BSC: Super-Heavy Lander - The next BSC will.....

[AmpsterMan]

AmpsterMan - Duna Lander X

+low part count

+>40tons

-Action group 3 and 0 are empty (now I will never know, what "prefilight check" does.

-no lights

-RCS is somewhat unballanced (try to move sideways)

+drogue shute

+looks

A really awesome design, missing lights and an unbelanced RCS leave a bit of a bitter aftertaste. Also what are the "preflight checks"?!

Doh! I knew I forgot to put something, Landing lights! I guess that is what I get for rushing last minute to make it before deadline.

RCS placement is a skill I am still trying to master, it is an art as well as a science IMHO. The preflight check is supposed to be used with a launch vehicle. I must have forgotten to remove it from the description. Sorry

Thank you so much for the critique! I always look forward to seeing what you have to say

[bombo1]

AmpsterMan's lander because it is super cool and heavy

[MiniMatt]

They're frankly all too good and are harming my chances of winning

Now had a brief play with all the entries and I've got to figure out who to vote for. The thoughts below may come across as overly critical; part of the reason for this is my being a small and bitter man consumed with jealousy over the engineering and artistry displayed. But mainly it's because they're all rather too good and all I've got left to narrow the field are small and petty niggles.

DaveofDefeat - ultra heavy colony class lander

Love it. It's madness. It's just 150 tons too mad for a stock craft.

Supernovy - Crew Transport Lander

Interesting. It sorts out the problems of the stock lander whilst nearly halving the mass and carrying double the crew. Unfortunately comes with 500 less dv than the already low-ish stock. I'm very much against the concept of more DV being always better because it leads to over-engineering in the lower stages but the 1,400 on offer rules out too many destinations in my mind (Duna, Vall, Moho, Eeloo etc)

mcirish3 - Sagiitta V2

Has destination variety but see problem in over engineering - a jump from 3500dv to 5000dv really only adds a Laythe take off to a craft's abilities yet this extra capacity results in a 169 ton 200 part monster that is too unwieldy for nearly every other mission profile.

Blaster - ROFL

I really, REALLY like this and I fear it won't get the attention it deserves due it's modest simplicity. Compare it against the stock craft. This comes in 3 tons lighter, 18 less parts, fixed RCS placement, same crew capacity and 300 more delta-v. It really is a better stock craft.

SirJodelstein - Great Heavy Lander

Solid DV, just about acceptable mass for it's capabilities, lovely landing system. Part count on the high side and the root part being the SAS module niggled.

MiniMatt - Gonzalez Light Heavyweight

Less said about this monstrosity the better

frizzank - super-heavy-lander

Really like this one too. Modest mass, modest part count, sensible DV. Slight staging problem with drogue chutes being decoupled in the stage before they're deployed. But that's an easy fix and I see this a contender.

Sirine - UFO 1

Prettiest by far. High part count and extensive clipping prevent it, in my mind, being a stock craft.

Teirusu - IPL One

Really solid vitals. Perhaps I'm being too harsh on what amounts to really quite modest clipping but it put me off it's stock craft worthiness. Like I say, it's very modest but eliminating the problem of long nuke engines by having them accommodate the same space as their fuel tank strikes as a bit too gimmicky.

Haze-Zero - Pilgrim Mk1

Very sensible weight and part count achieves very respectable DV and crew capacity. Little too clippy for my tastes, worried also about the small FT-L sized presentation at the base requiring some extra engineering effort for new builders in designing a launch vehicle. Not totally convinced by three way symmetry of RCS.

Xeldrak - CRUEL

Sensible mass, tons of DV without feeling too over engineered. Solid & squat. Slight nagging feeling that more could have been achieved with 42 tons and 100 parts. Would possibly have swapped the 6 individual ladder segments with a second retractable ladder.

Pulsar - Theseus HAU

Very similar to my own design and hence excellent If I'm going to toot my own horn just a teensy bit I'd suggest my design has less mass, less parts, and more DV though I'll concede that radial chutes in addition to drogues are worthwhile.

GusTurbo - The Heavy

Very solid. Bit on the heavy side. Feels a little over-torqued with two command pods and two SAS units.

pedorsf - SHLNA

Good looking craft. Feels a bit heavy and, um, part county (?) for it's capabilities. Sitting RCS tanks on top of parachutes feels a little off.

Rhomphaia - Heavy Multi-Role Lander

Oooh, now I quite like this. Particularly pleased that thought was given to how people will attach it to a launch vehicle. Falls perfectly into my envisaged range of mass & DV that I consider apt for a stock heavy lander. Twin lower command pods might put off some but I quite like.

Hejnfelt - 7X lander

Very solid and capable. Good looks, tons of DV if possibly a bit too much. Staging could perhaps have been explained in the description field to prevent newbies blowing off their landing legs or chutes. A bit on the weighty side.

Accelerando - Mulefly One

Completely unique utility value within this challenge. Solid DV and reasonable mass for that utility and DV. Bit too part clippy for my tastes and a 50% chance of being a bit wobbly on landing (though also 50% chance of being very stable).

Smoke - Large Planet Explorer

Really great utility and DV let down badly by really weak and wobbly landing legs.

briansun1 - XV-6V

So that's where all the parachutes went. And RTGs and Gigantor sails. Solid enough design but couldn't get past some odd choices.

mpink - Pinks Heavy Lander MK4

Curious and unique design but ~1500 DV in the .craft file provided rules out too many destinations in my mind.

I_Killed_Jeb - Aeneas II

Nice squat and stable design. Bit over chuted and part heavy.

Actzoltan - T-Class Heavy Lander

Very nice design that illustrates what I've been saying above about dangers of too much DV. It's a Tylo lander. It's a beautiful Tylo lander with a couple of really nice design flairs like the bottom cupola. But at over 100 tons it becomes vastly over engineered for every other destination.

Genius Evil - Mendelev 3

I'm slightly jealous of this lander. It's got bling, it's got little design flairs, yet at under 40 tons and with over 4500 DV it's also a very respectable engineering effort. Have to dock points for the high 170 part count.

AmpsterMan - Duna Lander X

It's big, pointy, and orange. Which immediately puts it out in front. Sensible mass, sensible part count (though could have replaced some of those segment ladders with multiple retractable ladders) and DV designed for it's intended purpose which also affords a good range of other targets. Only worry is that it's height and relatively narrow landing leg spread could make for some wobbly landings.

After all that, some general thoughts

In my mind a stock Super Heavy Lander should *not* be "super heavy. The existing stock super heavy is 20 tons. To us that's not super heavy. To a newbie who has to design a launch vehicle to get that lander into space and to it's destination mass is very, very important. Using the (very) rough rule of thumb that to get a payload into LKO one needs a launch vehicle 6 times it's mass we'd be looking at a 120 ton launch vehicle for the existing stock and a 600 ton launch vehicle to get a 100 ton lander into orbit - that's a massive, massive engineering challenge which should not be required of a newbie looking to use a stock craft.

There is such a thing as too much DV. An Eve return lander is going to be capable of landing on every other body in the system. Yet it would be totally unsuited for every other body. More DV is not necessarily better as it requires exponentially greater effort in the lower stages - effort that is wasted for every destination other than the hardest target. Personally I chose Moho as my top end destination (c. 2800 DV req'd for land and return), engineered in a healthy margin of error (raising to 3600 DV) and figured the surplus would be of use in widening mission profile in easier targets but wouldn't impact too greatly on the design of lower stages.

"Stock" is the operative word. Stock craft should have simplicity, ease of use, and be a jumping off point into more adventurous designs. This is not a competition for the best heavy lander. It's a competition for the best stock heavy lander.

With that in mind I'd like to shortlist two entries which I fear won't get enough attention otherwise and which to my mind epitomise the above points:

• Blaster - ROFL
  
• frizzank - super-heavy-lander
  

Both are simple, sensible, and if either of them were the existing stock lander we wouldn't be saying that the stock was such an abomination.

My vote, thanks to the slightly higher DV, and ignoring the slight drogue chute staging problem, goes to Fizzrank's Super Heavy Lander.

Edited October 15, 2013 by MiniMatt

[Xeldrak]

Thats a nice breakdown, MiniMatt Thanks - I think these posts are one of the best parts of these challenges.

[briansun1]

you know what I think I might have overdone it with the parachutes...

[DaveofDefeat]

Next time i'll make it carry 1,000 kerbals!

[SirJodelstein]

difficult decision. Many good submissions, so hard to decide on one. In the end, i went with Ampstermans Duna-Lander, as this was the only rocket (other than mine) that survived a vertical 15m/s drop test on Kerbin. But it has no landing lights and tips over easily, so i am inclined to change my vote in the finals (i hope Pulsar and GusTurbo make it to the finals).

Some more notes (mostly critics for crafts i really liked):

- i skipped every lander with < 1700m/s dV, since i think a heavy lander should bring enough fuel for some maneuvering

- Sirine: Great craft, included it in my fleet, but not useful as a stock replacement (too otherworldly). Also, impossible to climb the ladders downwards (upwards from floor is fine)

- GusTurbo TheHeavy: Inable to climb down ladders

- frizzank - no landing lights

- Genius Evil and Hejnfeld: IMO, this contest is the wrong place to submit crafts that leave the landing stage behind

[Rhomphaia]

I split my judgement across four categories

1.Looks & Build - Where I considered how much I liked the looks, how well it looked as a "Stock Craft", how complex was the build and did it demonstrate any good examples of building techniques.

2.Action Groups & Description

3.Basic Lander functionality - here my testing was not extensive and I mostly had to take it as read that the functions on offer worked as intended.

4."Super Heavy" capabilities - where I examined the TWR and delta V and crew capacity of the craft. In the case of Delta V too much was as bad as too little for me. I feel that a stock craft should encourage new players to build rather than giving them a craft that can do everything straight out of the box

I initially intended to post a table of all my results, but particularly in categories 1 and 3 things were so close at the top, I would have had to subdivide them into several different categories to provide any meaningful info.

For Looks & Build though I do feel the UFO 1 deserves a special mention. While it may not have looked as "stock" as the other contenders in this category it was certainly distinctive and while the clipping may have been a bit excessive, I felt that a new player would find it more educational than overwhelming.

Heavy Lander X really hit the nail on the head for the "Super Heavy" category, with its TWR and delta V almost exactly at the targets I was looking for, perhaps a few more crew spaces would have been good. It was a bit lacking in basic lander functionality though.

If the action groups and the description had lined up it would have aced that category as well. As it was it tied with the CRUEL which was slightly let down by not having the parachutes in an action group.

One of the Strongest contenders for Basic functionality was the Gonzalez Light Heavyweight IIa hitting almost all the notes I was looking for here (Ladder just wasn't funky enough though).

It was no slouch in the other categories either. A bit low on thrust but the Delta V was good, and an excellent crew capacity. Description was perhaps a bit minimal, but at least there was one, still would prefer 'Chutes in an action group... Build was simple and fairly elegant and the looks while perhaps a bit plain, fit well as a "stock craft"

All in all I felt it was the best all-round performer. So my vote goes to MiniMatt

[Milo Kurtiss]

I certainly like Accelerando's lander design. His use of the conical 1.25M - 0.625M adapters on his landing legs is a "unique" use of a part often forgotten in KSP.

I'm also impressed with his drop-down fuel tank/habitat.

+1

[mcirish3]

I guess I will have too toot my won horn a little on the Sagitta V2. I actually Don't think I have the best craft but I felt I should at least explain the design origins, since I have gathered that most don't understand them. ( I do think my high part count is a big negative.)

They're frankly all too good and are harming my chances of winning

mcirish3 - Sagiitta V2

Has destination variety but see problem in over engineering - a jump from 3500dv to 5000dv really only adds a Laythe take off to a craft's abilities yet this extra capacity results in a 169 ton 200 part monster that is too unwieldy for nearly every other mission profile.

I know you probably did not have time to test her extensively ( am still testing them myself) but she actually is fairly easy to handle. I have flown this craft onto both Duna and Tylo, and I have flown the original Kethane lander it is based on (I built that too) to the Mun, and Minimus. She has been a solid craft for me. The Idea is that I will be going not going to do just one mission, but multiple missions on most planets and moons. Also I made my ship to be resilient as I demonstrated in my pics. I damaged two engines while landing on Duna and was still able to get back to space.

They're frankly all too good and are harming my chances of winning

Using the (very) rough rule of thumb that to get a payload into LKO one needs a launch vehicle 6 times it's mass we'd be looking at a 120 ton launch vehicle for the existing stock and a 600 ton launch vehicle to get a 100 ton lander into orbit - that's a massive, massive engineering challenge which should not be required of a newbie looking to use a stock craft.

I would agree with this assessment except this craft was not intended to have a large ship put under it until it is in orbit. On the missions I have run with it I used about a dozen boosters to get her through most of the atmosphere and then since I have lots of TWR I can have her make the rest of the way under her own power, and then pick her up with an intra system or inter planetary main engine to be taken to the intended destination/destinations, with enough extra fuel to refuel her on the way. All that may be too complex for a newb but perhaps not.

In any event I think TWR is not being given enough emphases in the assessments I have seen, since high DV with low TWR is not a good thing on a lander, but is great if you have the TWR to back it up.

[Hejnfelt]

Genius Evil and Hejnfeld: IMO, this contest is the wrong place to submit crafts that leave the landing stage behind

A valid point. Would you care to elaborate? A discussion on the pros and cons may shed light on certain concepts not considered in the crafts construction.

I felt it was important to have more Delta-v than necessary and introduce certain concepts to the player. One of those concepts - which I find realistic - is not to lug around the heavy empty fuel tanks and unnecessary engines once your mission is done and it's time to head home.

The opposite case can made for not leaving junk behind and I applaud the crafts that have achieved this.

But I consider the stock crafts need to be forgiving while teaching new players important concepts. Part of that is failing, learning and improving stock designs. My 7X lander was actually designed as a 3-man Tylo lander for which it was awesome, but I decided that there's no fun in stock crafts already being better than some advanced players can build them. Hence I made it a 7 person very capable Duna lander. I could have ditched 4 of the 8 landing stage fuel tanks and put the landing legs on the inner fuel tank and the craft would still have had plenty Delta-v, but I think it's more important to teach the player the concepts like asparagus staging and then let their own imagination improve a crafts capacity by changing and rebuilding it.

I am interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

[Xeldrak]

About 21 hours to go until the primary vote is closed!

[briansun1]

for the poll is it locked by ip address?

[Xeldrak]

I would think so...

[Sirine]

poll are not cheat proof. so, getting commend from others are more important. since winner gets nothing.

[briansun1]

I'm not trying to vote for myself repeatedly if that's what you're worried about

[Sirine]

It is good enough for me if I feel happy with my creation/submission.

[briansun1]

it's not the destination that matters but the journey

[minerman30]

I vote for Xeldrak, with the suggestion of removing the large battery and instead putting four smaller 1.25m batteries right beneath the nosecone.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I would love to test out all the other submissions but until .22 hits tomorrow KSP is just too unstable for me to do so =(

[Sirine]

I would love to test out all the other submissions but until .22 hits tomorrow KSP is just too unstable for me to do so =(

.22 tomorrow could be 2 months later.

[Giggleplex777]

.22 tomorrow could be 2 months later.

Have you seen the Weekly?

"10.16.2013"

[Sirine]

Have you seen the Weekly?

Not until you told me.

Maxmaps seems doing his job pretty smart. A date that tells something but no promise. He didn't mentions anything about release, did he?

[AmpsterMan]

I was going to start grading the landers today but now I don't know if I should because 0.22 is going to be out soon.

On a sidenote, my lander can do a round trip from LKO to Landing on Mun and back.

Edited October 16, 2013 by AmpsterMan

[Sirine]

I was going to start grading the landers today but now I don't know if I should because 0.22 is going to be out soon.

On a sidenote, my lander can do a round trip from LKO to Landing on Kerbin.

Don't expect the unexpected....

Anyway, sidenote, my UFO can do Landing on Kerbin too...it got Parachute!!!