TTurchan1

I agree, you've done a good job at avoiding the temptation to overbuild, something I myself struggle with. It doesn't help and it kills performance, so if you don't overbuild you'll be able to go pretty far in ksp. Here is an example of how ridiculous even a simple Mun lander can get with me, and believe me, the performance is awful: Keep up the good work man.

My suggestion is always... MOAR FUEL No, but in all seriousness, get rid of one of the layers of solar panels, because they are in a cube configuration, and will eclipse each other strangely IMO.

Well, shovels are able to move food much more quickly, and therefore would be more comparable to the NASA parts. In my opinion the orange tanks are just more classy. Also, there are no Nasa sized docking ports (or at least i haven't found them in the tech tree, because i started a new career in 23.5, and haven't played sandbox, and I enjoy pacing my career, and focusing on the kerbin system and Duna to begin with)which means that the station would look really awkward with all the adapters. Finally, I'm like 75% sure that i didn't have nasa parts when I started the station, and i'm 100% sure that i wasn't planning on having more than the 7 tanks at first, it just felt like the obvious progression after I put the first segment on.

They don't feel Kerbal to me, and they feel a bit OP.

Well, it seems jeb has been amassing stolen fuel in orbit around kerbin. So far 17 out of the 28 tanks are full. In the future I plan to add one more tank with some 1.25m docking ports and one Sr. port so that docking things to actually refuel is easier. I am also going to de-orbit the solar array, because it just jacks up the part count by ~ 100 parts, and isn't necessary. I also might de-orbit the core module and add some engines and take the thing to another planet, but maybe that plan will be saved for a slightly smaller fuel station. I'll post again when I put a similar craft around the Mun.

48-7s Batteries and Solar Struts Mainsail Using those i could go to tylo and back. personally i have a burning hatred of the nerva. It's too heavy, and its isp makes it vastly overused.

A more useful (scalable and low part count) alternative is four lv-t30's with a skipper clustered together. http://i.imgur.com/kO6GAyM.png that shows you how to do it Higher ISP (i did a lazy calculation so not sure if it's 100% accurate, but the isp in vacuum is around 361 vs the mainsail's 330) Higher Thrust (1510 vs 1500) Marginally greater mass (6 vs 9.16{this is outweighed by the bonuses}) The one major downside is when using these boosters for the radially mounted boosters on a rocket, rather than the core only. Because the higher part count coupled with symmetry greatly increases part count on just a simple engine. BTW i don't take credit for this design, the credit goes to GusTurbo.

I thought this was the case, but i strapped 200 or so 2HOT's to a capsule, had an action group set up, activated them all, kept the data, and recovered from the launchpad. It behaves the same as if you were to do it 200 seperate times, so bringing 10 goo balls to solar orbit won't benefit you. If you look at the tally at the end you can see that it doesn't actually effect the result.

Yeah, I know that second claim was false, i don't know what the **** I was smoking when i wrote that (I wasn't smoking anything, i was just tired), but i dont know what the hell is going on with my entry. All i know is that your surface velocity is ridiculously high whenever you are orbiting the sun.

Well, for one, Kerbol (the sun) has a rotational velocity of 3.8km/s, compared to kerbin's 174m/s rotational velocity, and secondly, if you are orbiting at very high altitudes, you will have a MUCH higher surface velocity.

Again, I was basing the speed off the "highest speed over land" part of the flight log, or the surface velocity. Besides, the Stock Unmanned Exploitational category on the leaderboards is meant for exploits, so i exploited the fact that your surface velocity is incredibly high when you are very far off the surface of the body you are orbiting. Also he says that you are not supposed to abuse sub-orbital hops to increase the velocity, which i did not do.

That doesn't at all imply that you can't leave Kerbin's SOI. And I was basing my highest speed off the "Highest Speed Over Land" part of the flight log.

True, true, I did have one run where I got ~10,000 speed over land in Kerbin's SOI, but there is nothing in the rules saying that you must stay in Kerbin's SOI.

Well, I lost the pictures of my legitimate entry, so I will have to do that again, but here is exploitation entry (all stock) that did fairly well imo: The craft was not named in the flight, but my name for it is the "AYKM mk1" (no quotes). It's final top speed was, 421,951m/s.

Nice challenge, I really enjoyed it, I made an attempt but the pictures are on my other computer, and I think I forgot to leave the resource tab open, so I'll probably just try again over the weekend (busy with football right now). Anyway, I think I got like 2300, and @visari, I think that that would be a good addition to the leaderboard, one section without air hogging (1-2 intakes per engine) and it would really lower the scores, might be interesting to see what designs people come up with to increase their speed.

Well, I did the mission before finding this thread, so I have no pictures or anything, and I didn't use the persistent file, but here is basically what i did, there is an O next to goals i completed and an X next to goals i did not complete: Basic mission profile to earn the base of 50 points: O Non-asparagus, Saturn 5 style launch vehicle: 3 main stages to LKO, no asparagus-style fuel-tank/engine jettisons on ascent to LKO. Solid rocket boosters ARE permitted, as they were being developed for the Space Shuttle, but there is a penalty for making KSC accelerate their development for this mission. X Start with the provided save game persistent file. O Single launch mission. No refueling or constructing the vessel in orbit from multiple lauches. O The Apollo CSM was not capable of doing a 'direct ascent' mission. You must use a separate command module and lander. Powered descent, parachutes, or a combination will qualify. O All stock flight-parts. No mods which provide improved flight performance or flight assistance (auto-pilot) are allowed. O Return at least one of the Kerbals that started the mission back safely to Kerbin's surface. Addition points for standard mission goals: O 3-kerbal mission +10 O 2-kerbal lander +10 O 2-stage lander with separate ascent stage (descent stage stays on Duna) +20 X Launch escape system (LES) escape tower +10 O Duna lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20 X Lander tucked away behind some fairing +5 O Perfect landing - no damage to LM +10 O Dock with LM's ascent stage prior to leaving Duna's SOI +10 O Ascent module de-orbited to burn up in Duna's atmosphere +5 O Plant at least one flag +3 O Splash-down on Kerbin (water landing) +5 O (No deaths) Kerbal fatality -20 each (if any kerbal is left on the Duna surface after the ascent module leaves the surface or the CM leaves Duna orbit, they will die). Flight goals: O (No SRB's Used) Launch vehicle should avoid using solid-rocket boosters during its ascent. This *does not* include use of Separatrons that are not used for ascent purposes. If you use a SRB for ascent -10 X Complete the mission with only chemical rockets (no nukes). The KSC already has a crate of chemical rockets on hand and you get a bonus for not having to accelerate development on the nuclear engine +15 O Aerobrake around Duna to achieve orbit +10 X Less than 75 days from game start to Duna orbit? Launching when the game saves starts and performing a standard orbital transfer gets you into a Duna orbit 75 days from when the provided save game starts, day 129 in the game. Find a faster way to get into a Duna orbit using another transfer faster and earn +1 point for every day less than 75 days it takes to get to Duna orbit, from the starting point of day 54, where the provided save game starts (calculated by 129 - day when Duna orbit is reached). X Water sample return bonus! Land on either polar icecap AND return a sample to Kerbin (either as part of the kerballed lander or a robotic lander) +10 Rover: X At least one rover on board +5 X Rovers can seat at least one Kerbal +5 X Additional rovers +3 each X Distance (score for one only and counts only for a kerballed rover) X Drive beyond 100 meters of the lander +2 X Drive beyond 2.5 km of the lander +5 X Drive beyond 5km of the lander +10 X Drive beyond 10km of the lander +15 Orbital Science goals: O Deploy orbiting satellite around Duna +5 X Deploy orbiting satellite around Ike +10 X Duna surface science goals. Each science package must be a powered probecore with at least one scientific instrument. X Deploy one science package at landing site (on the LM itself counts, if that part of the LM stays on Duna's surface and remains powered) +5 X Deploy a science package at least 2.5km from the landing site +10 (score first one only) X Deploy a science package at least 1000m +/- different alititude from LM or any other science package +15 (score first one only) X Deploy a science package adjacent (within 100m) to any anomoly +10 (score first one only) X Deploy a science package at least 10km from the landing site +10 (score first one only) Challenge hints: Maximum points would be difficult to achieve without a long drive. Multiple un-kerballed rovers would help. KSC reports that their telemetry has observed sink holes over 1000m deep. So i'm not sure what my score is because i don't know if you want to give me the 50 points despite the fact that i didn't use the persistant file, but if you give me those 50 Points, then my score was 158 (i think ) Anyway, my save file was brand new when i did the mission, so penalizing me doesn't really make sense, but either way that's what i got

Saw the challenge and was thinking of making it walk like a human with hip joints and knee joints and what not. I overthink the simplest of things.

Hmm... I think I'll try this soon with a Jool mission, just take the main ship on an aerobraking trajectory, but launch a seperate atmosphere probe to go straight into the planet.

Whackjob, you can't even go mach one in space, because your mach number is the ratio of your velocity to the local speed of sound. So mach number's only apply when travelling in a fluid.

Great idea, and great start on what the standard description should be, but I think some refinements might help, one that might be good is "Does it fly straight without input or SAS, or are trim adjustments needed?" "Does it have docking capabilities (port and well balanced RCS)" < I know this is for aircraft but I sometimes dock planes to my space station if they have orbital capabilities, and on that note "Can it reach orbit." Just a suggestion, but great start.

Would be cool if there was an english to kerbal translator

Pretty awesome stuff, I think I'll try some of them.

Love the artwork, keep up the awesome work