The Ultimate Jool 5 Challenge - 1.0 to 1.3

[Himynameisjake]

I loved this challenge, and upped it to a new level back in beta, so I can't tell you how excited I am to see it back in the post 1.0 era! I'm in the late stages of planning to do the same for this new challenge, and bring the first ISRU + Grand Tour + Jeb level entry. Apart from asteroids (still trying to figure that possibility out, I'll be completely tapping out the science of the Kerbol system. Stay tuned.

[peachoftree]

can we use nerteas Heat Control? I have a nuke spaceplane but the nukes can't run for more than 5 minutes without it. (plus it looks cool)

[gigaboom2]

If the kerbals split up (and the ship) do they need to be reconnected before returning? Or can I split up, complete each landing individually, then fly each kerbal back by itself. I only ask because ​I CAN NOT DOCK. (I really have tried to dock many times, but it just isn't going to happen)

[sdj64]

Okay, another question.

I hit the space bar when I shouldn't have on one of my LKO refueling runs, and force quit to try to revert to a point before I screwed it up. I was successful. Hoping that's okay, since it's basically a quicksave/quickload without the hindsight. I already sent off my mothership to Jool so I can't do another rendezvous with it in penance, but my refueling ships are still in LKO if I can send up another thing to rendezvous with those in penance.

Basically, am I disqualified, and if so is there any action I can do to undisqualify myself?

Not entirely sure what you did here from your description. If you reverted to before the refueling run, then re-did the run to refuel your ship, you should be fine, even if you didn't take screenshots of the second run you can just use the ones from the first to prove that you did it. If you screwed up your refueling run, then used Hyperedit to refuel your ship instead, you would be disqualified.

Hi! I have a couple of questions before I start my attempt at Level 3:

1. An earlier question clarified that we can bring more than 5 Kerbals along with us, such as scientists or engineers. Does everyone have to come back, or can the extras stay behind while the 5 mission pilots return?

2. After each pilot visits their assigned moon, can they regroup with other Kerbals on the surface of another moon, before returning home, or are they only allowed to set foot on "their" moon?

You can bring additional Kerbals, and land Kerbals on more than one moon. They all have to come back, but you could send another ship with extra Kerbals alongside your mission (as long as those extras don't assist your mission in any way). Your five Kerbals don't have to be pilots, you could have a scientist or engineer land. A probe core or flight assist module on your lander could help.

can we use nerteas Heat Control? I have a nuke spaceplane but the nukes can't run for more than 5 minutes without it. (plus it looks cool)

Yes, I'll add it to the list.

If the kerbals split up (and the ship) do they need to be reconnected before returning? Or can I split up, complete each landing individually, then fly each kerbal back by itself. I only ask because ​I CAN NOT DOCK. (I really have tried to dock many times, but it just isn't going to happen)

That sounds fine, as long as they all go to Jool together and they all have pods, not seats, for the journeys there and back.

[Whovian]

Not entirely sure what you did here from your description. If you reverted to before the refueling run, then re-did the run to refuel your ship, you should be fine, even if you didn't take screenshots of the second run you can just use the ones from the first to prove that you did it. If you screwed up your refueling run, then used Hyperedit to refuel your ship instead, you would be disqualified.

I'll elaborate, since it was neither of those (though it sounds from your explanation that I'd probably be fine?). I used force quitting to revert to earlier in the refueling run before I screwed it up and completed the refueling run from that earlier point. I unfortunately deleted the screenshots from the now-aborted timeline in order to have a "correct" account of what happened and have no way to recover the screenshots.

One final (hopefully) question: I started my mission in 1.0.2. Should I update to 1.0.3 or keep it on 1.0.2? My Laythe lander probably won't survive reentry in 1.0.3 and I'm already in Jool orbit, so I'd rather not upgrade if that's allowed.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Whovian

[Himynameisjake]

Before I get too attached to my ship, I wanted to see how firm the rule of no part clipping was in this new challenge. In the old challenge, Ziv was OK with clipping for the sake of aesthetics if it did not change the functional nature or capabilities of the ship (eg, a lot of the parts on my last grand tour http://imgur.com/a/kGzDF#0). I was wondering if that would hold true for the new challenge as well. I have come up with a craft that is currently quite functional, but not much prettier than my last Grand Tour ship. I don't want to give away the design just yet, but it is similar in nature to Mesklin's (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125184-Rolling-Stone-science-SSTO-with-unlimited-range).

So, is clipping for the sake of aesthetics acceptable, or are we going with a hard "no clipping rule" this time around?

[sdj64]

I'll elaborate, since it was neither of those (though it sounds from your explanation that I'd probably be fine?). I used force quitting to revert to earlier in the refueling run before I screwed it up and completed the refueling run from that earlier point. I unfortunately deleted the screenshots from the now-aborted timeline in order to have a "correct" account of what happened and have no way to recover the screenshots.

One final (hopefully) question: I started my mission in 1.0.2. Should I update to 1.0.3 or keep it on 1.0.2? My Laythe lander probably won't survive reentry in 1.0.3 and I'm already in Jool orbit, so I'd rather not upgrade if that's allowed.

Yes, your refueling mission is okay. I might be more strict with a part of the actual mission but it seems like you did a good job of correcting the error, even if you have no screenshots of it. You can stay on 1.0.2 but please make it clear when you post your mission report what version it was on.

Before I get too attached to my ship, I wanted to see how firm the rule of no part clipping was in this new challenge. In the old challenge, Ziv was OK with clipping for the sake of aesthetics if it did not change the functional nature or capabilities of the ship (eg, a lot of the parts on my last grand tour http://imgur.com/a/kGzDF#0). I was wondering if that would hold true for the new challenge as well. I have come up with a craft that is currently quite functional, but not much prettier than my last Grand Tour ship. I don't want to give away the design just yet, but it is similar in nature to Mesklin's (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125184-Rolling-Stone-science-SSTO-with-unlimited-range).

So, is clipping for the sake of aesthetics acceptable, or are we going with a hard "no clipping rule" this time around?

You can clip structural parts aesthetically if you want. Your previous grand tour looks like it has pretty minimal clipping, so it's okay. Mesklin's SSTO has one glaring problem, which is the Mk2 adapter behind the passenger cabin clipping into the Mk3 tank. The other stuff seems okay (maybe not inside the cargo bays but I can't tell from the pictures).

Also, with the newly "balanced" Mk1 fuselage in 1.0.3, I'm going to allow Stock Fuel Switch and Procedural Tanks. Since the new Mk1 fuselage holds only LF in a 9:1 ratio like the stock rocket tanks, it seems silly but you could get that ratio for your whole ship if you only used those tanks. This will hopefully cause less headache for people looking to balance part count with performance.

[Himynameisjake]

You can clip structural parts aesthetically if you want. Your previous grand tour looks like it has pretty minimal clipping, so it's okay. Mesklin's SSTO has one glaring problem, which is the Mk2 adapter behind the passenger cabin clipping into the Mk3 tank. The other stuff seems okay (maybe not inside the cargo bays but I can't tell from the pictures).

Yeah, having completed a grand tour once, I wouldn't let it come down to 180LF determining whether or not I made it home. That's not an acceptable margin in my mind.

The only other bit of clipping that you might take issue with is putting the ISRU converter inside of the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 adapter (near the front). I have to be honest, I kind of love the idea of hiding away the ugly ISRU, it's got a face only a mother could love. I'd like to do the same if at all possible. I don't want to put it inside a fairing because of the needless risk of accidentally staging the craft mid-flight, and I have to go from size 2-3 parts at some point anyways. Thoughts?

[Whovian]

I might be more strict with a part of the actual mission but it seems like you did a good job of correcting the error, even if you have no screenshots of it.

It was a part of the actual mission; the format I took was to send up the vehicle, not fully fueled, and send up refueling missions to LKO which are understood to be part of the assembly process.

[nigelvn]

I'm giving it a go right now, don't know if I will make it though. We'll see...

[Chuck U. Farley]

I have a question:

I'm going to do this challenge with the big 4, Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val. Each is going to get a moon to explore, except for Bob, who will be exploring the easter eggs on Vall AND Bop.

What category of the challenge would this fall under? I'd say 2nd, but that's for two or three kerbals, and I'm sending four . . . or am I just overthinking it?

[Teilnehmer]

I'm going to do this challenge with the big 4, Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val. Each is going to get a moon to explore, except for Bob, who will be exploring the easter eggs on Vall AND Bop.

You definitely should send Val to Vall and Bob to Bop.

[sdj64]

I have a question:

I'm going to do this challenge with the big 4, Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val. Each is going to get a moon to explore, except for Bob, who will be exploring the easter eggs on Vall AND Bop.

What category of the challenge would this fall under? I'd say 2nd, but that's for two or three kerbals, and I'm sending four . . . or am I just overthinking it?

Unfortunately that would only qualify you for level 1. 2nd level has 2 or 3 Kerbals, but they all land on every moon together. 1st and 3rd level only require one Kerbal to land on each moon. Bring a white suit to make 5 if you want level 3.

[nigelvn]

I sort of have a problem, did the mission without refuel mission. But now I do not have enough dV to get in LKO and the landing pods turn out not to work under the circumstances they are put in while reentering (tested it already, but it did BOOM).

So my question is: Is it allowed to send up a craft into LKO which will rendezvous with the Mothership (while on a escape trajectory), take all the kerbals out and bring the Kerbals back? It is not mentioned it is not allowed, only a shuttle can get them from LKO

To make things clearer, the Mothership already has an intercept with Kerbin, the problem lies with the fact I have no way to get the Kerbals on Kerbin without an extra craft.

Edited July 2, 2015 by nigelvn
clearification

[Chuck U. Farley]

You definitely should send Val to Vall and Bob to Bop.

Very funny, and I've thought about doing that, but there's a reason for how I've managed who lands where.

Bob is a scientist, so he'll want to check out the easter eggs on Vall and Bop.

Pol has physics glitches, resulting in "floating rocks." In my Kerbal universe, it's a kind of Unobtanium, which Bill needs to take a look at, to investigate for higher technologies.

That leaves Val and Jeb to fight over Laythe and Tylo.

On one hand, Tylo. Kerbin gravity, with no atmosphere to help slow down . . . the ultimate challenge to land and return from, second only to Eve.

On the other hand, the first Kerbal to land on an oxygen world outside of Kerbin. Not to mention the launcher from Laythe is an SSTO with only 4 parts . . . They both want to fly it.

I think Laythe, being as pristine as it is, needs a woman's touch, and delicate flying. Jeb can fly crazy and crash all he wants on Tylo, no cares about that place . . .

[The Hawk]

Question: I ran a successful Jool-5 back in October-December of last year, under 0.25. Unfortunately, it's taken me months to write up (partly due to life, but largely due to needing to document what was going on in 643 screenshots). I just finished that project today, only to discover that the Challenge has shifted over here. Soooo... should I submit it here, subject to the rules that would have been applicable back when it was done, even though it wasn't a 1.0 attempt?

[sdj64]

I sort of have a problem, did the mission without refuel mission. But now I do not have enough dV to get in LKO and the landing pods turn out not to work under the circumstances they are put in while reentering (tested it already, but it did BOOM).

So my question is: Is it allowed to send up a craft into LKO which will rendezvous with the Mothership (while on a escape trajectory), take all the kerbals out and bring the Kerbals back? It is not mentioned it is not allowed, only a shuttle can get them from LKO

To make things clearer, the Mothership already has an intercept with Kerbin, the problem lies with the fact I have no way to get the Kerbals on Kerbin without an extra craft.

If your mothership can get into any orbit around Kerbin, I'll allow sending a craft up to rendezvous with them. If it's still on an escape trajectory you'll have to get it into orbit first. You could try a high altitude aerobrake or use your refueling mission to give it the fuel it needs to get into an orbit. I never meant for the shuttle rule to mean "space shuttle" type craft, any craft is fine.

Question: I ran a successful Jool-5 back in October-December of last year, under 0.25. Unfortunately, it's taken me months to write up (partly due to life, but largely due to needing to document what was going on in 643 screenshots). I just finished that project today, only to discover that the Challenge has shifted over here. Soooo... should I submit it here, subject to the rules that would have been applicable back when it was done, even though it wasn't a 1.0 attempt?

Yes, you can post it here.

[nigelvn]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/128221-Jool-5-for-1-0-Challenge-accepted%21?p=2068892#post2068892

Here you go. It is the link to my thread about my Jool 5 mission. It is completed using a refuel mission to get in orbit of Kerbin. Everything which was asked for is in the thread, if I accidently do miss something, do not hestitate to tell me.

[Bev7787]

I'm working on mine. Mine is a combined AAP/Jool-5 though

[sdj64]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/128221-Jool-5-for-1-0-Challenge-accepted%21?p=2068892#post2068892

Here you go. It is the link to my thread about my Jool 5 mission. It is completed using a refuel mission to get in orbit of Kerbin. Everything which was asked for is in the thread, if I accidently do miss something, do not hestitate to tell me.

Congratulations, you have accomplished the Jool 5 challenge on level 3! Your ship really shows how much bigger nuclear designs have to be now that they burn only Liquid fuel. The difficulty of aerobraking adds to the fuel requirement even more. Your number and quality of screenshots is great.

[nigelvn]

Thanks, so how do I add that badge? I can't find my signature, do I have to unlock it? XD

[sdj64]

Thanks, so how do I add that badge? I can't find my signature, do I have to unlock it? XD

Your signature is in settings -> edit signature. I put a spoiler in the OP with the code you need just below the image.

[nigelvn]

okay thanks, it should work now

[iLikeRovers]

I've got a working design being assembled in LKO. It involves a triple Sr Docking port for a sturdy attachment.

Only 2 of the pairs are properly attaching and I'm not sure how to get the other 2 pairs to work properly. You can see the situation here.

[Aghanim]

Is B9 Procedural Wing : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104966-1-0-2-B9-Aerospace-Procedural-Parts-0-40-Updated-09-06-15 allowed?