0.7.3, how hard can it be

[Hotblack Desiato]

Early Space Flight

A very simple challenge, possibly the first type of challenge ever in ksp. get a rocket as high as possible, or EDIT: like several other challenges, try to get top speed in kerbin-SOI (more or less, as the game either has no SOI or doesn't tell about it).

the only twist, in the dawn of the version 1.0, do it in the first version which is available online. version 0.7.3

download 0.7.3 here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24858-Old-versions-of-KSP-%28some-versions-still-wanted!%29

other versions available aswell.

currently the only scoring system: height in meters, take a screenshot at apoapsis.

furthermore, take at least one in VAB and landed (to show that you took a parachute with you).

my entry:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

103861m

no idea if this version already allows orbits...

by the way: this support does not support saving and reloading crafts, and it doesn't support screenshots.

Oh, and it doesn't support symmetry... for the extra flavour.

Highscore:

1. 1309000m Rfmeijboom

2. 969201m Bloodsoul

3. 813361m Outlaw

4. 103861m Hotblack Desiato

5. 65959m waterlubber

New Highscore Top-Speed:

1. 3817.7 m/s TheMoonRover (no parachute)

2. 3712 m/s Scott Manley (no parachute)

3. 2781.9 m/s mcirish3

4. 2726.2 m/s Rfmeijboom

5. 2340.2 m/s 13013

6. 2303 m/s pvtnum11

Stunt-Section:

Rfmeijboom: shot 3 kerbals on escape trajectory

Scott Manley: orbit and shot 3 kerbals on escape trajectory

TheMoonRover: orbit and shot 3 kerbals on escape trajectory

13013: orbit achieved without touching SAS nor using the spin stabilization trick.

for those who managed to do something out of the ordinary as having orbits, bringing kerbals back from orbit or whatever you can come up with.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Hotblack Desiato

[HoloYolo]

Challenge accepted! Never played any version lower then 0.23

EDIT: How do I open KSP when I downloaded it?

Edited April 21, 2015 by HoloYolo

[waterlubber]

My answer: Very hard!

No symmetry!

Dragging parts deletes them!

Literally 3 engines!

No fuel gauges!

No SAS Hold! (I know, F works)

No time acceleration!

No part clipping!

No debug menu!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Hotblack Desiato]

Challenge accepted! Never played any version lower then 0.23

EDIT: How do I open KSP when I downloaded it?

you have a ksp 0.7.3.zip after the download

extract it (the folder ksp 0.7.3) to any place on your harddrive (desktop is fine). in there is the folder ksp, and in there is ksp.exe. execute this file, and it will start immediately.

@waterlubber: great flight, and yes, it's hard.

EDIT: oh, and thanks, didn't consider the f-key for activating SAS

Edited April 21, 2015 by Hotblack Desiato

[Superfluous J]

I played around with it, and must say wow. That's tough.

Not the launching the ship part, though it was nasty. The VAB part. No pulling a subassembly off and setting it aside to add something mid-rocket. Touching the left side of the screen just drops what you were dragging, destroying it forever.

I had to stop not because I thought I couldn't do it, but because I couldn't bear to deal with that anymore.

Also: No SAS (though there are reaction wheels called SAS. Ahh the good old days). No struts. No map mode.

EDIT: I didn't think to try F. But T doesn't work

[Eleven]

In what version did the linux clients start being included?

[Whirligig Girl]

One of my first challenge posts was a 0.7.3 challenge! And yes, orbiting is possible, i've done it.

[Superfluous J]

One of my first challenge posts was a 0.7.3 challenge! And yes, orbiting is possible, i've done it.

If you can get 1000-1500m/s into orbit, you should be able to reach Kerbin escape velocity. Assuming it's only one SOI (no Sun SOI) then that means you could reach infinite altitude.

...except no time warp

[SpenSpaceCorp]

Step 1: Achieve orbit

Step 2: Achieve escape velocity

Step 3: Wait a year or so

Step 4: Post your (now year long or so) attempt (on a probably now-dead thread)

Step 5: Profit!

(I really want to attempt this, but... finals haha)

[Commander Zoom]

That's the version that I started with (or possibly the one right after, .8), and I can assure you, it does support orbits. But you have to check your altitude vs. speed on a table to confirm that you are.

[_jack]

This seems interesting. I started way back in .17 so I want to see how far we've come along.

- - - Updated - - -

Before playing: Glad to see the progress that has been made over the years.

After playing: How does this even work!!!

Seriously though I can't build anything that works effectively.

Edited April 22, 2015 by _jack

[Outlaw]

This was fun!

After spending 1h watching the Rocket flying through space (this version can't be run in background) I had a catastrophic failure. Landing above water is not possible, I suppose. Eventhough I managed it to an altitude of 813406m. So here we go.

[r_rolo1]

Seriously though I can't build anything that works effectively.

Some guidance, from someone that plays since the Mun is around ( so, not 0.7.3, but close ) :

- You can stabilize a rocket trajectory via spinning.

- SRB were really subpar for a long, long time

- The atmo in 0.7.3 ends at 40ish Km, not 70 km as it is now and was even more soupy than now.

- There is no map view, so you need to math out to know if you're in orbit

- Water is cement. Literally

[Rfmeijboom]

My best attempt after experimenting for half an hour:

[Hotblack Desiato]

thanks for the entries so far, I added a highscore to the first posting.

and over 800km height, that's impressive

let's see if I can beat that tomorrow...

and thanks for the tips r_rolo1. it's really hard to get a rocket to go straight up...

[Rfmeijboom]

My Second Atempt: 398640m

Edit:

And Survived the water landing!

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rfmeijboom

[Commander Jebidiah]

Water isnt cement youmcant land on the dark side of kerbin even on land.

[Bl00dsoul]

New Record:

Apoapsis: ( had a staging error which caused the parachute to deploy early )

Reentry: ( parachute vanished... )

"Landed":

[Rfmeijboom]

Third atempt & new record:

I will add VAB and landed screenshots once the pod has finally landed.

Edit:

And she's down!

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rfmeijboom

[Rfmeijboom]

Fourth atempt & new record:

Over 3000000 and still going up at 1300m/s . . .

I'll leave it running overnight and see how high it goes.

[Superfluous J]

Over 3000000 and still going up at 1300m/s . . .

I'll leave it running overnight and see how high it goes.

Escape velocity at that altitude is 48m/s. You are never coming down and are - as far as I can tell - the first to 'infinity' this challenge.

[Hotblack Desiato]

so, there is a natural end in this challenge...

I guess, we need a new goal for the challenge, since it is possible to escape.

how about highest orbit (of course with enough fuel to actually come back).

Edited April 23, 2015 by Hotblack Desiato

[Rfmeijboom]

Escape velocity at that altitude is 48m/s. You are never coming down and are - as far as I can tell - the first to 'infinity' this challenge.

AH, that explains a lot

Final altitude and speed before ending the game:

The craft that did it:

Edited April 24, 2015 by Rfmeijboom

[Rfmeijboom]

so, there is a natural end in this challenge...

I guess, we need a new goal for the challenge, since it is possible to escape.

how about highest orbit (of course with enough fuel to actually come back).

Hmmm, Highest orbit would be 1m/s below escape velocity with a PE just above the atmosphere.

The same rocket can probably do that.

If you want to extend this challenge to even larger and faster rockets you could go for top speed.

Just go straight up until all engines cut out and then end game to see top speed achieved.

That way you have no problems with lack of time warp or reaching infinity.

[Fel]

Does it count if I use mods? You never specifically forbade mods! My 5000kN solid booster mod works wonders on the challenge D:<

Also, I think the physics engine is out to get you, and the game doesn't WANT you to get to orbit XD. The radial decouplers brings new meaning to "shaky rocket"; for a while, I was frustrated about the rocket veering very strongly to one end and I found that the 0.4T mass of a single radial decoupler left behind was doing it. (I guess it's a matter of SAS strength now)

I still wonder, wouldn't it be better just to blow up the previous stage than to deal with the 0.8T decoupler? Put the decouplers on the bottom to get the staging, and just leave them behind?

Edited April 24, 2015 by Fel