Abastro

Economy Challenge 1.2 (Reboot)

52 posts in this topic

19 minutes ago, Nefrums said:

That should be possible as a almost empty first stage has lots of twr,  Doing it with any kind of accuracy will be very hard thou.

I see, good precision will be hard while running out of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Abastro said:

Under 500/t with SSTO rockets? Looks great! Though, you didn't take any screenshots of the launch profile. There's an issue with validity there... Please post the screenshots on the launch profile.

No worries, apologise as my first time doing a challenge, wasn't sure what info to share... Here (assuming this is what you meant:
Several screens during ascent phase and circularization 
http://imgur.com/gallery/PbmWH

I would show you the mechjeb flight recorder graph if I knew how to export one

Also here is the craft file in case you wish to make an attempt for validity also... (requires mechjeb and I aimed for a 72km orbit for reference)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/au0tybndr21xo12/AAA7YZ1qSyn_FKa9JF-RRGpRa?dl=0

3 hours ago, Nefrums said:

Doing the boost-back is a bit hard as both first and second stage needs to be above the atmosphere in order to switch back and forth between them.  It took a couple of attempts to find a ascent path that left the first stage with a AP >70km, and at the same time the shuttle had to have enough time to do most of the circulation burn before the first stage dropped back down.

The dV cost for doing a boost-back was way less then I expected. 

Nice, very tempted to make a crack as this style next.... will modify my initial entry, as well as some back to drawing board attempts.... Been on my mind all day haha

Edited by Avo4Dayz
added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Avo4Dayz said:

No worries, apologise as my first time doing a challenge, wasn't sure what info to share... Here (assuming this is what you meant:
Several screens during ascent phase and circularization 
http://imgur.com/gallery/PbmWH

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

Edited by Avo4Dayz
Double Post...damn phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 15/03/2017 at 1:56 PM, Abastro said:

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)

Originally couldn't be bothered but video of whole flight to come... 
The trick with this style of rocket with such small fuel margins is perfecting the re-entry profile...as you'll see

 

Edited by Avo4Dayz
added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 3:32 AM, Nefrums said:

Doing the boost-back is a bit hard as both first and second stage needs to be above the atmosphere in order to switch back and forth between them.  It took a couple of attempts to find a ascent path that left the first stage with a AP >70km, and at the same time the shuttle had to have enough time to do most of the circulation burn before the first stage dropped back down.

The dV cost for doing a boost-back was way less then I expected. 

 

 

RMFS is updated for 1.2 (I think, I use it and it works fine ^^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This isn't really a submission but just sharing of a concept i put together..... The kickback booster lifts the satellite to a parking orbit that reaches an apoapsis of 173km. After which the spark engine on the 1.13t sat circularises the orbit

Whole System costs 10,799(3,409 for just the launcher) funds to lift the 1.13t sat (takes to a parking orbit of 170 so I'm sure it could get to orbit on it's own if flown on the right profile....
UcY2Zsq.png

Maybe someone would like to play with the idea of using the kickback to launch a payload to orbit.. I may try just get

This was designed for the following challenge

 

Edited by Avo4Dayz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Avo4Dayz said:

snip

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Abastro said:

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.

Yeah I think it can be good enough to get to orbit purely with the kickback... for it's original purpose it had the Thrust turned down to about 49% and 300 units of fuel removed so it could make the transition without much thought put in. For the other challenge I initially made one large booster to carry all 8 required sats up to orbit then let them disperse... so was just using the same satellite subassembly

Having trouble piloting it well enough to get it to sustainable orbit myself though.

Edited by Avo4Dayz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take one basic Mk3 cargo bus:

UmSa1GQ.png

 

With a 41,240kg payload:

tkbQtaU.png

 

Easy up:

A60RvZd.png

 

Ten degree climb through transonic:

gHuljoI.png

 

Stay on airbreathers until the jet ceiling:

LolV4Az.png

 

None of the cargo fuel used:

ikh01Sg.png

JFYj7ID.png

 

A vigorous reentry and landing approach:

vl0FGma.png

 

Safely down:

sAVoAAB.png

 

So, that's 5966 units LF and 3985 units O to deliver 41.24t to orbit. At  0.8/unit for LF and  0.18/unit for O, that's  5440.1 total cost, for a score of 131.91/t.

Craft file (with a very slightly lighter cargo on board) at https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfq60n0yfspeihe/Kerbotruck.craft?dl=0

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I really understand the idea here? I see KSP community is somewhat obsessed with putting payloads into LKO..... Where as I find LKO (70 - 200 km) just a pain in the cheeks to do anything in, I don't tend to leave anything there! I play completely stock, no mods. I don't refuel in LKO, the Delta V for RV is too high for day to day activities, and other than for being able to have one, I don't see why I would want a massive station in LKO.... I tend to have my main activities focused around Minimus.

That being said, I have designed a ship that allows me to recover both the SRB stage that puts it into a suborbit, and also the main passenger ship. My only lost parts are 4x FLT-800 and x1 X200-32 fuel tank, costing 6,200 kbucks, so a flight only costs 6,200 + fuel. I use it to drop survey and coms sats off where-ever they need on it's route, although it does need to meet a refuelling rig depending on where it is going. It goes as far as Duna or Ike (so far). Of course, not using mods it is a challenge to land back at KSC especially when you only have aerobraking for the final approach, but usually I can get within sight of the KSC with the upper stage, and of course the SRB's usually land in Korea.

Does it count?


Pictured is on the pad, but if it counts, I will do a special mission for this thread!


H7FAcYa.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Andetch said:

Not sure I really understand the idea here? I see KSP community is somewhat obsessed with putting payloads into LKO.....

I think the point of LKO is just to make it easy to reach allowing for many different designs. You could start an economy challenge for mimmus or Duna or even Jool. But this would result in designs getting more and more a like. An easier goal results in new innovative ideas that in the long run can change the deep space game to.

Still fascinating design!

Edited by Avo4Dayz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Avo4Dayz said:

I think the point of LKO is just to make it easy to reach allowing for many different designs. You could start an economy challenge for mimmus or Duna or even Jool. But this would result in designs getting more and more a like. An easier goal results in new innovative ideas that in the long run can change the deep space game to.

Still fascinating design!

I see what you mean....I think the main challenge in KSP is to have a re-usable system in place, so that ships go up to your chosen refuel spot, go out to whatever planetary system, and return - or not as the case is for labs, just keep refuelling and moving. So that way you're only launching one small ship at a time that can meet whatever landers and refuelling rigs as needed. So not really workable as a challenge thread :/

I am glad the design is fascinating :) I am sure she could put weight equal to or greater than the upper stage  into LKO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Wanderfound said:

Awesome Entry

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!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Andetch said:

Not sure I really understand the idea here? I see KSP community is somewhat obsessed with putting payloads into LKO..... Where as I find LKO (70 - 200 km) just a pain in the cheeks to do anything in, I don't tend to leave anything there! I play completely stock, no mods. I don't refuel in LKO, the Delta V for RV is too high for day to day activities, and other than for being able to have one, I don't see why I would want a massive station in LKO.... I tend to have my main activities focused around Minimus.

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.

10 hours ago, Andetch said:

That being said, I have designed a ship that allows me to recover both the SRB stage that puts it into a suborbit, and also the main passenger ship. My only lost parts are 4x FLT-800 and x1 X200-32 fuel tank, costing 6,200 kbucks, so a flight only costs 6,200 + fuel. I use it to drop survey and coms sats off where-ever they need on it's route, although it does need to meet a refuelling rig depending on where it is going. It goes as far as Duna or Ike (so far). Of course, not using mods it is a challenge to land back at KSC especially when you only have aerobraking for the final approach, but usually I can get within sight of the KSC with the upper stage, and of course the SRB's usually land in Korea.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Abastro said:

 

Also it looks lacking wings, but still flies well!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andetch said:

I am glad the design is fascinating :) I am sure she could put weight equal to or greater than the upper stage  into LKO.

most deffinitely would lift larger amount to LKO.. would be interesting how cost effective to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here goes my entry:

FOjG6Nb.png

bT6EEA6.png

e95xEQH.png

BbG9Iyu.png

87HDWqT.png

VUT1FWN.png

Lifted 13.42t in 5077:funds:. Thus 378.32:funds:/t.

(Full album & Certification of the cost)

 

In detail, the first stage costs 17110:funds:, and recovered 13134:funds:.

The second stage is returned from orbit, so counts as 100% recovery. The fuel on the stage costs 1101:funds:.

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!

Edited by Abastro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Okay, so I got this..... PTSO design. Lifted 75.9T into an orbit far too elliptical, should have packed in more weight. Cost at launch was 174,000, including payload. Payload costs 18,369. Assuming full recovery of both stages, possible (and allowed under the rules?) the cost of fuelling the mission is 21,031.

21,031 divided by 75.9 = 277.08 kerbal bucks per ton into orbit.

Right?

Okay, I crashed the SRB stage a bit, because I forgot to set it retrograde while out of the atmosphere. I landed the upper stage 80KM from KSC. I fly by hand, stock install.

I personally think that I should try and stick an extra 10 -20 T on it to improve the handling during the grav turn.

Ship FIle: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxP5XMEnEjPibTdOT1h5VXRaTXM

nFxgEkv.pngcsepI0r.pngnMvNzja.pngObHrrdk.pngWTLiZpW.pngEG4VTWA.png387EB0V.pngQXHs5me.pngq8WeXIO.png

On 19/03/2017 at 4:27 AM, Avo4Dayz said:

most deffinitely would lift larger amount to LKO.. would be interesting how cost effective to

 

On 19/03/2017 at 2:42 AM, Abastro said:

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.

 

 

Edited by Andetch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Andetch said:

Assuming full recovery of both stages,

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Abastro said:

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!

If you put in a bit more time to attach parachutes and have it land in the water even all the way up to approximately 88km from Kerbin gets you 94% recovery cost..worth a shot if interesting in run at challenge. The 2% is hardly worth it for how efficient it already is.

Edited by Avo4Dayz
numbers were wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, can chuck a few more chutes on the SRB stage, and even given deductions from landing the SRB's in Korea I think she is still pretty good. I am now working on the fabled 100T payload. I will get back to you all :)

And apologies about my confusion, in the mission I was getting some of the finer wordings from the brief muddled up. I was pleasantly surprised when I first looked at the cost of recovering stuff from Korea so I guess she should be good.

I won't be doing this tonight though, but I will relaunch and obtain the correct numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:funds: for 0.5t, 1200:funds: for 1t, 1600:funds: for 2t, 3000:funds: for 3t, 3500:funds: for 5t can be listed.

And 1700:funds: for 1.8t can't be listed here, since it is cheaper to 2t lifter with 1600:funds: 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what the price points mean, but I see the benefit of splitting entries by class. I think there should be more heavy classes though. I would propose:  1t,  5t, 10t, 25t, 50t. 

Choose a payload and see how cheaply you can get it to orbit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clancy said:

I'm not really sure what the price points mean, but I see the benefit of splitting entries by class. I think there should be more heavy classes though. I would propose:  1t,  5t, 10t, 25t, 50t. 

Choose a payload and see how cheaply you can get it to orbit!

Yeah, like that, but in much better form!

Let me give an example.

If there are submissions for 1000:funds: for 0.5t, 1200:funds: for 1t, 1700:funds: for 1.8t, 1600:funds: for 2t, 3000:funds: for 3t, 3500:funds: for 5t, 7500:funds: for 8t, 7000:funds: for 10t, 10000:funds: for 14t, 10000:funds: for 15t

1700:funds: for 1.8t, 7500:funds: for 8t, 10000:funds: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now