challenges in the beta

[flytandem]

I recently assisted martins by suggesting 4 challenge scenarios, which have been added to the recent beta version. The first 3 challenges are fairly straightforward. I'm curious however if Challenge 4 is within the reach of any orbitnauts here. It appears to be a simple re-entry and landing from geostationary. The problem is limited dv. It's in the beta,... Scenarios/2009 Edition/Challenges. Caution... requires thinking outside the box.

 

[ar81]

I think Martin might add a feature that unlocks the answer of the challenge after you tried the scenario.

To me, a question without an answer is not worth asking. And I think that before challenging people, an adequate didactic guide on space travel, easy to understand, up to date, should be included with Orbiter.

It should be very visual.
There is no way to think out of the box, when you do not even understand the box.

To me, TransX is still cryptic. So I do not even have the key to unlock the box.

Perhaps a nice built-in tutorial on TransX with 3D diagrams of what you are doing, could help to understand. The problem of external tutorials is that you have multiple versions of third party addons. This is why I attach to a single version of an addon consistently, even if it gets updated.

My two cents...

 

[astrosammy]

Well, the betas somehow stopped working for me (http://files.getdropbox.com/u/1484048/b1.wmv, I'll make a bug report if I can't get it fixed), but the challenges look beautiful, it's a very useful addition. I'll try to get that challenge finished and post how I did it later.

 

[ar81]

I think that if your tutorials could become part of the stock Orbiter, as orbinauts might have:
-Scenarios
-TransX MFD
-Tutorials
...everything in the same pack.
That would make Orbiter much more educational than just challenges.
Challenges would be fun, once people learn.

 

[flytandem]

There is no way to think out of the box, when you do not even understand the box.

One of the easiest ways to think outside the box is to not know the boundaries.

 

[PriestLizard]

Just having an idea: what about including "profiles" (like pilot IDs) to Orbiter? You could see some statistics on your profile, like how many orbits you did, how many miles, how many crashes, how many re-entries etc.
Maybe you could include an option to either save the progress in a scenario to the profile or not - so there wouldn't be a penalty for just trying out things etc.

And well, there could also be "achievements" like completing a "challenge" or to land on another planet.

Just an idea...

 

[martins]

Thanks again to flytandem for providing the challenge scenarios. If you can think of any more I'll be happy to write the scripts for them.

I should mention that the challenge 4 isn't quite finished yet. The script recognises a successful touchdown, but it only checks for acceptable vertical velocity at touchdown. It doesn't yet rate your proximity to the target runway. I will need to implement a few more script functions for that. On the other hand, maybe it isn't required anyway, and landing anywhere is good enough, considering that it is a tough challenge to start with (to be honest, I haven't even tried yet ...)

 

[flytandem]

Well I suppose if it wasn't tough then it wouldn't qualify as a challenge. But, it's been a couple of days so maybe a hint is in order?

There are 4 windows a month that allow a single burn that coasts ultimately to atmospheric contact with Earth. And there is ~80 Kg more fuel supplied than is actually needed. :hmm:

edit: and I agree with Dr Schweiger, I think the real challenge is just getting contact with Earth atmosphere. Adding in a landing on the runway at KSC is perhaps just some personal icing on the cake. Maybe we don't really need to check for proximity to the runway?

 

[Travis Reed]

Well I suppose if it wasn't tough then it wouldn't qualify as a challenge. But, it's been a couple of days so maybe a hint is in order?

There are 4 windows a month that allow a single burn that coasts ultimately to atmospheric contact with Earth. And there is ~80 Kg more fuel supplied than is actually needed. :hmm:

Before this comment I had a thought as to how it might be achieved... With this hint, my thought is very nearly confirmed...