Northstar1989

Wow- I bet the Kerbals don't exactly getting knocked around the inside though. I imagine it would be a bit like a "Tower of Terror" drop, except without the huge suspension to stop you from blacking out at the bottom... I manage to record video, and I'm using a weak, slightly old Lenovo laptop with a graphics card that doesn't play nicely with OpenGL mode, in x32. The secret here is probably doing more with less- what recording software are you using (I recommend OBS). What resolution are you attempting to record in? (I typically go between 240 and 480p) I could try to give you some pointers on OBS setting to use if that would be helpful... Regards, Northstar

That's PRETTY DARN COOL. One question though- what do you mean the "rover can be dropped from great heights"? Are you actually saying that the thing could survive impacting the ground at several dozen m/s after being air-dropped w/o parachutes? Anyways, you've got the "Atmospheric Specialty", the "Time to Drive", "VTOL", and the "Landing Pod" distinctions. Add some parachutes to the rover, or use an alternative payload, and it should be easy enough to also get the "Supply Drop-Zone" distinction. Regards, Northstar

A cargo plane? A VTOL plane? A helicopter? Something capable of flying without fuel in the extreme environments of Duna/Laythe? All I see there is a giant (and not particularly graceful) behemoth of a plane, mostly made to fly through spamming the stock wing parts (you DO realize Procedural Dynamics would have allowed you to replace each wing with a single large part- although it's now designed mainly to only work with FAR/NEAR considering how horrible are stock aerodynamics...) Watch some of the other entries here- I'm sure you'll get some inspiration. EDIT: I have to correct myself though. You DID actually get the "We can Take This Thing to Orbit!" distinction before. So, it would be a one-distinction entry, really. Regards, Northstar P.S. Also, you do realize you could have just left the Mobile Lab in orbit, and sent down just a much smaller plane to the surface- using a dedicated lander to ferry the science back to orbit? It would have been much more fuel-efficient, and would have allowed for a MUCH smaller plane overall. The part-count savings from the smaller wings would have dwarfed the extra parts from redundant science packages. OR, you could have sent down the Mobile Lab on a lander, but left it stationary and had the plane fly to IT when needed... (and dock using KAS pipes/winches)

I look forward to the video! Those don't look like specialized (rotating) VTOL engines- they appear to be stock Tubojets that he merely attached in a pointing-down position. Which, while less efficient than rotating engines (such as from B9 Aerospace or using Infernal Robotics to rotate other engines) does look darn cool. Regards, Northstar

Interstellar has its own system of radiators, completely separate from RealFuels (which include non-deployable inline radiators). AFAIK, you could *SPAM* ten dozen radiators from Interstellar on a RealFuels craft, and it wouldn't affect boil-off rate *at all*. Regards, Northstar

Increasing fin length *on its own* wouldn't. But increasing length, mass AND node strength/size would- as the magnitude of aerodynamic forces on the fins less than doubles with a doubling of length (reducing the overall acceleration on the fins away from the main rocket), *especially* if the longer fins were given a more streamlined shape; and a double length fin justifies a double-strength attachment... Let's say you have two fins, one that juts out 1 meter from the rocket body at its base (having a triangular shape and constant slope out from the rocket body), is 1 meter long, and weighs 10 kg. The other juts out 1 meter at its base, is 2 meters long (thus having a more gradual slope), weighs 20 kg, and has twice the surface node attachment-strength (realistic considering it has twice the area in contact with the surface). Which do you think would generate more drag for its mass and radiator area? Which do you think would be more prone to ripping off during flight? Regards, Northstar

Also, I hate to double-post, but this is an entirely different subject... @NathanKell If the Thermal Fins are actually working correctly in the latest version (speaking of which, have you received any further word from Dreadicon about the Interstellar integration-config he was working on? There were still a few odds-and-ends we didn't get around to dealing with, but I think Dreadicon won't be able to fix those particular issues for quite a while, and I didn't even quite understand what some of the things he wanted to fix were- so it might be good enough in its current state for now...) I was wondering... What are the chances you might be able to add more aerodynamic Thermal Fins? As I discussed before, the Thermal fins currently have a tendency to *rip off* when they are attached to the exterior of a rocket with FAR installed (especially one with high TWR- but they seem *quite* flimsy, and even rip off low-TWR rockets with fairly vertical ascent trajectories in my experience...) This would probably be significantly alleviated if you created longer versions of the Thermal Fins, with a more streamlined shape... I was particularly thinking that instead of having to attach two sets of Thermal Fins in 8x symmetry around the exterior of some of my larger fuel tanks (greatly inflating part-count), which inherently creates a LOT of drag in FAR, maybe you could add an 8x or 10x length version of the Thermal Fin that is correspondingly heavier and more effective, and also has a stronger surface-attachment if that's possible (to account for the greater area of contact with the surface it is attached to). A longer Thermal Fin could also have a more streamlined, triangular shape, which would generate a *LOT* less drag in FAR that the current Thermal Fins, which just tend to jut out rather abruptly (that is, their top-side slope is quite abrupt compared to what could be achieved with a much longer Thermal Fin). And it would (realistically) also be an opportunity to offer a bulk-deal on radiator surface area, with a 10x length fin costing LESS than 10x as much as a standard-sized Thermal Fin... Longer, more streamlined Thermal Fins, with stronger surface-attachments would be GREAT for my super-large fuel depots and ultra-heavy lifters (which otherwise suffer from part-count spam and excessive drag from the current short-length Thermal Fins), and also much less likely to tear off during ascent. They would also help to make up for the fact that larger fuel-tanks don't have any kind of an advantage over smaller tanks in terms of boil-off rate in RealFuels like they do in real-life... (ESPECIALLY if the larger fins were more cost-effective...) Regards, Northstar P.S. Longer radiator fins also make more sense for two other reasons. First, in real life you don't want radiators radiating heat onto each other- which is what would happen if you placed radiators every 22.5 degrees around the outside of a fuel tank (i.e. two sets in 8x symmetry). Second, longer fins create a LOT less drag compared to a comparable radiator area of short, stubby fins- which is particularly important for larger rockets (which need a LOT of radiator area to be effective, and normally benefit from a MUCH better ballistic coefficient than smaller rockets- something spamming stubby thermal fins works strongly against). Longer, more streamlined thermal fins help avoid both problems.

Next up, the "Laythe Lab"... I looked over the gallery, and the submission certainly meets the criteria for a utility aircraft (it was designed to actually serve a useful purpose), but it lacks imagination to be honest, and doesn't meet ANY of the Distinction requirements (not even "Atmospheric Specialty", as it DOES have rocket engines...) EDIT: Correction- it DOES meet the criteria for "We can take this thing to orbit!" I can put you on the successful submissions list as just a one-distinction entry, but have you considered re-designing a version of the craft a little for the challenge? I would suggest attempting *at least* one of the more ambitious goals, whether building a plane than can fly on Duna (certainly not THAT plane- it would simply fall out of the sky with such high wing-loading in the wispy atmosphere of Duna), or a helicopter or VTOL-plane. Or perhaps, you'd rather try building a cargo-plane and aiming for a supply drop of cargo? The options are many, and the choices yours. A couple of pointers for planes that operate on other planets, since you already seem interested in those: If you DO attempt to fly around on Duna, you would probably find the Procedural Dynamics (HUGE, single-part wings become a possibility) and the Firespitter (contains electric propellers) mods helpful- and you would also be able to easily cross-submit your craft in the "Flying Duna" challenge. OTOH, if you want to fly around on Eve, I would STRONGLY recommend downloading KPS-Interstellar and the NearFuture Solar mods, and building a small Thermal Turbojet (using KSP-Interstellar) or Electric Propeller (with Firespitter) drone that can fly around there using beamed-power from orbital solar-power satellites (using NearFuture solar blankets on the satellites). Fuel is *EXTREMELY* expensive to ship on interplanetary missions just for surface-side exploration, and solar panels on drone wings (for Electric Propellers) do NOT work well on Eve due to the thick atmosphere that blocks much of the sunlight from reaching the surface... (plus, you don't need particularly large wings one Eve due to the thick atmosphere- so there isn't a lot of wing area to place static solar panels on...) On a practical note, Hybrid Turbojets also work very nicely for Eve spaceplanes, as they allow you to climb out of the thick parts of Eve's atmosphere w/o expending fuel... (and then pass fuel through them once the TTJ's run out of intake atmosphere) Regards, Northstar

OK, so... I've had time to review the submissions so far. First off, that giant of a plane: Congrats! That's a cargo plane if I ever saw one! It definitely earns that distinction, as well as the "Atmospheric Specialty" one. You might also try for the "Time to Bail Out", "Supply Drop-Zone", and "Time to Drive" distinctions- in fact I've had good luck with B9 cargo planes that could perform precisely those functions (crew and cargo para-drops, and the ability to unload a rover when landed) myself- though never anything nearly THAT massive... You might also try installing Firespitter or KSP-Interstellar, and getting that thing to fly with Electric Propellers or Thermal Turbojets for the "Who Needs Fuel?" distinction- though a hint, you'll probably need to cut down on weight a little if you do (TTJ's don't produce much thrust with nuclear reactors- although they can perform EXTREMELY well with little weight if you use Microwave Beamed Power and keep the reactors on the ground... Electric Propellers just aren't particularly powerful- especially at high altitude.) The following mods might also be particularly helpful to you with that craft: Procedural Dynamics (aka "Procedural Wings"- lets you make single-part wings as large as your imagination or the Spaceplane Hanger can hold...) Firespitter (Propellers work well at low altitude, and are MUCH more fuel efficient than jets- though your flight will also take longer due to lower speeds. Also, FS trim-control.) KSP-Interstellar (Particularly helpful if you want to fly your plane without jet fuel using Thermal Turbojets- but reactors are heavy compared to FS Electric Propellers...) Stanford Torus Mod (There's really only one part from this mod you might find useful- the larger static solar panels. Great for Electric Propellers, and like OX-STAT's, massless.) MechJeb2 (The Kerbal Engineer functionality would be helpful in craft-design, and the Advanced SAS can prove invaluable for acting as an autopilot on long-duration flights.) Also, have you considered using the Flight Assistance functions in FAR? They are accessible through the Flight Data screen, and make maintaining level flight for long periods of time MUCH easier. You can set Pitch, Yaw, and Roll Stabilization; a specific Angle of Attack range; and even activate "Dynamic Control Authority" to change the responsiveness/deflection of your control surfaces in correspondence with the dynamic pressure so you don't lose control authority at high-altitude or have your control surfaces rip off when attempting to pull out of a dive at low altitude... Early in my KSP career, I once tried flying a circumnavigation flight manually for a challenge (which banned MechJeb anyways), and it was hell. I would NEVER advise attempting that, and *loathe* the challenge authors who ask players to circumnavigate Kerbin or fly a spaceplane to orbit, and then ban mods like MechJeb2 that would actually remove a lot of the boring grind of constantly correcting your Angle of Attack, and the danger of getting lazy with AoA corrections and losing control as a result... (REAL commercial pilots rely heavily on autopilot for AoA control, for both safety and quality-of-life reasons: why shouldn't you?) Regards, Northstar

Awesome. Two concerns I wanted to voice, though, Fractal. First, I've been hearing a lot lately about the capping of thermal rocket ISP. Does it really make sense to create a universal cap on Specific Impulse across all fuels though? Think about it- a molecule of Hydrogen (aka. LiquidFuel if you're not using RealFuels) and a molecule of Methane leaving a thermal rocket nozzle at the same temperature are going to have DRASTICALLY different molecular velocities. Wouldn't it make more sense to cap the Specific Impulse on a per-propellant basis: i.e. so that "Liquidfuel-only" mode has a different ISP than Meth/LOX when using Antimatter reactors that reach the ISP caps? Second, what about the stuff I mentioned before? Fixes to the Meth/LOX engine TWR/ISP values. The creation of a "Nitrogen" resource (you could literally copy the values for Nitrogen from RealFuels mod if you wanted- then you would have realistic values without doing any work...), the ability to harvest Nitrogen using Atmosphere Scoops, and the ability to use Nitrogen in plasma thrusters like in real life? Regards, Northstar

Debris ARE a major issue, and there have been not one but TWO major collisions in the past two decades. Here's one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision And the whole point of this idea is to make debris USEFUL, as reaction mass, while simultaneously disposing of it. Regards, Northstar

Indeed, it might. Fixed the distinctions to make it clear I didn't mean any of the new "building biomes". Taking a look at the two existing entries now. Regards, Northstar

Dreadicon was working on a config to fix that a while back. Speaking of which, how *is* that effort going Dreadicon? Regards, Northstar

Congrats Sal. Always a pleasure to work with you! Now about my Twitch channel I'm trying to get to KSP TV... Haha, just kidding. Congrats man! Regards, Northstar

Sorry for the long delay. I've been making progress in-game, but hadn't gotten around to posting it yet... Screenshots of all progress below- or you could just follow it it on YouTube. The link below is to the first new video of my Kerbal Collaborative career Campaign (and should link to the rest of the videos via a playlist on the right side of the screen on YouTube) Anyways, for those of you just following the screenshots- first I finished the assembly of my temporary space station in Munar orbit (used for refueling the lander and cleaning out its experiments) And then I performed some orbital science before attempting my first landing: And made my first Mun landing, after several "simulations" (I was having problems with the lander bouncing on one side and tipping over...) After that, Bill Kerman got back in the lander, and made the promised (if you've been watching the discussion thread and my previous videos) suboribtal hop to the Munar north pole: And then, Bill hopped back to the equator, and ascended into a retrograde orbit from there: At this point, while I waited for the lander to phase into position for rendezvous and docking, I landed my Polar Expedition plane from before back at the KSC: And then after a bit of a wait, switched back to the lander and refueled it at the retrograde fuel tanker: Here, a problem became apparent though. After taking every bit of fuel from the tanker I could spare (but leaving it with a bit to transfer back to Kerbin orbit), the lander still was coming up with a rather tight Delta-V budget for another Munar landing... Nonetheless, I decided to go for the landing anyways, which turned out to be a mistake: Bill Kerman is now trapped on the Munar surface, with no way to get back to orbit. Well, that's not *completely* true- I COULD launch the lander on a suborbital trajectory, and have Bill bail out near apoapsis, circularizing the orbit with his jetpack (at which point the Service Module intended to carry him back to Kerbin would pick him up). But that not only throws away a perfectly good reusable lander (which, admittedly, had stability problems due to its anemic reaction wheel, and I was looking to decommission sooner or later anyways), it also denies me the "recovered a vessel from the surface of the Mun" science points- unless I can also manage to push the lander's detachable probe core to orbit with Bill's jetpack... (the probe core is equipped with docking ports, and is designed to hitchike its way back to Kerbin with the Service Module) More news soon- either I'll be launching a fuel-lander; or trying to push Bill, the data, and the probe core to orbit with Bill's EVA jetpack alone... Regards, Northstar

Two words: Life Support Regards, Northstar

[choking on my own tongue] Bigger *RTG's*? Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you just joking with me? Scaling up RTG's makes *absolutely no sense whatsoever*. The MAIN reason we use RTG's, rather than nuclear reactors, is that they scale easily to small sizes (although it also helps from a political perspective when it's not *technically* a nuclear reactor). When the total mass of nuclear fuel becomes large enough, it becomes almost *necessary* to build a proper nuclear reactor- once you reach a thermal pile of sufficient mass, "critical mass" is achieved and you experience a runaway nuclear reaction. An informal nuclear reactor (or a nuclear explosive, depending on the size/density of the pile) if you will. In fact, this is *precisely* how the first nuclear reactors were built- as simple thermal piles of radioactive materials, to provide proof-of-concept for more advanced reactors... So, in short, you would almost never want to scale up an RTG. You're MUCH better off building a proper reactor (which also produces a LOT more electricity for the mass...) Regards, Northstar

I hate to present so many walls of text, but there is one final story I want to relate, which might be enlightening to some of you guys... My second semester of college, I took a physics course designed explicitly for physics majors (I had already demonstrated considerable talent in physics in a non-majors physics course my first semester. I was the *ONLY* non-physics major in the room, and in hindsight I do believe the professor was trying to gently recruit me to switch my major to physics, just as a later professor tried to do with psychology...) The instructor of that course, a brilliant, quirky, but lovable elderly professor, said something *very* enlightening to the class, that I have always carried with me since. My paraphrasing may not quite do it justice, but I'll attempt to re-capture it below: "The productivity of physicists declines SHAPLY after about age 30. Most of the major breakthroughs in the field have come from young, up-and-coming guys; NOT old-timers like myself. Why do you think that is? Part of it must be that we lose some of our creativity and mental vigor when we grow older, but I also do believe that part of it is that only the new guys have the capability to see things from a different perspective. Einstein was brilliant because he was the rare exception to this rule- he managed to maintain much of his creativity and innovative nature well into old age and eventually after many years being submerged in the field. I do believe that any good physicist needs to try and maintain a youthful optimism and skepticism of established concepts as well as a healthy respect for that which has already been studied before his time." It may be enlightening to note that one of this professor's many areas of research- actually more of a "side project" to his main work dealing with high-powered lasers, was on the "quantum vacuum"- the state of a space when *all* particles are emptied out of it, and the occasional spontaneous appearance of particles within (and subsequent disappearance from) this space as predicted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (for more context, I advise carefully reading the Wikipedia article on Vacuum State). He *firmly* believed in the existence of vacuum fluctuations, and was researching whether there were any potentially useful applications for them. I would *not* be surprised if he had at some point drawn up an idea for an EmDrive or Cannae Drive himself (as a way of acting on these vacuum fluctuations- one potential explanation of how the drive works that does *not* technically violate the Conservation of Momentum), and simply abandoned it as he thought nobody would believe or be willing to test the device... The greatest struggle for researchers (in physics, or ANY field) with new and innovative ideas is the crushing weight of convention that attempts to stifle precisely those sorts of ideas. I may be biased as a young scientist, but I *strongly* believe that while such convention does have a role, senior scientists take it MUCH too far- probably based partially on their own self-interest, and partially on so many years of thinking a certain way about some subjects that they are unable to *truly* entertain any idea that runs contrary to that way of thinking... The ignorance and inability to comprehend advanced science of the lay public is ALSO a major issue, but one to be expected- and I won't even bother commenting further on that... Regards, Northstar

KerikBalm, be careful when throwing around terms like BS. Not only are they against the spirit of the forums, but if anything they would better be applied to simplistic dismissals of relatively clear-cut experiments. It's true that other things can cause the force aside from thrust, but the experiments they performed *were* of the types normally used to try and measure thrust, and *did* appear to measure it. Because certain precautions may or may not have been taken, it is impossible to know *for sure* if the results were valid yet. But simply saying "A appears to be Y, but A *could* be X; therefore A it *must* be X, and any claim that A is really Y is bogus" is terrible logic, and I think you know better. Regards, Northstar P.S. Just a side-thought, but have you ever even considered that there might be active efforts to SUPPRESS this "discovery" (if it does turn out to be such), simply because it challenges the position of those who thought it impossible? I'm not talking a conspiracy-theory here, I'm talking about the repeatedly-observed tendencies of human beings in positions of power and authority to do everything they can to try and preserve that authority. Time and time again in human history, senior scientists have tried to suppress what turned out to be major scientific breakthroughs, simply because the breakthrough was perceived to challenge their authority by saying that they were actually *wrong* about certain things...

Sam, the evidence is clear-cut and simple. Yes, there are possible flaws/holes in it (thermal interactions with the atmosphere, *if* no tests were not really performed in a vacuum as the Q&A quite clearly states some, but not all tests *were*), but the evidence is not lacking- only imperfect. You, of all people should know better than to obfuscate words like this. Or perhaps, maybe you don't. What you said next doesn't *necessarily* prove your perfection as a scientist: You've been in the field 25 years. You've helped build one of the most expensive, but conventional, experiments in existence. By all accounts, *you are an establishment man*. Now I'm not saying that's *necessarily* a BAD thing- in fact in many ways it's not. It indicates you *clearly* know a thing or two. You can get stuff done relying on conventional theory, and have the achievements to prove it. You are probably highly-respected in your field. BUT, in many fields, ESPECIALLY in physics, the major breakthroughs *HAVE NOT* come from establishment men. They are simply too deeply rooted in conventional ways of thinking, and incapable of seeing things from another perspective. Never forget that EINSTEIN was a mere patent-man. Stephen Hawkings was not always so famous as he was now- and at one time much of the physics community *laughed* at ideas like his. And there are countless more examples like that from other fields. In my own field, Biology, I can think of quite a few prominent examples. Darwin, just for starters, was a mover and a shaker- NOT an establishment man. In fact, many of the prominent biologists of his time initially tried to DISCREDIT his ideas. They are now well-accepted as very firmly-established scientific fact. In more recent times, and even more closely related to my sub-specialty in biology, the nature of Cancer and of Stem Cells have both been subject to exactly the same type of radical shake-ups not one, but SEVERAL times, and they will likely continue to be in the future. Old and well-established ideas simply CANNOT be blindly accepted as fact. You can't get much more clear-cut in a violation of the Conservation of Momentum than a working reactionless propulsion drive. And *so far*, we have not one but *TWO* reactionless drives (the EMDrive and the Cannae Drive) that *DO* appear to work. Mind you, it *may* all turn out be bunk when they perform additional tests (such as new/better vacuum-tests). But you *CANNOT* simply shrug off such important evidence to the contrary of a well-established "Law", simply because the law is well-established. Regards, Northstar

Sam, you may or may not be correct. I will admit the paper was obfuscated on the matter. It *is* possible that they ran *some* tests in vacuum, and other not, for instance (they actually tested multiple devices- the paper is on only *one* of those devices, whereas the Q&A refers to multiple). Things are unclear- which is why I'm inclined to believe the writers of the Q&A, who (presumably) had greater access to the original authors than you or I do. They quite clearly state vacuum tests WERE performed. I'm *NOT* stating the device works. It's inaccurate to categorize me as a "believer". My main gripe was that people dismissed the paper for completely illegitimate reasons- namely that "it's impossible so we won't believe it" (if you don't allow anything to challenge your dogma, your views can NEVER change- and may not necessarily be correct), and criticism by people who couldn't even be bothered to read the proper paper or do any background research, and didn't understand the purpose of the "null" device (they thought it was a negative control- which it was *not*). The device MAY OR MAY NOT work. But it needs to be criticized for the RIGHT reasons. Mistakes the authors actually made- not ones we imagined. And the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bit is in DIRECT contradiction to good science (where the evidence must come first) when used in the manner you and most people are using it. For one, your assumption that a claim is "extraordinary" is predicate on the verity of the law/theory which it contradicts in the first place. You CANNOT start from the perspective a theory is correct- even a very old and well-backed one. You MUST assume there is a possibility that all previous thought on a subject is wrong, and be open to change and innovation- and then CAREFULLY examine the evidence. THIS is good science. Mind you I don't mean to pull your words out of context, but you and other physicists are overusing that simple, dogmatic statement. It *IS* possible there are exceptions to the Conservation of Momentum- just because we hadn't found them *yet* (or possibly, up until now- *if* the EmDrive/Cannae Drive pans out) doesn't mean they don't exist... Regards, Northstar

Awesome! What an honor! I might have to go back to the OP, and clean up the grammar and syntax a little more. Maybe clarify a couple of the more ambiguous parts of the explanations... Regards, Northstar

Sam, their not knowing *why* the device works changes nothing about the fact that it *does* work. Experimental Evidence trumps theory- I was quite clear about that in my OP... The "null" drive was not a control, anyways- just a test of a particular theory. As a fellow scientist, I invite you to actually carefully purview the evidence rather than just reading the abstract. You should know better than to judge a paper by an abstract if you are a fully-trained scientist. Read the Q&A I linked to in the OP before regurgitating points it (and I) quite clearly addressed. The following is a direct quote: "While the original abstract says that tests were run "within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure", the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure." Regards, Northstar

This is more of a FUN challenge than one for high-score hunters. The objective is to build an aircraft to fly around Kerbin, and collect biome-science. Distinctions will be awarded for particularly cool/useful types of designs, and should be your goal for this challenge. The Rules: Simple. Build a manned plane, blimp, or helicopter (or other weird contraption- but NO ROCKETS, it should be held up by aerodynamic lift or buoyancy...) to fly around Kerbin. The craft should be able to take off and land around Kerbin, and be *primarily* constructed out of one piece (detachable landers/rovers, etc. and drop-tanks are allowable, provided they can be re-attached to the main craft). The emphasis on this challenge is on utility and efficiency, rather than raw speed/performance. The craft should be designed for extended use- so there should be a way to refuel it. That means either a docking port or a KAS port or something like that somewhere on the vessel. It should be reasonably accessible, although I won't make you demonstrate refueling unless it doesn't look like the refueling port can actually be accessed... All mods are allowed that use *realistic technology*. I particularly recommend checking out the FAR, Firespitter, and KSP-Interstellar mods for this challenge. Note that no fusion/antimatter reactors or DT-Vista engines may be used from KSP-Interstellar (I don't count those are "realistic"), nor any type of fusion or antimatter engine/reactor from any other mod. The current list of distinctions will probably be expanded in the future, so check back from time to time if you want to complete this challenge again for new distinctions. Please post screenshots throughout your flight. Make sure to capture any events that might be deemed significant (such as landing, takeoff, detachment of a cargo, etc.). Overall, the more screenshot coverage the better. Disctinctions: Who needs fuel? Build a craft that never requires refueling. NO INFINIGLIDERS OR EXPLOITS. This generally means some sort of electric-propeller design, a KSP-Interstellar thermal turbojet design (nuclear reactor fuel, due to its *extremely* slow consumption rate, won't DQ an entry), or a craft that can create new fuel from the atmosphere (as with a KSP-Interstellar or Karbonite Atmospheric Scoop). No craft with drills or requiring them to be splashed down in the ocean will be counted. Watch out for the canopy Goose! Build a craft that has some form of ejection-seat or other emergency-escape system. This mainly means detachable cockpits- EVA parachute mods will not be counted. Demonstrate the system in action. Time to bail out! Build a craft that permits its crew to bail out above 4000 meters, and deploy parachutes within 500 meters of the ground. Kerbal Attachment System (with grabbable radial chutes), and EVA parachute mods work equally well for this. Demonstrate the system in action. *Hint* this will be easier if your plane is at high altitude. Time to drive! Build a craft with a detachable rover. The rover must be re-attachable to the main craft. KAS winches and cargo bays work particularly well for this, but docking ports can be made to work as well... Supply Drop-Zone Build a craft that can para-drop cargo to an accuracy of within 2 kilometers of a drop-zone (as marked by a flag or landed craft/base). The cargo does not have to be re-attachable, but must be useful (no single-use empty drop-tanks as "cargo" please...) The craft MUST NOT LAND to drop off its cargo. Flight Manager for Reusable Stages will help IMMENSELY with high-altitude drops, as both the plane and cargo must survive. Cargo Plane- Develop a PLANE that can carry at least 10 tons of cargo at a time, and safely deploy it either by para-drop or on the ground. Cargo must be capable of landing with only parachutes (no retro-rockets) if air-dropped, and parachutes do not count towards cargo capacity. Landing Pod- Develop an aircraft capable of detaching a small pod or parasitic aircraft holding at least one Kerbal, which can safely land on its own while the main plane continues in flight. Must be re-attachable after the main plane has landed, or capable of flying back to the main plane while it is in the air and re-docking. We can take this thing to orbit! Your craft also doubles as a spaceplane. Atmospheric Specialty- Your aircraft CANNOT fly to orbit on its own, and relies entirely on air-breathing engines or propellers (no RAPIER/SABRE!) This thing works on Duna- Your aircraft is also capable of flying/landing and taking-off on Duna (HINT: if an aircraft can achieve level flight at over 12,000 meters without use of oxygen-breathing engines, it will generally also work on Duna.) Duna Outpost Support Craft- Your aircraft is capable of moving useful cargo around on Duna (fuel, machinery, etc.) Kerbals are considered useless cargo! A special exemption from the manned-craft rule is allowed for this Distinction, so you may use probe cores instead. Eve Flier- Your aircraft is also capable of flying/landing and taking-off on Eve (the main challenges of flying on Eve are that the high gravity will exasperate any instabilities you compensate for with reaction wheels, jet engines don't work, and rocket engines get *terrible* ISP at low altitude...) Eve Reusable Ascender- Build a craft that can fly from the ground to orbit on Eve. Drop-tanks MUST be used with Deadly Re-entry, to prevent players from dropping tanks that would normally burn up on sub-orbital trajectories, and MUST be reusable as normal. I *highly* recommend utilizing KSP-Interstellar Thermal Turbojets and a Microwave Beamed Power infrastructure for this distinction (fusion/antimatter reactors are banned, and fission reactors are too heavy). Kerbin's Every Nook and Cranny- Build a craft that is capable of landing and taking off on every TRADITIONAL (non-building) biome on Kerbin. This includes water biomes- although the craft may propel itself to land before taking off again. To earn this distinction, you must land and take off from: a standard biome (like Grasslands), one of Kerbin's mountain ranges, the polar ice caps (difficult as they are COMPLETELY flat, and far away from the KSC), and at least one lake, river, or ocean. Craft must be able to return to the KSC intact from all of these biomes (so if your fuel-burning jet/helicopter can only take off from a mountain when almost completely out of fuel, and has no way to create fuel from the atmosphere, no Distinction for you.) SSTOL/VTOL- Your aircraft is "Super-Short Take-Off and Landing" or "Vertical Take-Off and Landing" capable. SSTOL's must be able to take off within 3 craft-lengths of their starting-point, on level ground, to qualify. VTOL's take off vertically, obviously. Each is a separate distinction- and VTOL replaces SSTOL as the superior distinction. *HINT* mostly only ultralight propeller planes will be able to achieve SSTOL. Otherwise, try and build a VTOL. Rapid Landing Approach Your craft has the capability to rapidly line up a landing-approach and safely land by EITHER diverting more than 50% of its normal forwards-thrust retrograde for an extended period of time (HINT: Firespitter propellers have the capability to reverse thrust-direction), firing more than 100% of its normal forwards thrust retrograde just before or after landing (i.e. retro-rockets), or deploying "drag chutes" (RealChutes mod helps with this- parachutes won't auto-cut on landing). Retro-rockets and drag chutes must be demonstrated on high-speed landings of over 120 m/s or half maximum cruising velocity at 4000 meters, whichever is lower. Successful Entries: Vigelius- Cargo Plane, Atmospheric Specialty Laie- "We can take this thing to orbit!" Voculus- VTOL, Landing Pod, "Time to drive!", Atmospheric Specialty GloriousWater- "Watch out for the canopy Goose!", Atmospheric Specialty Regards, Northstar P.S. Have fun with this challenge! The vehicle should be useful, and not a rocket (as in, a big metal cylinder full of fuel that shoots through the air at high speeds with no wings- whether powered by rocket engines or jets. Rocket-planes are fine), but that doesn't mean there isn't all sorts of room for crazy contraptions. Feel free to innovate and explore!

Awesome. I especially hope you'll include the Meth/LOX engine ISP/TWR fixes, and a Nitrogen resource (which would also be useful for ISRU) and plasma fuel mode in the near future... Also, I updated the post with built-in links and slight corrections to the summary in the past 15 minutes. So take another look at it when you get the chance. Regards, Northstar