# Far From Home: Single Engine

## 38 posts in this topic

41 minutes ago, icantmakemodels said:

So, make a category for multi-launch-refueled-at-KSC and another for single-launch.

Problem solved.

Fair enough.

Another way to do something like a Jool-5 would be to pack a drop-tank SSTO full of tanks coupled with docking ports rather than decouplers, and leave them in orbit between landings.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Single engine, go and make score , and return safely to Kerbin?

Score as distance covered, and you get a 150% multiplier for each additional Kerbal

score * 1.5 PER KERBAL PASSENGER!?

Challenge accepted.

Meet the Single-Engined Kerbal Vehicle, EXPLOIT 3

It starts on the runway, facing south, as it has extreme difficulty in stepping off the runway, plus the turning circle is about 30 times its length.. This is NO agile slinky!

Who needs speed, who needs distance. This scoring system is ALL about passenger count.

The EXPLOIT 3 is powered by a single mammoth engine, and carries Jeb + 3 fellow kerbonauts, plus 11 columns of 20 passenger compartments of 16 kerbal passengers each.

Total passengers = 3 + 11 * 20 * 16 = 3523 paying passengers

Starting on the journey.

Fuel used = 4050.  Fuel remaining = 83070  (4.6 percent fuel used)

Distance covered = 10 km

Know what? As I said, the important bit here is number of passengers, not distance.

And seeing as this monstrosity runs on my potato at 5 second per frame (yes, 5 per frame, not 5 frames per second!), I'm declaring this as good enough

My Score should be 10.75 km * 1.5^3523 = approximately 5e621 points

Edited by MarvinKitFox
8 people like this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hold my other beer, @MarvinKitFox

Edited by icantmakemodels
Yes, I had two beers to start.
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just for fun, built a SESSTLAB (Single Engine Single Stage to Laythe and Back).

Hmm...might need to work on that acronym

32 tons on the runway, using a single RAPIER. Just under 2,500 m/s dV in LKO.

The tried and tested K-E-K-K-J gravity assist sequence flings us to Jool for about 1,250 m/s total.

A reverse Laythe gravity assist then captures us into Jool orbit cheaply.

Quick tea break on Laythe...

...then off back home. We have 1,000 m/s remaining in LLO. Not enough for a direct return to Kerbin, however we can use the magic of Tylo to fling us out of the Jool system and drop our PE all the way down to Kerbin for about 700 m/s.

Our Tylo PE was only 3.6 km; fortunately we didn't encounter any mountains!

We're still going too quickly to aero-brake directly into Kerbin orbit, so we use a Kerbin gravity assist to slow down a little first.

Then we can capture (just) on a 2nd pass and return to the KSC with an entire 5 units of Oxidiser left over (such extravagance!)

Full album for the curious

Edited by ManEatingApe
7 people like this

##### Share on other sites
On 6/3/2017 at 3:50 PM, MarvinKitFox said:

Single engine, go and make score , and return safely to Kerbin?

Score as distance covered, and you get a 150% multiplier for each additional Kerbal

score * 1.5 PER KERBAL PASSENGER!?

Challenge accepted.

Meet the Single-Engined Kerbal Vehicle, EXPLOIT 3

It starts on the runway, facing south, as it has extreme difficulty in stepping off the runway, plus the turning circle is about 30 times its length.. This is NO agile slinky!

Who needs speed, who needs distance. This scoring system is ALL about passenger count.

The EXPLOIT 3 is powered by a single mammoth engine, and carries Jeb + 3 fellow kerbonauts, plus 11 columns of 20 passenger compartments of 16 kerbal passengers each.

Total passengers = 3 + 11 * 20 * 16 = 3523 paying passengers

Starting on the journey.

Fuel used = 4050.  Fuel remaining = 83070  (4.6 percent fuel used)

Distance covered = 10 km

Know what? As I said, the important bit here is number of passengers, not distance.

And seeing as this monstrosity runs on my potato at 5 second per frame (yes, 5 per frame, not 5 frames per second!), I'm declaring this as good enough

My Score should be 10.75 km * 1.5^3523 = approximately 5e621 points

The name EXPLOIT 3 fits your craft, you came up with a great idea this scoring system has a serious problem; say one have 100 kerbals on a rocket, adding 1 kerbal to the rocket would make it so the rocket is only 1.01 times heavier (if it accomplishes the same task), but that persons score would increase by 1.5. I suggest that the scoring system should be distance*kerbalcount.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zeta function said:
On 6/3/2017 at 3:50 PM, MarvinKitFox said:

Single engine, go and make score , and return safely to Kerbin?

Score as distance covered, and you get a 150% multiplier for each additional Kerbal

score * 1.5 PER KERBAL PASSENGER!?

Challenge accepted.

Meet the Single-Engined Kerbal Vehicle, EXPLOIT 3

It starts on the runway, facing south, as it has extreme difficulty in stepping off the runway, plus the turning circle is about 30 times its length.. This is NO agile slinky!

Know what? As I said, the important bit here is number of passengers, not distance.

And seeing as this monstrosity runs on my potato at 5 second per frame (yes, 5 per frame, not 5 frames per second!), I'm declaring this as good enough

My Score should be 10.75 km * 1.5^3523 = approximately 5e621 points

The name EXPLOIT 3 fits your craft, you came up with a great idea this scoring system has a serious problem; say one have 100 kerbals on a rocket, adding 1 kerbal to the rocket would make it so the rocket is only 1.01 times heavier (if it accomplishes the same task), but that persons score would increase by 1.5. I suggest that the scoring system should be distance*kerbalcount.

Hah! Indeed.

I should have simply specified that the craft be capable of actually flying. Didn't think that needed to be stated, but obviously it did.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I should have simply specified that the craft be capable of actually flying. Didn't think that needed to be stated, but obviously it did.

No, that wouldn't solve the scoring problem. Ludicrous numbers of Kerbals give you a multiplier that makes even the smallest distance covered achieve an insane score. You can still build a large plane with a Mammoth engine that's just so able to take off, but I don't think that's an intended goal of this challenge.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

If you do want to reward Kerbal passengers, try Kerbals ^ 0.5  (square root of count of passengers)

For 9 passengers, you would score 3 times

For 100 passengers, you would score 10 times

for my sillyness, 3523 passengers would score 59.35 times

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Physics Student said:

No, that wouldn't solve the scoring problem. Ludicrous numbers of Kerbals give you a multiplier that makes even the smallest distance covered achieve an insane score. You can still build a large plane with a Mammoth engine that's just so able to take off, but I don't think that's an intended goal of this challenge.

The atmospheric aspect was mostly an afterthought, which is why I hadn't worried about the insane multiplier; if you can get 100 kerbals into orbit on a single engine, more power to you. But yeah, the multiplier was a math mistake; I was thinking of (Distance * (1 + (kerbals - 1)/2 )).

##### Share on other sites

Are we allowed to use jet engines for this, or only rockets?

##### Share on other sites
On 2017-6-2 at 5:18 PM, sevenperforce said:

Level 3: Atmospheric

• (no entries yet)

Has to be 'Level 1' isn't it? Cool challenge btw

##### Share on other sites

I was doing the Jool5 challenge and had no time for this, I going to try this again soon.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I got 3540m/s and I was going 1654.7m/s at escape (at 85 megameters) with a kerbal.

I used KER mechjeb, I had kerbal re-usability expansion and FMRS but I didn't use those.

Basically I ejected at a 90 degree and to prograde and and then came back to aerobrake a few times and landed (I lost 3 airbrakes.)

Edited by zeta function
1 person likes this