Mathman

I agree fully on this. Game realism does not have to model Earth, but gross actions like high structural loads and high temperatures on hypersonic entry into an atmosphere should. If I tumble on takeoff, things should break up. If I enter the atmosphere too 'hot' I should burn up, shield or no shield. As it is now:cool: I can't even make a moon lander with things sticking out all over burn up or even have parts break off when making a 3000+ m/s re-entry. Sure, easy mode for new people. But realism should be , well, real. Get real folks.

I know this is an old post but perhaps someone will read it. First, What I love about KSP is how it gets people interested and involved in orbital mechanics, i.e. MATH. Now - many of the posts to the question had a lot of good information. One addition to the answer to clarify some minor points. A geosynchronous orbit is one which has a period equal to one sidereal day (the time it takes Kerbin to rotate once in reference to the stars) and is 6 hours. This is not the time between one noon and another. On earth, a day is the time between one noon time and another and a sidereal day is a bit less than that. In KSP the time between two noons (solar day) is 6h and about 50 seconds. [ check the link to get more info] So yes, a geosynchronous orbit has a period of 6 hours. A geostationary orbit is a special case where not only is the period equal to 6 hours but the orbit is equatorial and circular, giving it an angular velocity equal to the surface of the planet. The satellite would appear from the ground to always be in the same location in the sky. Don't you just love math? - - - Updated - - - For a kerboSTATIONARY orbit, the orbit must be equatorial and circular. However, a larger set of useful orbits are so called kerbo-SYNCRONOUS where the position of a satellite returns to the same point in the sky at least once a day. They can have non equatorial orbits. Sometimes useful. There are also polar orbits, solar synchronous orbits, 'Molniya orbits (a semi synchronous elliptical orbit), a whole passel of different orbit types which are useful. Try looking them up some day.

Derp Your entry is minimalist, and works, barely. Don't know why other people with 4 to 5 times the cost keep entering. I thought I could trim maby 50 Kerbs, but could not replicate your cost. Can you post the .craft file?

Thanks for fast reply. I had, however, still a few question. Guidance as to the space station. Not to be a spoil sport but as written, this challenge could be accomplished by orbiting two docking ports and docking them together. Are there any other requirements such as minimum power supply, minimum number of Kerbonauts that can stay at the station, minimum number of 'free' docking ports for other craft, minimum amount of RCS fuel and/or rocket fuel (for refueling). Mandatory parts (such as RCS capability, Gyros, greenhouse, etc). Also, is the goal a high token value or low? I could artificially lower the token value by adding on a lot of low cost parts that serve no purpose other than increase the denominator in the equation. Also, is mass in tons or Kg? So, a bit of guidance?

I may be missing something. FAR is a technology only mod but NEAR is technology but includes parts, no? If this is supposed to be stock, shouldn't NEAR be disallowed? Respectfully - MM

While I don't have your huge number of mods installed I have a few. I found it easy to just .zip compress each mod folder in place and restart the game. When I want the mod on again, I unzip it in place (no new downloading, no moving files around) and voila! I still don't see why you couldn't do a clean install in a new folder (say KSP_Win_Clean) for a clean version of the game. After all, the game is not installed into the registries of the OS - one CAN have multiple versions installed. no?

OK, been there, did it. Here are the picks Launch vessel 1 - 16 parts. Launch vessel 2 - 32 parts. Docked and recovered craft - 15 - including heat shield and parachute. Vehicle One (target) Vehicle Two (interceptor) Docked target and interceptor Orbital data, docked elements. Back on Kerbin (floating quietly)

Did it. It can be done. 100% stock. No cheats. Took a few tries, but did it. Even made a safe re-entry with deadly reentry mod. Then found that I had forgotten to activate the parachute. Hard touchdown. No go for contest. I wonder if this would be easier or harder with the FAR mod?

And congratulations to everyone who participated. Nice to have a competition without the kind of infighting you sometimes see. Also thanks too, to the two people who voted for me. (or one person who voted twice) Remember, as a wise politician once said - "Vote Early, and vote often"

Easy, it is not. At least with stock parts. I've managed to get my interceptor to rendezvous (0 m/s relative, 500m distance) but was not able to move in quick enough to dock before hitting the atmosphere. This is more like shooting a satellite with an anti=satellite interceptor than a docking. I'll try again this weekend.

Some questions: After docking does the combined vehicle have to land? If only one, which one? (I could send up a very simple target and let it land after undocking) Is parts count for whole launch vehicle or only what hits the ground. Or is the parts count for the docked configuration? (In short, the rules are very loose) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For me, I am assuming these until clarified: a) No mods, no cheats. 2 launches (no more, no less), each sub orbital, max apoapsis of 150km. c) Rendezvous and dock before burning up. d) Entire docking package to safely land (i.e. no explosions, parts falling off, etc) on Kerbin. (land or sea) e) 5 pictures minimum (UT time visible in each) - takeoff of each element, rendezvous configuration, docked , landed. Lowest part count docked, wins (landed configuration can not have more parts than docked) My rules for playing with myself. Moderator (OP) can accept, modify, add to, or throw out.

I RESEMBLE THAT IMPLICATION! (besides, I can't vote from work as I work as a civil servant behind a nice thick firewall)

I think I understand Sirine's point. Where judgement is based more on technical qualifications and less on popularity contest than the use of an editable spreadsheet which the scoring/judging committee can review can be most useful. It also allows misconceptions to be corrected by entrants. In our case where the originator has abandoned us, voting has turned into a popularity contest and a spreadsheet is not useful. Which is ok by me. Fun is in the design and the chat, not the award. BTW: There were some misconceptions about my tug, the ARM. Apparently the .craft file was not found and certain assumptions were made which were incorrect. There is clipping in the vessel, but only what is available without the cheets. No external batteries were added because electrical demands were low and on board electrical storage from the command pod was sufficient (the command pod is stuck between the RCS fuel and the Reaction Wheel.) While the delta v with a 36 ton payload is only 33m/s the ARM was designed for orbital assembly, not inter-orbit transfer. That being said, after delivering a 36t payload to orbit 180 deg from the space station (same orbit), I was able to rendezvous with the space station and dock with 33 m/s delta v. It only takes finesse. BTW - the system was not meant for night docking but it will survive the night. Not trying to get people to vote for my tug. it is what it is. Just pointing out the strengths of a judging panel and an editable spreadsheet that everyone can review.

As a personal observation. I have found that more torque from your gyroscopes (at least 20 Nm for 36 ton load, 40 is better) allows only a few RCS jets to move things around quite well. Speed isn't necessary, just smoothness and patience. At least from my point of view. One designer to another.

Jodo, I was able to duplicate the performance, but not the weight and cost.. (35,970 k and 233,434t). Do you have a craft file to share so I can see where I went wrong?

Jodo - Rock bottom! Beats me. I suppose that the two side KR 1x2 rockets can be considered as strap on boosters and not asparagus staging since there is no fuel connection between them and the core. Sort of like splitting hairs but you know the old saying, "you can't make good hasenpfeffer without splitting a few hares.

Somethings happening in a couple of weeks? Tell me more. As for low tech, when you are working in career mode, two levels means a LOT of research. Besides, the challenge did say bonus points for low tech. If it weren't rocket science, it wouldn't be a challenge. ;-)

Pecan: I couldn't agree with you more. A 'stock' item is something that needs little explanation to use and act as a building block. Like you say, if someone is experienced enough to use the complex ships, they can probably build their own. mathman

This looks like the booster has no guidance or reaction control. Am I wrong here or does this require the payload to have both of those and did you include their cost in the total cost?

Not really. (dying to tell that is) I was just pointing out that the goal is a 36 ton payload, not necessarily a Rockomax Jumbo-64 tank. That being said, I might also point out that while Mech Jeb was NOT used to launch the test sample, it took careful control of the gravity turn to ensure maximum efficiency at full load. This is a minimalist design. BTW - Yes, I did change my entry. I saw a way to a slimmer (and cheaper) design while sleeping and made the change. Still not as cheap as the other entry, but still only using a maximum of tech level 6 parts as opposed to the other entry which uses level 8 parts.

Entry: CL-Lifter 36 for dumb payload orbital delivery. Part Count: 23 Weight(w/o payload) 236.4ton SAS Equiped - Subassembly craft file Cost: k 34,830 (w SAS) [ k 33,480 / 20part w/o SAS ] Maximum Tech Level: 6 Staging: 3 stages, In-line staging - 4 strap on boosters. 4736 m/s delta v @36t (vacuum) TWR(Kerbin) 1.72 Available as a sub-assembly for ease of adding to your payload with two clicks. It may be cheap, it may be light, but it looks smooth going up. It is also available early on in carrier game (only level 5 with a few level 6 items), and will also fly well using reality mods being tall and slick. A truck, but a Volvo as opposed to a Peterbuilt.

10: armandd - had an entry. posted the craft files, jpg's and everything. Let's not forget him. Also, in keeping with the concept of a simple tug for beginners my vote is for armandd's small tug. In keeping with the concepts of early sci-fi writers. If I were to vote for a NASA style tug/orbital transfer vehicle/moon shuttle, it would be manni01 since it is elegant, relatively simple, flexible, and capable. That is a what if... my vote is for small and compact. Mr. armandd... he's out there somewhere.

How would I know? I sent a personal message to the original poster but what do I know? I'm searching for enlightenment like everyone else. ..

And for those of us off to real work. I have my day job to get off to as a (wait for it) mathematician for the government. ta ta. I'll check again when off shift.