ihtoit

I've had terminal descents actually pass through Kerbin unscathed at 1000x time acceleration and out the other side. Bug? Happy if it is, I've had some major "RATS! Missed my braking burn!" moments!

Simple challenge: using a counterweighted arm or a circular assembly, fling a Kerbal as far as you can, scoring is for distance at rest from the pivot. THE RULES: - Your pivot must be fixed to the runway using a clamp or other such device as to prevent it moving. - You may use a mod pivot (eg from Infernal Robotics) or build your own (like the landing gear bearing HOCGaming used here: )- Your Kerbal does not have to survive landing (though that might make it easier to gauge distance travelled - rule subject to revision re: parachutes (is there a way to attach a radial chute to the back of a chair and the whole assembly to a coupler?)) but it must survive the launch. - Your arm or rotating assembly can be as large as you like. - Your arm/assembly must make at least one complete revolution at speed before the Kerbal is launched. - Your Kerbal may not fly with any form of thruster or lifting surface including wings, rockets, infiniglide assembly, jets, RCS or hackgravity. It is a ballistic brick the moment it is launched. - You may use a chair or a capsule to house your Kerbal until the point of launch, and whether you throw the Kerbal in the capsule/chair or have him go EVA is up to you. - Normal "No 'Sploits" rules apply. You may however use Unbreakable Joints if you use a custom (ie player constructed) bearing. LEADERBOARDS: Non-FAR: 1. DJWizardcop with the craziest unbalanced flinger I've seen and probably the most complex custom bearing ever conceived. 193.3m 2. 3. FAR: 1. 2. 3.

I had the snot welded out of as much of it as I could (using the partwelder plugin to make 10m trusses - got the structure down to about 180 parts from 1700. Don't worry, this was an old orbital platform I was putting together with a view to making a challenge so it was pretty much already there), then assembled in orbit (in 8 sections) and hitched together with KAS trusses (which weren't part of the original plan, it wasn't intended to spin) before spinning the ol' lady up. I might actually just chuck another one up there as a showcase build. It was pretty nice considering the size of it. It was a classic 6-spoked wheel with hub and central mast, loads of fuel, loads of accomodation, I might even leave the drive rockets on this time so I can change orbits without burning through monoprop...

I just tried it with a 50m ring, got to 8rpm (barely 1g) and the thing exploded due to mechanical stress. No survivors.

wow... ok, let's do the math. Let's start with some assumptions: firstly, that the station is 1km from centre of mass to the outermost part (ie it has a diameter, assuming circular symmetry, of 2km). Given the formula for centripetal acceleration: a = W^2 r where: a is acceleration W is angular velocity (in radians per second) r is the radius of rotation, If 1rpm=0.105 radians per second (which it is in any system) Then at 1rpm, a=11.025m/s Plug that in to g: at 1rpm, our model would result in a "gravitational" (actually centripetal) acceleration of 1.124g For an artificial G-force of 5g, our model would "only" have to spin at 4.45rpm. That's one complete revolution every 13.5 seconds. Considering we're talking about a model that's pretty much on the limits of KSP's physics rendering capacity, yep that's gonna get laggy and also considering the speed of rotation, each point on the outer edge of the "ring" will be moving at 465m/s relative to the axis. Prepare to strut the hell out of it. Good luck docking with that. Good luck docking with anything smaller which will necessarily be spinning even faster to induce the same centripetal effect.

Theoretically, yes - it has full control authority and three point landing gear (which had it been stable enough to launch with a full fuel load would have been what I'd've used to launch it, but an off-axis thrust vector meant that the thing just wanted to flip all the time). I'm what I consider to be fairly good with flying these things, but this thing? It was like flying a model helicopter in a high wind. RedIronCrown: yeah, had a look, couldn't find it (v.23), might have to hack some in as new parts.

in answer to the delivery question: on the RL STS, the external fuel tank does not actually go into orbit. It is jettisoned before orbital insertion (ie it follows a suborbital trajectory). The orbiter (spaceplane, whatever you want to call the winged payload shroud and crew capsule) is the only stage that actually enters orbit. A booster delivery means that the booster enters orbit with the payload and is jettisoned at some point after entering stable orbit (maybe even itself being deorbited remotely or during vehicle re-entry - used as a heatshield?).

no. Capacity is 4 minimum, you can fly as many as you like - as long as at least one is in control of the aircraft.

1. because nuclear requires a lot more cooling than solar. Heatsinks weigh a LOT. 2. no. The inline clamptron deadweight is it. Everybody has that part, it's stock and weighs exactly 1t per unit. No substituting. 3. yes, they do, and it's very useful. 4. yes, refer to the rule that says any control mod valid. to answer your edit: yes, I have - a precision dock-grab/lift and VAB roof set of a pair of empty Jumbo64 tanks using the Mini with the Bear rotor.

depends on several factors: the curve radius of the ramp the incident velocity of the vehicle incident angle of the wheels to the vector at each point on the ramp inertial forces on each part relative to its neighbour and during flight: the mass of the vehicle and its profile will determine its flight characteristics. there'll doubtless be a LOT more that I've missed.

"Nuclear powered": utilising fission or fusion (or even antimatter) reactors and thermal generators from the Interstellar mod. 1. Nope, this is going to be difficult enough without having to worry you with keeping 10 Kerbals alive just to cheat the Kerbalcide penalty. Capacity is the rule, the penalty is the same whatever number you fly, no bonuses for flying a fully loaded school bus. Also bear in mind that Kerbals have mass! 2. Nope, 1000m +/-5m is it. The higher you go the thinner the air gets, and remember if you're going nuclear-electric you're looking at lifting and hovering maybe 13 tons, that's going to be hard enough to control.

solar/microwave/RTG are all electric generators. An electric rotor from eg Firespitter *consumes* electricity reserve as fuel. That electricity has to come from somewhere. - - - Updated - - - yes. There are possibly other sources for parts such as these as well.

Precision Skill/Endurance Challenge: design and fly a passenger-carrying VTOL which is capable of hovering, and take it to an altitude of 1,000m directly above KSC. THE REAL CHALLENGE: Once at altitude, hold and maintain a relative surface speed of ZERO. As in, park your aircraft in a stationary hover. Hold it for as long as possible. THE RULES: - No infinite fuel, hack gravity or any other cheating method known or unknown. - Any structural part valid. - Any propulsion part valid as long as it consumes some sort of fuel. - Any control method valid, MechJeb highly advised. - Minimum passenger capacity MUST be at least 4 Kerbals, you may fly with just one. - Capacity MUST be enclosed in capsules, external command seats not acceptable. - Kerbal survival not essential, but will affect your score. - Aircraft survival not essential, but will affect your score. - You score NOTHING if your hover is not within +/- 5m of 1000m AGL and your relative velocity is not less than 0.1m/s - As a universal design handicap, I have decided to add mandatory deadweight to all vehicles. As such, you MUST add TWO Inline Clamp-O-Trons (deadweight: 2t) on your vehicle. This is not optional. SCORING: Time Score: MET at start of terminal descent-MET at altitude reached and stabilised, both rounded UP to the nearest whole minute. (ie if you reach altitude in four minutes and you manage a 32 minute hover, then your time score is 28) Modifiers (subject to revision): -15 vehicle sustains damage (including jettisoning of parts during flight/) on landing but is demonstrably able to take off again, or at any other point -30 loss of vehicle on landing or at any point -30 loss of Kerbal(s) on landing or at any point -60 failure to show landed state +15 All Electric (solar, microwave or RTG powered) +30 All Electric (nuclear powered) (my Jet-A powered Mini can hover for hours... but it only carries two and no deadweight)

hmmm... Delta Flyer tonight, then Ought to be slightly easier than Spacedock was... Airbreathers didn't work at all, simply not enough thrust to even get off the runway. Ended up using clamps and a 60 degree launch profile, firing off three super nukes at full throttle with RCS doing overtime. Once the thing was supersonic, I had to throttle the two side engines back to 50% to prevent the thing from flipping - it spent the entire acceleration phase on its back and trying to pitch nose-down, until it cleared the atmosphere and spent the insertion phase trying to pitch up... anywho, here's the Showcase. Not bad for something that took half an hour to throw together. I'm sure if I made it bigger (much bigger) I could get an Alcubierre drive or two in there... Right side view: Ventral: Nose-on "Menace" look: Dorsal view: note the docking port, I'm not sure if there's clearance for it to dock to Spacedock (maybe sideways-on?): $Random Kerbal doing an EVA inspection: I need chroma lighting! There's no BLUE in stock!

mmm... the thing with KSP since it still doesn't have proper multicore support nor does it use the GPU aside from actually rendering, is to run the app on the fastest processor you can get your hands on. My son has a quad core AMD FX he's overclocked from 3.2GHz to 5.5GHz, on a five pound copper heatsink and the most evil electrothermal core heat exchanger I've ever built! An entire 4cm^2 of Peltier heat pump running on 7V (should be 5V), for an idle gradient of over 50C. You bet that puppy's sealed with plastic caulk as well! And you can have all the RAM you like, unless you're running Linux and 64-bit Unity, you're gonna hit the 4GB wall.

SHOWCASE: Space Dock Same basic shape, but that's where the similarities end. Space for 32 crew, 4 docking ports (plans to add radial sections if my processor can handle it!), 561 parts(!). Launched into 80x80 orbit using a Luvodicus Poseidon's Revenge and eight Luvodicus Super Atomics and NO CHEATS. Pad TWR: 1.51. Uh huh, that top bit be round. Difficult to do when there's no structural parts with a curve that wide. Had a bit of a scare when putting the underside lights on as well, I forgot how sensitive my mouse button was, hit it twice and had to figure out the giant jigsaw puzzle that used to be a massive umbrella. Ventral Approach: Looking vertically upward, to show perfect 8-way symmetry: Sunrise - Beauty Shot: High angle showing pan-system comms array: ...And a jaunty angle while it tries to find 0,0: Mods used: KWRocketry MechJeb Luvodicus B9 RemoteTech Kosmos Firespitter KSPInterstellar I've got large circular/spherical shapes down pat now, I reckon six launches for a large Death Star (possibly even capable of internally docking a few spaceplanes! TIE fighters!?), two for a Classic Battlestar Galactica Cylon Base Star (again possibility of a couple parking spots for Raiders), but that's all, while ambitious and possibly suicidal for my processor, getting entirely offtopic

that is some obscene resolution! Me want! (I'm just in between paychecks right now, chasing up 15 grand that's owed me and the other guy's sodded off to Gambia, so what hope of me upgrading my overworked laptop anytime soon, eh? )

I think you mean tallest? To answer, assuming unbreakable joints: 2.5km.

hmmm... I see entries from the Thrust KSC Land Speed Challenge having a go at this one...

Pyramids are too easy

np. That is an awesome podracer, Darren9, it's giving me ideas for a circuit challenge >:]

it's not ST. It's SW.

This is a design challenge. To celebrate the anniversary of the release of Star Wars Episode IV, the Boffs want to see practical replicas of the ships and vehicles used in Star Wars. RULES: - No violating the laws of physics. - Any structural mod valid. - OP engines OK but they must consume fuel. - Spacecraft must show launch to orbit, transfer orbits and landing capability. - Aircraft must show controlled flight and safe landing and recovery. - Walkers must be able to turn corners in a predictable manner. Showcase your creations in one post, please! Use the edit button, that's what it's for. Challenger's entries (all .18 Stock except for the engines on the X-Wing Mk. II which are Luvodicus Super Atomics on .20): Incom T-65 X-Wing starfighter: Sienar Fleet Systems TIE/LN starfighter: (light enough for an RCS lift!) Koensayr Manufacturing BTL Y-Wing starfighter: (from episode V) The Kuar ATAT: (no, it doesn't walk) Incom T-65 X-Wing starfighter Mk.II: (in-flight refuelable) (In progress: Death Star)

For three birds at 120 degrees, just set your orbit to 2/3 sync (ie, 4h orbit), release 1 bird per orbit and insert to synchronous orbit. Time it right, perfect 120-degree separation. To answer the other question, if you use MechJeb you can add target separation angle info to any window. Any preplanning is just math.

yep, that one. (correction applied). Nice constellation there... the way I do it is to set my apoapse to synchronous altitude and fine tune my periapse until my orbital period is 5h0m, then release one satellite per orbit and burn at apoapse to circularise. Coming in from above is also fairly simple, it just deploys your satellites in reverse order: set your periapse to sync altitude then fine tune your apoapse to 7h0m, release 1 bird per orbit and burn retrograde at periapse to 6h0m. Either way, if you do it right you'll have precisely 60 degrees separation.