BagelRabbit

YES! Finally! I'll start right away.

Wow. I was expecting something completely different when I clicked on this page. http://www.rocketrygolf.com/ Presenting a sport in which you try to fly a golf ball to a hole with model rocket engines! It's very fun and questionably legal! ...now how many of these rockets would you need to get to the moon?!

Here's a bit of a clarification. As you may have seen in my stack-decoupler-boost method, I consider separating stages okay. That being said, if anything explodes or goes poof, you'll need to try the challenge again. To vat21s, the rules state that the challenge basically ends at launch. If you need to stage your rocket on your way to your eventual destination, that's okay, as long as you do it a little while after launch. Great job to Claw and Captain Sierra! Very unique designs. Keep up the good work.

Here's how to do Science! 1) Right-click on your command capsule, Kerbal or science equipment to get a reading. 2) Mystery-Goo containers and Science-Jrs only work once, so you may want to pack many of them. 3) Every biome you pass through will give you more science, if you have enough scientific equipment to do so. 4) If you take several readings with the same instrument on the same biome, the additional readings are worthless scientifically. 5) Transmit your science readings if you will eventually jettison your science instruments or if you are visiting several biomes. Keep your science readings when you visit your last biome, when you gather the most scientific data and/or if you can keep your science instruments when you land. 6) Resetting your Mystery Goo clears the science it has taken. You must keep or transmit your data to get science from your Goo. This is also true with crew reports and reports from other scientific instruments. Hope this helps.

Here's my pathetic li'l Sean's Cannery logo. I'll try harder on the next one, I promise.

Wonderful, wonderful! Here's a method of doing it with a stack decoupler. [note: I actually failed the challenge, as the Kerbal platform hit the ground and exploded. Will try later.]

Really great entries so far, everyone! Keep up the good work! The only bending-of-rules I've seen so far is xxjetterxx's entry. It started with a Kerbal in the little transfer craft and not on the ground, as the rules state. Everyone, though, has used their own amazingly unique method. My favorite so far is xoknight's. I tried a Kerbal elevator and it didn't work, though it came awfully close several times. Nice job, xoknight! Reminders: You can post as many entries to the Ladderless Challenge as you want, though each entry has to utilize a separate method of transportation. If you suddenly figure out two distinct methods to loft your Kerbal, go ahead and post them both! And, as always, be sure to give some reputation to your favorite entry or entries.

It's great to see that two of my suggested transportation methods have been implemented! Here's a third: My original proof-of-concept, showing that this challenge was indeed possible using a big ol' ramp. Not so sure about the mass-relay idea though.

In the beginning, Kerbals climbed up tall ladders to reach their command capsules. Recently, however, several mishaps have destroyed all of the Kerbal Space Center’s ladders. Namely, Wehrner von Kerman forgot his glasses and strapped all of the ladders in KSP onto an ion probe, believing that they were solar panels. So! Your job is, without ladders of any type, to transport a Kerbal from the ground into the top of a rocket that is at least four M-Beam 200 I-beams in height. Rules (please read carefully!): Do not use mods that add parts to the game. (No Hyperedit, either.) Do not use the debug menu to hack KSP. An “Attempt†begins with all Kerbals standing near one another on the ground, and ends with the rocket’s launch. All Kerbal crew capsules on the rocket must be empty at the beginning of the attempt, and must be completely filled by the end of the attempt. The rocket must have at least one command capsule of any sort except for external command seats and probe cores. You can add more capsules, if you want a bigger challenge. Kerbals are allowed to grab the ladders on command capsules, but only so that they can board. If a Kerbal has to climb up or down a capsule ladder, the attempt will be disqualified. Despite what the backstory may have implied, neither Pegasus mini-ladders nor ladders on capsules are allowed. No parts may break in the attempt. (Staging is okay.) No Kerbals may die. The rocket must be capable of taking off after all Kerbals have been loaded, without breaking any parts on any craft. (If you want to fly your rocket to various destinations, that would be cool, but it is not part of the challenge.) You can use as many separate craft as you want to load the rocket, provided that they follow all of these rules, too. You can post as many separate attempts on the forum as you want, but each must utilize a different method of transporting the Kerbal to the capsule. Pictures/video or it didn't happen! [Let me know if you have any questions or clarifications.] So, how would this work? There are many ways that you could get your Kerbal in the rocket, including: - A giant ramp that drives up to the rocket; Kerbals walk up the ramp to board. - A VTOL that flies over to gingerly drop off a Kerbal. -A rocket-powered elevator that carries Kerbals up to the capsule. -A tiny Mass Relay that pushes the Kerbal up to a platform by the capsule. I’m sure you could think of more! The possibilities are nearly endless, and with this much freedom to build ladder-replacements, your attempt is only as difficult as you want it to be. So, how the heck is this scored? It really isn’t. It’s just a challenge for the entirety of the KSP forum. However, if you love someone’s design, increase their reputation by clicking that little star thing at the bottom of their post. This way, everyone in the forum can enjoy any attempt made. Go for it!

I'm working on a tricycle with ruggedized motor wheels in the back and a landing gear wheel in the front... pictures soon

Augh! This challenge! My plane keeps breaking in half, because of its wing position. It has the lift... now it just needs more struts! (Or a better design.) Here's a teaser...

I've gotten it to work with a tiny little 100% stock rocket called the Munshot Mini. It has three stages, and is capable of achieving all of the awards except for the ones that would involve additional parts, including the rover one or the Kethane one. It weighs 11.4 tons on the launch pad. The second and third stages combined have a mass of 0.81 tons. I know there are some dubious things shown in the video I made (Almost turning the first-stage engines off, multiple second-stage burns to get a free-return trajectory) but overall, this flight shows that it can be done with a really small craft. (If you want me to redo the flight for competition legality, I would be happy to do so.) Enjoy!

I think that you guys are overthinking this a little. I will probably use the craft in this video as a start. It's a 720-gallon-of-fuel SSTO that can carry a very small payload, and while this video shows the craft not following all of the rules (too high a Kerbin orbit! Two burns!) it should definitely be able to accomplish this challenge with fuel to spare. The payload, after all, managed to brake to Munar orbit with over half of its fuel left. Am I missing something?

Wow. #5. I never thought I would get this far! Only one spot away from the finals! Thanks to all who voted for me, and I'll certainly be back in the thick of it when the next BSC competition rolls around (when, not if). I personally voted for MiniMatt in the finals. The Snack Wagon handles great, looks great, has a surprisingly good range and, of course, carries Snacks. (Of the final four, I would rank the Snack Wagon as highest, followed by the Damselfly, then the Bullfrog and finally the Pack Mule.) Congrants to the finalists!

So, just a little video to keep the thread alive. First time docking without RCS and all in all, it went great! (Oh, and I fired up the nuclear engines to boost the craft to a more circular orbit, depleting much RCS but otherwise going well.) Here's a question for y'all: Should I fill all of the docking ports? Right now, there are six radial docking ports that haven't been occupied and I'm wondering whether I should try to put science probes and landers on all of them. I don't want my computer to melt down but I really want the extra gobs of Science!

At the risk of sounding like your son: I already knew everything the professor was saying, and I'm actually a science major, so it's kind of rare that I get to draw anything in my classes unless I doodle a bit. Sorry. I see that Tarmenius has marked my craft as 'Good,' which means 'Exceptionally Awesome' by my standards! Hooray! (I haven't expected my design to be this popular.) Although, I personally like the escape system. Along with the high part count, it's received a fair amount of suggestions, though I'm actually pretty happy with it. It was almost put on as an afterthought, after many successful tests involving hitting the (1) action group. The only thing I would change about the abort feature, in hindsight, is to add a note in the description that in nasty situations, pressing (1) is a good thing to do. Unless you are less than about two meters above the ground and travelling at greater than thirty meters per second. Which, honestly, doesn't happen all that often. So remember, vote for the Pavo. It's the only craft here with two effective, simple abort systems! (And it looks pretty neat too.)

I had a full load of Science on my rover, the last time I participated in a BSC competition. I really loved it, but everyone else just thought it was extraneous waste. So, for the Pavo, I put on other extraneous waste instead. [PROTIP: There are two struts that aren't connected to anything, that are right below the forward-most 24-77s. I just realized they were there. They're not doing anything. You might want to remove them. ] By the way, I was bored in math class, so I created a "official" Pavo VTOL logo. (Look at that crosshatching!) On the off chance that you want this image, it is at http://imgur.com/RuAVm5Y . I'm also adding it to my original post.

Hello everyone! I received a number of comments, and I'll try to explain my reasoning behind each design feature as best as I can. The canted engines are, in large part, used to provide stability. Without them in their approximate places, the Pavo's CoM goes all over the place during flight. I also canted them to provide my favorite TWR for VTOLs: just above one at takeoff, building to almost two at landing. I know I could have thrust-limited them but I wanted to use that tool as little as possible. As for the problem of the parachutes deploying right as you press the action group. The abort button is used as a method of last resort for the Pavo. It can land very well without pressing the Abort button but instead activating the craft's parachutes; there should really be no reason to press this unless you are a meter from death. If you are a meter from death, you don't want to spend a lot of time pressing multiple action groups. Besides, the Separatron causes the capsule to move fast enough that the velocity of the capsule never drops to zero. I was worried about this too but I have tested the abort system extensively and never killed a Kerbal or made a parachute disappear prematurely. In the spirit of shameless self-promotion I direct you to the second half of this video, showing a successful abort. [edit: Third place from MiniMatt! I might actually reach the finals! Hooray!]

Good morning everyone! Quick favor to ask. To those who have reviewed my design so far, what features do you like or dislike? Which would you change? I'm just wondering because I want to learn how to build better VTOLs. I have kind of fallen in love with the whole VTOL concept, and while mine may not be the best one here, it's a lot of fun to fly! I'm sure that some of you serious builders have ideas to make my VTOL even better and I would love to hear them. Thanks!

Wh-what?! Intelligent people want to vote for me?! Champagne time! Seriously though, I'm pretty happy with the Pavo VTOL. I like its performance and the amount of features it has, though maybe I'm a wee bit biased. Oh, and I got a question about my canted engines. They are in part to provide stability and partly simply because the VTOL requires fuel to be burned off at a certain rate to insure stability. The engines are placed so that the VTOL burns fuel consistently throughout. Interestingly enough, the CoM goes from slightly behind the center of thrust, then slightly in front, and then back to near-neutral as the fuel burns. None of this tomfoolery comes close to destabilizing it though.

I see we're losing in on the end of the competition, and the judging is already beginning. Nice job to all who posted so far. One thing that really surprised me was the general lack of RCS used throughout the competition. I may have been the only person who used RCS! (I like it because it does the same thing as an SAS module, but you can toggle it easily without resorting to action groups.) Also, jet engines! I don't like VTOLs with solely jet engines because of their sluggish response (sorry) but a combination of jet and rocket power seems to work reasonably well. ...and I'm blown away by the quality of some of these craft. I honestly think that my craft may have some neat features (launching off of jumps at 45 m/s, anyone?) but that some of you guys have packed more features into your craft with fewer parts. I'm always blown away when participating in these competitions... I think my craft is pretty cool but everyone else's is unbelievably neat. That being said, you should still vote for me. [note: I edited my original post to include a one-minute-ish tutorial on how to fly the Pavo, as well as listing the four action groups that I created.]

Speaking of reputation... If you're inspired by someone's design, give them some +Rep, please! It's a really simple and really great way to show support, and it helps out everyone! And why don't we all dish out all of the reputation that we can on Xeldrak... two bars isn't enough. Thanks for this awesome competition Xeldrak!

May I propose the Hugely Awesome-Looking Object? Because that looks pretty neat Here's my "official" video of how to fly the Pavo VTOL: Enjoy!

Scott Manley did a video on this where he used an upside-down lander's engine to mass-relay a Kerbal with enough delta-V to get him into orbit, where he rendezvoused and entered another capsule. I can't find the video though. I don't know if this would count as 'lack of technology' but it's a place to start.

Hey Cupcake! I'm just wondering if you will participate in the BSC VTOL challenge that's going on over here. I think it would be... suited for your work. (Some people on the thread are wondering if they should even try with their VTOLs, since yours absolutely blow everyone out of the water.) Just wondering