Kaber Toss - See how far you can throw a stick!

[Markus Reese]

Sweet! Now to get to work, my initial idea didn't go so well so will need to try something new... hrm....

[1096bimu]

Hey, i threw a pole and thought of 2 things

This looks like Caber Toss

This would make a great challnge

Now if you would, put my perfectly qualified entry in the leader board.

[wasmic]

Now if you would, put my perfectly qualified entry in the leader board.

It's not qualified at all. In the first picture that you posted, you're moving horizontally at a orbital velocity of 2400 m/s, which means that you're in a stable orbit. Yes, a stable orbit where your engines are firing, but a stable orbit nonetheless - the orbit is neither an escape trajectory nor a suborbital trajectory.

[1096bimu]

It's not qualified at all. In the first picture that you posted, you're moving horizontally at a orbital velocity of 2400 m/s, which means that you're in a stable orbit. Yes, a stable orbit where your engines are firing, but a stable orbit nonetheless - the orbit is neither an escape trajectory nor a suborbital trajectory.

yes keep changing the reuls. the rule was that the beam must NOT enter instead of NEVER enter.

[GuzWaatensen]

Now you're just trolling, at no point is it specified that this rule only takes effect after the ibeam has been detached.

Your Ibeam entered a stable orbit once your "catapult" left a suborbital trajectory, which it must NOT do.

Even if you'd managed to reach escape velocity without ever raising the periapsis out of kerbins surface. You'd still be in violation of the rules as a kerbin escape trajectory equates a stable Sol orbit. (just because it's not immediately shown that way in the trajectory representation doesn't make it any less so).

The only way to somewhat circumvent this rule is have a suborbital trajectory (i.e. straight up and straight down) intersect the mun before the periapsis raises out of kerbin. But you'd still need to make the iBeam survive the impact to make that entry count.

And the OP could easily add the rule impact has to be on kerbin, to negate those shenanigans...

[1096bimu]

Now you're just trolling, at no point is it specified that this rule only takes effect after the ibeam has been detached.

Your Ibeam entered a stable orbit once your "catapult" left a suborbital trajectory, which it must NOT do.

Even if you'd managed to reach escape velocity without ever raising the periapsis out of kerbins surface. You'd still be in violation of the rules as a kerbin escape trajectory equates a stable Sol orbit. (just because it's not immediately shown that way in the trajectory representation doesn't make it any less so).

The only way to somewhat circumvent this rule is have a suborbital trajectory (i.e. straight up and straight down) intersect the mun before the periapsis raises out of kerbin. But you'd still need to make the iBeam survive the impact to make that entry count.

And the OP could easily add the rule impact has to be on kerbin, to negate those shenanigans...

Because two terms are used when describing the rules. The launcher and the I-Beam some rules clearly only apply to one of these, for example the I-Beam clearly cannot be manned.

Therefore if you say that the I-Beman does not enter orbit, it would refer to just the I-Beam after separation.

[GuzWaatensen]

Rule 1: Launcher must be manned, and kerbal must survive

...

Rule 4: I-Beam must never enter a stable orbit

...if you say that the I-Beman does not enter orbit, it would refer to just the I-Beam after separation.

Not at all, the first rule only applies to the launcher part, the 4th rule only applies to the I Beam part. At no point is it suggested that the rule only applies once the two have been separated.

Also i will now stop feeding the troll and apologize to the OP for needlessly diverting the thread...

[1096bimu]

Rule 3: The scoring distance is the distance between the point of separation and the I-Beams final resting point

That's when the term "I-Beam" only refers to the I-Beam AFTER separation and not before.

Therefore, the next rule when using the same term, it is reasonable to assume that it too, ONLY refers to the I-Beam after separation. In which case my entry is perfectly fine because my I-Beam does not enter orbit after separation.

[Specialist290]

I really do think that some of you are taking this challenge way more importantly than it really deserves to be.

I'd highly encourage everyone to relax and wait for shoveycat to make a ruling on the craft himself, since he's the best judge of both his own guidelines and the intent behind them. If he accepts it, fantastic. If not, there's nothing stopping anyone whose entry is disqualified from making a new entry that better adheres to the letter and spirit of the guidelines shoveycat has posted. Remember, everyone, we're here to enjoy ourselves by testing our skills

Edited January 10, 2014 by Specialist290
Wow. Such grammar. Much typo.

[Markus Reese]

Quickie question for rules. Okay, when I launch, there is an intermediate pod for Jeb. Question is, I can show that it would land safely, but problem is that my throws exceed the 2.5km, and as such, it despawns. I have a control pod on ground for measurements though, is that acceptable? It can be seen during my launch that the throwing pod has deployed parachute with nothing else attached.

Edit, Ignore question I guess? If I time my throw right, it stays fine.

Edit^2: Here is the vid link (though still uploading at time of posting).

Should it fit the rules that is. 3 beams, will go an even 2700m? Sorry about the launch pod getting away, but it can be seen that it safely deployed and the entire flight should be vertical. In tests where it didn't launch so perfectly, Jeb usually is quite close to the display pod. I put that out for a launch point of reference. Provided nothing is in error, that should be... The tough part is if I flew up high and did the same thing, there would be no way to verify safe pod landing... Need that parachute out XD. If you want the pod, I could change my throw a bit, and go for the max 2.5km :3

2700+1350 (two 1/4 originals) = 4050 points? Do I get bonus for having them finish standing up? ^.^

Edited January 10, 2014 by Markus Reese

[ihtoit]

I would say:

1. The capsule with the Kerbal and the massdriver MUST remain on the runway at or near to the point of launch (West of the centre of the runway).

2. The I-beam MUST NOT be attached to anything else while in flight.

3. The Kerbal MUST survive.

BTW, spamming decouple nodes=Kerbol escape trajectory very easily from a standing start and vertical initial vector. Not that anything else but the beam is likely to survive the flight...

[I.T Marcus]

I'm experimenting at the moment with other contraptions... do you plan on having a mod leaderboard?

I'm using Infernal Robotics to make a centrifical force flinger

Edited January 12, 2014 by I.T Marcus

[Markus Reese]

I would say:

1. The capsule with the Kerbal and the massdriver MUST remain on the runway at or near to the point of launch (West of the centre of the runway).

2. The I-beam MUST NOT be attached to anything else while in flight.

3. The Kerbal MUST survive.

BTW, spamming decouple nodes=Kerbol escape trajectory very easily from a standing start and vertical initial vector. Not that anything else but the beam is likely to survive the flight...

Aah, I asked about the above earlier in regards to launching, and it is distance relative to source of propulsion. Without creative or anything attached, it ends up being just a beam cannon (hrm.......) the probe core and parachute on mine is entirely because without, the beam, even tossed at ground level, doesn't survive the impact.

I honestly didn't think it would throw so far originally. At best, I got was 2km. Also, once you hit above 12000, the rotation of kerbin begins to take effect, and as such, a loss of reference point. Of course I am always up for modifying or doing a ground level throw ^.^

[ihtoit]

has anyone brought up that the Caber Toss doesn't actually have anything to do with distance?

ye be right. The Toss is scored by throwing the pole such that the upper (wider) end strikes the ground first and the skinny end flips over it.

(source: traceable Scottish ancestry).

[LiveHereNow]

Okay, so I have a pretty interesting "launcher". It both suits the spirit of the contest and the rules. I can't get images in my reply though... any suggestsions/help here? (I dug in the FAQ and didn't find anything first... sorry for being a newb).

That said, I launched it 36 hash-marks... which is 1,800 meters if the other guy's math of 1 hash=50 meters is correct. I'd like to share the pics as I think some would like to build on the concept (it's a stair-step thruster array).

[Markus Reese]

Welcome to the forum! It has to do with your post count for now. Easiest way to share for now is to put them up on imgur or another image hosting, then share the link ^.^

[sdj64]

I have an entry that I hope is in the spirit of the rules. Based on something I saw on the forums called Plaid, that launches into space faster than light speed using just decouplers. So I tried to make it bigger and put an I-beam on top. I failed.

It still went 2577m though.

I hope it's okay that I built it in the VAB, and that some strut stubs are still attached to the I-beam as it flies?

[LiveHereNow]

I really like the creativity in the "decoupler" launcher! I'd have never thought of that!

[jacobgong]

I really like the creativity in the "decoupler" launcher! I'd have never thought of that!

there is nothing creative about it, you just didn't know this abuse existed. You could land on the moon with just decouplers, in 10 seconds or so I might add.

[ihtoit]

yep, or do a solar ballistic slingshot and escape the other side of the system in a few minutes - if the physics engine can keep up, that is. Took me several tries.