Yakky

I'm playing hard career mode, have maxed out the tech tree, and therefore have no further use for my old Administration strategy of converting some funds into science. Obviously I can't go back and cancel this strategy now that it's in effect, but... it got me to thinking. Does anyone know if blowing up the Admin facility will achieve the desired effect? I'm kind of hesitant to try this in career mode without knowing if it will work. (Maxmaps sort of hinted this might be the case on his big Twitch 0.25 reveal a couple weeks ago... but it wasn't clear if he was just joking around or not.)

Docking is a great accomplishment. Congrats!

I am proud to report that with the release of 0.25, otherwise known as Economic Boom, this challenge is officially open for business! Note the deletion of [Hypetrain] and [soonâ„¢] from the challenge title! Ok, who's going to get points on da board first? (Not counting the Scott Manley example)

On some level, I suspect most of us feel exactly the way you feel. Enough is enough already. Now excuse me while I go pitch my tent to camp out in line outside the store all night. This is so exciting!!!!

Yes, your periapsis would be the Mun's periapsis, but your score would be tripled because the landing would earn you the 3x multiplier. I would absolutely love to see someone accomplish that BTW. And I'll say again that the scoring system definitely isn't perfect. Given the massive challenge of landing hands-free on a body with no atmosphere, the multiplier for doing so should probably be higher than 3x, but at this point I'm hesitant to change the existing scoring system any further, since others (e.g. Himynameisjake above) have spent a lot of time optimizing their entries under the existing rules. However, to encourage the pursuit of no-atmosphere landings, I've set up a special separate category to recognize (and encourage) that achievement. Best of luck in pulling it off!

Both accomplishments (Himynakeisjake's trans-Minmus orbit and Metaphor's Eve landing) are quite impressive and both rely on clever innovations that seem obvious after the fact, but hadn't been thought of before you and Metaphor came up with them. Which is "more impressive" is definitely a judgment call and is totally at the whim of the challenge's imperfect scoring system, not denying that. I'm impressed with both efforts. Frankly it's tough to come up with a single scoring system that can properly quantify all the different achievements that are possible. Here's an argument why I think it's very subjective which is "more impressive": Having now had the benefit of seeing and benefitting from Himynameisjake's design, I would say it has now become pretty easy to get a Kerbin periapsis well past Minmus. If you just burn straight up to (just under) 85 million km, Kerbin's gravity becomes so weak that you'll have several days of hang time out in the 75-85 million km range before you really start falling back to Kerbin again. In fact, the majority of your time on the ballistic trajectory will be spent out there. All you need is a very slow sideways burn (in any perpendicular direction, doesn't matter which one) over the course of those several days to impart about 200 m/s of sideways delta-v and you will have a near-circular orbit well past Minmus. Is that more or less tricky than getting to Eve? Hard to say, and very open to opinion.

It should also include an LV-N Atomic cigarette lighter. Because fire good!

KSP is a great simulation game, but in my mind one of the subtle, and perhaps increasingly overlooked, aspects of what has made the game fun to play has always been its slightly silly cartoonish aesthetic. Things like the post-it notes in the cockpit talking about snacks, the "do not open in flight" levers, the "stupidity" rating for Kerbals, and of course the waddling little green guys themselves who sometimes do twirls when they jump. At least for me, these subtle design cues remind me not to take the game too seriously, and encourage me to try boldly stupid ideas I'd be loathe to undertake in a more serious game. I'd love to see even more of this whimsical humor varnish applied to the game's art, in ways that don't detract from actual gameplay or physics. To wit I have a couple suggestions and would invite others to contribute more: -- When buildings are destroyed and rebuilt, the repaired buildings' visual appearance could be slightly off-kilter from the originals. For example, they could feature copious amounts of duct tape, baling wire, staples, wood planks, and maybe even band-aids, or be not quite perfectly level and square anymore. More of this would show up after each destruction and reconstruction. -- Kerbals with extremely high stupidity ratings should look and act a little... off. Maybe their pupils point in different directions, or their mouth hangs agape, or they trip more often when they walk, or they sometimes forget their space suits and show up for work in their pajamas. At the other extreme, very low stupidity Kerbals could have nerdy glasses and maybe a pocket-protector on their spacesuit. -- Similarly, the courage rating could manifest itself a bit more in the physical experience. Maybe high courage Kerbals are a little more square-jawed and muscular while low-courage Kerbals are slightly scrawny and wimpy-looking. -- Kerbals with the BadS flag should clearly have some badass tattoos, piercings, etc, or maybe wear some black spikey motorcycle leathers. -- The new Mk. 2 cockpit seems to lack humourous post-it notes, levers, and other fun whimsy. Maybe it needs some snacks on the dashboard or other stuff? -- I've always thought a Kerbal should die with a little green splat (and appropriately splatty noise) rather than a puff of smoke. -- Might not be worth the design effort, but it would be great to have the "Do not open in flight" levers actually be openable, with consequent ejection of the crew or destruction of the part. Just a few ideas to get this thread started.

Kraken-based destructive devices are now prohibited. Must use conventional weapons.

Scott Manley has posted a pre-release 0.25 video appearing to show destruction of three buildings from a single launch. I'll use his flight as an analysis of a hypothetical score for this challenge: Rocket Components (as near as I could tell from the video): [TABLE] [tr][th]Part[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]Quantity[/th][th]Total Cost[/th][/tr] [tr][td]LFB KR-1x2[/td][td]16,400[/td][td]8[/td][td]131,200[/td][/tr] [tr][td]S3 KS-25x4[/td][td]32,400[/td][td]1[/td][td]32,400[/td][/tr] [tr][td]X200-32[/td][td]6,400[/td][td]8[/td][td]51,200[/td][/tr] [tr][td]S3-3600[/td][td]7,200[/td][td]3[/td][td]21,600[/td][/tr] [tr][td]S3-14400[/td][td]22,800[/td][td]1[/td][td]22,800[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Hydraulic Manifold[/td][td]700[/td][td]8[/td][td]5,600[/td][/tr] [tr][td]TR 38D[/td][td]600[/td][td]3[/td][td]1,800[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Launch Clamp[/td][td]200[/td][td]8?[/td][td]1600[/td][/tr] [/TABLE] Total Rocket Cost: 268,200 Buildings Destroyed: Vehicle Assembly Building (26 seconds): Base score of 1,000,000/26 = 38,462 Spaceplane Hangar (26 seconds): Base score of 1,000,000/26 = 38,462 One science building (26 seconds): Base score of 1,000,000/26 = 38,462 Total Base Score (sum of building base scores): 115,385 Total Rocket Cost: 268,200 Final Destruction Coefficient = 115,385/268,200 = 0.43021 Edit: I realize that some of his other destruction tests in the video might have actually scored higher because they destroyed things sooner and/or had cheaper rockets, but I chose this one as the representative example because it best illustrates how the scoring mechanism works. BTW his video also reveals that it's not going to be easy to take out the buildings.... serious force will be required! It's not yet clear if certain buildings will be easier to destroy than others.

Any restrictions on spinning the track? :-)

I believe the only thing that hasn't yet been accomplished is a SSTO ion-powered craft with no dropped parts (e.g. stages), in stock aero (it's been done in FAR). See GoSlash27's Ion Glider Collier Trophy challenge.

Hard to know from the facts you've given. Try disabling Mechjeb and see if the problem goes away. Also, have you ensured that you are not accidentally thrusting a little? I've had a few situations where I thought the engines were off but the throttle was still slightly on.

This is especially true if you're going to do a thrust-assisted gravity slingshot, i.e. augment the gravity slingshot with a prograde burn. Dropping in close to Jool will get you going really fast and will therefore greatly amplify the Oberth Effect benefit of any prograde burn you do. A thrust-assisted slingshot also lets you use your burn to refine the departure angle even if it's not quite ideal without thrusting.

I believe tweaking your orbit using this strategy and other orbit-tweaking strategies is the way to go. As long as you can eject into a transfer orbit having its periapsis at Kerbin's orbit, you can often manufacture a Kerbin encounter without too much delta-V. You can use small radial burns and also mess around with when and where the burn takes place. Another great, nearly foolproof technique is to be prepared to "go once around" in your transfer orbit. Just enter your transfer orbit from Jool back to Kerbin at any point, without worrying about where Kerbin will be when you get there. Then, when you get to periapsis (i.e. near Kerbin's orbit), a small prograde or retrograde burn will usually create an encounter the next time around. This works because your transfer orbit is so much bigger/slower than Kerbin's orbit that even a fairly small delta-V adjustment can lengthen or contract it by a substantial fraction of a Kerbin year. Just watch the target encounter markers as you add or remove thrust from the maneuver node you're setting up... they will rapidly converge to an encounter. The only drawback here is that your Kerbals are stuck in interplanetary space a little longer.

This is a very good point. You have to make sure you are still able to harness the Oberth Effect. And of course there is a direct correlation between thrust/weight ratio and Fun Factor, though I haven't yet seen the exact scientific derivation of that relationship. I like your rule of thumb on acceleration.

Yes, this is very true. Make sure the gear are straight and not tilted inward or outward. One other adjustment you can try is tilt them slightly back, so that the gear strut extends slightly backward rather than straight down. This seems to help them track straight. I had a lot of the same problems as you with my "Coming In Hot" challenge: heavy craft, high landing speed, FAR aerodynamics, tall and tippy at landing, and wings that were too small to give it much control. Your success rate of 2 out of 50 sounds about right! It's really hard to do, but is gratifying when you nail it. (Pics from my efforts. Not sure what your craft looks like, but here you can see the challenging piggish-ness of mine!) A couple more ideas to try: You could try two pairs of gear up front, spread out as much as possible, so that you have less tendency to roll sideways after touching down. You also said that "as soon as the rear gear touch down, they force the front down." That implies maybe they are too far rearward. Try moving them forward so that the craft can balance for awhile on its rear gear before the nose comes down. Real aircraft have the rear gear reasonably close to the center of mass, not all the way at the back. Lastly, consider using an action group key to disable all your torque modules and maybe all your aerodynamic flaps except the outer-most ailerons the moment you touch down on the runway. It's possible all your control surfaces and torque actuators are contributing some sort of weird roll moment coupling that becomes problematic after the gear hit the ground. Your efforts to correct post-touchdown wobbles may be exacerbating the problem rather than making it better. Hope these help, and good luck!

Thanks, this is very helpful and exactly the kind of explanation I was hoping to get. I may mess around with building one of these sometime.

This is a good piece of advice and one that can seem a bit counterintuitive. Some of the high ISP engines can be quite heavy. For example, the LV-N engine weighs 2.25 tons. You only benefit from carrying such a heavy engine when you are planning to burn enough fuel in it to make the extra weight worthwhile. And be very careful about using multiple engines. For interplanetary stages where thrust to weight ratios don't matter, you'll always optimize delta-V by having just a single engine. Why? Because a single engine will still burn as much fuel as multiple engines (given enough time), but will do so with less mass. In a sense, multiple engines are just dead weight. (This is obviously not true when you require high thrust such as for launch or powered landings.) Assuming you're like me and are too impatient to burn an ion engine for hours or days on end, you might wonder what engine is optimal for interplanetary burns. I did an optimality analysis and it turns out the only other two engines you really need to consider for interplanetary stages are the 48-7S and the LV-N. Every other choice is always inferior to those two, including the LV-909 (which surprised me because I would have guessed it would have been optimal for certain sizes of spacecraft). Here's the rule of thumb for interplanetary engine selection: Above 4 tons total wet mass (excluding the engine), you always want the LV-N. Below 2 tons (excluding engine), you usually want the 48-7S. And in between 2 and 4 tons, it depends on how much fuel you're carrying, but if you have a lot of fuel (over 75%) you probably want the 48-7S and otherwise you probably want the LV-N.

Lots of good tips posted by many people here. But here's the way I think of it, which keeps things blindingly simple: In almost all practical cases, your craft will be operating at its most efficient when it's going the fastest. That's because fuel consumption is proportional to time (assuming constant throttle), and going faster makes you cover more distance per unit of time. And how do you go fastest? You go fastest by getting up where the air is very very thin and there's not much air resistance to slow you down. So the most efficient altitude in KSP is generally the highest altitude your craft can sustain, and going as fast as you can there. This is true whether you're playing with stock aerodynamics or FAR/NEAR. While it's true that a KSP jet engine's Isp changes with altitude, in practice the speed pickup significantly more than compensates for that under practically all circumstances. I'd actually be curious to see an example of an aircraft where this isn't the case. A spacecraft in orbit above the atmosphere has infinite "fuel efficiency" (if you want to think about it that way)... it will go as many miles as you like with no thrust at all. So the closer you can approximate that ideal, the better your efficiency is going to be. There might be exceptions to this rule of thumb, but in practicality they are very rare. One obvious exception is when your trip is short and it's not worth climbing to a high altitude. I honestly can't think of other exceptions off the top of my head but would be curious to hear of others I may have forgotten about.

Uhhh.... Mods. I see. I totally missed this the first time around. Not enough coffee.

Nice! And you didn't even have to dip below 5000m before landing. I wasn't sure whether there would be enough atmosphere above 5000m.

He says no parachutes but doesn't say no wings. Is it possible to aerobrake with a winged craft, maybe dipping below 5000m during the initial deceleration, then climb or coast back up to 5000m for the final touchdown? I don't see any immediate reason why this wouldn't be possible (but am not in a position to test the theory right now).

Some representative point totals possible for various interplanetary landings: Eve: 376 million (big SOI and handy atmosphere) Duna: 1.25 billion Eeloo: 54.2 billion Laythe: 125 billion (far away, small SOI, but has atmosphere that makes the landing easier than other Jool moons) Pol: 4.44 trillion (far away, tiny SOI that's hard to hit, and no atmosphere!)

Wow, now that is some impressive out-of-the-box thinking. Better still, wait around for several asteroids to all hit simultaneously, taking out all the buildings in zero seconds! But hold on! Upon reflection, maybe one of the reasons for Squad build a destructible KSC in the first place is that future versions of KSP will actually require protective intervention after some number of years in order to save KSC from an inevitable asteroid bombardment? Maybe I'm a slow learner, but this just occurred to me and yet now it seems so... obvious! Go Squad! Yeahhh! So maybe the odds of waiting around for this to happen aren't pinned at zero... though you might still be waiting for 0.26 or beyond for the necessary skewing of the "random" asteroid trajectories to make this likely within our lifetimes. (Cue Hypetrain!)