Jump to content

gm537

Members
  • Content Count

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gm537

  1. Wow that's a tough one! Some of the "Rescue from around the Sun" missions are brutal. As far as options it's going to depend. Is the 10 km/s of dV you mention at Kerbin surface or in LKO? (if it's not a LKO number I don't think even rendezvous will be possible) The biggest problem here by far is getting turned around retrograde, this will be easier at higher altitudes the Eve assist idea probably won't work, basically gravity assists can't typically turn you around though they can make the turn less expensive (oberth) but in that case I recommend doing it at Jool due to Jool's orbit speed arou
  2. This section seems like as good a place as any, there is definitely a type of challenge to it and it's really unique. So a lot of people have already touched on specific impulse with numbers for a biological or mechanical arm producing between 3 and maybe 20, but we haven't touch much on thrust. While the idea of continuous thrust for a the mechanisms we are talking about is kinda silly we could certainly get an average. Thrust is pretty simple and is: T = v*dm/dt or basically how fast you can throw stuff times how much stuff you can throw in a given time. If we take zarakon's hunks the size
  3. Thanks man that definitely helps! It's good to know I'm not crazy. I will probably also make the said config changes. Of course it's a bit annoying that my install is then not stock and thus there are some forum challenges I might not be able to enter, maybe at some point Squad will come back through and change things to be linear as we hoped. Regardless thanks for the answer and the math for this!
  4. So as background to this question: Prior to 1.0 I realized that the ISP of a rocket engine in KSP (I'm not considering airbreathing engines in this thread) scaled linearly with atmospheric pressure. Thus if you had an engine with 200 ISP vacuum and 100 ISP at 1atm you would get 150 ISP at 0.5 atm. And I was under the impression that this is exactly how real world rockets work. Now I also like to go to Eve and I realized Squad was doing us a huge favor by making ISP not drop any lower once atmospheric pressure got higher than 1atm. So when I heard they had changed this in 1.0 I was pretty exc
  5. Alright I've got one and would like to claim the 25km World's First. (Sorry the pics are in the wrong order...) Looks like I got 26,600 - - - Updated - - - Okay so new idea for gm537, read the rules BEFORE posting. It's okay I already have a new submission and this time I show the resource panel. Looks like I get the 30km world's first as well. These challenges are so much fun because you just keep trying over and over...
  6. No worries Laie! Do I get my name on the list of awesome now too?
  7. A 1000 kerbal station would be pretty impressive especially if you actually had 1000 kerbals (as opposed to just seats for 1000 kerbals) as that seems to me to cause a significant amount of game lag. I hope to see what that looks like.
  8. Yeah RSS is hard. I think the biggest thing will be mass fractions to certain locations. The current points system of +100 per station ton and -2 per launch ton means that a station which has a mass fraction of 2% only "breaks even". And stations below that are actually negative, thus adding multipliers would actually hurt the score at that point. (Of course there are points other than tonnage but you don't really want to be forced into bringing Bob, Jeb, and Bill just to try and cancel negative points.) I think that's the situation you would find trying to go to Mercury; it simply may not be
  9. Based on other entries I am pretty sure the dash separates 'not comfortable' from 'comfortable'. In other words the 'comfortable' seats are those in: Hitchhikers, Cupolas, OKS Habitation, Mk2 or Mk3 passenger, etc. Any seats in those are 'comfortable'. Meanwhile seats in: Pods, lander cans, or cockpits are 'not comfortable'. I'm pretty sure the external seat would also be 'not comfortable'. That was my reinterpretation upon a second read because I agree it kinda sounds like almost nothing is 'comfortable'. Is that explanation correct Norcal? PS: A RSS attempt would be pretty cool, though it w
  10. Okay I have decided to just keep it simple and build my stuff with MRS, SpaceY, and stock engines. I use some KW fuel tanks (in part cause I already had some lifters designed with them, and in part cause I like the style) and other parts from that pack that I didn't touch. I have also learned that Kerbals are the main source of lag... I have a habitation module that I flew a test flight and it was fine, fill it with Kerbals and my frame rate drops a lot... Does anyone know mods to address this?
  11. Thanks Laie! Does my name get put on the front page of awesome-ness? Haha So far I think Astrobond for his super inexpensive entry (when counting reusable launcher) is probably my favorite. That's some serious engineering.
  12. This looks like a fun challenge and it has been quite a while since I built a station so I'm gonna go for it! As a question I think I know the answer to but want to ask anyway: What about modding mods that are under-powered? Specifically I am a big fan of KW rocketry, the parts just look good in my opinion, but the CFG files have not been touched since pre-Nasa parts which means they are woefully underpowered. And so when I download the pack I go through and re-balance them. I do my best to make it follow the sort of Higher TWR = lower ISP methodology. And so the heavy lifter engines have thi
  13. Oh dear I just went back through my pictures and it seems I too generally don't have the resource panel shown. I have provided the craft file so that you feel a bit more comfortable about my submission. I apologize about that I get very used to doing things just for myself and so I tend to try and hide as much hud info as I can unless I need it right then. That's my bad for sure if there is anymore info I can provide to make my submission valid let me know and I will see what I can do. I have been thinking about reworking the craft for 0.90 so maybe when I do that I will remember to have the
  14. Ah ha a man after my own heart. I have just finished my Eve Rocks challenge and I had many of the same goals as you. I wanted a craft that didn't just take one kerbal but a few and could do level 3 or Jeb level. - - - Updated - - - So I finally completed my Eve Rocks challenge. (Basically work, other games, and 0.9 stopped my 0.25 submission mid tracks) This submission is for the Jeb level. The craft was the Eve 4 Man Lander IV (and in all fairness is like the 3rd generation of Eve 4 man lander... Sea Level Eve is hard...) On the Kerbin Launch pad this thing is 5,163 ton, 2.32 million funds, 8
  15. Hi all, first I want to say "Thank you" for completely eating my Saturday evening and much of my Sunday with this challenge as I tried to get a rocket which broke the 5,000 km mark. I am proud to say I was successful and here is my entry. I have a few more photos than the usual req since the flight pattern is non-trivial. Basically I a have both basic jets and turbojets at launch. I start off with some intakes disabled to reduce drag. Those get re-enabled around 8km (action group '1') The first stage drops the basic jets which should be done around 10km. The second stage will drop some of the
  16. Haha! Coffee is indeed its own reward. Thanks for adding me. Once 0.90 comes out I may try again for some additional commendations.
  17. Definitely cool but I feel like the point of a challenge is to design your own thing and figure out what works well for you. Additionally that lander has just a command chair for the Kerbal and this challenge requires an actual capsule. Again cool for sure it just seems out of place...
  18. It's the air resistance in all likelihood that you are forgetting about. I won't go into the gorry details but basically greatly increased thrust only results in moderately increased velocity and very similar acceleration because you approach 'terminal velocity' either way. (But that velocity is faster with more thrust) The real savings in that slightly higher speed is from reduced gravity losses, which on Eve are almost as terrible as the atmosphere. Haha
  19. I like the design! Yep definitely a bit on the over engineered side (though it seems so far like most of the designs are) but that's the most Kerbal thing to do! I like how you do the deorbit with the last stage, I actually did that too I just didn't show it my post.
  20. I don't think he is mad the rules are just unclear. I had the same question myself. I have often seen these kinds of challenges not count the payload cost (they only count lifter cost). The OP could use a touch of clarification to help people see this. That's my two cents.
  21. Alright I have finished the challenge though not fast enough to be the cheapest to succeed. Here's the ship in the VAB showing a cost of 562,310. Here she is in orbit: (Sorry this doesn't highlight Pe... The craft file should confirm that a 100x100km orbit is not difficult to achieve.) And the craft file: Do YOU even lift?
  22. I didn't see it specified so I will ask: When you say cheapest you mean "on the pad" in other words a reusable lifter would not reduce the cost?
  23. Hi All, my friend challenged me to build a SSTO VTOL and after doing that I figured why not get the K-Prize for it too? I show a traditional horizontal takeoff too since that is a requirement. Haha (It definitely does vertical better however...) Imgur Pics Here Not sure if this qualifies for any of the awards... Though landing on the Admin building seems like it should be worth something...
  24. Glad I saw your post since I had a similar design idea. I used more intakes so I ended up getting to 62,000m but I would agree that we would be disqualified on the "level flight" grounds. Probably be good to add that to the rules section just so it is clear.
  25. Okay I think what could help all the confusion about how much / what quantifies a "necessary proof" would be your entry with all the stuff how you want it? I am working on this challenge right now and while I would say my craft is pretty 'straightforward' I of course want to make sure I comply with all rules of entry into the competition. And for me the easiest way to be certain is to have an example submission which meets (and perhaps explains meeting) all the requirements. That's my two cents. Thanks for running a darn good challenge.
×
×
  • Create New...