Aetharan

Members
  • Content Count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

4 Followers

About Aetharan

  • Rank
    Madman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, considering that in a previous thread I circumnavigated Kerbin in a Juno-powered plane that burned about 400 fuel, this should be more than doable. I'd simply resubmit that old flight, but the plane actually held 600 fuel (using a quartet of Mk 0 fuselages surface-mounted to a Mk.1 Divertless Supersonic Intake.) Still, said plane also carried a passenger cabin. I'll have to build to the specifications of this thread.
  2. The Retro-Solar Rescue thread pretty well demonstrated that "having enough delta-v to brute-force your way to the destination" is not the only way. I'm sure that somebody better than I am at gravity assists could pull it off.
  3. Every time I look at this thread, more rules have been added to restrict what's allowed. The most recent addition of "only 1.25m parts" disqualifies what I have to show unless "or smaller" is tacked onto the end, but I'll share it anyway for posterity. Back in the Smallest Rocket to Orbit Challenge, I modernized my old Ogod-Y Mk.15 into the Ogod-Y Mk.15 RB. I later managed to get even lighter, but those iterations had a few more parts and so don't count. The 15 and 15 RB, however, are exactly 10 parts. Both of these crafts got a Kerbal into orbit without using the pilot's EVA fuel, and got said pilot safely back down again. It's also worth pointing to the Challenge Submission Guide here. Terse responses and edits don't really give us much on what you're looking for. Try explaining with a paragraph or two of your vision, or better yet, show us your attempt so we can get a peek into what you're trying to do (and trying to get us to do.) Plenty of players have demonstrated the ability to get to orbit and back in ultralight ships, both in terms of mass and part-count. Adding rules to narrow things down every time somebody shows that it can and has been done is counterproductive to people having fun with your challenge.
  4. Considering it would take a little over twice the delta-v of my last launch, plus the ability to actually steer at some point? I'd tend to agree.
  5. Once you get past that, either through design (to a point, auto-strutting to grandparent has helped me) or the use of a mod (Kerbal Joint Reinforcement helps), the next problems will be how much RAM you have available for the game to fill up, and your tolerance for seconds-per-frame gameplay in early stages of the launch.
  6. I have taken it farther. Behold, the Krakenbait Mk.2! Sleeker than its sibling, the Mk.2 carried Val up to 34,205m (with a safe splash-down to end the ride) despite reporting less total delta-V in Kerbal Engineer Redux.
  7. Did somebody call for a ridiculous number of engines being used for something completely outside of their designed purpose? That's one of my specialties! I present Krakenbait! This beauty pushed Jeb up to 23,234 meters above sea level, and set him down gently on the runway!
  8. Aw, @DRAG0Nmon, the whole point of the iteration is to have a single entry that is the very best I can produce, not to flood the leaderboard. Just count my best entry! (Edit: Besides, you included the Lawndart in there (the 2.085t), and that's a 3-year-old craft that doesn't even work in modern KSP!)
  9. Well, I couldn't let my previous attempt with its questionable clipping status stand, and I figured that I may as well try to reduce weight while I was at it. The Ogod-Y Mk.17 didn't go well, and I lost several pilots trying to make it work before moving on to the Ogod-Y Mk.18. Weighing in at 2.053t before the Kerbal climbs on and costing 5,494 kerbucks, it takes its pilot up into orbit and back down again in one piece. Unfortunately, I noticed on the way down that the Mk.18 still had some clipping issues, this time with its own pilot's helmet. Not being one to just let this stand, more modifications were made, and so came the Ogod-Y Mk.19 launching the very next morning. The mass and cost are identical to the Mk.18, but the clipping issues have been fixed once and for all. Thus, it is this latest flight that I present as my current entry to the contest. The upper stage, empty, has a maximum recovery value of 1,173 kerbucks if I were to land it on the pad or runway, and thus the cost of a perfectly-optimal flight (which, once again, I didn't actually do so this is a theoretical exercise) would be 4,321 kerbucks. Editing to note: With this launch, I've officially beaten in 1.7.2 (staying with that because Editor Extensions Redux hasn't updated to 1.7.3 yet) the lowest mass I achieved in the previous challenge back in 2016 with the Lanwdart Mk.3, which was an iteration on another player's core design to begin with. It makes me very happy to have pushed my own design lineage ahead of the borrowed one after all this time! Editing Again: Bored Aetharan is dangerous Aetharan. The Ogod-Y Mk.20 trades out the first-stage for a pure rocket intended to get as close as I could to the same upper-stage starting point as the Mk.19 had. I succeeded. The Mk.20 weighs 1.990 tons unkerballed and costs 3,907 kerbucks. Even better? Not only did I land it, as with previous runs, but this time I landed it at KSC. On the runway. So if this hadn't been a sandbox save, I'd have collected the entire 1,173 of the dry Mk.19 / Mk.20 upper stage on recovery, bringing the actual cost of the flight to orbit and back down to 2,734 funds.
  10. I think my favorite of the ones I've done has to be the Retro Solar Rescue. It was sheer insanity of exactly the kind of "go big or go home" style that I love.
  11. Well, I've gone back and brought Jeb home in my previous post, updating the gallery to show the landing process. I have also iterated on the design and made another flight, although this mission is also questionable due to the interactions of a fairing that doesn't flare out with a Donut tank, so it's another call for @DRAG0Nmon to make. https://imgur.com/a/Z1gegPD If the Mk.16 isn't disqualified, then I've dropped the mass to 2.159t and the cost to 5,535 kerbucks, with the potential to recover up to 1,239.
  12. Well, it's an old challenge (the version I participated in being found here), and so an old design paradigm that I bring back. @doggonemess beats me for cost by 347 kerbucks, while I take the mass lead by 1,361 kg over that vessel, which was already lighter than @TheFlyingKerman's SSTO. Unlike @nikyname, my kerbal stays on his rocket the entire time, and nothing clips through the fairing. I do, however, understand if you wish to disqualify this machine for using an air-breathing engine, but that was not clearly disallowed in the OP. https://imgur.com/a/Y8WfDqB
  13. I'll let you guys decide how many points this mission is worth. My destination wasn't listed. https://imgur.com/a/RSGvnMg Edit: While obviously a modded game, I used only vanilla parts with their vanilla functionality, barring the inclusion of MechJeb's functionality being added to probe cores.
  14. To be specific, each Kerbal not in a pod weighs 0.09375 tons. When building a vessel that uses command seats, you can use an assembly consisting of 4 Cubic Octagonal Struts, 2 OKTO2s, and 2 thermometers, accelerometers, barometers, etc. to approximate a command-seated Kerbal for the sake of managing your craft's balance, twr, delta-V calculations by Mechjeb or KER, and whatnot. Said assembly weighs 0.094, so it's a touch heavy, but close enough for most purposes.
  15. @Andetch It was your comment on the previous page that convinced me to build a functional plane instead of lobbing a capsule.