Andrew Hansen

Finally! After a longer-than-usual wait, I present the Invincib-13 rover. I'm going to be focusing on the Aeris-4a BSC challenge now, because I love doing BSCs, but I promise you I haven't forgotten about the build-a-rocket/reusable-rocket challenge. It's a challenging one, but I hope to do it! I love all the challenges that are coming in. Thanks everyone!

OK, here's a blog post on how I'm doing with these challenges. So many awesome challenges guys! Keep it up.

Sorry about not doing it so far. The main thing about your challenge is that you wanted me to use the ZWheels for driving. They're nice, but in my opinion just make any .craft files I post harder to access for the general public. So that's why I never did your challenge so far. But now that I think about it, I can still do the other aspects of your challenge - because it can be difficult to create a durable rover sometimes. So I'll do your challenge, but using the stock wheels. Currently I'm planning on attempting to do Rakaydos' challenge first, but after that I think I'll create another "Downloadable Craft" video with a rover that meets most your criteria (except for the use of ZWheels). So to reiterate, my plans are: -Complete Rakaydos' challenge to "build a rocket" by connecting pieces together, then make the rocket 100% reusable. -Create a durable rover that can survive high-speed collisions, right itself, carries scientific instruments, and seats two Kerbals.

OK guys... I'm feeling slightly bad here because... I haven't really been doing many challenges. I'll try to do more now. That said, I did implement a K-drive into my latest video. Sadly, it was so glitchy it was hard to capture the scene because it kept on spontaneously exploding and/or falling out the sky. Despite a few attempts, I was unable to create an infiniglide/K-drive combo SSTO. The k-drive doesn't impart a lot of force anyway, so it's hard to make it work for getting into orbit. I might try a few more times just for fun, but it's pretty hard to harness glitchy physics to power your spacecraft! Rakaydos, that honestly sounds like a fun and challenging thing to do! I'll give it a shot. I haven't got anything going right now in KSP anyway after making my latest cinematic, so my hands are free. A lot easier to do than making a glitch-powered SSTO!

Don't give up, I tell ya! In my opinion one of the funnest parts of KSP is designing VTOLs and spaceplanes! Thank you! I did my best.

"Under Attack" - KSP Short Film (VTOL SSTO Destroys UFO)

OK! I updated the video, and this time YouTube behaved and didn't jack up the file.

Woah! You're totally right about the video being jacked up. I'm uploading the video again - it was an error on YouTube's part. Also, thanks for the feedback on the music volume. I'll be uploading with reduced volume.

Take a look at this video from a new YouTuber named Cruzan AK: He shows how to create an SSTO with just two RAM intakes and takes it into orbit perfectly fine. He says he's going to post another one sometime soon on how to build larger SSTOs that can go past Minmus, so I'd stay tuned for that.

After a lot of failed designs, I've finally managed to create a vertical takeoff and landing, single-stage-to-orbit plane. It has no part clipping (just some cubic octagonal struts to mount the engines and intakes), it's 95 parts, and in my opinion it's awesome. It's capable of flying to and from Duna without refueling, although its fuel budget is pretty slim. I'm really proud of it because this craft is really an honest VTOL. It doesn't take off from its tail or anything strange like that, and it can also land horizontally in addition to vertically. Download Craft File Here!

I just did some researching about Kraken drives, and downloaded some crafts as well. Sounds like such a neat concept! I'll do some testing and maybe make a video about Kraken drives in the future.

Sorry if this has already been asked before, but can these images be used for something like perhaps, a YouTube channel art background? Awesome images! Even if I'm not allowed to use them for a YouTube banner, I'm going to replace my desktop wallpaper with one of these for sure.

Congratulations to the winners! Giggeplex won for the third time, and he deserved it. His craft was amazing! By the way, Xeldrak, maybe next time you could do some weird craft like the Kerbal 2! Who knows what everyone will post for that (I don't).

I can't seem to crash into the recorded vessels! What am I doing wrong? I've selected "Activate Physics Colliders" or whatever that box is, but it doesn't seem to work - either while playing, or while paused. I think I remember being able to collide into the vessels during 0.22, but I can't verify.

VTOL Duna SSTO

OK! I'm here once more with my promised "improved" version of the Wernhermobile. I totally redesigned it from the ground up, even though it still looks sort of similar. This craft is called the Falcon 87. It's 8.9 tons and 35 parts, features near-zero COM shifting, is powered by the RAPIER engine, has simpler action groups, and can even get into orbit (it's an SSTO)! Plus, its more stable as a rover and even features a docking port you can use for vertical navball orientation. In addition, it works even better with a rocket than the Wernhermobile, since the COM is literally spot on the center of the structural plate. Download Here ADVERTISEMENT: Here's the promised link to a video of a VTOL Duna SSTO in case anyone's interested.

OK, testing completed. I kind of cheated by moving engines around to achieve the greatest stability possible according to the RCS mod, then tested them. So if the creator of the craft made a mistake and placed an engine too far forward/backward, I corrected that and only tested the crafts according to how fuel drained during flight. In addition to flying all the crafts to the VAB once more, I tested each of them to see how long they took to tilt over and hit the ground with SAS off. Here are the results: Pack Mule: 17 seconds until destruction Damselfly (Rocket): 41 seconds until destruction Damselfly (Jet): 43 seconds until destruction Damselfly (Rocket + Jet): 26 seconds until destruction Bullfrog: 14 seconds until destruction Snack Wagon VTOL: 5 seconds until destruction The Damselfly seemed to have the least amount of COM shifting during flight, so it lasted the longest. It tilted forward, then backward as the fuel drained and thus increased its flight duration. Plus, I also like the Damselfly for its rocket/jet function. So that's the craft I voted for. By the way, I'll be sharing an improved version of the Wernhermobile with you shortly. Hint: it uses the RAPIER engine, has barely any COM shifting, less confusing action groups, less parts, and is more awesomer.

Woohoo! I'm glad to see the voting has ended, and how high-quality the finalists' entries are. I plan to test them a bit before I make my vote. I'm surprised to see that only one entry had the option of being powered by jet engines - the Damselfly! One important aspect I'll be testing the finalists on is balance throughout the flight. I'll be using the RCS Build-Aid mod in addition to test-flying to see the amount of torque that is caused by the engines. Why am I testing this? Mainly because my entry, the Wernhermobile, sadly didn't have perfect balance, and I think it's nice for a stock craft to show new pilots how to build balanced crafts.

I'm just curious about the Jet and Jet/Rocket modes being underpowered. The Jet mode has a rather low thrust-to-weight ratio - that's true, but the Jet/Rocket mode has about the same thrust-to-weight ratio as the Rocket-Only mode once the jet engine is spooled up. Maybe since it takes the jet engine a while to spool up, and you're not in the air instantly, it might seem to be "underpowered." That I can understand, and probably a new pilot would feel the same way. If I were to change the Wernhermobile, I'd probably use more 47-RS engines in Jet/Rocket mode and thus remove a few of the radial engines for Rocket-Only mode.

Well, I'll quickly say that I really appreciate it when people show who they voted for and why, or do craft reviews. That's the best part of the BSC challenges, in my opinion. I've done some more testing on the Wernhermobile, looking for ways to improve it - especially the slight COM shifting that some people have pointed out. Even though the COM shifting is easily compensated for by the reaction wheels, it would obviously be nicer to eliminate it somehow. At the end of the competition, I may or may not post a better version of my craft depending on whether or not I can get that COM shifting removed. Speaking of which... sploden commented on my craft, saying, Would you mind elaborating on what you meant? I couldn't quite get the whole meaning of the sentence. Thanks to everyone who voted for me, by the way! ADVERTISEMENT: Sometime in the next few days I'll be posting a video of a stock VTOL Duna SSTO (takes off and lands like an airplane) that I made, so if you liked my Wernhermobile video, you may consider checking that out. This challenge has kind of put me in the "VTOL" spirit!

As far as I understand the position you're in while on rails is calculated in "steps." There's a certain amount of steps per second calculated, and the higher the time warp, the less steps are taken. That's why it's possible to warp entirely through planets with high time warp values since the step sizes are so large. How about if you're using an ion engine, you can start warp with the throttle on and the throttle will be locked until you return to 1x warp. For each step that is taken in time warp, a certain amount of velocity will be imparted into the orbital path. It shouldn't be that hard considering how solar panels and batteries currently function in timewarp. Or at least I don't think it would be too hard.

Thanks! I feel like that's a generally positive review. The center of mass does move around a bit, and I did my best to ensure it moved around as little as possible. The COM starts behind the COT, then moves in front of it as the rocket fuel drains. If jet fuel is used up as well, the COM will move back behind the COT the way it started at. I actually considered attaching a small docking port to a fuel tank for the vertical navball option, but I had already made my video and stated the craft had 64 parts, so I didn't think it was too important. Sepatrons on abort system? Maybe, but after testing the abort system extensively, I couldn't get the capsule to explode or the parachute to break off due to problems with the main body. The thing is that you're usually leaning forward when moving forward, so the capsule gets tugged underneath the main body by the parachute and the rest goes flying onwards. Only if you're going at 75+ m/s and pointing at your prograde marker, and then press abort will you stand a chance of the parachute breaking off/capsule exploding. Landing legs to allow rougher landings would be a good thing, but the nice thing is rover wheels can actually take a lot of force, even if they break (23 m/s touchdowns were tested). And it's pretty easy to repair the wheels. Plus, all those frills would add more parts, and at 64 parts I thought that was as high as I wanted to get to. Anyway, thank you again for the review (and the vote). I really appreciate it!

Aha! So now we have a professional speaking on this topic. That's very interesting that the combined sound of various parts is actually louder than in real life. And yes, I have noticed what you're talking about - how rocket sounds sort of harmonize with each other. Even though there might be eight engines, in the case of the Rocket Power VTOL, it only sounds like there's one, big, loud engine because the sound instances play at the same time.

Yeah, the Jet Mode takeoff is a bit slow because it takes the engine a while to spool up. One the one hand, it makes you wait an extra 5 seconds before you get into the air, and on the other, it means Jet Mode is easier to manage since adjustments on the throttle result in less of a change of thrust. I think the tradeoff is worth it. Also, I actually did successfully land the Wernhermobile on the VAB with Jet Mode, since I wanted to test that ability. Personally though, I use Rocket and Jet Hybrid Mode most of the time since it nearly doubles the vehicle's top speed, increases its thrust-to-weight ratio, and makes the throttle respond faster. Thanks for the review!

OK, so I've completed my vote. Since there a lot of entries, I made one requirement the craft had to fit before testing - the vehicle needed to have some form of rocket-power so that it would be easier to fly. Although advanced users can fly jet-powered crafts (and I can too, barely), I think only-jet powered vehicles are a bit too hard to fly for newbies. Then, I proceeded to attempt to land each one on the VAB and see how it performed. Only two crafts didn't make it - the Kerbal Flying Object (due to lack of fuel), and the Rocket Power VTOL 2 (due to being extremely hard to fly without reaction wheels). Some others I removed from my save after landing them on the VAB due to high part count. The ones that remained are shown in this photograph (note that none of them broke any parts): After flying them, I jotted down some notes, and with those notes, made up my vote. For first place, I chose the Damselfly by Giggeplex777. It's very similar to my design in how it has the ability to fly with jets, rockets, or a combination of the two. I also praise it for its low part count. It has lots of reaction wheels, is very controllable, and has good looks. For fourth place, I chose the Bullfrog by Tarmenius. It has lots of torque, high-thrust engines, lots of fuel, and low part count. For fifth and sixth place, I chose the Pack Mule by Ravenchant and the LeapFrog LV-I by SaplingPick because they also have high-thrust engines, lots of torque, and lots of fuel. I praise the Pack Mule for its compact design and the LeapFrog for its sturdy armor. Of course, I made my votes due to some things I'm sort of fussy about - mainly engine thrust and reaction wheels, but also flight time. The reason why I didn't vote for some other entries was mainly because of low thrust-to-weight ratios, insufficient amount of reaction wheels, and short flight times. Unfortunately, although I'd love to spend time explaining what I thought of each entry, I don't have the time. Also, I recorded video footage of me flying each craft to the VAB, but I'm not sure if I'll post a video of that or not. Of course I'll speed it up if I post it and crop failing parts out so that it isn't too long.