a 15k orbit is capable of landing on Duna and returning to orbit if you add some drogue and main chutes. Aerobraking and the chutes mean that you use way less fuel to land on Duna than you would on Mun, so all the fuel you save is now available for the ascent.

Here's one of my slightly more unorthodox Mun visitors.

I think I have been to all of the anomalies on Mun by design at some point or other, but I've also landed near one or two of the arches unintentionally on a Mun flight that had some other purpose.

Looking at Ferram's post linked above, it would appear that he has now released v 3.3.1 which appears to be aimed at addressing this problem.

UPDATE Well I was unable to replicate the tumbling during SOI change, but I did have an aircraft that would experience moments of being pitched out of control whilst being flown around the KSC. Using this craft as my test bed, and based on suggestions above, the first mod I disabled was Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, and this seemed to cure the problem. With it installed, my aircraft suffered a number of 'tumbles' in the space of a couple of minutes. With KJR removed, I didn't experience a single one. I feel this heavily indicates that KJR is the culprit. Does anyone know how I can contact the modder for KJR to offer him this feedback?

Perhaps tumble would be a better definition than spin, as it seems to be rotating about all 3 axis. It's definitely not drag related as I have seen it outside atmosphere. Also, it's not related to SAS trying to follow retrograde or some other direction as for 99.9% of the time I have SAS set to steady. The only time I change SAS to anything else is when I want to reorientate the ship prior to a manoeuvre. As soon as the ship is pointing in the right direction, I set SAS back to steady. I will uninstall my mods, and reintroduce them one at a time to see if I can determine if one of those is the cause. Actually, thinking back, I have seen some glitchy bumps during launch, where the rocket takes a sudden deviation from the direction it was pointing, but I am guessing the aerodynamic force of the fins at the back of the rocket were sufficient to prevent the bump developing in to a full blown tumble.