Abastro

Members
  • Content count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Abastro

  1. This is reboot of @tseitsei89's economy challenge, which was for 1.1. Categories There is 4 categories each for Stock and Modded. I. DISPOSABLE LIFTERS - Recovery doesn't count IIa. REUSABLE ROCKETS - No airbreathers IIb. VERTICAL LAUNCHED VEHICLES - Vertical Launch with airbreathers III. GENERAL - Anything is allowed Score Score is given by {Expense for the Mission} / {Payload mass(t)}. Expense doesn't include the price of the payload. Recovery cost is excluded from the expense for categories IIa, IIb and III. 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 launch pad 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. 2. You can use ANY parts you like. IIa. REUSABLE ROCKETS 1. You can use any parts except airbreathing engines. (This includes any kind of scooping) 2. You can recover any parts of your lifter that you can for a refund. 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. IIb. VERTICAL LAUNCHED VEHICLES 1. You can use any parts, and at least one airbreather should be used in lifter. 2. You can recover any parts of your lifter that you can for a refund. 3. The craft should fly vertically to orbit - Pitch should be above 30 degrees under stratosphere(7km) 4. 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. 5. 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. GENERAL 1. You can use any parts. 2. You can recover any parts of your lifter that you can for a refund. 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. - Username, brief explanation of the profile and characteristics will be listed. Craft file will be listed as well if it's given. Leaderboards Stock: I) 1. 589.8/t, @maccollo, with Skipper augmented with Kickbacks. IIa) 1. 378.32/t, @Abastro, with fully recoverable TSTO w/o boostback. (Poodle on the second stage, Skipper&ReliantsX2 on the first stage) 2. 394.99/t, @Nefrums, with Shuttle second stage on SpaceX style first stage. (Rhino on the second stage, Mammoths&Vectors on the first stage) 3. 484.231/t (Craft file), @Avo4Dayz, with simplistic recoverable rocket SSTO powered by single Twin-Boar. 4. 756.10/t, @Abastro, with fully recoverable TSTO with Nerv on the second stage. III) 1. 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 2. 159.29/t, @NightshineRecorralis, with mk2 spaceplane with 2 R.A.P.I.E.Rs supplied by single Shock Cone Intake. 3. 378.32/t, @Abastro, with fully recoverable TSTO w/o boostback. (Poodle on the second stage, Skipper&ReliantsX2 on the first stage) 4. 394.99/t, @Nefrums, with Shuttle second stage on SpaceX style first stage. (Rhino on the second stage, Mammoths&Vectors on the first stage) 5. 589.8/t, @maccollo, with Skipper augmented with Kickbacks. 6. 756.10/t, @Abastro, with fully recoverable TSTO with Nerv on the second stage. Modded:
  2. 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)
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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!
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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!
  11. Yeah, that's true for many practical situations. A challenge is a challenge, though. Also I think a LKO mission is good enough standard for many launches. (As far as not going to shoot Minmus or other destinations, directly from launch) So, I agree with @Avo4Dayz here. Well, you need to follow the rules. But other than that, that's great design with good-looking craft! I think it'll be efficient as well. Please repurpose it a bit and post it an entry, I'm looking forward to it.
  12. Efficient and Good-looking spaceplane? Was it ever possible? (I thought one need to sacrifice efficiency to make a ssto spaceplane which looks good) Also it looks lacking wings, but still flies well! Just wow. Certainly be listed as the first on III!
  13. I didn't know (actually, forgot) that. Makes sense. The current font just looked too strict as in-game text for me. Or it might be from the annoyance from the bug with spacing on resource tab and such.
  14. Oh... I wants to change the font. Maybe I'd have to wait for the next release.
  15. Is there some option to choose font? I can't find it. (edit) In my opinion, 82000 words of translation looks way small compared to the changed lines of code(4000000).
  16. It's out. And it does not want to start... EDIT: It was just a problem on my end. So here's the font of the title screen changed: Well.. Okay, I should have reminded that this version is unfinished prerelease. Waiting for fix...
  17. What is the current theoretical limit of the cost efficiency to orbit? For stock 1.2 without cheats, in terms of cost per ton, for these cases: 1. Without any recovery 2. Including recovery, without airplane flight path 3. Including recovery, with airplane flight path Practically, there was an orbiter capable of 600/t without any recovery a few versions ago (AFAIK). For the reusable case, I got 500/t with TSTO rocket in 1.1.3 and 1.2, and there should be better one. Here's a challenge to find the practical limit of the cost efficiency to orbit. Here's a spreadsheet with optimal cost efficiency for each engines
  18. @rcp27, Decoupler is required for every staged rocket, and SSTO is almost always less efficient than staged rockets. The dry mass is nearly twice for those, so you'll need much more fuel. Also fuel is expensive in ksp, so single FL-T400 already costs more than the 1.25m decoupler. I think the only reasonable SSTO is one from Twin-Boar. Though, the cost (including adapters) matters when comparing different sized rockets. It's definitely a weak point of my analysis to improve. (Minor note: I recall that Reliant needs more than FL-T800 tank as first stage)
  19. That looks like something which can get to orbit with kickback only. With TWR adjusted to be in range of 1.5 to 2.0, and proper gravity turn profile. In this way delta-v requirement decreases about 600m/s. Also, I heard that Kickback + Terrier can be good enough if configured well.
  20. So SRB only rocket? That's great concept. Although, AFAIK SRB is useless as second stage. Terrier/Reliant(yes reliant)/Poodle is good enough, for the low TWR requirement. Also it seems that you're going for a bit high TWR. Try adding more mass(payload) over the Kickback / Thumper. I had no problem tilting them on TWR 1.6~1.7
  21. If you need plenty of margin in dv(2.5km/s~3km/s), Nuke is better for TWR under 0.6. Poodle is better for TWR over 0.7.
  22. My claim on combination of engines was wrong. Individual engine is always better than in (lifter cost) / (payload mass). The proof involves in gradient and local minimum. (And a bit of eyeballing). It's just wall of text, so I'd rather not post it here. If you want it, ask me here or PM me.
  23. Experiment! Always better than theory. Though, I think this one is inconsistent with mine and this (some more here). It's for 1.1.3 and drag profile changed a bit on 1.2, but it shouldn't be changed these things a lot. Kickback provides good amount of dv, which is really helpful for first stage and augmentation. Besides, what do you mean by Payload Assist Module? Does that mean side boosters augmenting the thrust of the center?
  24. Yeah, I missed that in the simplifications. Right. I'm trying to find the the maximum efficiency. By the way, I'm still working on the combination of the engine. Showed that combination of 3 or more engine types can't be better than a single engine or two engines. It was hard math with bunch of equations wandering around, so I can't post it here.
  25. It'd be better if the screenshots were taken out of the map mode, but this one seems to be enough. (Unless you continuously cheated, where it shouldn't be the case)