RexKramer

Well, I thought I was going to have to disqualify the first entry, by Lego8_bit, because of the third engine mounted above the first two. Wait, that's not an engine, it's an intake pod, with 3 different intakes! Awesome! Nice job, Lego8_bit, and congratulations on being first! Bear with me, this is my first challenge, as soon as I figure out how to edit my post I'll add you to the leaderboard. By the way, while I specified that you needed exactly two engines, no more and no less, I didn't say anything about how many intakes needed to be on the plane or where they need to be. Very interesting design.

My third example is actually my go-to SSTO, which ferries 8 Kerbals to and from LKO. I haven't tried limping it to orbit on one engine. I'm confident it won't take long for someone to accomplish this feat however.

Here are a couple of examples of successful designs. I don't use joysticks, so this is all with a keyboard to control the plane. Yes, FAR alters stock physics, which is not allowed- see the section on MODS: "The use of any mods which alter stock parts, or add non-stock parts, or alter stock physics, is not allowed." With that said, entries which use non-stock parts or physics (like FAR) are fine, they just won't be eligible for the records. That keeps a level playing field for everyone else. So anyway, feel free to post your attempt, just make a note of mods you are using.

The Challenge: Build and launch an aircraft with exactly two (2) jet engines. At liftoff, you are going to shut down one of the engines. The challenge is to see how well you are able to control the aircraft. Rules: 1. Must have exactly 2 jet engines. J-33 Wheelsy, J-X4 Whiplash, and CR-7 RAPIER (in air-breathing mode only) are your available choices. Rockets and ion thrusters are not allowed. Vernor engines are not allowed. RCS is allowed, as long as it is not intentionally used to produce forward thrust, only to maintain directional control. Updated- Both engines must be the same model. 2. Engines must be mounted laterally, or one on each side of the aircraft. In other words, not mounted with one above the other one. The asymmetric thrust must produce a yaw moment, not a pitch moment. 3. The horizontal distance between the engines is up to you. Mounting two engines right next to each other on a bi-coupler at the back of the plane is perfectly fine. Mounting them on pylons on the side of the fuselage or under wings is fine. Clipping so that the engines overlap is not allowed. Updated- Engines must be mounted symmetrically, same lateral distance from centerline, and same fore/aft location. 4. One engine must be shut down at liftoff, and may not be used again for the duration of the flight. 5. You must set full (100%) throttle during the takeoff, and the remaining engine MUST remain at FULL THROTTLE until your reach an altitude of 1,000m. After reaching 1,000m you may use any throttle setting you wish. 6. The aircraft must take off horizontally from the KSC runway. It must also be capable of landing horizontally on the runway, although a successful landing is not required. How to accomplish the engine failure: I recommend using action groups to shut off one engine. However, you may use other methods to accomplish this as well, such as right-clicking the engine and shutting down from the info-pane. It is acceptable to close the intake with the same action group button, but not required. When to fail the engine: Engine should be failed after the nose begins to rise, but before reaching an altitude of 100m. Ideally the failure should occur before the main wheels leave the ground, but as long as you fail the engine before reaching 100m you’re good. Remember, you need to leave the good engine at max thrust until reaching 1,000m. Mods: Stock parts only. The use of information mods such as MechJeb or Engineer is allowed. The use of any mods which alter stock parts, or add non-stock parts, or alter stock physics, is not allowed. With that said, if you would like to post your attempt using non-stock parts, feel free to do so, with a note that your aircraft uses non-stock parts. Entries using non-stock parts or physics will not be eligible for records. Basic Challenge Completion: The basic challenge is to shut down one engine as described above, achieve an altitude of 1,000m, and land safely anywhere, preferably on a runway (but any landing you can walk away from is a good one, right?). Records: To be eligible for a record, you must be using stock parts. Also, for atmospheric records, you must not switch to Closed Cycle on RAPIER engines, these are for air-breathers only. Records will come from a screenshot of your F3 window. First to Complete Challenge : Lego8_bit with Lizzard. 2,081m, 183m/s, 19.469km Altitude (highest) : 28,856m - K3achas with Demonic Goat Cheese Consiar Speed (highest) : 1,194m/s - K3achas with Demonic Goat Cheese Consiar Ground Distance Covered : 4,454.042km - noname117 with NAM-6 Kerbin Orbit and Beyond: This challenge specifies air-breathing engines only, including RAPIERs in air-breathing mode only. So, I don’t expect to see anyone reaching orbit or heading off to Moho in air-breathing mode. However, it is probably possible to reach orbit with a RAPIER switched to closed cycle. The failed RAPIER should remain failed throughout the flight of course. Switching a RAPIER to Closed-Cycle for any period of time makes you ineligible for the atmospheric records. If you choose this route, you need to leave the remaining RAPIER at full throttle, in air-breathing mode, until you reach 1,000m. After 1,000m you may throttle down and/or switch to closed-cycle as you wish. Not sure how to set up this leaderboard yet, I might just list entries and their accomplishments. V1 Cut concept: Commercial aircraft are designed to be able to continue to operate safely in the event of an engine failure during any phase of flight. The most challenging phase to lose an engine is during takeoff. The plane must be able continue the takeoff, and maintain sufficient climb to clear terrain or obstacles. During takeoff, the aircraft is going slow and close to the ground, so there is not much room for error. One challenge to losing an engine during takeoff is the significant yaw moment produced as a result of the asymmetric thrust. Commercial aircraft are designed so that it is possible to overcome the asymmetric thrust through the use of rudder and possibly banking slightly into the good engine. While reducing thrust on the good engine would reduce the asymmetric thrust, this is not an option for an aircraft which is trying to clear terrain. You already lost half your thrust when the other engine failed, now you need every ounce of thrust the good engine can produce. The term ‘V1’ is sometimes referred to as Takeoff Decision Speed. At speeds below V1, the aircraft is capable of aborting the takeoff and stopping on the runway in the event of an engine failure (or other problem). At speeds above V1, the aircraft is capable of continuing the takeoff safely even if an engine failure occurs. Generally, once an aircraft has reached V1 speed during the takeoff roll, the takeoff will be continued regardless of what components fail. An engine failure right at V1 produces the biggest challenge during takeoff. This is the slowest speed an aircraft could be going and still continue the takeoff. The slow speed results in poor climb performance. Additionally, the slow speed means the rudder is not very effective at counteracting the adverse yaw from asymmetrical thrust. Commercial pilots are trained on a recurring basis to address various abnormal conditions, including engine failures. As the most challenging time to have an engine fail is right at V1 during takeoff, engine failures at V1 are practiced regularly (usually in a simulator). These are referred to as ‘V1 Cuts’.

Here's an example of what I accomplished removing drag. I like twin engine designs, which for the mass I'm lifting (similar to the OP's goal) are overpowered. I had a good design with twin Rapiers mounted to the side of a MK2 tube. It was able to get to LKO with about 2/3 of the payload I wanted. I removed the side tanks and engines, and went with two engines off the back of the MK2 tube via bicoupler. The result was a 50% increase of payload to LKO, using less fuel to get there, with an extra 600m/s over what I had before. All this just from removing the drag of laterally mounted engine pylons. I realize the bicoupler isn't the greatest. However, just by streamlining my vessel by removing everything mounted laterally except the wings, I was able to vastly increase the performance.

Comments above have trended towards removing stuff you don't need. I'll continue that with advice that two Rapiers would be more than enough. Lose the 909s, as well as two of the Rapiers.

This was looked at very closely during testing. For each Kerbal generated, there is an equal chance of being male/female. Through random luck, it sometimes happens that the pool is lopsided in one direction. Statistically, the more Kerbals you rescue, the closer to a 50/50 distribution you should get. However, it is also possible to get a thousand female Kerbals, although that is unlikely.

After you run a scan successfully, the data is transmitted to Kerbin. (Not sure if you need an antenna or not for this..) After that, you always have access to the data (map overlay). I believe you actually get some science from this too. So once you run a scan, you don't need the scanner anymore. The narrow-band scanner is different, that one needs to be in orbit to function. With the M700 Survey Scanner, I usually attach it to a docking port. Once the scan has completed, I jettison (undock) the scanner and let it float away. Saves a little weight, but honestly the device is quite large and makes my vessels look goofy, which is the real reason I get rid of it as soon as I can.

Glad I'm not the first to check in with this answer. The majority of my ships launch with this title. If I'm feeling particularly creative, I sometimes name them. "Rocket", "Big Rocket", and "Really Big Rocket" are names I've used. No trademark on those, feel free to use as you wish..

This is a known bug, #5015. Indeed, the AC lists Level 2 Engineers as being able to repair wheels, but Level 3 is required. I am not aware of a fix for this. Level 3 Engineers are able to repair wheels. This issue has been reported on the public bug tracker, as well as an internal tracker. Kuzzter, thank you for the report! Also, thanks to whomever reported to the Public Bug Tracker.

If you aren't using airbrakes, they are surprisingly effective. The airbrakes currently have a glitch where action group assignments don't work, they are effectively permanently tied to the brake group. I activate the 'parking brake' to deploy them prior to entry. This, combined with a 10 to 20 degree angle of attack, is working well. (Nose of vessel is pointed 10 to 20 degrees above prograde marker) You might consider a steeper entry also. While your vessel is between 35 and 55 km, you generate a lot of heat, but not much drag, so you get hot but don't slow down. Not saying this is ideal, but my descent starts with a burn about 90 degrees before KSC, so the orbit intersects (impacts?) KSC. Then I rotate to point prograde. At atmosphere entry, I deploy airbrakes if equipped, and try to hold pitch 10 to 20 degrees above the prograde marker. An unpowered plane will sometimes level off around 40km doing this, which you don't want- you're still generating a lot of heat but not much drag. If that happens, lower the nose a bit to keep the descent going.

I'd like to submit my first entry to this (or any) challenge for consideration. I would like to be considered for the Minimalist prize, as I managed to beat the current Minimalist record by a whopping 0.1T. Also, managed to land safely on the KSC runway. I came up with a hare-brained scheme to shave weight, which didn't work out: I felt I didn't really need landing gear, as the engine has more than enough thrust to launch vertically from the runway. This plan didn't pan out for two reasons. First, the rules actually state you need to launch horizontally. The second (and more important) reason I didn't go this route is that the parachute only works if you still have landing gear underneath. The impact speed is too much for the rest of the vessel. So, had to put the landing gear back on, but no longer needed the parachute. My entry is called "Tiny SSTO", with a launch weight of 4.3T. It achieved orbit, with a PE>70km, and was able to return to KSC for a safe landing on the runway. It is very stable (when empty) and also very maneuverable. The empty stability was very important, as I use wing loading to add drag as needed during the descent to keep the trajectory close to the KSC. With such a short plane, placing the COL close to the COM like I normally do caused stability issues at high angles of attack. So I ended up with the COL quite a ways aft of the COM. I play completely stock, no mods at all. So my ascents are not even remotely close to ideal, I just have to point it in the general direction I think will work, and hope for the best. With an ascent planner or a better pilot, you could probably get this ship to orbit with less fuel. This is also my first attempt at embedding IMGUR stuff, hope this works..

Well, that also reduces the lift generated by the fuselage. You could do the same thing to the wings, angling them down so less of them are 'hitting the wind", but that defeats the purpose of the wings..

3. Nose Bobbing- My guess is the plane is either too stable or not stable enough. A less stable plane will have the COL very slightly behind the COM, but very close to it. This will make an aircraft which is very maneuverable (pitch axis), but somewhat less stable. This is probably not your problem. The further away (aft) of the COM the COL is, the more stable the airplane is. However, too much stability is not necessarily a good thing, and can even produce pitch-down moments which are difficult to overcome. An aircraft which is overly pitch stable has a tendency to weathervane into the wind. Deviations from your present pitch attitude will cause the pitch to try to return the pitch to where it was, sometimes with enough force to cause the nose to bob back and forth between nose above flight path and below flight path. Try adjusting the COM to COL markers. I would suspect your COL is too far behind your COM, so try moving the COL forward, closer to the COM, and see how that affects handling. Personally, most of my aircraft have COL almost right on top of the COM. Supersonic or hypersonic flight amplifies handling issues, so the problem is likely to get worse the faster you go. Thankfully, KSP is not 100% accurate regarding how supersonic flight affects aerodynamics. IRL, as you transition from transonic to supersonic flight, the effective COL moves aft, creating additional control quirks. Again, try changing the relationship between COL and COM. Be careful to ensure that as you burn fuel the COM does not move aft of the COL, but try to get the COL closer to the COM.

For those of us who don't use mods, it is helpful to find stock solutions to gameplay issues. Adding mods to correct design errors is one solution. Finding stock methods to overcome game limitations is another. Both are useful.

I have a non-retina MBP, and have never encountered this problem. In the interest of narrowing down this bug, here's what I have, which has never crashed. I don't use mods at all. MBP, non-retina, 2.9Ghz Intel i7, OSX 10.10.3 8GB (2X4) RAM Intel HD Graphics 4000 1024 MB (no additional graphics cards, stock MBP..) I normally use the built-in 13" display, but also use an external monitor (HDTV) sometimes. Game Graphics Settings: Terrain Detail: Default (middle) SM3 Terrain Shaders: Enabled Terrain Scatters: Disabled Render Quality: Beautiful Texture Quality: Half-Res Fallback Part Shaders: False Aerodynamic FX Quality: Low PPFX: Disabled Surface FX: Enabled Screen Res: 1024X768 (I use other settings for external displays sometimes too) Full Screen: Enabled Anti Aliasing: 2X VSync: Every VBlank Frame Limit: 120fps Pixel Light Count: 8 Shadow Cascades: 4

While this isn't going to help your current vessel, here's what I have done- Mount an additional probe core on the vessel, which is oriented correctly for rover navigation. Actually, any part which can be clicked on to 'control from here' should work, like docking ports. It is highly recommended to test this on Kerbin before you launch, as it is very easy to mount the additional control part 'upside down', or in other words the NavBall shows Brown over Blue. Adds a little weight, but makes controlling combination lander/rover vehicles much easier.

Bingo. I don't bother with trying to recover the engine, but basically that's your cost. Slap the cheapest engine on the bottom that will give you a TWR>1, using SRBs if needed. The tanks aren't launched empty, but they are nearly empty by the time I reach the mining operation.

Best advice for spaceplanes is to start small. Start with a goal of getting one Kerbal to orbit and back. Then start slowly building larger spaceplanes. Although it is possible to deliver moderately large payloads to orbit with spaceplanes, it is fairly difficult. With 1.0.4's aero and engine performance, I find spaceplanes are useful for ferrying Kerbals to orbit and back, but not much else. There is definitely a financial advantage with them though, ferrying Kerbals to LKO costs next to nothing with spaceplanes.

To reach another planet, you need to reach a point on the planet's orbit at roughly the same time the planet does. If you launch outside of an ideal launch window, you won't reach the point at the same time the planet does. There are a couple of crude solutions to this. If your burn causes you to reach the target orbit ahead of the target planet, you can burn longer to arc beyond the target orbit, allowing the target planet to 'catch up' and intercept. (Assuming the target is outside of Kerbin..) If you reach the orbit behind your target, you can adjust your solar orbit at AP to 'catch up' to the target planet, which will require at least one more orbit around the sun. The same techniques can be used to reach inner planets. The penalty you pay for launching at non-ideal times is you use more DV, and it takes longer to reach the planet.

I've successfully used small SRBs to complete survey contracts with aircraft. Early on, with only the basic jet engine, it is difficult/impossible to reach those 'above 18000m' waypoints. A SRB can be successfully used to reach those altitudes with a fixed-wing aircraft. Just point the nose at the middle of the sky and fire the SRB. It's possible that a LF motor would have been more efficient. Then again, the Isp of LF engines isn't that great in the atmosphere, and available thrust drops off as well. At the time, I didn't have the LV-909 unlocked, but that engine is particularly worthless in the atmosphere anyway. One final advantage in this case was the the SRB's 'one button' usage, activate by staging. A LF engine can also be activated by staging, but then you need to shut it off. That becomes awkward without action groups, especially while you are trying to click on the thermometer to get the waypoint complete. With the SRB you just stage it to activate, nothing else to do, it will shut itself off when it runs out of fuel. Again, maybe not the most efficient solution, but it worked.

That works for me also. One suggestion is to move fuel around in the active ship to move the COM closer to the docking port you want to control from. That obviously won't help much on a vessel which has full fuel tanks.

Picking up fuel will not cause the problem, nor will docking with an existing ship, as long as you are undocked when you are trying to complete the contract. I'm still guessing the asteroid is the culprit in this case.

Interesting. The contract system now checks to make sure all components of a vessel are new. Taking a wild guess, the game is flagging the asteroid as 'not new'. Paging Arsonide.

In your screenshot, you have SAS and RCS on, which may be enough to overpower the force of the docking ports. I suggest turning off SAS and RCS. I normally turn off SAS and RCS as soon as the docking ports begin to attract each other. The ports will attempt to pull the ships together, but also will attempt to align the two ships so their ports are aligned. SAS will interfere with that action. Normally, the docking port will eventually overpower SAS, especially on ships with a minimum amount of torque wheels, unless you have a lot of torque wheels.