Jump to content

BSC - Two-stage Lander - We have a WINNER!

Xeldrak
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mulbin

Mulbin

Posted
Posted
Mulbin, get-atta-here! This challenge is for mortals only :P

s'alright, the challenge is for something that works efficiently. my ships are the least practical on the forum! If someone wants to do a competition for pretty craft with as many unnecessary parts as possible and as easy to fly as a goat then I'll be in the running!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xeldrak

Xeldrak

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Submissions are closed! Primary elections have started! Vote

here!

Please drop a few line who you've voted for!

Primary Elections will run for 48 hours - the six best entries will enter the final elections!

YjFdTNd.jpg

Remember to come back in two days!

I voted for Mesklin - his Space Lynx looks very good, has lots of dV and seems to be very sturdy. I'd say that rover is overkill, but overall it think is a nice example to emulate.

PS: Twenty entries.....the collages start to become work-intensive ^^

Edited by Xeldrak
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MiniMatt

MiniMatt

Posted
Posted

This, this is going to be tricky. If it were a competition for the coolest looking or fanciest tricks I'd say it'd be impossible to choose.

But as a potential stock craft I think simple & sturdy are important qualities. New players should be able to see how everything hangs together, should be able to emulate the design and improve upon it or modify it simply for their own needs. Part count, mass, and sensible delta-v balance are strong considerations.

Honorary mentions go to:

Karmacoma's MunMin 1: Brilliant aesthetic, structual panels really work and are just about simple enough for new players to emulate. Love inclusion of science gear. Masses of delta-v but perhaps in need of a bit of TWR tuning on descent stage to widen possible destinations and a bit of a mass & part count diet before it's stock.

tntristan12's TheLander Mk IV-a: Award for the most beautiful strut welding. Really captures the right aesthetic. Worry about ease for new players to emulate and new players' manual landing on lightweight legs. Perhaps a bit too much RCS fuel.

ThePsuedoMonkey's Pelican: Love it. Definitely the lander born out of experience rather than designed purely as theory. Squeezes a lot into sensible weight and part count. A bit too busy for a stock craft designed to plainly illustrate one concept and a bit on the fugly side :) It's not so much a stock craft but the craft a player designs after learning from the stock crafts.

Mesklin's Space Lynx: Very, very strong contender. Does a hell of a lot more than the current stock whilst adding only half a ton and 30 parts. Fantastic & functional - all that science gear and expandability are only going to become more important with new KSP versions. Only worry is that as a stock craft it's not easy for a new player to tease it apart & put it back together again.

So, drumroll please, my vote (in this round at least) goes to.....

Xeldrak's Columbidae Lander: At the risk of sucking up to the boss, it's a stock craft through and through. It demonstrates one principle, that of two-stage landers, perfectly and clearly. Bit on the heavy side for a one-man lander (and would loved to have seen a two man), but that mass has gone into a rock solid easy to land craft with oodles of delta-v. Design is simple and easy for new players to emulate and adapt. Sensible part count, sensible mass and it's easy to see exactly how it works from the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThePsuedoMonkey

ThePsuedoMonkey

Posted
Posted

I had a difficult time picking just one, but I ultimately chose MiniMatt's entry: it doesn't go crazy for parts/mass, doesn't rely on part clipping, has a nice wide base from the heavy legs, helpful positioning of the mini batteries, and the struts will help a bit during hard landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
antbin

antbin

Posted
Posted

Thanks for running this fantastic challenge Xeldrak. Only request: a .zip file of all the contest entries?

My voting criteria are to have at least a 2 kerb crew, an easy-to-disassemble-and-copy construction, and not too many parts.

I liked AmpsterMan's for the attention to detail - an adapter to fit the LV-909 engine, just a few struts holding the top stage on, and a small lesson in how to surface mount tanks.

Karmacoma's MunMin1 is beautifully packaged, complete with shielded docking port, it's like an egg! But 20T and a few too many parts (parachutes) are a bit too much.

MiniMatt's bread-and-butter re-do is very much in the spirit of the challenge. Fixes the TWR, and adds the necessary utilities.

Rhomphaia's has great ladder placement with 3-way symmetry, but seems a little too clever for a stock craft. Also the IVA landing must be obscured.

Slugy did my 'Katamari' top stage better than I. I like the short stack and low center of gravity for easy landing. Also teaches using action groups for TWR tuning, but too many action groups used (lander / docking lights separate?)

I can only cast one vote, it would have to be for AmpsterMan. Good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xeldrak

Xeldrak

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

While collecting all your craft files (following antbins suggestion) I found some discrepancies...

Important message! (At least for three of you)

@ThePsuedoMonkey You download link does not work, please check this. Might be google or my browser is acting up...

@tntristan12 Did you forget to post your .craft file or did I overlook it?

@SRV Ron Same to you - did you post your .craft file? Didn't see a link

Please take care of this stuff, otherwise I will have to disqualify you :(

Edited by Xeldrak
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karmacoma

Karmacoma

Posted
Posted

Wow 20 entry's! very hard choice here, every single one has something to learn from and idea's that I will steal and pass off as my own combine into my own designs :D

Purely on looks (which is generally what i design craft based on) Mulbin gets my vote this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ekku Zakku

Ekku Zakku

Posted
Posted

I voted for MiniMatt's design as well, but Xeldrak's lander is also very much what this challenge is all about and would have gotten my vote if he had a better picture of his craft that I didn't overlook because it was so dark and at a mediocre angle. Sorry, that was my reason XD I wish I had voted for it though, it greatly resembles the two-stage landers that I used to make back in .16; I had a bit of nostalgia after I really looked at the design (and unfortunately after I had already voted). If it makes it past the primary election, I'm definitely going to vote for it with my final vote.

Going back now, I wish I had gone for simplicity like my old two-stage designs that I used back when I was a beginner at the game, it definitely would have made more sense and I wouldn't have run into the problems I did with the design I went for. Oh well!

The one reason why I don't like MiniMatt's design though is how the descent stage breaks into 4 pieces, I always avoided that when I made two-stage landers. I feel like the descent stage should remain as if untouched, for future explorers to see and be reminded of their predecessors. Also, another reason why I wish I had voted for Xeldrak... =P

Good luck to everybody =3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rhomphaia

Rhomphaia

Posted
Posted

Rhomphaia's has great ladder placement with 3-way symmetry, but seems a little too clever for a stock craft. Also the IVA landing must be obscured.

It is a bit. not terminal though. Actually this is the one aspect I preferred about the original version of my entry, shown in the second pic

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Anyway, running a few trials with the entries now. Hopefully will have a vote this time tomorrow, that is still in time isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kappa73

Kappa73

Posted
Posted

I voted for Giggleplex777's 2-Stage Lander mk2000 because i really really like the looks of the thing, and the tricks it can do, mainly the ability to upright itself in case of failed landing (which could happen a lot, even for more experienced spacemen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AmpsterMan

AmpsterMan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Warning: Long Post Ahead.

So I narrowed down the vehicles into my own top 6. No I didn't download them all, I did a preliminary search just like I do in the Spacecraft forums; if the pictures that were posted don't make me even think about the craft, or if what I do see has obvious flaws in my eyes then I don't even give them a chance. Please, if your craft did not fall under my criteria, please remember these are the completely unproffesional opinions of some poor dude, sitting in a chair probably hundreds, if not thousands of miles from where you live who has most likely never met you, doesn't know you personally, and who's opinion to you should really be worth just about $0.02 XD.

In my bid to be as objective as possible (yeah right :P) I decided to rate the selected craft on 5 categories: Aesthetics, Part-Count, Simplicity of Use, Intuitiveness of Design, and Performance. I gave them a grade of A-F and then I decided to give them a Grade afterwards that is in no way an average of the scores. The one I voted for does not nescesarily have to be the one with the highest score, or the one with the best scores in each category. Rather it is the one I think would be best replacing the Stock Craft already in place. I will try to grade my own objectively, but I will not vote for myself because of fairness reasons.

Space Lynx-Mesklin = C-

Aesthetics = B-

While I like that you stayed with the original look and feel of the craft, I thought the original was kind of ugly :P. I like craft that are streamlined so craft that have a lot of stuff radially mounted make me squirm a bit. Also, your craft has a lot of clutter on the sides and I can't really appreciate the look of the parts. Still, I like the way the second stage is hidden and the legs spread out A LOT which looks cool IMO.

Part Count = C

I deleted the lifter that came with your craft and that brought down the part count to like 120. Then I deleted your extras (Rover, Satelite, Etc) and it brought it down to like 80 or something. This is average in my book. I understand why it has so many parts, but I think that kind of goes against the point of this challenge.

Simplicity = B

Simple to use. Easy to fly, everything is clear to see and easy to click on. The rovers are a bit small and finicky though, and the science package falls awkwardly though.

Intuitiveness = C

The lander itself is somewhat easy to see how it was built (except for the ascent stage tanks, how did you do that?) however the extras are difficult to see the construction of.

Performance PLENTY OF FUEL. That is a good thing. Also, nice balanced ascent and descent TWR, great placement of RCS ports, and an impecable Low center of gravity with wide base that looks stylish. High Performance.

2-Stage Lander mk2000 - Giggleplex = A

Please note, their may be (ahem, will be) some bias in this post. I am a fan of Giggle's Designs.

Aesthetics = A Great use of cleverly placed panels; nice slim design with all the internal organs hidden.

Part-Count = C Of course, all those panels add to part count, and at about 90, it is a bit on too many side of things.

Simplicity = A Clearly defined action groups and easy to fly with not special requirements.

Intuitiveness = B Though if one were to take the craft apart it would be easy to see where things are and how they were put there, I think the heavy use of part clipping might confuse newbies on how to get things to clip like that.

Performance = B Good TWR with a nice margin for error.

A-11 - Antbin = D

As a general note, I don't like the use of the Nuclear Engine for these purposes. I think though it shows how to use an engine for multiple purposes (as the author stated in his post) it might also encourage the newbie pilot to use the LV-N for everything. This is of course the pilot's choice, but I prefer a design that highlights the strengths of different engines. Furthermore, this has fuel tanks below the engine flowing upward to the craft. The craft is built around the LV-N which is unconventional. The root part is the docking port and I doubt newbies will even be able to realize this. I find that if this craft were in an "Advanced Stock Craft" Challenge, I might rate it higher generally. For these purposes though, I rate it very low. Sorry antbin ;.;

Aesthetics = C As stated before, I don't really like craft that are too wide. This is a design that has the engine in the middle which looks very tacky to me. Also, mismatched lights.

Part-Count = A At about 50 parts I think it is great for a Mun craft.

Simplicity = B- Docked a point because I thought flying from internal view might be weird if you press IVA with the wrong character and then the NAV Ball is all of a sudden rotated 180 Degrees from the map view and the outside view. Also, IVA not aligned with center of mass so it might be a bit strange to maneuver from IVA. Still, I doubt many complete newbies will be trying to land exclusively from IVA and Mapview anyway so not lower for those reasons.

Intuitiveness = D Fuel tanks below the engines; fuel lines flowing into command module; Fuel lines flowing intro RCS Tank. Not really intuitive to a person that has just started playing the game. Also, Docking port is main module. A newbie will not understand this. Furthermore, forgot to check, but I am almost certain that crew will not automatically load into the craft if the main module isn't a pod or lander can. Might confuse newbies.

Performance = A+++ This thing has a nuclear engine. It is almost overkill. Overkill is good for a newbie.

ChemRock Columbidae Lander - Xeldrak = A

Aesthetics = B A little too wide for my tastes, still, the Struts make it look stylish and are practical too.

Part-Count = A Perfect for a one man lander

Simplicity = A Clearly defined action groups and easy to fly

Intuitiveness = A Everything is easy to see. Where it is connected, why it is connected there, great use of struts that are essential to a newbies career.

Performance = A+ Amazing TWR and great Delta-v on both stages as well.

Two Stage Lander Take Two - Minimat

Please note, I think this is the "purest" craft that has been uploaded and the one most faithful to the original that actually improves it.

Aesthetics = C Looks exactly like the original which I thought was par for the course. Thus this one is par for the course.

Part Count = A Good Part Count.

Simplicity = A as easy to use as the original.

Intuitiveness = A As intuitive to construct as the original

Performance = B Big Improvement in Delta-v from the original, but not as high as others around these parts.

MunMin 1 - Karmacoma = A

A note, this is one of two serially staged vehicles that I chose. I like serially staged vehicles because they are generally more difficult to design around IMO, and because they tend to look a bit more realistic and therefore more Aesthetically pleasing in my eyes.

Aesthetics = A+++ Eh... this is my favorite looking craft up here. From the base of the vehicle to the Ascent stage. It all looks really cool.

Part Count = D Gonna have to give this one a D. Too many parts might slow down some comps.

Simplicity = B No complex sequence of Action groups and no panels to worry about. Docking might be difficult with the RCS so far off COM however.

Intuitiveness = C Thought I like how the bottom tanks look, and the fact that the fuel lines are clearly visible, I think some newbies will have a hard time trying to figure out how you did that. Furthermore, the Shielded docking port, whilst pretty, wouldn't allow for a Service Module to sit on top as the vehicle ascends from Kerbin.

Performance = A Plenty of fuel and Great TWR.

In the end, I voted for Karmacoma. It is my favorite because it uses serial staging, hides the engine and fuel tanks, and makes it all look pretty. This is actually more difficult than one might think to do with stock parts and I like that it went the unconventional way. Giggle was very close to second IMO for much the same reasons. In the end Karacoma won because I think designing size 2 vehicles to require a little more skill to pull of right and therefore the Newbie would benefit more from a nicely done 2-stage, size 2 lander.

I can only cast one vote, it would have to be for AmpsterMan. Good work!

Antbin, thank you for being the only one so far to have voted for me XD. It is Ironic that I critiqued your craft so heavily. As I stated earlier, if this would have been a different kind of Challenge, I actually would have voted for your's because I think it showcases advanced, out-of-the-box thinking and is very efficient. Also, Pseudomonkey would have been second for much the same reason.

Edited by AmpsterMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SRV Ron

SRV Ron

Posted
Posted (edited)

Forum is badly misbehaving. Now working.

While I posted a craft assembly instruction, I don't have a proper sharing site. See if this works when you get past the ads.

http://www.4shared.com/file/5XGnr306/Duna_Lander.html

Tested. Fully functional. I used to have a paid subscription where I could bypass the ads for down loaders of huge files .

Duna Lander, all stock, super simple, light, few parts, one Kerbal, no action groups required.

Edited by SRV Ron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MiniMatt

MiniMatt

Posted
Posted (edited)

Three nights of insomnia has produced increasingly bizarre methods of sending kerbonauts to a fiery doom.

After the Donut Lander and the Pico 2-Stage, for the third night may I present:

Two Stages To Madness

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Desperately wanted to get a VTOL style descent stage but couldn't get the mass distribution right so settled for tipper-style landing legs. It actually handles, lands and takes off surprisingly well. Oh and found a use for those linear RCS ports, as the pictures above should demonstrate.

Vital statistics

10.6 tons

35 parts

3500 vacuum delta-v (1800/1700 descent/ascent)

Action group 1 toggles landing legs

Action group 2 toggles landing gear (toggle the brake button to the right of the altimeter before landing)

When taking off (annoyingly forgot to get pictures of this bit) toggle RCS on to help getting the nose lifted (or find a crater ramp I guess).

Craft file is here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzCQMKilmnyabDU3VzJrY3RLQW8/edit?usp=sharing

(can I just say how much I've loved this thread!)

Edited by MiniMatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ekku Zakku

Ekku Zakku

Posted
Posted
Three nights of insomnia has produced increasingly bizarre methods of sending kerbonauts to a fiery doom.

*snipped the rest*

Nice Killing Floor reference there! I've been hooked on that game for God knows how long XD also, interesting landing design to always land right way up, I like it! Might use it in the future as well ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xeldrak

Xeldrak

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@AmpsterMan: That's a nice post :D Really - it's good to see that there are other people, thats seem to be really invested in my little challenges.

@SRV Ron: Allright, I've got your craft file allthough I'm not a big fan on needing to register to download something. If you want to upload .craft files, I can recommend , you can also share using google docs or dropbox. Forth option would be the spaceport - that's actually made especially for us ;)

@tntristan12 Still missing your .craft file...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SRV Ron

SRV Ron

Posted
Posted
@AmpsterMan: That's a nice post :D Really - it's good to see that there are other people, thats seem to be really invested in my little challenges.

@SRV Ron: Allright, I've got your craft file allthough I'm not a big fan on needing to register to download something. If you want to upload .craft files, I can recommend , you can also share using google docs or dropbox. Forth option would be the spaceport - that's actually made especially for us ;)

@tntristan12 Still missing your .craft file...

Registration is not necessary there but is confusing on that site. May have something to do with the ability to upload huge files and wanting to avoid the problem that killed Megaupload. If I had maintained my subscription there, I could have used a direct link that bypasses all of that nonsense. Anyhow, Thanks for the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
antbin

antbin

Posted
Posted

Wow, crickets. Need some more voting up in this! Or else let those of us who are voting fill out a ranked ballot to narrow the field to a "final 5". Despite my entry totally ignoring the spirit of the challenge I too am invested in Xeldrak's project. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...