The Eve Rocks Challenge (v0.90 only)

[Laie]

I do have one question though. I am about to start recording the mission and I'd rather find out now rather than later. I also plan on visiting Gilly with a small ion probe as part of the mission to complete my career mode series on youtube, but it uses an external command seat to make the ion propulsion feasible. Is that okay? My actual Eve lander, as you saw, now includes a command capsule and the additional challenge of Gilly isn't mentioned on this forum so would my attempt still be accepted even if I visit Gilly with a command seat then Eve with a capsule?

This challenge is only about the Eve landing itself. Whatever else you do besides can be done any way you wish.

[hazard-ish]

This challenge is only about the Eve landing itself. Whatever else you do besides can be done any way you wish.

Wonderful!

[astrobond]

Hi All

Here is my come back for the "BIG" Eve Rocks Challenge (Jebediah's Level) try...

It's the lander of Eve Jeb Landing AR 9 with... some added tanks/motors lol !

Just to say that if you have low weight in last stage, you dont need too much fuel for the ship

I'm always trying to keep that in mind in ksp...

The Craft file of "Eve Jeb Landing AR 10"

1,024,676$ invested, less than 250000$ final cost, 269 Tons at launch from Kerbin, and less than 98 Tons ready to Launch at 5m ASL on Eve.

897parts (outch) full stock + MechJeb2.

KSP 0.25.

I found this flat 5m landing site while trying to land near the equator on a precedent mission

(Eve Jeb Landing AR 10 is the last of a looong loooooong series of ships lol, I see I'm not alone )

More easy mission than Eve Jeb Landing AR 9, but for launching the big ship from Kerbin with a SSTO lifter... I tried less than 250Tons, but that was too hard for me, and really slow motion with 900 parts

Javascript is disabled. View full album

BIG album... with all datas.... xD

Edited November 14, 2014 by astrobond

[Laie]

Laie asked me some more hints about the asymmetric mothership. Well, the concept comes from the souposphere itself. It behaves like a dense fluid so why not exploiting it with a "boat"? A sailing ship is the best example of unbiased asimmetry I can recall. So here I have a kind of "keel" (the reentry module - that I CAN redesign if you can not really stand that lonely clipped nuke) that needs a ballast on the other side. A slightly lighter and longer one (leverage ftw). So here you are with your beautiful command bridge. You just need to remember you must keep your ship with the correct attitude. It behaves like a kind of foil ship during aerobrakes. The lift provided by the crew cabin on the tail, even if really small compared to the total overall mass, keeps it en route w/o tailspinning. Moreover you can always count on the 200+ available torque force. Obviously it does not work properly if you snap on it really unbalanced loads, but I managed affordable configs with differences in the order of +/- 5t.

And I was thinking that it was merely looking good -- which it does, by the way. I'm way too utilitaristic and concerned with part count, I'd never consider topping off the nacelles with radial tanks for example. And even if I did, it would probably look silly. I have no words for it, but you're doing something right. Also, the gentle sweep of your landing gear. Though after what you said about your rover, I'd be not surprised to learn that the sweep serves an actual purpose as well.

A bit of a shame about that rover, though, betraying it's sports-car appearance by being unable to go faster than 2x physics warp, because really, that matters a lot in a rover. By the way, I wonder what it has in it's pocketsess? (the cargo bay -- does it merely hold a few batteries and RTGs or is there something more interesting inside? That circle is a docking port, I presume.)

That clipped engine is a real problem, though. I don't want to fault an otherwise excellent mission for a technicality, but I'm also wary of setting a precedent. In this particular case, I'm inclined to look the other way, none the least because could just as well have returned with the vessel you came in. Front page will be updated shortly. @everyone else: as with launcher width, this doesn't mean that anything goes.

[Laie]

1,024,676$ invested, less than 250000$ final cost, 269 Tons at launch from Kerbin, and less than 98 Tons ready to Launch at 5m ASL on Eve.

897parts (outch) full stock + MechJeb2.

100t from sea level? That is impressive. Updating front page.

(I'm sorry: this tiny and clean design really deserves better than that, but I'm out of adjectives for today).

Edited November 14, 2014 by Laie

[astrobond]

100t from sea level? That is impressive. Updating front page.

(I'm sorry: this tiny and clean design really deserves better than that, but I'm out of adjectives for today).

No problems Laie and thank's a lot for the update ! i'm just happy to be on the "big" side of this challenge too

Fly safe with Jeb !!!

[Signo]

And I was thinking that it was merely looking good -- which it does, by the way. I'm way too utilitaristic and concerned with part count, I'd never consider topping off the nacelles with radial tanks for example. And even if I did, it would probably look silly. I have no words for it, but you're doing something right. Also, the gentle sweep of your landing gear. Though after what you said about your rover, I'd be not surprised to learn that the sweep serves an actual purpose as well.

A large part of the "core" solutions are inspired by a Jool 5 ship I've seen many moons ago (I think it was Ziv's made, the one with the small 3fold landing chair on top). I just enlarged it using 3.75 parts and moar engines.

I tried at first with a 90° oriented gear but during the testing stage I ended up with several broken engines, collapsing legs and funky take offs. They simply did not hold. 5° was enough to solve the problem.

The small circle on top of the rover is indeed a jr. docking port. It is exactly on top of the CoM so it can be used with skycranes or with some other "modules" I designed to fit in a big cargo bay (extra tanks, science jr. and goo, chutes and whatever you may need). It serves also the "control from here" purpose during powered VTOL. It is on top of a FLT800 tank that serves as the main body of the rover and that is connected to the rear wheels. Then you have the batteries and RTGs you thought about, a couple of small SAS and the room for the scientific stuff. The bay can hold 50 m/s hits, so it serves as the "armor" too. And, usually it does not happen so often, but if you find yourself down under you can just open the bay and flip back on your wheels. Below a couple of pics of the rover with its "orbital wing".

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 15, 2014 by Signo
A lot of PS

[Trollsama]

Wait.... so the rules of the challenge only apply to the landing itself?

I can use chutes for the return home aspect of the mission and still have it count as "Jeb" difficulty?

>.> I have been doing far more work than i needed to lol

[Redshift OTF]

Hey guys!

I have found out that Eve does support spaceplanes, I recorded a video testing all the main aspects e.g. landing, take offs, stalling, climbing, level flight, descending.

Main problem: probably due to Squad trying to be realistic, the composition of Eve's atmosphere may very well affect the way spaceplanes or planes in general fly there. The aerodynamics are mega-strange, you need several vertical stabilizers in order for a gr8-working aircraft on Kerbin to be stable on Eve. To my dismay, I suck at building spaceplanes. Thankfully, I already know the rule #1 for this challenge: the smaller, the better. You actually can get into orbit with a spaceplane, too. But you need a crap load of fuel in order to do so. I'll think of something, but it will definitely be complicated. Maybe put an extra pair of fuel tanks on the sides? I don't know. Since Eve does not contain oxygen, you can't use air intakes and in stock there are no alternative methods of fuels besides ion, which is as useless as a Mk.3 fuselage. Guys, if you have any suggestions, please let me know. I don't know if I can do this myself, without any of your awesome ideas.

Kudos to all those who completed the challenge

Just an FYI, no-one has made a spaceplane that can escape Eve without using mods, glitches or cheats. In fact most people say it is mathematically impossible.

[Redshift OTF]

BTW, I did a 3 man Eve mission once upon a time, although I think the parameters I used fall outside this challenge. You can look at it for inspiration if you wish:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78246-3-Men-went-to-Eve-%28Very-Pic-Heavy!%29

[Red Iron Crown]

Just an FYI, no-one has made a spaceplane that can escape Eve without using mods, glitches or cheats. In fact most people say it is mathematically impossible.

Spaceplanes are perfectly plausible for Eve ascent even in stock, it's single stage planes that are impossible. A plane designed for it would have to drop empty tanks and possibly engines on the way up.

[astrobond]

Wait.... so the rules of the challenge only apply to the landing itself?

I can use chutes for the return home aspect of the mission and still have it count as "Jeb" difficulty?

>.> I have been doing far more work than i needed to lol

Oops !

"Kerbhouston... we have a problem..."

"I undocked the chutes stage before landing..."

"Do you think i can try landing without chutes ?"

scriiitch....

"Of course you can try Jeb ... will see if this is possible that way !"

"Ok let's go :)"

Javascript is disabled. View full album

"yeahhh ;)"

[Laie]

Wait.... so the rules of the challenge only apply to the landing itself?

Hold on a second.

The particular "no chutes, wings&c" achievement is only about the Eve lifter on Eve.

The general rules for this challenge (like no part clipping, stockish vessels and so on) apply to the entire mission, from lauch at Kerbin to return. If you do other things besides the core mission (like landing on Gilly), that's outside of the challenge and not subject to any rules. Actually, there is no rule about what you may or may not do on the surface of Eve. That is not an oversight. You may use kethane jets, balloons, dirigibles, infinigliders, walking robots, whatever you want -- none of that is a problem as long as it doesn't help you in getting to Eve or returning from there.

[2001kraft]

Dirigibles on Eve is complete cheating.

[Kulebron]

^^ Should they be stock, they'd make all sense, just as it makes sense to launch rockets from a boat rather than from ocean bottom.

[Kulebron]

@Laie: please tell me if this clipping is ok? (Intakes slightly touching each other) I'd be pleased to add more beams to have enough clearance, but parts count is already hitting me hard.

Going to do 3 launches to get all the assets in orbit. This is kinda reusing the jet booster, and also due to part count limit.

[Laie]

@Laie: please tell me if this clipping is ok? (Intakes slightly touching each other) I'd be pleased to add more beams to have enough clearance, but parts count is already hitting me hard.

That's barely noticable. Not a problem, go ahead. (You've seen the example in the 1st post of this thread, have you?)

Incidentally, if you're using editor extensions, the engines will surface-attach nicely. Maybe the intakes as well (can't recall). So you can save quite a few cubic struts. The vessel will still load and work in a stock game, the cubic struts are physicsless anyway... no harm, no foul. Just be sure to mention it in your submission.

[Laie]

You may use kethane jets, balloons, dirigibles, infinigliders, walking robots, whatever you want -- none of that is a problem as long as it doesn't help you in getting to Eve or returning from there.

Dirigibles on Eve is complete cheating.

If you don't use it for the launch, it's not cheating for the purposes of this challenge.

^^ Should they be stock, they'd make all sense, just as it makes sense to launch rockets from a boat rather than from ocean bottom.

Should they ever become stock, this challenge will probably cease to be a challenge.

[totalitor]

I made it. Sea level so this is level 3.

My ship is 1607 t on launchpad with delta-v 19314 m/s (vacuum). 394 parts, one launch.

On Eve's surface...I mean ocean...164 t.

Game version 0.24.2.559.

Mechjeb used. Funds 849561.

I tried to land on sea as near the shore as possible. It took many times to land right. Distance to land was 651 m and swimming time there was 15 min. I couldn't use time warp becouse for some reason it would crash the ship. I just pressed the button...

I had a Eve ship earlier that made it to orbit from sea level but I used seat on it. I just added a command pod, more power to ship and rearrange the upper part of the ship. I still couldn't get the pod to orbit so I did EVA at the end where a return ship was waiting. (I had two return ships becouse of the balance of the ship).

Stage 5 was unstable, I don't know why. Steering was difficult.

And stage 1 was ok when launching from Eve, but something happened and my asparagus system didn't work. I didn't have time to rearrage decoupling of tanks.

Nice trip. Thank you for this challenge.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 17, 2014 by totalitor

[Laie]

I tried to land on sea as near the shore as possible. It took many times to land right. Distance to land was 651 m and swimming time there was 15 min. I couldn't use time warp becouse for some reason it would crash the ship. I just pressed the button...

Nice trip. Thank you for this challenge.

http://imgur.com/a/FGogy

Nice trip, thank you for the submission. And congratulations: you completed the Eve Rocks Challenge on level 3.

I have experimented with landing in the sea but eventually gave up. Vessels would tip over in the water, disassemble during launch, and whatnot. Making it work is not a small achievement. Also, running out of fuel is and abandoning the vessel isn't exactly unheard of, but you're the first who could do it at leisure and had the time to take a few screenshots along the way.

[Laie]

By the way, I did it too. Updated my entry: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95642-The-Eve-Rocks-Challenge?p=1455741

It doesn't seem right to just slap the badge on myself, so if someone else could please have a look?

[astrobond]

By the way, I did it too. Updated my entry: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95642-The-Eve-Rocks-Challenge?p=1455741

It doesn't seem right to just slap the badge on myself, so if someone else could please have a look?

Very Nice Mission Laie !!!

(3! for 3 Kerbals )

You completed the Eve Rocks Challenge on Jebediah's +Bill+Bob Level !

Your roverboat is excellent, and the number of science points at the end of the mission is awesome

Congrats !

Edited November 18, 2014 by astrobond

[Redshift OTF]

Spaceplanes are perfectly plausible for Eve ascent even in stock, it's single stage planes that are impossible. A plane designed for it would have to drop empty tanks and possibly engines on the way up.

Ah yes, I meant SSTO's but didn't state that. Thanks!

[Laie]

You completed the Eve Rocks Challenge on Jebediah's +Bill+Bob Level !

LOL -- thanks for that.

the number of science points at the end of the mission is awesome

That number is probably only half of it -- I was transmitting all data that didn't fit into the pods, after all, so there was a lot of science points already collected by the time I recovered my vessel. Going through the science reports, I notice that "flying at" is mostly complete, but I could have brought more from the surface. Shame, shame.

[James_Eh]

Darn it darn it darn it.

Honestly this was just a large-scale test flight that I suddenly realized could actually qualify me for this challenge, and I was so excited about the shiny purple ribbon that I kept the flight going despite thinking of about 20 design improvements during the very laggy adventure.

I have never used KER before but felt I needed it for this challenge, and have been wondering about the way the dV calcs were playing out. Until I happened to aim the camera just right to catch the following shot of the ship shortly before the final deorbit burn to head down to land. Anybody see the glaring flaw? I'm still going to give it a go but I'll bet I have trouble in the last part of the ascent.