Johnno

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect. Thread moved.

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect. Thread moved.

You STILL don't get the point of the challenge. It's about emulating / improving on the Kerbal X, if you do it either by creating a craft capable of the required missions or just tweaking the original, but it was supposed to be easy to use for newbies while using techniques that could teach them new ways to design / build crafts. No matter how easy you feel rendezvous is it wasn't supposed to be one of the techniques used simply because the Kerbal X doesn't use it. I suggest that you take a closer look at everyone else's designs and read the rules carefully before the next challenge.

You missed the point/spirit of the challenge by creating a CSM - Lander combo, rather than a single craft. The Saturn V is a launcher, we were mainly supposed to focus on the launcher, Saturn V doesn't mean Apollo style mission.

Yeah you simply have too much mass and not enough fuel. Since you're using engineer you can use it while building to check your dV, then check dV charts or online calculators to figure out how much you need. A lander doesn't need a huge TWR, at TWR 1 you can land but it takes skill/time, but at the same time you don't need bucketloads beyond that either. And lander dV you can check on charts as well, a good rule of thumb is that you need to kill your orbital velocity and then extra for soft landing. If you're in low Mün orbit for example you're going around 550m/s. You can pull off a landing around 600m/s dV but a bit more is healthy, seem to remember dV charts say 640m/s. Looking at your lander you have way too many engines, the poodle alone is almost overkill for both Moho and Duna. And yeah that huge RCS tank is just dead weight. And you'd be better off using a 3 man pod that stays in orbit and landing with a landercan mk2, which could be unpopulated at liftoff and then discarded before return to Kerbin. You're really just dragging extra mass around. You could potentially design a 3man pod lander than then uses the interplanetary return stage (or just gets refuelled for return) to get back to Kerbin, so you don't need the landercan mk2, but with double up on the pods yeah you're dragging heaps of mass. Interplanetary stage shouldn't need that much RCS, as previous posters have mentioned already. And yeah, with just 2 nuclear drives you're looking at a 34 minute burn, for 1800 dV. Burn time doesn't really matter if you have patience for it, dV is the really important part. You'll need around 4000 dV for the optimal trip to Moho orbit, 1400 dV to land and 1400 dV to return to orbit. Then nearly 2000 dV to return to Kerbin. The way I personally design interplanetary trips, and which I can recommend as an easy 'foolproof' starting point, start from the opposite end and work your way back to the start; 1. Figure out what you want to return to Kerbin: reentry pod with chutes, docking port, bit of RCS for corrections, fuel and engine. As lightweight as possible with enough dV to get from your location's orbit back to Kerbin (for aerobraking/direct atmospheric descent entry). 2. Figure out what you need to land: Landercan Mk1, Mk2, multiple Mk1s or even just external seat(s). Docking port, bit of RCS for corrections and docking, fuel, engine(s) with TWR around 1.5-2. Again as lightweight as possible with enough dV to land and return to orbit, potentially in multiple stages if necessary/desirable. 3. Once your return craft and lander are done, start building your interplanetary stage below them. Alternatively if you're doing several launches and docking up in orbit before your trip, just check their masses and simulate above your interplanetary stage with a dummy weight, fuel tanks for example. Build your interplanetary stage with enough dV to take you from Kerbin orbit to stable orbit around your target location, a bit of extra dV is always good for corrections and mishaps. If you don't have the patience for long burns add enough engines so that your total burntime is sensible. * Of course add power, batteries, probecores and lights etc as needed, a single RTG and battery keeps everything running so you don't have to rely on solar power, if you're not against a bit of radiation. I hope some of that helps, I'll leave you with an inspirational picture from one of my own interplanetary trips: Manned Eeloo landing mission, with rover (which had surface experiment packages as well), a polar orbit satellite and a unmanned lander probe as well.

First off, you're using mods so this is in the wrong subforum. Please consider carefully where you place new threads, Rule 2.4 is in effect. Secondly, pictures would indeed help initially, seems like you can't directly view the images from dropbox since the originals are download only, I'd suggest you upload images to a image hosting site like imgur or photobucket. Thread moved.

Please read the Challenge Submission Guide, your challenge is lacking a points/scoring/winning system. Also: - How do you define housing? - How do you define a mod being OP? - How do you define being humane?

Open the debug menu (alt-F12), enable hack gravity, use your kerbal's EVA pack to fly up onto the pod, embark. Untoggle hack gravity and you're good to go. Edit: If your kerbal's EVA pack is empty, you can toggle infinite EVA fuel as well. Faster and easier than mucking about editing files.

This is why I haven't bothered with any more entries. I build a Kerbin mainsail lander that beat yours by a few tons, but couldn't be bothered finetuning it to the max. The way scoring still is it's going to be a mainsailfest no matter where you go, it simply outscores any other engine(s) with the thrust vs scoring. If atmospheric planets were removed from the scoring list and engines scored by thrust then it would be up to what you wanted to land where to get fairly competetive scores. But really right now it's just about taking the heaviest thing you can land with a mainsail.

Welcome to the forums, however this doesn't seem to be a challenge. The Spacecraft Exchange has had threads with similar topics, you should be able to dig up some with the search function. Please read the Challenge Submission Guide if you wish to post a challenge, once you have the challenge properly laid out feel free to make a new thread. Thread locked.

This is a poorly constructed "challenge", if you can even call it that. Please read the Challenge Submission Guide. Once you have a more structured challenge with goals, requirements, points system and so on, feel free to make a new challenge. That said, thread locked.

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect, repeated offences may lead to infractions. Thread moved.

Please don't revive old threads. If the OP didn't bother to come back to this for two months and nobody else has replied there's clearly not enough interest. If you're interested then please start a new challenge rather than digging up one that's several months old. Thread locked.

I meant craftwise there's no difference between a launcher, spacecraft, airplane or space station. Two docked crafts can transfer fuel between eachother, period. You can put rover wheels and a docking port on a fueltank and drive it around, dock it to an airplane and you can refuel the plane.

It's possible to transfer fuel between any docked vessels, you don't need a space station inbetween. And if you do have a station inbetween (which isn't different in any way except the icon you've chosen for it) you can transfer fuel just the same.

If you already know in advance that you'll feel sorry for bumping (necroing) a thread, just start a new one instead. Thread locked.

In my view you've failed to produce a valid entry. The spirit of this challenge was to improve on the Kerbal X, not to design a craft with a separate lander thus forcing rendezvous and/or docking.

Please do not dig up old threads, if you have an issue that's not been discussed in the past month or two, make a new thread. Also a topic like this may be better suited for the support section, rather than gameplay questions.

Let's not dig up old threads, especially with replies that'd be better suited for Science Labs than Gameplay Questions. Thread closed.

Not only this but your specific rules limit creativity / designs AND you're requiring participants to download a mod to submit an entry.

I couldn't shake the thought that the answer was 'a dream' (or dreams, however you phrase the question). After giving it some time I'm now thinking it's 'sleep'. Maybe it's just cause I'm so tired..

Rule 2.3c Thread locked.

Sirius Celestia please familiarize yourself with The Community Rules and The Good Conduct Guide. That said, thread locked due to use of black magic.

Not quite, 0.22 improved nosecones in the sense that they now add stability, they do however NOT reduce drag. As a demonstration/test I've used Kerbal X for a Minmus landing and return. Beyond that, once in orbit you have roughly 2500m/s delta-v to play with, so a Laythe landing as mentioned isn't out of the question.

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect, repeated offences may lead to infractions. Thread moved.