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

[AmpsterMan]

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.

Agreed, I would love to be able to cast a vote for the other 4 I liked best. Then after the preliminary elimination, we only cast one vote

[acealeam]

I vote searlefm.

Simplistic lander, yet gorgeous at the same time.

[Rhomphaia]

Well, there were a lot of great landers in the competition, however many of them while fantastic designs did not match up to what I believe a stock craft should be.

I do think it a shame Antbin dropped his first entry as the Kerbamari Duomancy would have been a strong contender for my vote.

For me the toughest choice was between MimiMatt, SkyRender and Slugy. Ultimately I cast my vote for MiniMatt.

Will edit in a bit about why later.

[AmpsterMan]

I love how Mulbin didn't even really try or even properly submit to the challenge, and yet he is beating everyone by a mile. Darn him and his complete and total awesomeness XD.

[Xeldrak]

Primary elections will close in ~1 hour

Edited September 7, 2013 by Xeldrak

[Xeldrak]

Primary elections are done! Time for the grand finale! You can vote over

here!

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

Final elections will run for another 48 hours.

You can download all six .craft files in a single .zip file over

here.

Also check the orignal posts for more pictures and stats on the finalists

Karmacoma - MunMin1

Mesklin - Space Lynx Lander

MiniMatt - Two-Stage Lander Take 2

Mulbin - Two Stage Lander

Slugy - Lander Replacement

Xeldrak - CR Columbidae Lander

(There is a copy of this post on the first page)

---

Well, it was a hard choice, in the end I had to choose between Karmacoma and Mesklin. And while I really love Karmacoma's design, the fact that his lander hast to be stored on top of the rocket due to the shielded docking port, made my vote once again go to Mesklin.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Xeldrak

[AmpsterMan]

I voted for Karmacoma because even though I share the complaints with the Xeldak, I don't like that it has a rover and satellite; I believe that is beyond the scope of this challenge.

[Karmacoma]

well first off i cant believe i even made it through the first round, so thanks for the votes!

even narrowed down to a final 5 (as i'm not counting my own) its still a hard choice...

MiniMatt - Great recreation of the current stock craft, you fixed its flaws but like the original IMO i'm sorry say, it just looks ugly

Xeldrak - Nice easy lander, but only room for one kerbal.

Slugy - Good compact design, does the job perfectly but i have a personal hatred for the LT1 landing struts and i know its petty but the extra ladder on the back was a - point as well

Mesklin - my second favorite here! the science probe and rover are just excellent additions and the whole craft is compact and tidy looking with everything it needs.

in the end tho Mulbin's keeping my vote (not that it will be needed based on the last vote) again purely based on looks and even tho the whole craft nearly kills my pc!

once again a great challenge Xeldrak looking forward to the next one! good luck everyone

[Lazro]

I just noticed something wrong with a lot of these. None of them have a probe core, so if you want to thrust the lander-can away to crash on the munar surface, you have to have someone in it!

[Xeldrak]

I just noticed something wrong with a lot of these. None of them have a probe core, so if you want to thrust the lander-can away to crash on the munar surface, you have to have someone in it!

Well, you can use your Command Module to set is on a crash-course, decouple and then change you course again. Thats what I've done several times. No need to kill a Kerbal to avoid some space junk

[MiniMatt]

More I've been thinking about it the more I've been leaning toward Mesklin's lander. Reason being that I think that extra expandability is very much within scope of what a two stage stock lander could be.

I envisage a progression with the stock crafts, and that a new player won't be using a stock two stage for their first off world landing. First, eg Munar, landing would likely be using a simple one-man single stage lander with sufficient fuel to land, plant a flag, return to Kerbin and parachute to safety.

Second Munar landing is when slightly more advanced concepts can be introduced. Practically speaking, in terms of new player experience, planting a flag on the Mun with a two stage lander is only moderately more rewarding than that first trip. Give them a little rover to scoot about on and that second trip becomes every much the event the first was.

Other reason is that Mesklin's design considers SCIENCE. One thing's for sure, we're definitely going to want to re-run this challenge when 0.22 comes out and people figure out what they want to leave on the Mun. Mesklin's landing stage can potentially be seen as a SCIENCE base station with little autonomous rovers out exploring and relaying SCIENCE which is in turn relayed back to Kerbin.

Would like to have seen a little more ascent stage fuel to avoid having to use a bit of descent stage fuel in escaping Duna, Vall, perhaps even Moho. And still worry it's a little too tricksy for new players and perhaps not entirely "honest" in construction (ie. for stock craft I lean toward thinking radial tanks should be mounted on something structural rather than magically glued to eachother just because the construction editor allows it).

But without a doubt it's the craft I've spent most time trying to steal bits from Given I'm a new player myself (only been Kerballing since Steam Summer Sale) and therefore likely well within the target demographic for stock crafts, the fact I've spent so much time engrossed in Mesklin's design is perhaps indication enough that it's a fine stock craft & not too tricksy for new players.

[MiniMatt]

Whilst everyone's busy voting, some light relief.

Following the progressively increasing insanity of 2-Stage Donut, Pico 2-Stage and 2-Stages To Madness, we now can add:

Two Wheels Per Stage

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It actually landed so well I think I might re-use the idea in future. Coming in to land, entirely by accident, on the very steep slope of a crater simply required ensuring wheels were aligned with the slope, brakes were off, and a controlled roll down the crater.

Forgot that fuel crosses docking ports so my upper ascent stage ended up fuelling most of my nuclear powered Mun orbit capture Still had enough to get back into orbit though.

Vitals statistics:

Mass: 6.6 tons

Parts: 51

Descent vacuum delta-v: ~1350

Ascent vacuum delta-v: ~1350

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

[esinohio]

Wow this was a tough one. All those landers are just top notch. In the end I was torn between Mesklin and Karmacoma's designs. I loved the addition of the rover and probe core. I was thinking back to when I started playing and having an example of how you can accomplish the rover/lander combo would have been nice. Certainly would have saved me some headaches! In the end though I voted for Karmacoma's design just because it looks so darn sexy.

[Mulbin]

Not that I, m playing to win... because personally I think my lander is more geared to experienced users so doesnt fit the brief as well as others.

But I had to point out that my lander contains a buggy stowed inside the base, as well as 4 seperate deployable experiment packages and also has a probe core in the ascent module for deorbit.

Seemed to be an important set of features to some posters so thought id mention it.

With hindsight this probably would have been a better image lol everything you see here comes out of the lander.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Mulbin

[Mulbin]

Yes, I only hope that the people vote for what they think is the best stock craft - not just click when they see a famous name, that would be rather lazy.

Primary elections will close in ~1 hour

Edit - removed for diplomatic reasons! Misunderstanding.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Mulbin

[Johnno]

I don't think any of the finalists are quite 'stock' worthy. MiniMatt's would in my view be simplest/closest to stock, but then it's a near identical copy of the stock 'mun orbit' scenario lander, which in itself is offputting since it's not quite original. All of the landers suffer from bloated part counts and impracticality/complexity.

Since I don't think that any of them feel 'stock', I cast my vote for Mulbin's, seeing as I'm biased toward Apollo.

[Xeldrak]

Well, it's half time and right low it looks like Mulbin will will, leading with a solid 7 votes - on second place Karmacoma and Mesklin, each with 4 votes. Slugy and me are making ourselves comfortable on the last two places.

I've you haven't voted yet - it's about time!

Edited September 7, 2013 by Xeldrak

[Slugy]

I'm happy to make it the finals. \o/

Some of my thoughts follow, I should say that I'm a fan of minimalism and low weights, although that may become obvious

I'm also mostly focused on Mun usability, because that seems the most likely use for these, after managing the Mun I'd expect most players to make their own landers for further afield.

KarmaKoma Mun Min1:

+ Really nice style, good RCS placement and balance, *lots* of dV in both stages, lends itself to a non docking type mission.

- Quite heavy at 21T with quite low thrust (~1.4 on Mun) on the descent stage, which does mean a long burn to slow down, lends itself to a non docking type mission

Mesklin Space Lynx:

+ Lots: RCS and light placement, stable whilst not being overly wide, good dV and thrust levels. Rover and science package.

- Erm, the Rover and science package *maybe*.

MinMatt Two Stage Take 2:

+ Nice and straightforward update of the original, very easy to see what's going on and modify, lots of dV.

- Not a fan of diagonal RCS placement, may have a bit too much thrust by the time descent tanks are getting empty.

Mulbin Two Stage Lander:

+ Very stylish.

- Huge at around 29T and many parts, not helped by the craft file being nearly 900 parts with launcher, I didn't fully play with this one! Boarding in space will be tricky. Low TWR.

Slugy Lander Replacement:

+ Neat RCS and lights, light at under 9T, nice landing characteristics (my first landing attempts had a lot of down-up-more up-down-down-up-down-nearly-up-down-there!) , Kerbin practice-able.

- Less dV than most (although easy to modify), and ... why does it have an extra ladder - space dust? or is Bill afraid to get out, and Jeb wants to wave at him? Yes that's the reason, really ...

Xeldrak ChemRock Columbidae Lander:

+ IVA landings should be nice, loads of dV, lightweight

- Only for one Kerbal! Diagonal RCS. TWR quite high on descent stage.

I'm a bit surprised at Mulbin being in the lead here - it really doesn't seem to be a suitable replacement for the stock lander, more of a nice Apollo style one.

Personally I was torn between Mesklin's and mine, see 2nd paragraph in post to work out how I am about to vote

Cheers for the challenge Xeldrak.

And here is my own 4T lander with rover for 2, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45995-Munar-Lightweight-Apollo-style-mission-for-3-with-rover-86-parts-128T-on-the-pad

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Ekku Zakku]

I don't think any of the finalists are quite 'stock' worthy. MiniMatt's would in my view be simplest/closest to stock, but then it's a near identical copy of the stock 'mun orbit' scenario lander, which in itself is offputting since it's not quite original. All of the landers suffer from bloated part counts and impracticality/complexity.

Since I don't think that any of them feel 'stock', I cast my vote for Mulbin's, seeing as I'm biased toward Apollo.

It seems like everybody is looking over Xeldrak's lander lol, it's easily the most "stock" and most simple lander out of all the entries.

[AmpsterMan]

It seems like everybody is looking over Xeldrak's lander lol, it's easily the most "stock" and most simple lander out of all the entries.

You know, thought I did vote for Karmacoma's Lander, I think you might be correct. It IS one of the more "stock" craft that look Aesthetically pleasing. I really wish more people would have discussed designs and their opinions on them earlier.

[SRV Ron]

Most of the designs looked overly complex given the challenge for replacing the stock lander. This is where Duna Lander came in lacking all of the bells and whistles of the other craft but still had thrusters and landing parachutes and a two stage design for returning to orbit if not Kerbal.

[Xeldrak]

Well, we have a winner!

Mulbin clearly leads the election with 15 votes, more than twice as many votes as Mesklin. Mesklin claims the second place with seven votes, closely followed by Karmacoma with six votes. Congratulations to you all, especially Mulbin

You can download the three .craft files here!

Maybe Mulbin will be so nice and provide a .craft file of the Lander only. It's been fun again - see you at the next challenge!

[Karmacoma]

Congrats Mulbin! and well deserved 2nd place to Mesklin IMO.

very happy with 3rd place was amazed i even cleared the first round to be honest, so thanks to everyone that voted and especally thanks to everyone that voted for me

Great challenge as always and i guess its back to stalking your profile again Xeldrak until you post the next one

Edited September 8, 2013 by Karmacoma

[Mulbin]

Wow, thanks!

You're all mad of course, my lander would drive new players insane... but thanks Next time I'll enter something more appropriate, and maybe actually use an image that shows the front of the lander!

Which looks like this by the way.

I've had great fun flying your landers!

[AmpsterMan]

Congrats to everyone who participated; can't wait to see what everyone posts for the next challenge.