Jodo42

Thanks for including a run with the resource panel open, added to the OP as our first contestant! It's very interesting to see how such simple designs do so well with the new aerodynamics model. I've personally got something which can beat the 40km mark with the same basic concept as you're using, but I'd rather see what you guys can do.

Inspired by the now 2 year old original(ish) challenge! The 30 Second Altitude Challenge! With the new aerodynamics model and wholly revamped engines, I think it's time to bring back the 30 second altitude challenge. On its 2 year birthday, no less. The goal here is simple: get as high as absolutely possible in 30 seconds. Run didn't go so well? Rocket didn't perform as expected? Well, you only spent 30 seconds flying it! Just go back and try again. Minimize drag, maximize speed. The idea is brilliantly easy- the execution may very well push both your engineering skills and your computer to the limits. RULES: 1. This is a stock challenge. No mods may be used, with the exception of Kerbal Engineer Redux or mods that are purely aesthetic (eg, Universe Replacer). Mechjeb or similar mods may be used to autostage and pilot your ship. The cheats menu may not be used at any time. If you use any of the above mods, say so in your entry. 2. Your rocket must fit entirely within the VAB when in launch configuration. This means I need to see a screenshot of it in the VAB with all parts clearly visible. Yes, this means you can lift your rocket up to the top with launch clamps. 3. I'll be using the honors system here, since it's essentially impossible to check, but please use the default aerodynamics settings as of 1.0.2. This is to ensure a level playing field for all. 4. The resources tab should be visible at all times during flight. Mechjeb or KER dV windows are also acceptable. 5. I need 3 screenshots at the very minimum- in the VAB, on the pad, and at T+30 seconds with the F3 menu visible. Videos are welcome. 6. Only minor clipping will be tolerated. If you have a question about whether it's too much, it probably is. If you'd really like my opinion, show me the rocket before you make a submission. Normally I'm a fan of clipping, but since aerodynamics are such an important part of this challenge, I really need to limit it. CLIPPING IS ACCEPTABLE IF IT: -adds engines to an otherwise empty fuel tank -is a natural result of radial mounting (ie minor) CLIPPING IS UNACCEPTABLE IF IT: -adds engines inside engines or fuel tanks inside fuel tanks -adds more mass to a volume than it could normally hold -allows a part to function in a way that it does not normally function (doing this without clipping is OK) -allows the user to in any way circumvent atmospheric drag or heating that would normally be associated with the addition of a part Essentially, avoid anything other than engines inside empty fuel tanks.The ultimate decision as to whether clipping is acceptable or not is up to me. Keep it low or risk your entry being invalidated. Otherwise, anything goes. If you have a question about a rule, or think one should be added/removed/tweaked, post BEFORE you make your submission if you want me to count it! If your results are in question, I may ask for a craft file to test your ship with. If your results aren't reproducible, or you're unwilling or unable to submit the craft file, your entry will not be added to the OP. Anyone who breaks 70K in altitude may feel free to add this badge to their signature: Alternatively, there's a "clean" version: Now, grab your boosters and go to ludicrous speeds! WINNERS CHARTS 1.juzeris: 73,337m 2.obi_juan: 60,316m 3.totalitor: 59,622m 4.rc dude: 46,392m 5.cryogen: 46,055m 6.Kelderek: 45,370m 7.totalitor: 40,931m 8.cybersol: 40,307m 9.JO3: 38,688m 10.Squiggsy: 33,700m WORLD FIRSTS More of these will be added as needed! First to break 30K (1km/s average!):gm537 First to break 40K:cybersol First to break 50K:juzeris First to break 60K(2km/s average!):juzeris First to break 70K:juzeris First to break 75K:You? First to break 80K:Is this possible? - - - Updated - - - An example entry: Note you don't need the drag window open like I have. My final height: 22,711m Let's see you guys do better!

Or, maybe, and, here me out, even if I sound a bit rude, but, just maybe, the majority of players shouldn't have to edit their game's files or access a "Cheats Menu" to experience features Squad spent a significant amount of time implementing. At the moment reentry heating has lost a lot of its functionality.

Well bullocks. Sea-level Eve ascents just got way harder. Given Helmut's video it seems that perhaps aerospikes are the way to go. I'll have to do some testing sometime this week...

For Best Inactive Channel, I nominate Macey Dean, builder of epic ships, fighter of epic wars. Recommendation: Change the cutoff for Most Under-Watched video to 5,000 views or fewer.

Laythe's a particularly inviting and beautiful place for a base, but it's a rather long way away from home, return is difficult thanks to the atmosphere, landing sites are sparse unless you want a floating base, and the land is rather variable in slope unless you aim for the beaches. The high gravity could also make in-situ construction more difficult. You can't use EVA packs on it. Duna is far easier to reach, has lower gravity and a thinner atmosphere, and has that "I made a base on Mars" feel to it. You can't use jet engines there, but the atmosphere is thick enough for ion/efficient rocket powered planes. You can also use jetpacks on it, but just barely. Finding a landing site, however, can be a bit of a task, since most of the terrain is atrociously sloped. The Mun gives you access to floaty gravity and is the nextdoor neighbor to Kerbin, making rescues quick and simple. The terrain is varied enough to be interesting, and finding flat parts isn't terribly difficult. Using rovers for in-situ assembly can be somewhat difficult thanks to the gravity, though. You'll have to stick to non-atmospheric transportation thanks to its lack of an atmosphere. Minmus has even sillier gravity and makes landing very large, otherwise awkward components a breeze. Again, it's close to Kerbin, but has no atmosphere. Perfectly flat landing spots are abundant but are surrounded by beautiful slopes. Those are the 4 most common base locations. You could go for something more exotic if you wished and were up for a challenge, like Eeloo or Eve.

If at all possible, use the 2.5m docking ports with appropriate strutting. They'll provide a more secure connection than the 1.25m ones will. Unless you're building a rather small/efficient IP ship. I'd also strongly recommend building the entire ship in the VAB first. It lets you figure out exactly how you want to final ship to be configured, and will also alert you if your design in mind will have an off-center COM/T. If you have Kerbal Engineer Redux or Mechjeb it can let you see dV and TWR values as well, if you thrust limit engines you don't want considered to 0. Generally my IP ships have either 2 or 3 sections. A 2-section ship either has the lander & return capsule as its first section, and the transfer vessel (fuel and engines) as the second, or a combined lander&science module as the first and the trasnfer as the second. If you're going for a thorough scientific survey or you want reusability the 3 section plan may be useful, which splits the lander and the science module.

I believe I post for everyone when I say this, Whackjob:

Not entirely sure if this counts, due to the interesting buoyancy mechanics in Kerbal, but here's my submission, regardless: Score important images are 1, 68 and 73. If it DOES count... 1556 (1556m) x1.5 (Touched the bottom of the pool) x5.0 (Sneaking into Carl Sagan's backyard pool) x5.0 (Sleeping with the fishes) ------ 58,350 So, for future submariners, some advice: -A class asteroids are pretty easy to work with, and will sink small probes. I had tested an extremely similar probe with Hyperedit and it had worked, so I had assumed Calypso would as well. It's finnicky, so I'd highly recommend testing your final design before doing the real launch. -Laythe's oceans are extremely deep pretty much everywhere. If you can get some kind of ballast (like that Mk.3 part) then you can easily get rather high scores thanks to its great depths and high score multiplier.

You can do some... interesting stuff with this particular bug. Strange side effects though. Stage lock, Kerbals can't EVA, can't throttle up/down or toggle RCS/SAS. Can't right click on decouplers either.

A Tyche analog would be essentially impossible for a couple reasons: -Tyche doesn't exist -Even if it did exist, its orbit was predicted to be 500 times that of Neptune's orbit There's no way you could get anything resembling a realistic orbit for that kind of object in KSP. That's well beyond Sedna (over 160 times farther), and even Sedna's been ruled out as having too unfeasible an orbit in a previous discussion on this thread. A non rotating Urlum would be silly. There's no planets like that that we know of. The probability circumstances to eliminate a planet's angular momentum completely are essentially 0.

You guys always thread the needle between silly looking moons and cool looking moons, and always manage to come out on top. All three moons look fantastic! I can't wait to head out to Urlum. It's always been my favorite gas giant in terms of appearance in this mod- something about the dark, faint rings makes it really beautiful. As always, thanks for keeping the quality of your work high. I think I speak for everyone when I say we're more than willing to wait for moons, if they turn out the same quality as the rest of the mod.

I sent a probe out to Sarnus to land on Hale, and to save a lot of dV I aerocaptured using Sarnus' atmosphere. This is with FAR and DRE installed. It's a strange experience. Note the lack of loss of ablative shielding and the strange re entry heating visuals. I also ran into problems similar to those of GregroxMun's.

I have an ion-powered probe that needs to get to another planet, but the ejection angle places the node very much on the dark side of Kerbin. Is there any way to work around this? Will warping to the next transfer date work?

Sweet! I have to admit that at first glance Priax looked a little... well, cartoony. But after looking at images like this one of Lutetia it seems pretty cool. Still, small, oddly shaped moons aren't exactly groundbreaking. We already have quite a few- Gilly, Bop, Hale, and to a certain extent Pol. It's a visually unique moon, and it's exceptionally well done, and even if it was the only one around Urlum I'd still definitely go, but I'm looking forward more to what else you have to offer. Keep up the awesome work!

Eve would really be rather interesting I feel. While 12,000m/s is a rather large amount of dV, the challenge of a mission to Eve is compounded by the need to make the lander short enough to not be prone to falling over on launch. If the KSC was on Eve, that would cease to be a problem. Still, getting to orbit would not be easy. Mass-to-orbit minimization would reign supreme. Nukes would be used almost exclusively for interplanetary, I suspect. We might even see ions getting more use. An ion engine will run at full "throttle" without a drain of electric charge with just 2 1x6 panels from LEO, while from LKO it's around 5 charge/s. Even if we assume that with a new aerodynamics model will come a lower dV to orbit for Eve (which isn't guaranteed), most of our current workhorse engines (48-7s, KR-2L mainly) will probably see nerfs with 1.0. 9,000 dV is a lot more manageable than 12,000, but it'd still be a pain in the rear to get much of anything into space. Docking/rendezvous would become a far more crucial skill than it currently is.

-redacted-

Is there a way I could find the highest between a given set of latitudes from this mod's maps? Or make true-color maps of bodies? Thanks.

Beautiful! I love it! I can't convince myself to get other planet packs nowadays. You guys have set the bar far too high for the competition to even remotely compare. This really is a stunning mod, and all the hard work you guys put into it really shines. I can't wait for Urlum and Neidon's moons! Well, I guess I can, so long as they're the same quality level as your other moons...

Welp, here's a Jeb's Level. 596 parts; 2,468.7 tons (2,452.27 tonnes) at Kerbin liftoff. 329 parts; 131.2 tons (119.02 tonnes) at Eve liftoff. Roughly 1.5 million funds total cost. .90 Kerbal Engineer Redux and Precise Node. I reloaded from a given retroburn that overshot the shoreline by quite a bit and burned more and more retro from there. Overall, took 7 tries to get my landing site that close. Other than that, building a transfer stage that had the needed amount of delta-v to get the lander there, and then only the return capsule back, was challenging. As you can see I had to use a bit of the return can's fuel to get back to Kerbin. I just wasn't sure how much fuel I'd need, as KER assumed that I was hauling the 130 ton lander everywhere when it did its dV calculation, which I obviously ditched for the return. Just building the Eve lander was a stretch of my engineering capabilities. Landing it was tricky, as the retroburn could only use so much fuel or the lander wouldn't be able to remake orbit. I despise nukes, especially for high-mass missions. Even with bunches of them burns just take too long. You can do anything in the game without nukes, and I didn't want to try to transfer a 140t lander anywhere with those pitiful engines. If I were to redo the challenge, I might include some droptanks on the lander that could be used solely for landing and decoupled once splashed down. I think it's actually a bit easier to land in Eve's oceans than it is on its land, if you're aiming for low altitudes like in this challenge. Ladders can be shorter, you need fewer parts, and the oceans are all perfectly flat: sloped terrain + Eve's high gravity = a bad day for almost any lander. The part count made everything a slideshow for quite some time, so I'd be tempted to try for a lower level next time. I'd also be interested in doing it once 1.0 comes out. Maybe with TAC Life Support installed. I've always thought no re-entry heating and no life support was rather silly. New atmospheric models should make this into a whole new challenge. What are you going to do about resources? Thanks for the challenge! I'm happy to have completed one of the forum's 3 "Epic" challenges (the others being Jool 5 and Solar Flare).

I'll just chime in here and say that while a mod like that would certainly be cool, I think that the stock planets/moons should largely be left alone in this mod. Outer Planets should focus on adding new bodies, not moving old ones. That said, I'm stoked about New Horizons and Pluto/Charon/Nix/Hydra/Kerberos/Styx. So many moons! I'd say to stick with just Charon in the mod, though.

I'm loving the new look for Ovok. This mod is going to be an incredible stockalike expansion when it's finished. Something anyone who's looking for more content that keeps with the feel of vanilla will install. Any other news on 1.5.5 this early?

There you go. Points: Launch into orbit around Kerbin (+20) Land on Duna (+100) Plant a flag (+10) (*2) TOTAL: 140 I didn't calculate the recovery bonus because this is a sandbox save, and I don't really want to do all the math, but everything needed to do it should be there if somebody really wanted to, other than the exact distance from the KSC our ship landed at, which could be guesstimated. I'm fine with my score as is.

You might want to specify if non-part mods like FAR/NEAR, PreciseNode, KJR etc. are allowed, as well as part nonessential mods like KER/Mechjeb. This looks interesting. Definitely giving it a shot. What's up with the free 25 points for putting a flag on Kerbin though?

I've installed KIDS along with FAR, and set my preset to "FAR to Stock". KER tells me a ship I have has 4600m/s dV, which, in stock, is barely enough for LKO. Yet the vehicle is able to make a 100km orbit with over 1100m/s left. I'm wondering whether I've not installed KIDS correctly, or if KIDS and KER aren't playing nice. Any ideas? I can provide more info (craft file, screenshots, other mods) upon request. EDIT: Apparently this is a known issue. It's extremely frustrating, so I guess for now I'll be uninstalling this mod. A shame, but knowing accurate dV information is essential for interplanetary missions of any size. EDIT II: Apparently I've misunderstood how this mod works. Thanks, karamazovnew.