Spot the Design Flaw! - a KSP related forum game

[cantab]

If I may, then...here's one of mine:

[max_creative]

1 hour ago, cantab said:

If I may, then...here's one of mine:

Well, to start, the hitch hiker will give you a hatch obstructed message.

[0111narwhalz]

Are those argon tanks?

Also, why are there winglets on the prograde end of the ship?

[Spaceception]

No lander?

[0111narwhalz]

Well, we didn't know what its mission was.

Try this one:

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by 0111narwhalz

[Andem]

54 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Well, we didn't know what its mission was.

Try this one:

 

I've never used B9, but could it be the cockpit and... probe core/nosecone are different masses...?

[cantab]

3 hours ago, max_creative said:

Well, to start, the hitch hiker will give you a hatch obstructed message.

It might have, I don't remember. In any case this was built after crew transfer was possible.

1 hour ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Are those argon tanks?

Also, why are there winglets on the prograde end of the ship?

Xenon. Which might be a clue.

The winglets were for stability during Kerbin re-entry, see the decoupler and heatshield just aft of the plane cockpit.

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

No lander?

Lander was already used.

As for the twin-fuselage plane, not enough intake air?

[max_creative]

9 minutes ago, cantab said:

It might have, I don't remember. In any case this was built after crew transfer was possible.

Xenon. Which might be a clue.

The winglets were for stability during Kerbin re-entry, see the decoupler and heatshield just aft of the plane cockpit.

Lander was already used.

There are ion engines on it... Aha! No parachute!

[0111narwhalz]

Nah, pitch controls. I actually balanced the right cone with ballast tanks to keep it mass-symmetric.

I don't know why, but it's just so hard for me to get a craft that pitches properly. At least, one which I then take a picture of.

[cantab]

Well I'll spill the beans for mine: Not enough solar power. Not out at Jool. OK, it was never a high TWR ship to begin with, but at Jool I was running on the equivalent of less than one ion engine of thrust. Not fun.

In fairness that was more a piloting flaw than a design one, in that the ship was built for Moho and performed fine, and then I had a bunch of delta-V left over and decided to wander across the system.

[max_creative]

3 minutes ago, cantab said:

Well I'll spill the beans for mine: Not enough solar power. Not out at Jool. OK, it was never a high TWR ship to begin with, but at Jool I was running on the equivalent of less than one ion engine of thrust. Not fun.

In fairness that was more a piloting flaw than a design one, in that the ship was built for Moho and performed fine, and then I had a bunch of delta-V left over and decided to wander across the system.

Ok that makes sense. At Moho it would have done great. With 6 ions, plenty of xenon, and those solar panels it would be an awesome craft. At jool, not so much.

[max_creative]

Hold on, I'm trying some thing...

Ok can anyone figure out? (Sorry squad) hint: go fly it.

Edited April 6, 2016 by max_creative
YES!!! IT WORKS!!!

[cantab]

Poor yaw stability on re-entry, maybe?

[Andem]

All of the weight sits in the back without the neccessary reaction wheels to keep it stable during reentry.

[RA3236]

The gimbals ruin gravity turns so you get flips galore.

[max_creative]

Well, anyone who's flown this knows that the launch clamps releasing the ship has force send it in one direction... And then it tend to tip backwards... And it's really hard to get to orbit. This is the dynawing. It's a stock craft so go fly it and you can see what I mean. 

[0111narwhalz]

Well, clearly the problem is that you're trying to use an STS-style shuttle in KSP. Unless you have mad skills, it's a fruitless Endeavor.

[max_creative]

11 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Well, clearly the problem is that you're trying to use an STS-style shuttle in KSP. Unless you have mad skills, it's a fruitless Endeavor.

Endeavor is a space shuttle! Like! 

Yeah, it's just plain really hard to fly. It space shuttle so you probably should expect that. 

This one? (Ravenspear mk3)

[V7 Aerospace]

On 06/04/2016 at 4:24 PM, max_creative said:

This one? (Ravenspear mk3)

The monopropellant is pretty useless on the Ravenspear Mk3. Even if you were able to leave the atmosphere, the Mk1 Cockpit's reaction wheels are more than enough to keep the thing pointed in the right direction. So those tanks just add unnecessary weight.

[TopHeavy11]

On 4/6/2016 at 10:24 AM, max_creative said:

Endeavor is a space shuttle! Like! 

Yeah, it's just plain really hard to fly. It space shuttle so you probably should expect that. 

This one? (Ravenspear mk3)

No vacuum engine!!

[HansonKerman]

On 2/12/2016 at 7:06 AM, Evanitis said:

Rules: You post a picture of a craft you built, and the following user should tell what's wrong with it. Than he needs to posts his own flawed design, so the circle continues. If you never make mistakes, you can't play - sorry.

We aren't looking for minor inconveniences like a too heavy engine or Sub-optimal TWR. We need flaws that possibly results in a failed mission.

 

Let me start with an easy one - a classy VTOL I made this morning. It's intended to lift a certain bulky ~150t object.

Aren't those engines upside down?

[GRS]

My Jool 5 craft on Vall.

[Gapone]

The fuel tanks were used diffirently.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Gapone
STOP SNIPPING YOU %&%t#&* MODERATORS

[Lapis]

no landing legs?

no drills?

Edited January 16, 2019 by lapis