Kerbal Cannons

[quietsamurai98]

Here is the challenge:

Create a Kerbal Flinger to launch an EVAed Kerbal off of the launchpad at the KSC into the sky, using only stock parts.

[EDIT] That means no rockets that add velocity after the initial launch. [/EDIT]

Also, infinite fuel, unbreakable connections, and editor clipping are allowed, but no other cheats. (CrewManifest, along with any other non-part mod, is allowed)

Inspiration:

Submission:

Please post a picture of your launcher, and the end flight screen or the height meter of your Kerbal at the apoapsis.

Conclusion:

Good luck! Hope to see you in the stratosphere!

High Scores:

1. Quietsamurai98: 11163m
   
2. Empty: 0m
   
3. Empty: 0m
   
4. Empty: 0m
   
5. Empty: 0m
   
6. Empty: 0m
   
7. Empty: 0m
   
8. Empty: 0m
   
9. Empty: 0m
   
10. Empty: 0m
    

My entry:

Ship:

End Flight Screen:

Edited July 5, 2013 by quietsamurai98

[1096bimu]

Technically, sitting on a chair still counts as EVA.

80,215,000 meters.

[quietsamurai98]

Technically, sitting on a chair still counts as EVA.

I think you misunderstood the entire point of this exercise.

You launch a Kerbal. Only the Kerbal. Not a Kerbal strapped to a rocket. It should look like this:

[Fel]

How about I submit TW1's results

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/29514?p=366790&viewfull=1#post366790

[SirJodelstein]

19583m without Jetpack. The "broken Kerbal" pose seems to have severely reduced drag

Video

[1096bimu]

I think you misunderstood the entire point of this exercise.

You launch a Kerbal. Only the Kerbal. Not a Kerbal strapped to a rocket. It should look like this:

I didn't, OP never specified that your launch mechanism must stay on the ground did he? Besides, his thing also launches that storage container.

[longcat]

I didn't, OP never specified that your launch mechanism must stay on the ground did he? Besides, his thing also launches that storage container.

There's a difference between "I didn't break any rules from the OP" and "I intentionally disregarded the entire purpose of the challenge in a failed attempt to appear clever."

[durk]

There's a difference between "I didn't break any rules from the OP" and "I intentionally disregarded the entire purpose of the challenge in a failed attempt to appear clever."

Disregarded the purpose or not, no rules were broken.

[s20dan]

Disregarded the purpose or not, no rules were broken.

Are you a car clamper or something?

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

There's a difference between "I didn't break any rules from the OP" and "I intentionally disregarded the entire purpose of the challenge in a failed attempt to appear clever."

Well, here's the rules that are posted at the time of this message:

Create a Kerbal Flinger to launch an EVAed Kerbal off of the launchpad at the KSC into the sky, using only stock parts.

Also, infinite fuel, unbreakable connections, and editor clipping are allowed, but no other cheats.

[Clamps]

It still says EVA'd kerbal. So one that just left a pod and nothing more. You're interpreting EVA'd entirely too literally.

[longcat]

Well, here's the rules that are posted at the time of this message:

I'm not disputing that it was within the exact text of the rules. I'm saying that it was against the purpose of the challenge. The point is (and was) to see how far you could fling a Kerbal. You ignore the point completely if you just build a giant rocket, put a Kerbal on a ladder, put it on an escape trajectory, and award yourself infinite points.

It's like bringing a calculator to a third grade multiplication test. Even if the teacher forgot to say it wasn't allowed, you're missing the whole point.

[Coneshot]

Here is my attempt: Sadly (or comically) they either simply vanish or are able to stroll through the flames unmoved..

[Xenonclave]

"Also, infinite fuel, unbreakable connections, and editor clipping are allowed."

Oh, okey.

[Tw1]

I hereby present my thread where I did this.

With a teaser:

Edit: Must've missed that parts clipping trick. Maybe I will finally be able to put them into orbit....

Also, a few non-stock parts where used, but nothing that contributed to the thrust produced.

Another Edit: Oh! must've missed this

How about I submit TW1's results

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/29514?p=366790&viewfull=1#post366790

Edited July 6, 2013 by Tw1

[DJEN]

I didn't, OP never specified that your launch mechanism must stay on the ground did he? Besides, his thing also launches that storage container.

Maximum exploitment and backstabbing morons! You're awesome!

[1096bimu]

Maximum exploitment and backstabbing morons! You're awesome!

Why do people blame me for exploiting, when they fail to provide a good set of rules in the first place? As you can see I don't exploit every challenge, because it's not hard to write good rules, and most challenges do have good rules.

[Superfish57]

Why do people blame me for exploiting, when they fail to provide a good set of rules in the first place? As you can see I don't exploit every challenge, because it's not hard to write good rules, and most challenges do have good rules.

Sure the rules are not as good as they should be, but that does not give you the excuse to be an exploiting smart ass.

[Accelerando]

Why do people blame me for exploiting, when they fail to provide a good set of rules in the first place? As you can see I don't exploit every challenge, because it's not hard to write good rules, and most challenges do have good rules.

Your veneer of innocence might be more believable if you were just pointing out where the original rules fell short in the first place; as it stands, you were clearly trying to one-up the OP.

[John FX]

Your veneer of innocence might be more believable if you were just pointing out where the original rules fell short in the first place; as it stands, you were clearly trying to one-up the OP.

Then in the future challenges should be subject to arbitrary disqualification based on nothing other than the opinion of the OP to stop people saying "Well it is technically still within the rules" and thinking their score will stand...

[DJEN]

Why do people blame me for exploiting, when they fail to provide a good set of rules in the first place? As you can see I don't exploit every challenge, because it's not hard to write good rules, and most challenges do have good rules.

Well, I was praising you for your ability to criticize.

Critics make forums better.

[glacierre]

"Also, infinite fuel, unbreakable connections, and editor clipping are allowed."

Oh, okey.

Beam me UP, Scotty

[glacierre]

Why do people blame me for exploiting, when they fail to provide a good set of rules in the first place? As you can see I don't exploit every challenge, because it's not hard to write good rules, and most challenges do have good rules.

I see no need to lawyer-proof every challenge description. If there was the possibility of misinterpretation, the example picture was very clear, common sense also helped a lot (where is the challenge in sitting your kerbal outside a rocket?).

In the eventuality that you lack both eyes and common sense, you could still ask.

[fcbayerndm]

Hi folks,

I'm going to close this thread as the OP and original discussion are over a month old.

Thanks,

fcbayerndm