The_Rocketeer

Last season's tracks: NeoX Grand Prix GROOV3ST3R GP Kyrian GP

New entrant: The Krawley G1 The Krawley Performance Development Team have suggested the G1 is at least competitive with last season's winner, but it must be admitted that the chief mechanic can only count to 3 and a half.

Get rid of those folding arrays and use the single panels, which are massless parts. If you need more, use the Cubic Octagonal Strut (also massless) to add more surface. You need at least 11 sun-facing panels (or 5 1x6 or 2x3 arrays) per engine for continuous max thrust.

No. The persistent.sfs has no entry for Drag that I can see. However, you can test for comparison by jumping out of a (relatively) slow falling rocket at low altitude (praise be to the Kraken!). If the Kerb had more or less drag than the rocket, it should fall slower/faster. I haven't specifically tested this, and off the top of my head I can't remember whether there's much difference or not. On another note, you guys were running East into orbit, right? I ask because I tried to make a benchmark test running due west for maximum solar exposure, but actually got a worse result than my record run with the crappy turn. Since I'm measuring surface speed and not orbital, I would have expected a nice linear push to be better, but it seems not. I'm wondering if on these very lightweight crafts, and low speeds and altitudes, if I'm just experiencing a very noticeable Oberth effect? My other guess is that turning causes a very small amount of infiniglider-thrust from the tailfin surface. In any event, all the more reason to run East!

Ratio data are interesting, I had begun to draw up a comparison table for my trial-and-error designs but now I can skip ahead to hypothetical builds and be a bit more scientific. I forgot to say before, the last attempt was the "Shrike II". Cutting out those solar arrays seems to have made most of the difference - can't believe I missed that! Edit: Also, I think a commemorative sig badge for successful orbiters in this challenge would be appropriate considering the difficulty. I'm not much of an artist tho. Anybody know someone good?

Weeell, this is a record-setting exercise, not just a design exercise. So yes, you need to fly it for that long. Also, I'm pretty sure the Kestrel would give you a run for your money with optimised drop tanks. Currently the VTOL engines are throttled to 60% power, so it could take off with a lot more payload. I'll submit an entry soon. Game on

Why do people ask these questions? Exploits are obviously not allowed in this kind of challenge.

Is anybody close to doing this or shall I reduce the difficulty? Don't want to stall out the game...

I think that's the point. Anybody can build a plane that flies really fast and efficient at high altitude. See how your plane performs with a ceiling cap.

Still pushing the envelope manned: First manned flight to beat 1000m/s, just a shade below 30k. Flight was sub-optimal again, made a very clumsy high altitude turn that shed a lot of fuel/speed/altitude. Design-wise, this is a step improvement for me, first time I've really beaten the wall. I'd like to see some of the successful orbiters modified for manned attempts - after all, what good's a SSTO glider if it doesn't deliver a payload, and what payload could be more valuable than a real live Kerb? It would help me to know where this glider's performance falls in the overall pecking order.

Now do it with a passenger/pilot.

You've hit what others have referred to as 'the wall' - the point where lift ebbs away while drag clings on so that your poor little ion drive can't keep up with mounting demand for thrust. As i'm slowly learning (with a nod to Slashy), vertical speed is much less important at that point than horizontal speed, as long as you're not actually losing altitude. I've found that keeping a shallow AoA at that point means you go faster, which ultimately means you can still climb quite quickly in short bursts and hold on to your small gains. In ur screen ur pitching up at 30*. Try keeping your AoA between about 15 and 25 and experiment to see what keeps the momentum going onward and upward (my last few flights have done best at about 10* up to 12k, and about 18* thereafter). Steep angles might look like they're paying off because you go up fast for a little while, but very quickly you run out of oomph because your speed isn't high enough for the altitude.

Boy have I been missing out... did not know that. I'm tempted to do it right now, but sleep beckons. Perhaps tomorrow I shall be the first to orbit! With a Kerb to boot!

Yes, VTOL seems a bit unstable in stock. I'll experiment with tweaking when I have some time, might make a submission in this behemoth if you'll permit me Having said that, I'd take my Kestrel for maneuverability and general performance EDIT: I retract my previous statement. Fantastic, sir... fan-flipping-tastic.

Sorry for double post, but you ninja'd me. THIS ^^ IS MAGNIFICENT!

Suggestions (feel free to cherry-pick): 1. a rule for using downward facing engines only, no forward thrust (so no ion gliders). Horizontal engines are allowed but must not be activated (see flight below) 2. max horizontal speed (speed over land) limited to 10m/s (much more restrictive and challenging than current) 3. max altitude limited to 500m (as above) 4. disqualification if 1.4-Gee is exceeded (probable ground-bump) 5. bonus points for performing stunts, e.g. barrel rolls, hovering under bridges, laps of the VAB etc. 6. Jets and Rockets only, no RCS VTOLs. Observations: This is not just a test of design specification, but pilot skill and endurance. Your VTOL may be capable of 3 hours hovering, but can you pilot a hover that long? VTOL jets are much harder to control than VTOL rockets due to thrust delay. Suggest they have separate categories. My Kestrel Jumpjet: This was a demonstration rather than a serious attempt, but shows some of my suggestions applied. I will submit a serious endurance run at a later date.

Another manned attempt. This design feels like it has a lot more to give, but I need to make another couple of runs to optimise the flightpath - as you can see, I ran out of sunshine, not fuel. Speed record is legit ascent speed, but you'll have to take my word for it. I call this one the "Shrike I". (4x Ion engine, 16x 700 Xenon, 52x Wing Strake, 20x 1x6 array, 1x small reaction wheel, 1x OKTO2, 1 EAS1+Kerb)

Beaten manned altitude and speed records with a new craft, but no screens yet. Will try to put some up later this evening.

On the face of it, cool challenge. I have a couple of VTOL jets that would probably set a pretty good benchmark. But... Can you embed your images in the post rather than attaching them? (people won't really want to download them) Imgur will host them for free if that's the problem. A clear statement of the rules for parts, staging etc, allowed mods, scoring/ranking system etc would be a good idea.

Honestly, this particular rocket was just an effort to build a Saturn V look-a-like, which I did a little before we got the NASA pack. It's hardly what I would call efficient, but it is very pretty and works just like Apollo. Used the Mk1-2 Command Pod and the Mk2 Lander-can, so breaks the rules there. I think your challenge makes sense as it is. Small rocket, single passenger... you can launch a Mk 1 Lander-Can to Mun orbit with a single Toroidal tank (which is how I did it) so there's not really an efficiency argument to make. The only slight objection I have is that this build requires the LM to target and dock with the CM (which is really inefficient), unless you add a probe core to your CM design. Of course, Apollo left someone up there...

Does it have to be a single Kerb on the mission? I actually have a full Apollo-style rig parked in a corner of the VAB collecting dust, but it's 'harder' than the challenge (puts 2 Kerbs on the surface, leaves one in the CM). It also works in the same way as my first attempt was intended to...

Impressive! However.. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I can't escape the feeling we still have a long way to go...

This started out as a serious attempt at the challenge, and all went really well until I arrived at the Mun. Then the Orbiter made fatal interface with another (ahem) satellite, and Bill was left in the Lander to work out how to get home. At this point, having given up, I stopped taking screenshots. Then reentry happened, and... well, I'll let you see for yourselves. So, can I get an honourable mention at least??

Switch ports challenge complete (this time Jeb took a camera...). By the way, remembering to take screenshots when you're trying to make a docking maneuvre inside a tightish timeframe is harder than u might think! Also, this was one of the most unstable freefalling rockets Jeb's ever had to ride in. NEXT UP: President JFKerb has promised the Kerberican People "we will go to the Mun!" Unfortunately nobody told JFKerb that the Mun is a really, really long way away. What to do...? "Re-create" a Mun landing in a suitable setting on Kerbin (i.e. at night, no trees, water or grass in sight). Take convincing screenshots showing a small step, a giant leap, and a Munrover. Finally plant a flag that commemorates 'the "Mun" landing' for Kerbalkind. MEGABONUS POINTS (and extra snacks) if you capture the real Mun in all your screenshots. [Edit: This challenge isn't as hard as it sounds. You can put the bits and pieces in place anytime you like and then timewarp to get the screenshots in the dark/of Mun. You can pick a more difficult locale if you want, but the easiest suitable sites from KSC would be in the Highlands just beyond the mountain range to the west of KSC or the Desert area a bit further on. Note that just because you can see the sea/trees/grass from your site, that doesn't mean that they need to appear in your screenshots!]

I called it the BION II ('Bi-wing'-'Ion' - happened to be the II revision. III revision has 3x the fuel, climbrate stinks but goes like a Duracell bunny). Also, am I being thick using an OKTO and an EAS-1? Am I right in thinking the chair doesn't make any torque?