BSC Challenge: Rover + Skycrane - Yet another winner!

[briansun1]

never mind it worked

Edited December 10, 2013 by briansun1

[Deathsoul097]

Woah, Dude, Why is the email in german or something? @_@

[Ravenchant]

Thanks! I'm now happy I know German

Have yet to test bizmar's craft, though.

[Xeldrak]

Yeah, seems like the page recognizes my Austrian ip adress and uses German accordingly. I'll look into it tomorrow - it's 0027 AM over here.

[M5000]

Actually, OP, I'm quite glad you re-started the poll, as, after closer deliberation in deciding how I was going to vote, I've changed around my votes quite a bit, especially with the new system.

I ended up actually voting for 11 of the 22 entries, but two were tied for first place, so there are ten "ranks".

I decided to vote on who sold their rover the best, as well as the core functionality of the rover as it applies to a stock game. I came in a two-way tie for the actual "first place" as it was extremely hard to decide between the two. I will list the votes I actually ordered in order from last to first place. (10th to the tie for 1st. There would be 11 positions, but I tied the first two.) I also was looking for a rover that could more or less fit on a 2.5m framed lifter.

10th: Antbin "The One Way Ticket": This one had to grow on me, I like it the more I look at it, actually. However, it's quite a bit bigger than what I would have considered an optimal setup. It's also a rover based on stranding Kerbs on an off-world location. Those facts can be dampened by the amount of character it has, and the way you've sold it to me. It is truly a very Kerbal rover. Unforgettable, at the very least. A good design, Antbin.

9th: Zekes "Lorrie": Visually, I really love the design you've put into your delivery system and lifter. However, this is scoring based on the rover and skycrane only, so, regrettably, I had to force myself to completely ignore the transfer stage. The biggest hangup was that there was not a whole lot of really good pictures of your rover. While I'd assume it can land and do all kinds of things, I didn't see much documentation, so I couldn't offer an "exceptional" score. Regardless, your rover and skycrane were well designed and simple, so I had to include it in my top 11. An example of fine design work. Good job, Zekes.

8th: SaplingPick "SkyBug Mk1 Rover": You've gone and made your system very adaptable, with the ability to land on Mun, Duna, and Laythe, your rover will be used extensively elsewhere in the sytem, I'd reckon. Your entire system is encapsulated in a tidy little fairing and does quite well. The redundancy of multiple sources of power generation is nice, too. The only place I've docked points is on the rover, which appears to be topheavy, and appears to be putting those tiny wheels to near their weight limit for the suspension. Another issue is one you demonstrated yourself, in that it can break off its own panels very easily. Static panels only would have done better, in my opinion. However, it's still a neat, compact, and simple package that deserves recognition. Good job, SaplingPick.

7th: Kasuha "BSC Skycrane and Rover": Your rover has a quite different design than most of the others on this list. It's a fair bit larger, and that's what really hurt the others' scores from me who didn't make it to the list, but your rover manages to beat the odds because it has a lot to offer for its size. It can support crew, and is self-righting. It also has a lot of open space to which a payload could be added, it appears. Your largest selling points were:

-Your rover is rugged, extremely versatile, and self-righting.

-Your skycrane is extremely simple.

-You provided excellent documentation and examples of your rover in action.

The only thing that I counted as a hangup was the size, which is one of the most important things I was looking for. The versatility you included was actually what contributed to the fairly bulky size, however, it is still an excellent entry. Well done, Kasuha.

6th: Tarmenius "SCAR": Now here's a simple design if I ever did see one. The rover looks stable and extremely well-designed. The skycrane is beautifully simple, and they all fit into a fairly compact package. The only thing that isn't quite fitting in is that this system is kind of limited in where it looks like it would be easy to land. Obviously it can land on Duna, but you claim a 736m/s of delta-V, which, yes, should get most things down on the Mun. However, if this is supposed to be a system to be used by a newer player, it's not quite as friendly if there's not a whole lot of breathing room for mistakes. So, the extreme simplicity of the skycrane is also its biggest downfall, as it lacks a bit more delta-V which would have made it optimal. However, one must take it for what it is: It's still a VERY simple and lightweight system, so for that you get consideration. Excellent job Tarmenius.

5th: Spartwo "Endeavor": Oh god where do I start with this one? It's so tiny. It's so lightweight. I feel like I could just frisbee that whole assembly at a celestial body and it'd make it. I mean, there isn't much to say other than this is an extremely efficient looking and simple design. It looks just like one of the rovers I had designed, in that it's tiny, efficient, and it's simply well done. Nothing to be said other than it sets unrealistically high standards of beauty for newbies Excellent job, Spartwo.

4th: Speeding Mullet "Skycon Crumple Zone": First impressions: It's big. Taking a second look: This is an extremely well thought-out and easy to use looking design that supports a robust mission architecture. The biggest complaint I have is that it is extremely large. However, just like Kasuha's rover above, for what it accomplishes, this is more than excusable. While it doesn't look like your rover can self-right, there shouldn't be a need to, as it doesn't look like it's tipping over any time soon. The fact that the skycrane handles the whole de-orbit and landing, as well as placing both sections on the ground is a huge plus for simplicity. It also appears to have plenty of fuel for the inevitable course correction. The returnable habitat is also a great feature. The only thing that lost points was the sheer size of the assembly. This may be a better craft for a later mission, after one had mastered landing an unmanned rover/skycrane. Exceptional entry, Speeding Mullet.

3rd: Deathsoul097 "Sojourner": An entry that I've dropped slightly from the lead, but still stands out as an exceptionally beautiful design. The simplicity behind this design is humbling, but, as said yourself, the skycrane is overpowered. This could be a true masterpiece if the efficiency would be increased by using the "ant" engines, or less of the radial oranges. This hitch may make it hard to fly for a newbie. Still, one of my favorite entries due to the compact size and beautiful design work. Still an exceptional entry, Deathsoul097.

2nd: Sploden "Kuriosity": While I love the entire craft, I had to disregard everything up to the final ascent capsule. The heatshield and shielded skycrane are where I started judging. This is actually a two-part skycrane/landercrane, it seems. One for the E, and the other for the D and L, in "EDL". I really REALLY like this design. In fact, it looks like what I probably would have come up with had I entered this challenge. It's rugged looking, and the rover is well designed. I really like the final descent..lander..thing. I'm not sure what to call it. It's not really a skycrane, but if the OP takes it, that's all that matters. This is actually a much better landing method than a skycrane to begin with, it waits until the rover is stable on the ground, and releases it from a known height to avoid damage, then moves away. Much safer, so I appreciate that. It's optimal for a newbie to use, and it comes in a compact, 2.5m sized capsule. Very great design, Sploden! My personal favorite entry!

1st: Tie between Andrew Hansen "NOKERB Exploring Machine" and Ravenchant "R-31 Dustmarcher & Heron Skycrane".

Andrew Hansen: This was another design that had to grow on me. At first, I saw the large wheels and thought it unnecessarily bulky, especially for not carrying any science equipment. Count in the fairly large skycrane, and it starts to become very big and ungainly. But then I watched the video. That's when everything changed. Seeing that rover being able to cover immense distances and survive the extreme bumps and dings that would have meant game over for any other rover, I instantly changed my mind. Your entry went from one I wasn't even considering, to first-place tie with another great entry. I then thought "Who sends out a rover to do science anyway? Humans, that's who, and we don't like them." At which point, I completely disregarded your lack of any science equipment on the rover and took it for what it is: An extremely rugged and durable rover able to cross any obstacle it comes across. I figure this is one of the best rovers for noobs, because what does every new player do the first time they go roving? They flip it. They get it stuck or get bored because it's so slow. You've made a tedious process such as driving a rover into an enjoyable psuedo-flight experience. Not to mention the excellent amount of character you sold it under. You also included an objective comparison sheet to all the other entries for judgement, it's not pretentious, it's not excessive, it's fun in every sense of the word. I like to think of this one like a Tonka toy. It's tough, takes a bit of abuse, and it's fun for everyone. Extremely well done, Andrew Hansen!

Ravenchant: Your entry is the absolute most beautiful entry of all of them, from a visual and a design perspective. It's tiny, yet it can totally carry a Kerb. It uses static panels that are more durable than the expandable ones, and it has a skycrane that looks exactly appropriate for the job. It's wide, it carries all the science equipment, and it's adaptable. This appears to be for the other kind of new player, who more or less can fly well, but is more interested in seriously playing the game with realistic and well designed craft. I also love that you used the ant engines, as they're highly underappreciated. Your design is excellent and is why it's placed in a sort of yin-yang relationship with the NOKERB.

Very well done, all of you, even those not on this list!

-M5K

Edited December 11, 2013 by M5000

[Liowen]

I've finally finished Kerbin rover testing, and started doing Munar EDL + rover testing. Test matrix updated.

Confused as to how mine is hard to detach from?? There is a docking port that will release it (I know it works as I have tested the .craft file to make sure it wasn't messed up). Not complaining just really baffled on why that is complex is all.

[Kasuha]

While I don't really care about what place in this challenge will my creation take, I still have a few comments.

7th: Kashua

Please do me a favor and take a minute to read my nickname right.

It's a fair bit larger, and that's what really hurt the others' scores

I have not noticed anywhere in rules that the result should be small. Examples in the first post are Curiosity rover, Spirit/Opportunity rover, the lunar manned rover which can clearly carry two passengers, and soviet Lunakhod. For your information, here is some size comparison fo Curiosity and Spirit:

And regarding the Lunakhod, according to Wikipedia:

Lunokhod 1 was a lunar vehicle formed of a tub-like compartment with a large convex lid on eight independently powered wheels. Its length was 2.3 metres.

So I guess you are imposing some rules here that are not part of the game. Simple and understandable is not the same as small.

[FallingIntoBlack]

Man, I would've submitted my TREK Vagabond IV but I didn't get the chance to. Oh well, too late now.

[BagelRabbit]

XolotlLoki,

Two quick things about the spreadsheet for my design. The first is that the craft's spelled the Columba-A; just a little thing there.

The second is that it can carry four Kerbals, although this makes it roll-happy and probably shouldn't be done unless you're content with slow driving and slow turns.

Here's a video of the craft carrying four Kerbals. This is a repost but I'm not sure how many people saw it the first time.

By the way, if you do update the spreadsheet, can you add the meaning of the punctuation marks (!K, ?K, etc.)? There's been some comments from people unsure of what these meant. (Including me.)

[M5000]

Please do me a favor and take a minute to read my nickname right.

Apologies, I misread your name, it was a reversal of two letters that for some reason I had convinced myself looked right. I will correct the errors in my post.

I have not noticed anywhere in rules that the result should be small.

...

So I guess you are imposing some rules here that are not part of the game. Simple and understandable is not the same as small.

Yes, I have in fact imposed my own criteria, however, they are criteria that I believe tend to a generally good craft, in addition to the original guidelines set forth. These features may not have been considered when the craft was originally built, but my vote remains unchanged because it describes what I think personally would make a good stock rover and skycrane. Just because the craft was not designed for a certain criteria, and said criteria is not expressly mentioned in the guidelines, does not mean that the craft is exempt from judging for those criteria, especially when the voting guidelines are left so open as they were. All the guidelines asked is that our vote includes the features described, but said nothing about whether or not one would be encouraged/discouraged to impose their own set of criteria. Since there was no explicit part of the guidelines saying specifically to only follow the features as said, I see no problem with judging it as I see fit. Besides, I would venture to guess I'm not the only one who voted in this manner, I simply was one of the people who explained how they had voted.

I do apologize, however, if I offended you by voting in a manner that may not have been expected.

-M5K

[Xeldrak]

Lazro

1Revenger1

You guys should have mail. I fear right now, I cant change that the mail is probably in german, but it should still be no problem to vote. You simply need to click the long link in the mail you received. Should the voting page also be german:

Rang = rank

stimme abgeben = cast vote

this should get you through

@M5000: It's fine if you impose your own criteria - after all, I think I don't want to know, how many people still vote the best looking craft. Is amazing, tha you wrote such a lenghty review - although I'm sad, of course, that you had now love for the CRAATRV.

[HazelPine]

The thing I like about these challenges is that you learn all these tips and tricks, and there are people that give you ideas to make your ship better. I hope this challenge doesn't die as soon as we run out of stock ships.

[M5000]

The thing I like about these challenges is that you learn all these tips and tricks, and there are people that give you ideas to make your ship better. I hope this challenge doesn't die as soon as we run out of stock ships.

Same, I'm considering entering the next challenge when it arises, it would be cool to add a sort of "stock ships expansion" series to this, where we fill out where the stock ships may be incomplete. I love craft design challenges, as it's not about the pilot, but the engineer in each player. Just wishful thinking

-M5K

[HazelPine]

Off to testing craft! This should be awesome!

[briansun1]

so Xeldrak for the next BSC challenge can you also post a link here so that people can find is easier?

[Kasuha]

so Xeldrak for the next BSC challenge can you also post a link here so that people can find is easier?

I'm sure it will appear in the Challenges subforum again. Or did you mean spacecraft exchange?

[briansun1]

no it's just I did not see the thread until 2 days into the challenge because I use the new post search think and not much else...

[Xeldrak]

Uhm - yah, I can do it. Allthough it's a little strange to post a challenge and then plug it in the same subforum, basically in the thread next to it.

[HazelPine]

I tested all of them on Duna, Starting from a 100km orbit.

NOKERB Exploring Machine

First impressions: Huh?! Where is the rover?

After I figured out where the rover was, I decided that you made a pretty stable rover, with RTGs inside. Landing it was no problem at all; I tried to land like a new player. The landing legs were a pretty nice way to make sure it would work. When it came to roving it was a different story. The rover had way to much wheel torque for its weight, and it flipped of quite easily. I managed to de-turtle it by pitching around, but not with rolling. A nice design, but could be improved. Good Job, Andrew Harrison!

One Way Ticket

First Impressions: Whoa! This looks buggy (in the sand buggy way)! It might be fun!

On the way down it seemed that it wouldn't have enough fuel, but then I noticed the drogue chutes, so it landed safely. I love the way your skycrane flies away in an arch. When I started driving, then I was like WOW! It goes so fast, I got it up to 64m/s, I never knew you could get that fast on a rover without engines! Other than that awesome roving powress, I think it could do with some science on it, because a new player should be able to download a ship that is ready to got and not get there and be like "I just brought this to duna and I have no science!" Otherwise good Job, Antbin! One of my favs!

Test Object

First Impressions: This little square around it seems safe...

This design had some problems, sorry. First off it couldn't keep heading with the skycrane, so I crashed on duna. Instead of RCS, you could have used reaction wheels to keep it stable. But the rover itself was working as intended, so just the skycrane needs fixing. Almost worked, Bloody_loser!

RST XV-1V

First Impressions: ? What is this, exactly?

When I was reentrering, my chutes ripped off. That is something that needs fixing. But nonetheless I landed on Duna safely, so your design is safe enough! Your rover was a bit drifty, and it made me flip. It is a bit top heavy, but otherwise a nice rover, brianshun1!

Sojouner

First Impressions: How cute! A little rover!

This was one of the rovers that got my attention. Apart from de-turtleling capabilities, I was amazed at how small it was. It was simple to land and drive; a must for a newbie rover driving experience. The only issue was it wasn't on the quick side of turning and stuff. A reaction wheel on the skycrane would have helped. A must for fun adventures with small rovers! Cool rover, Deathsoul097!

BSC Skycrane and Rover By Kasuha

First Impressions: Hmm.. Interesting Design!

What can I say? Apart from Duna EDL and a very tough rover, it is also a very newbie-friendly design, which is what the challenge is all about. There are some smallish problems, though. It starts to barrel roll and flip in low-Gs at speed, but luckily your rover can survive it and de-turtle. Simple, useful design! (I think that if I were to use it all the time I would have made it look nicer,though!)

Rovobot by leafty

Fist Impressions: Hey, a long small rover! I like the design!

WOW! This is a must for atmospheric loving base makers! It has a nice little rover, which lands nicely and drives safely. It even has mystery goo, something I never put on my rovers because there isn't space! It is newbie friendly, but he only issue is the absurdly high TRW, which made it a bit harder to land, otherwise it is one of my votes! It bones a bit on duna.

Cube MK1 by Lions

First Impressions: That ring of engines will damage parts of the rover...

On the first try to land this rover, It ran out of fuel and started spinning out, so I think that those RTGs sticking out are a bad idea because they block the thrust of the engines, and that causes fuel waste. The rover, however, has some problems as well (sorry, but they are going to cost you my vote!) The first problem is that is is top-heavy with that tall probe core, there is a smaller one you could have used. Also the RTGs made it very easy to tip forwards or backwards. Did you test your rover anywhere else apart from kerbin?

Roller Stock by Liowen

First Impressions: This skycrane is BIG.

Man, this is what I mean with newbie-friendlyness. This skycrane has landing legs and so many chutes that it can't fail! The skycrane is a bit too large for a new person, because I don' think they can come up with ship stable enough to carry a superlarge skycrane. The rover is not the prettiest, but it does the job well. Except that a docking prt is not the best decloupling device because it is barely visible. Maybe an action group? Otherwise a nice ship.

RGT by pedorsf

First impressions: Nice looking!

Don't judge a rover by its fairing. The fairing looks nice and all, but when I staged it was... "explosive", as jeb says. so I din't get to test it because it did it every time and the wheels broke. Sorry.

R-31 Dustmarcher & Heron skycrane By Ravenchant

First Impressions: The best looking one ever, I hope it dind't go like the entry before it...

Weeelllll.... The rover looks nice and drives nicely, but the skycrane is very weak, so you have to time everything right, which is not newbie-friendly. The rover broke easily in crashes.

Dunakhod by Rhomphaia

First Impressions: Do we REALLY need that fuel tank?!

Answer is: yes. This skycrane might be simple, but it leaves lots of elbowroom for mistakes, but no parachutes mean that you will make mistakes. The rover doen't have enough grip on low Gs so it is hard to drive. But there are 2 control sspots so you can land and then drive.

Let's skip my entry...

Endeavor by Spartwo, my imgur album helper

first Impressions: It came with a launcher...

We didn't need the launcher for the challenge so I threw it away. The skycrane is so small and nifty, and it works! The rover was very small and didn't run out, but There was no need for the panel on the back. You have one of my votes.

Skycon Crumplezone bx speeding mullet

First Impressions: Wait for later, I must go for a few hours everybody!

Edited December 14, 2013 by SaplingPick
UPDATED!

[Ravenchant]

I hope this challenge doesn't die as soon as we run out of stock ships.

Same, I'm considering entering the next challenge when it arises, it would be cool to add a sort of "stock ships expansion" series to this, where we fill out where the stock ships may be incomplete. I love craft design challenges, as it's not about the pilot, but the engineer in each player. Just wishful thinking

Count me in! There's what, 9 stock VAB crafts and 5 or 6 planes, which hardly cover the possibilities within this game. Of course, one could argue that players should first design the more advanced stuff themselves, but then again, orbital tugs or manned vessels that go beyond Minmus are never really explained, and there's no real-life precedent to gain ideas from.

If time's an issue, I could help a bit

[briansun1]

"...first impression ?"

what does that mean? (oh and the official name is RST XV-1V)

[antbin]

I tested all of them on Duna, Starting from a 100km orbit.

... I will get all of them tested before voting, I promise!

Good on you! Testing does take awhile! I cheated a bit by HyperEditing craft into a 35km (in atmosphere) Duna Orbit so I wouldn't have to clean debris after. Also, some entries depend on a pusher craft to de-orbit them (too many fancy fairings! )

Thanks for the review. Agreed my rover is a bit on the big side... the catalog of ImpactResistance=80 parts is either a 1x1 structural panel (too small to protect a Reaction Wheel module) or the 4x4 (that Kasuha also used). Not much choice. I might try reworking it for a 1x1 panel, just to see if it looks all out of proprtion.

The key to a speedy rover is enough SAS torque, a wide wheelbase (hence the size) and a low low low center of gravity (hence the pancake style construction). For safety there's also a bunch of struts (12) reinforcing the wheels and roll cage.

I suppose you're right about science - I left it out because Stock craft will only be used in Sandbox mode, the part count was already a bit high, and it's pretty easy for newbies to bolt whatever extra stuff they want to the rover - there's some room even inside the protective "sandwich" panels.

If this challenge included a demolition derby among the finalists, the OWT would have a greater chance of winning...

Edited December 11, 2013 by antbin

[HazelPine]

"...first impression ?"

what does that mean? (oh and the official name is RST XV-1V)

What my first impression of your design was when I loaded it in the VAB.

BTW, while we wait for sunday...

What happened when I was testing my design!

Edited December 11, 2013 by SaplingPick

[briansun1]

What my first impression of your design was when I loaded it in the VAB.

BTW, while we wait for sunday...

What happened when I was testing my design!

I know but for mine you have "?"

[HazelPine]

Because I wasn't sure about it. I was like: Huh? Anyway, sorry should have been clearer...