gm537

To me it wouldn't seem relevant to the challenge. This challenge is about cost efficiency of lifters not total size, and as people have mentioned even a 40 ton craft is easily capable of going anywhere in the solar system. There are other challenges for "lift the largest payload".

Hey I want to mix things up a bit (and blow minds) by posting the most cost effective lifter so far that doesn't even touch Solids. My math says 4.878 tons at a lifter cost of 5281 for a final Kr/ton of 1,083.

Also I am hearing about 24.2 which I suspect is updating costs so which version are we using?

The cockpit is not non-standard there is just an interior change. It's the exact same cockpit as stock with a paint job. Though I agree that there are so many mods going in that game it makes the end result just a touch questionable. (The rocket itself is pretty simple though you could always replicate as a sanity check) As for torque first of all most 'payloads' in normal game play will include capsules which have torque, second in my own game play have at times put additional torque on the payload, and third of all it's the rules of the challenge. Every challenge is going to have some rule that probably could be abused, or so many restrictions it won't be fun. I think this challenge has done a good job of balance. (The decoupler is indeed questionable but it becomes difficult to change rules once submissions start rolling in)

I went for Stock, both Realistic (210m/s) and unrealistic (244m/s) with the same craft. Also it flies!!!

Also as a stupid question: How do you do those cool albums that can be flipped through? I just know how to put each image in the post but that takes up a lot of space...

Ummm.... Those are NOT the KR-2L those are the LFB KR 1x2. Haha

Here is my entry for the light weight entries. First image shows total VAB cost as 58836 The second image shows the payload cost as 14272 Third image shows payload with no rockets attached and with a stable orbit. And finally the payload mass is shown here: 29.265 My math says: (58836-14272)/29.265 = 1522.8 (Note: KSP shows a different final mass from KER. Using that mass of 29.67 I get a value of 1502.0 up to you which is used.)

Well actually you ought to be able to make a rocket using Chlorine as the oxidizer and hydrogen as the fuel (or even kerosene) now given the ISP is fairly bad, but in jet form it would probably still be decent. Regardless this is kinda off topic. Let's make some giant rockets and fly to Jool!

Check out the Eve SSTO thread, but short answer is 'no'. Some people have tried and basically been unsuccessful for the reason you note that even once you have left the atmosphere you need to have a lot of dV.

Why is Gran Turismo so bad at rockets? (Point being that at the end of the day KSP is a rocket simulator not a car simulator. The others in this thread have already pointed out some ways to help increase the control-ability of vehicles that I would agree with.)

Here is a slightly stupid question: How are you guys going about getting your vehicles to Eve for testing? Hyperedit? (A second question would then be: where is the highest peak on Eve? (Lat and Lon))

Okay in rereading the OP I see that it could have been unclear. I really meant "is there a better / more scientific way to edit the save file?" (I also should maybe have specified 'quicksave' file) Given the last part of your post details the exact process I have been using, I am guessing not? I will indeed take a look at Hyperedit (but it may be a while as the week has now rolled back around...) to see what is has to offer.

Is Hyperedit something many people are familiar with? I was considering using the decided upon orbit as a starting point for a challenge and I want it to be reasonably accessible. (Though I also expect most players who attempt flying into orbit from around Kerbol are pretty darn competent.) Also what makes Hyperedit good / why should I use it? Also if someone could answer the OP I would still love that info.

Ok so I tried flying the ship and the live version was additionally incorrect being confused by even standard asparagus staging. I tried doing the "Log Sim" thing for a while and I don't I did it correctly as I don't see the output_log.txt The link to the craft file is below. http://www./view/u8q6p7og6corc9h/Kerbol_Altitudinator_IV.craft

Okay so I got the dev version and frankly is seems to be more wrong... It seems to be confused about how the staging is even happening and I'm not quite sure why... but regardless a number of the stages that were wrong before seem to still be wrong (and now some stages that were right also appear to be incorrect, at least in VAB) As for the "log sim" thing do I do that in the VAB and then just fly it for a bit? Or do I fly it for a bit and then hit it? The parts mods being used here are: Near Future Propulsion, Near Future Solar, and KW Rocketry. Though, as mentioned I only seem to be having problems when combining (burning simultaneously) engines from NFP, and traditional engines (either stock or KW, both are incorrect)

I am getting a glitch where KER is showing dV's a lot above the actual. The problem seems to occur when using two types of engine, one with much higher ISP than the other. I am using Future Propulsion and thus the higher ISP engine is running a different fuel. Not exactly sure where the problem is coming from but it seems to be fine with just NFP engines it's only when I combine the engines with standard engines that I see a problem. Note stage S3 which claims to have 12km/s dV but in reality will only have about 3km/s dV. Not sure what the problem is but it was definitely screwing up my designs...

Hi all, so I have been playing around with the idea of taking off from other planets through save file editing but I am not sure of the best way to do this? At the moment I am most fascinated by the Sun (Kerbol) and was basically trying to see how close to an orbit can I get if I start at 1,000 km. I have figured a way to do it by editing the save file by basically just copying the orbital parameters of a craft I flew out there (with infinite fuel) but that causes me to load in with me falling rightaway and basically making it difficult to throttle up fast enough. Is there a better / more scientific way to do this edit? Thanks guys!

For me I usually do a fair amount of planning mostly about what the purpose of the station is. Given how KSP currently works there is not a ton of in game use to a stationary station, so I often like to make mine more of roaming explorers which I can have Kerbals living on while touring the Kolar System. Planning gets done a lot in the VAB and I do like to have the full assembled thing there first before I launch it up in pieces. That's what works for me!

Yes I could and clearly I have nothing better to do than to learn code I'm unfamiliar with in the hopes of fixing something that's non-trivial and which I will never be credited for. Now that we've established our mutual ability to be condescending, I'll wait for an answer from the devs. Devs: My question was information gathering to if there was still effort being devoted to resolving the issues I had seen in both this version and in versions 3.x and 4.x or if they had been deemed unsolvable and weren't being looked at any more? I'm trying to provide feedback so you know that the user base would like to see those issues addressed and asking a question that will help me answer what mods to get in future versions of KSP. Thank you for your time.

Hey I was wondering what is being done to fix the bugs in this mod? I really want to play with it on but when soft landing in water results in your space craft kinda glitching its way over sideways until the pod explodes (and Jeb dies), or when no amount of mouse movement will allow clicking on the VAB (the R&D Lab and Runway lit up in a lovely strobe pattern though as I vainly tried), it makes me very frustrated and makes the mod a bit unplayable. I love this concept but I want my KSP experience to be pleasant and this mod kinda removes that at the moment.

Well i was gonna try this challenge when the leader board only said 104. But at 700 I don't think my skills are that pro (nor is my computer...) Well done. Well done.

How do multiple landings work? Let's say I land on Bop and then land on Eeloo and then return to Kerbin? How many points is that worth? My math would suggest: (500+600+650+200) x 2 = 3900. Is that correct? Also might I suggest I slight decrease to Pol's points and a slight increase for Moho? (Everyone always underestimates Moho; with it's inclination change and insertion burn that are more dV than the ejection.) Edit: Okay I missed a bit of your initial explanation that clarifies my understanding as correct.

YESSS!!! Oh my gosh yes! The game needs to remember crew selection! Twice today I basically rage quit KSP because I got towards the end of a tedious mission realized I had forgotten to add a feature my rocket needed to complete the mission went back to the VAB changed said feature redid the mission and then again more than 15min of work in realized my empty pod meant to rescue a Kerbonaut had Bill and his stupid face sitting in it! (or filled hitchiker was now empty) This seems like an easy thing to change: When I hit save I mean save the whole ship including which seats should be filled. I can see difficulties in it being specific Kerbals but just someone would be an awesome start!

My older version of MFS doesn't have the balloon tanks, though I checked the standard cryo and they aren't any better. I suspect the balloon tanks were added in part to help with this situation. So I was reading about the RCS multiple fuels stuff (and wondering how to do it myself) and came across something curious which is: Why is the RCS Module text the same for the RCS block and the Linear port in the configs? What tells KSP the block can thrust in 4 directions and the port only in one?