GeneralMDBK Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) So far it's not going so great for me, on top of the huge lag cause my laptop is 5-6 years old, something collided and exploded. Lol Edited July 25, 2013 by GeneralMDBK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMrBond Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Hopefully I can salvage my 0.20 rocket and update it for 0.21, I have some more ideas for improving the lookBetter start with implementing the S-IVB third stage (oops) instead of having the lander extraction on top of the S-II stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdboy64 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) Here's my entry. I didn't bother to give it a cool name, so it's still called "Apollo Style." It took many tries, and what you see here cuts out a significant number of reloads. In the end, though, I managed to pull off a very successful mission.Javascript is disabled. View full albumScore:3-man mission: +102-man lander: +102-stage lander: +20Asparagus-free: no penaltyEscape tower: +10Lander behind CM during ascent: +20Lander inside a fairing: +5Free return trajectory: +10 (I'm not sure I completely understand the idea of an FRT, so if you think this is in error feel free to take the points off)Flawless landing: +10MRV on board: +15Flag planted: +3Splashed down: +5Rover - proper shakedown: +5Total: 123 points Edited July 26, 2013 by nerdboy64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeldrak Posted July 26, 2013 Author Share Posted July 26, 2013 Thank you, nerdboy Well, cool names are not required. A FRT means, that you choose a special path on your way to the mün. Should your engine fail near the mün (not a real threat in KSP, but very real in reality), so that you cannot achieve orbit, a FRT makes sure that you fall back into kerbin atmosphere instead of difting of into space It looks like this:You didn't post a screenshot of you trajectory to the mün, so I can't tell what you used. However, you forgot you base 30 points, so without FRT you have 143 points Anyways: Did anybody see the NAM in .21? I haven't spottet it yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Engineering Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Anyways: Did anybody see the NAM in .21? I haven't spottet it yet....Went there in an Apollo 11 configuration version of the vessel I used for this challenge here.It is harder to spot and perilously close to a large, steep crater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkusA380 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 My first 0.21 landing was Apollo (or Kerpollo) Style, too!I didn't take a rover and my rocket was much smaller than yours (and stock), but it was nice to dock in Kerbin and Mun Orbit... made it feel more realistic.I had fuel problems and such, but Luman Kerman and his brave crew made it back to Kerbin!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdboy64 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Thank you, nerdboy You didn't post a screenshot of you trajectory to the mün, so I can't tell what you used. However, you forgot you base 30 points, so without FRT you have 143 points That seems reasonable. I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeldrak Posted July 26, 2013 Author Share Posted July 26, 2013 @Death EngineeringWell, thats good - I was worried landing near the NAM for 15 points was a very low hanging fruit. I'm fine with it hanging a few centimeters higher.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin_xc1 Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 Hey Folks,So I'm something of a KSP newcomer, but I decided to start doing the challenges after 0.21 came out. I've documented my experience on YouTube if you want to watch.Part 1: http://youtu.be/AKmsDhmCg5YPart 2: http://youtu.be/4EH-BmxJ09QPoints:30 (Base)10 (3-kerbal mission)10 (2-kerbal lander)20 (Lander behind CM)10 (Free Return)3 (Flag)Total: 83Assuming one can count this is a mission (-: Must rescue Kerbals on Mun!Cheers!- Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeldrak Posted July 28, 2013 Author Share Posted July 28, 2013 Well I feel almost honored that someone would make an hour of commented video just because I dared him to go to the mün.Still, please post screenshots, by now we have over 20 entries - I can't spend one hour on youtube, checking if your calculated your points correctly. And while I trust you guys, I feel bad if I just copy and paste your stuff, it feels careless. So, considering that your mission didn't went so well, Calvin, do you want to try again with pictures for us or shall I just add your 83 points to our list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin_xc1 Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 Ooh I'm just doing this for fun, consider my run unofficial (-: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capi3101 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Has the NAM moved in 0.21? I sent a separate rover mission ahead to that area to act as a navigational marker prior to making my landing attempt. I've turned on the debug window for nav coordinates for the rover only (I plan on turning that off before proceeding with the rest of the mission) and according to kerbalmaps I should be in the right place...yet I cannot see it. Mun is a lot bumpier in 0.21, that's for sure...flying at 5,000 m used to be safe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 This thread has gathered a lot of attention and the challenge was a lot of fun, and now with a new Mun to explore It'd be great for more people to have a go So this is now Augusts Thread Of The Month, congratulations Xeldrak, thanks for the cool challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John FX Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I`ve updated my previous post to show my attempt. I got 218 points.Congratulations on getting thread of the month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeldrak Posted August 1, 2013 Author Share Posted August 1, 2013 WHOAH! I got a sticky o.OThats awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeldrak Posted August 2, 2013 Author Share Posted August 2, 2013 Allright, since I had some real problems finding the NAM, here is a little help. Find the huge crater with a big crater underneath, to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Engineering Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Great challenge and deserved the recognition. The NAM is trickier to find now but great scenery when you get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMrBond Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 (edited) Finally managed to get my first 208 ship/mission/entry updated for 0.21Javascript is disabled. View full albumWent for the longer drive this time for the 10 points I missed last time hitting the full 218, lots of little improvements in mission (First stage fins, correct staging, better LM with correct exit/ladder over leg + antennas etc), new terrain certainly didn't make the drive easy.[Edit] Mk.3 teaser (not for further entries or anything, just because I thought I could improve it)Javascript is disabled. View full album Edited August 3, 2013 by NoMrBond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Engineering Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Very unique Saturn 5. Great mission report! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDan122 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Finally managed to get my first 208 ship/mission/entry updated for 0.21Javascript is disabled. View full albumWent for the longer drive this time for the 10 points I missed last time hitting the full 218, lots of little improvements in mission (First stage fins, correct staging, better LM with correct exit/ladder over leg + antennas etc), new terrain certainly didn't make the drive easy.Love how you literally "assembled" the rover, very smart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMrBond Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 (edited) Love how you literally "assembled" the rover, very smart!Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to deal with the way the real rover was actually almost rolled up then unpacked with the walking-hinges, and that was what I came up with the simulate unfolding. I don't think having both the halves on the back of the LM was a smart idea though, threw the landers balance off, I'll be able to fix that in the next revision hopefully Edited August 3, 2013 by NoMrBond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diche Bach Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 (edited) Okay, this seems like a good thread for me to pose a question that has been sort've . . . 'bugging' me for a while.Why do the physics in KSP punish long, thin, single fuselage rocket shipsbut promote short, fat, multi-fuselage rocket ships? Edited August 3, 2013 by Diche Bach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMrBond Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Okay, this seems like a good thread for me to pose a question that has been sort've . . . 'bugging' me for a while.Why do the physics in KSP punish long, thin, single fuselage rocket ships-snip-but promote short, fat, multi-fuselage rocket ships?-snip-Because the physics and aerodynamics in real life are more conducive to the narrow cross-section tower approachWhile in KSP a wide body/asparagus works because the physics and aerodynamic models of the game doesn't really handle the stack well (wobbly/weight-crush), and doesn't unduly punish ramming a huge column of air aside to accommodate your shipChanges to physics and aerodynamics might swing this balance significantly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diche Bach Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 I've kind've grown fond of the somewhat outlandish (by Earth standards) rocket ships in Kerbal, so I don't mean to complain. But it would be neat if the physics (whatever aspect of them it is) could be adjusted so that making tall thin spaceships like the Saturn V was more viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
featherwinglove Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 He is early, he is late, but never fear: Scott Manley is here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts