Jump to content

camacju

Members
  • Posts

    724
  • Joined

Everything posted by camacju

  1. So are we allowed to start with our craft edited into orbit? I'm asking for two reasons: 1. Your example submission starts with your craft edited into orbit 2. My computer isn't the best so it'll chug a bit if I have to slap a heavy launcher onto my spacecraft Also from what I understand this is more of an orbital maneuver and spacecraft efficiency design challenge, not a piloting challenge? @OutInSpace
  2. https://streamable.com/trowtq I know that this challenge is over but I wanted to add this submission. With a bit of lateral thinking, I got this nuclear powered waverider all the way up to 25780 m/s under 50 km. https://imgur.com/a/3qiPMQ6 Here's an imgur album detailing the first part of the challenge and to prove that all the rules were met. The mothership has four rapier engines and is a single stage. At 20 km, the waverider is dropped and continues the rest of the way to orbit. *** Some time later, the waverider arrives back at Kerbin with 21 km/s of relative velocity, at which point it expends the 4500 m/s it has remaining and speeds through the top part of the atmosphere. It doesn't spend long enough in the atmosphere for heating to have an effect.
  3. Honestly a pretty good lander for this challenge, in terms of cost and ease of flying, consists of one ant engine, two oscar tanks, a reaction wheel and a battery. From LKO you can complete a Mun landing and return with about 300 m/s left. The electrical systems aren't strictly necessary but they make the flying considerably easier. Unrelated question - If I recover all parts of my craft on the runway, will I be able to use only fuel costs? There won't be any difference and the fuel cost will be an accurate measure; I just like keeping all my ksp forum challenges in the same save. @ManEatingApe
  4. @ManEatingApe The clipping isn't necessary for the lander to fit into the service bay; I just left the reaction wheel clipped because I forgot about it. Same with the engine. Both sections of the craft landed at the KSC; all parts were recovered at the KSC. So I assumed that I would get a 100% recovery value. If this isn't reasonable then I'm happy to re-fly the mission. I had Mechjeb landing autopilot enabled for the Mun landing but it wasn't managing vertical velocity correctly so I was manually flying for most of the landing. Only at the beginning, before I realized the autopilot wasn't working, and at the end, when I wanted a better suicide burn, did I use Mechjeb.
  5. https://imgur.com/a/xpcgZPK @ManEatingApe Here's my submission under the new rules (just because I don't feel comfortable having a top submission under old, easier rules), so I flew a combination of my 2 part and 3 part designs, spending 179.8 funds. I'm honestly surprised that the rapier alone spends less fuel than the nuke and rapier. I guess the mass of the nuke changes the mass ratio too much in a 5 ton craft.
  6. ... I was trying to do a quintuple Mun flyby to save fuel, and I made KSP get a stack overflow. Maybe I'm putting too much effort into this
  7. Another option would be to get into an almost-orbit that's high enough that you can orbit once around, before circularizing with the lander. Then glide back to KSC
  8. https://imgur.com/a/eDGYt8m Instead of doing a full redesign with this lander I took it to Minmus and Gilly for 126.9 funds of fuel. I could probably do a Bop or Pol mission with this thing also.
  9. Well... Unfortunately I was too late to finish this mission before the rule change that pretty much breaks my whole mission (I think just the recovery penalty alone is way bigger than my fuel cost), but here is my mission that uses 128.85 funds worth of fuel. https://imgur.com/a/NnpPUoJ I could have maybe (and this is a big maybe) aimed the last three stages at the KSC but the first stage is a lost cause. At least my first submission with the SSTO and lander works. Honestly I could still pull off some optimizations that I've since made but it'll probably not be a very big difference. This mission will probably be good as a lower bound though. A quick summary of the mission: Boost with rapier until 1700 m/s Get into an almost orbit with the second stage, and decouple to throw the lander into orbit Get a Mun assist that gives us a second Mun encounter - a free return trajectory, to recover the spent oscar tank, and a better encounter in general. The rest of the mission is very standard because I lost motivation to keep saving funds after this mission got borked. Actually I don't know if this is a loophole but I might be able to make this thing work under the new system also. @ManEatingApe Would it be within the spirit of the challenge to launch a recovery vessel with a claw, thereby achieving 100% recovery savings by bringing debris to the KSC? If so, I would like to submit this craft along with a design of such a craft. I'll demonstrate it working on land and water to prove that I could recover debris from anywhere on Kerbin given enough patience.
  10. I'm working on another relatively large design change. It involves a two stage lander mounted sideways in a service bay using one ant engine and two oscar tanks. The ascent profile is pretty much the same. Boost with a rapier, get into orbit with a spark and FLT-100. The orbital maneuvers are different. I'm using a Mun assist to boost myself into an orbit with 1.5x the period of Mun. However the primary reason isn't delta-v savings this time since I've got more than enough margin to do everything normally. The reason for this is so I can get a free return trajectory that's also in a prograde direction relative to Mun's rotation. I drop one of the spent fuel tanks here and let it coast down to Kerbin, while doing the rest with the remaining ant engine and oscar tank. I haven't gotten to the actual Mun landing yet but I should be able to do it. Total fuel cost so far: 63.92 funds for the jet stage 29.12 funds for the spark stage 17.77 funds for the first oscar tank Maximum possible cost from here: 18.36 funds for the second oscar tank Maximum total cost: 129.17 funds I will probably finish the mission later today
  11. ok uh that's quite unfortunate for me since I wasn't paying much (any) attention to where I recovered the stages, so the metric I was using for cost was just fuel cost. @ManEatingApe Can fuel cost be the metric used? It's going to be a lower amount if I don't land at the KSC and now that I'm doing completely unguided reentries I don't want to have to aim all the stuff directly at KSC Also I just realized that KSP doesn't give me the mission reports for recovery in sandbox mode so the only metric that'll be usable for me will be fuel cost
  12. https://imgur.com/a/Iy282kj 168.9 funds used. Looks like I found a way to significantly reduce cost lol The breakdown is 72 funds used on the jet engine stage, 34.5 funds used on the first rocket stage, and 62.4 used on the lander stage. I'm still using more funds on the jet stage than any other, which suggests room for improvement by attaching a Wheesley engine for early slow flight.
  13. I've tried a bunch of non-DLC designs. This is the closest one I could come up with that's remotely capable of going to Mun and back but jetpacking is involved. Those DLC fuel adapters are just too good, lol
  14. Service bay is the same mass as a fairing big enough to hold a kerbal/rocket, and a lot less draggy. I tried using fairing designs but they always had greater drag losses than the service bay - more than enough to overcome any cost savings I could get with the fairing.
  15. https://imgur.com/a/2jXgD8p Here's Lunex 3 - I take a small two kerbal habitation/science module to the Mun and back to Kerbin
  16. https://imgur.com/a/Hh7bXiE I guess here's my submission. Single launch, no ISRU, no ions Ship contents: Eve lander, mothership, x3 of nuclear tug with mini lander, Laythe/Tylo lander, Tylo fuel reserve, 2 extra rocket fuel tanks, 2 extra nuclear fuel tanks Mission summary, chronological order: Launch A mini lander takes an extra rocket fuel tank for Mun and Minmus landing Detach one nuclear tug and mini lander Mothership transfers to Eve Nuclear tug transfers to Duna Detach a tug/lander and the Eve lander Lander aerobrakes at Eve, mothership gets an Eve assist Eve landing Gilly landing Nuclear tug arrives at Duna Moho transfer Mothership gets a Kerbin assist Moho landing Duna transfer Duna landing Ike landing Mothership gets second Kerbin assist Dres transfer Mothership aerobrakes around Laythe Dres landing Jool transfer Nuclear tug aerobrakes around Laythe Laythe landing Tylo landing Return to mothership to get more fuel Vall, Pol, Bop landing Return to mothership to get more fuel Eeloo transfer Eeloo landing Kerbin transfer Kerbin assist Aerobraking Landed at Kerbin
  17. https://imgur.com/a/Hh7bXiE Here's my Grand Tour mission as a submission for the Jool 5 challenge. The Jool system landings were Laythe, Tylo, Vall, Pol, and Bop in that order. Single launch mission which did split before Jool but the only parts that met at Jool were the mothership and an interplanetary tug. Note that I didn't get the kerbal out on the surface of Laythe because I was afraid the lander would tip without SAS but I had forgotten that it had a probe core. So I could have done it but oh well
  18. The thing is, this is probably as low as I can reasonably go without messing around with partially loaded fuel tanks, at least with this design. I'll probably say that 238.5 is my final entry, unless I find a significant way to improve costs.
  19. https://imgur.com/a/33qI4XY @ManEatingApeI was wondering - I changed the plane design and managed to get the same lander into orbit for 175 funds worth of liquid fuel. Would I be able to simply add the lander's fuel costs from last mission, or do I have to fly it over again? If I am able to add the lander's fuel costs, then the total cost would be 238.5 funds. There's still room for improvement (: If not, then since the lander is definitely able to make it to Mun and back, and assuming I fly a little less efficiently and use all of the lander's fuel, then the total cost would be 239.2 funds
  20. @ManEatingApe I think you quoted yourself rather than editing the top post in the thread? edit: whoops I didn't see you changed it
  21. https://imgur.com/a/CLhKjuV 263.5 funds edit: Also why would the nuke clipping even change the risk of tailstrike? It's not even the farthest aft part in its stack
  22. https://imgur.com/a/5olo0cL 276.54 total funds. Three part spaceplane; I ditch the rapier, wings, intakes, and landing gear when they're no longer useful
×
×
  • Create New...