Abastro

Members
  • Content count

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Abastro

Recent Profile Visitors

1569 profile views
  1. I always forget it and ends up with Jeb sitting in there. This is painful in combination with tourist contracts. I even launched a rocket and found out that Jeb is just sitting in there. Alone. Doyou have similar experiences?
  2. This, and bigger fuel tanks are cheaper as well. (Nearly every parts in ksp obey this 'economy of scale'.
  3. Continuation of economy challenge 1.2 with rules changed. Categories There are 3 categories each for Stock and Modded. I. DISPOSABLE LIFTERS - Reliable Disposables II. REUSABLE ROCKETS - Reusable Vertical Launch Vehicles III. SPACEPLANES - Cargo Planes accidentally got to orbit SPEISPLAINS Scoring Score is given by Expense for the mission, for given Payload mass. - Expense doesn't include the price of the payload. Recovery cost is excluded from the expense for categories II and III. - As cargo lifters are generally capable of hauling lighter payload than the intended, lifters cheaper than any others with heavier payload are the best for their region(the payload mass range). Those will be listed. - i.e. If a lifter won't be listed when it's more expensive and haul lighter payload than another lifter. Rules 1. No cheat menu, No clipping of fuel tank & engine. 2. For stock entries, the craft should work in the same way with stock installs. For modded entries, only balanced mods are allowed. 3. You must launch from launchpad or runway. 4. You must achieve a stable orbit. (Pe >70km) 5. Payload must be separated from the lifter once in orbit. Decoupler used for this can NOT be a part of the payload. 6. Payload can have 1 pod, cockpit or probe core but nothing else that contributes any thrust or control authority to your craft. Also no lifting surfaces in payload. 7. Payload mass count after it's decoupled. If you had fuel or something disposable on the payload, give enough proof that you didn't throw any of them away. (e.g. Show that initial payload mass and final payload mass are same) I. DISPOSABLE LIFTERS 1. Funds from recovery doesn't count. II. REUSABLE ROCKETS 1. You should recover at least one part of your lifter. 2. The craft should fly vertically to orbit - Pitch should be above 30 degrees under stratosphere(7km) 3. If you return parts of the lifter from orbit you don't have to land on runway or launchpad for 100% refund. Just land somewhere on kerbin and you can count 100% refund. This is because once you are in orbit it is trivial (but time consuming and boring/irritating) to land at KSC. 4. If you return parts of the lifter that are dropped while suborbital or in atmosphere you must land them somewhere in the KSC area (not necessarily on the launchpad/runway) for 100% refund (KSC must be within sight from your landing spot). This is because again precision landing is boring/irritating. If it is outside the KSC, recovery cost is calculated as default. III. SPACEPLANES 1. Feel free with recovery - you can either recover or dispose any parts. 2. The craft should fly horizontally to orbit. Perform horizontal flight (pitch < 30deg) at least once before reaching stratosphere(7km) 3. If you return parts of the lifter from orbit you don't have to land on runway or launchpad for 100% refund. Just land somewhere on kerbin and you can count 100% refund. This is because (IMO) once you are in orbit it is trivial (but time consuming and boring/irritating) to land at KSC. 4. If you return parts of the lifter that are dropped while suborbital or in atmosphere you must land them somewhere in the KSC area (not necessarily on the launchpad/runway) for 100% refund (KSC must be within sight from your landing spot). This is because again precision landing is boring/irritating. If it is outside the KSC, recovery cost is calculated as default. Submission - Submission should include enough screenshots or video to prove validity of the mission. - Payload mass and cost should be presented clearly. - Username, brief explanation of the profile and characteristics will be listed. Craft file will be listed as well if it's given. Leaderboard Stock: I) - 61.87t in 36488(589.8/t), @maccollo, with Skipper augmented with Kickbacks. II) - 3.280t in 2480(756.10/t), @Abastro, with fully recoverable TSTO with Nerv on the second stage. - 13.42t in 5077(378.32/t), @Abastro with fully recoverable TSTO w/o boostback. (Poodle on the second stage, Skipper&ReliantsX2 on the first stage) - 18.20t in 8813(484.23/t) (Craft file), @Avo4Dayz, with simplistic recoverable rocket SSTO powered by single Twin-Boar. - 85.00t in 30315(394.99/t), @Nefrums, with Shuttle second stage on SpaceX style first stage. (Rhino on the second stage, Mammoths&Vectors on the first stage) III), - 7.000t in 1115(159.29/t), @NightshineRecorralis, with mk2 spaceplane with 2 R.A.P.I.E.Rs supplied by single Shock Cone Intake. - 11.60t in 1319(113.69/t), @Clancy, with mk1-2 spaceplane powered by 2 RAPIERs supplied by and 1 NERV. (Just enough Oxidizer to push through the 30-40km, where the NERV can take its time getting to orbit.) - 41.24t in 5440(131.91/t)(Craft file), @Wanderfound, with mk3 cargo bus powered by 6 R.A.P.I.E.Rs and 3 Shock Cone Intakes. with few wings - I guess, it's just not wingless Suboptimal Entries: Modded: Note: Scoring scheme could be reworked, so that cost per mass should be better for heavier payloads. I'll be listing my own spectrum of (reusable) lifters. Hopefully it'll be finished in this week.
  4. That's so economic! Looks great. I thought it'd be better to have as less engines as possible, due to their mass. Now this one teaches me a lesson! Also, I couldn't expect Nerv for LKO Lifter. Thanks! Besides, I'm going to start the new challenge, with the entries given here included. Please take a look on it.
  5. Simple: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law Rather tham fiddling with the constants, comparing with the planets/moons works better. (E.g. for Kerbin orbiter, compare with Mun)
  6. Yeah, like that, but in much better form! Let me give an example. If there are submissions for 1000 for 0.5t, 1200 for 1t, 1700 for 1.8t, 1600 for 2t, 3000 for 3t, 3500 for 5t, 7500 for 8t, 7000 for 10t, 10000 for 14t, 10000 for 15t 1700 for 1.8t, 7500 for 8t, 10000 for 14t will be excluded on the list because there is a better(cheaper) entry. The rest remains in the list, comprising the cheapest lifters for the region of payload.
  7. I'd like to reboot this challenge (or make a similar challenge) in another form. Would it be okay? Roughly, I'll change the scoring system to be based on absolute price per launch for a given payload mass, because bigger craft tends to be cheaper as cost per payload mass. Since most lifters can lift payload lighter than what's intended, it will be reasonable to list lifters which are cheapest choice for its intended payload mass. For instance, 1000 for 0.5t, 1200 for 1t, 1600 for 2t, 3000 for 3t, 3500 for 5t can be listed. And 1700 for 1.8t can't be listed here, since it is cheaper to 2t lifter with 1600 to lift 1.8t As spaceplanes are inevitably the best in efficiency while being time-intensive, there will be three categories: I, II(Vertical Launch+Reusable), III(Spaceplanes). How do you think?
  8. For the first time, I got a second stage on the runway! Forgt to take some screenshots of flight before parachute is deployed. Even though it has wings, it flew like a dart. Didn't want to turn, which made this landing so hard. Anyway, it's landed!
  9. Forever, I can't make anything aesthetically fine(or at least not absurd). The best I can get is always a well optimized craft (performance-wise).
  10. Those are for re-docking, to make it warp-proof while hauling. Primarily to haul it to Eve & Duna. Also it's necessity for SSTO propeller planes.
  11. I was overestimating the effect. As you said, the small difference in rotation speed doesn't cause too much roll! Though, I found planes with single electric propeller tends to roll even with efficient fairing bearing. It needs at least half of the reaction wheels on the plane to compensate it, decreasing the performance greatly. Maybe friction is not small enough to ignore.
  12. Sorry, but the rule doesn't allow 100% recovery for stages detached before reaching stable orbit. It should land in KSC to count as 100% recovery, otherwise it follows the recovery rate of stock career. Looks like Kerbal & Efficient entry, though!
  13. Here goes my entry: Lifted 13.42t in 5077. Thus 378.32/t. (Full album & Certification of the cost) In detail, the first stage costs 17110, and recovered 13134. The second stage is returned from orbit, so counts as 100% recovery. The fuel on the stage costs 1101. The payload is command pod, parachute and docking ports with ore tanks, so it can't be crossfed to anywhere. This craft and launch profile is still suboptimal, and there's plenty of dv margin on the second stage. Relatively small, too. Still, this one is the first on IIa category! I'm going to submit an improved entry with my own launch profile. I'm sure that it'll be cheaper, with better recovery!