SanderB

This issue seems to have been fixed in the mean time. I now do not have this issue anymore, the mission simply started function as intended.

I'm trying to spawn a 2nd vessel, but when it does it doesn't get created in orbit even though the node is supposed to spawn it in orbit. Additionally, my 1st vessel suddenly begins to move along the ground when the 2nd spawns in too. I set vessel 2 to spawn at a 12km orbit above the mun.

I've found this post which explains a method that works by measuring the fuel remaining in a vessel. Most of the nodes involved in this mechanism need to be set to activate more than once. So it is already possible in a way to measure efficiency directly via fuel.

Is there a way to award score based on formulas instead of fixed numbers? For example, Can I make the game convert a vessel's periapsis directly into the score of the mission? I'd like my mission to have a fluid score system that rewards efficiency.

Can you compare my 29.4% craft and Laie's craft? I think they are easily different enough to qualify as different submissions. My payload is made of unshielded ore tanks with a fairing on top, I use only 2 engine types, have fewer stages, my vessel is released from launch clamps and has very different starting mass; to name a few differences.

My 29.4% entry was inspired by Laie's craft but I made the design up myself and I think it is substantially different, and it performed better than anything else posted in this thread by someone else.

29.4% (184.852/629.243) has been achieved by adding a little bit of payload and rounding up from 29.38%. And yet again, improvement is possible because dV is left over. The only difference between this craft and the former is a bit of added payload. craft file: http://www.filedropper.com/004fpayloadfractionchallenge_1

29.2% achieved. This rocket uses 14 vectors 2 nerv engines and I completely made it up myself after reading Laie's posts. I can launch it pretty consistently.by pointing it prograde at 50m/s airspeed. Some tilting up is required to maintain enough upward vertical velocity and you do actually need to do a 2nd pass through the atmosphere, but... improvement has been achieved. Or at least, I have attained the fraction that I said could theoretically be attained with Laie's craft. craft file: http://www.filedropper.com/004fpayloadfractionchallenge And I still had 19m/s dV to spare at the end, so further improvement yet again is possible...

All I did to improve the scores was to not fly your rockets sideways on into the airstream . Actually after getting the right ascent trajectory and hitting prograde SAS, all I do is stage. It took me about 10 attemps to get this result. I use Open Broadcaster Software. The files that it produces are only about 9MB per minute with my settings and they upload handily and very quickly to youtube within 20 min of recording.

just post the link normally Laie's craft: . There is 2 tons of unspent liquid fuel in 90kn LKO so it is theoretically possible at least to get 0.2% more.

for small files http://www.filedropper.com/ is very convenient

How do you decouple the side boosters with vertical decouplers? I don't see it from the screenshots. Could you post a craft file? I'm having difficulty reproducing this craft.

I'm not interested enough to improve Laie's latest craft. I think 0.3% improvement is definitely possible. Beyond that, i don't know and I don't want to spend the time to find out.

I've slightly exceeded Laie's exceptation and got to 27.2% (120,875/444,928) with a slightly modified version. I expect that 0.2% perhaps 0.3% can be added by adding more to the payload, staging as efficiently as a KOS script would and not exceeding the ap by more than 1 meter. Craft file. Flying instructions: Turn on SAS, stage, SAS prograde at 110m/s airspeed. (stage twice whenever an engine cuts out.) Once pitch is less than 10 degrees, maintain pitch at 10 deg. When AP is 90km, cut off engines. Circularize at AP. I think more efficiency might also be achieved by not forcing pitch to be no less than 10 deg while thrusting but I can't be bother to try.

Rocket only: 26.5% -- 11,264kg/42,564kg This is an almost complete copy of Laie's craft, tuned a little so that the payload fraction is improved by 1%.

Rocket Only (no recovery) 1.825/9.825 = 18.58% to 90km Pe orbit obviously better is possible because payload has some excess Ap.

the problem I've encountered with a perpendicular landing is that it takes me a while to line up my ascent from the mun with return trip from the mun to KSC, because you have to time your descent to about 6 hours so KSC will be in the same place as when you set up your return maneuver, so you can set up your return. Without trajectory prediction it's going to always be very tough. The mk1 pod with 2 tons of fuel and a terrier engine (and 3 landing legs and 3 aerobraking flaps) is capable of a little bit of atmospheric flight (ie. gliding at up to 30 degrees pitch in any direction) but only from ~10km altitude onward.

The 9 minute barrier has barely been broken, how would you think it would get to 4m?

that was very interesting to watch. The only way I can see to improve that time by a lot is by not passing LKO on the return from mun, but instead land perpendicularly straight into KSC. You'd have to burn off ~1km/s of velocity before reaching 40km altitude and manage to do a precision landing without orbiting, but it is theoretically possible.

15m 59s (-9 seconds for the loading screen), I believe. And where on kerbin do I find a fellow kerbal to teach me me the ways of precision landings on kerbin in stock atmo with nought but the good old mk1 Eyeball?

this challenge with precision landing is too annoyingly difficult with the lack of tools allowed. I'm not going to try again.

https://youtu.be/da_3PRt8Uv8 I made the KSC grounds, in 13m 49s I believe. Recap: design simple vessel, burn straight up to mun, land, return to LKO, nearly eliminate orbital velocity above KSC.

please delete me

I think the smaller fuel tanks generally are less efficient per fuel unit and it never changed ever as far as I remember. I wonder how efficient a 1.25m cross section launcher can get (ie, a sustainer stage with LFO engines not exceeding 1.25m in diameter). I might be wrong but I believe 830$/t is the best achieved so far under the previous ruleset. I've been looking things over a little and it'll have to be more expensive because of how less efficient the engines and fuel tanks are in several ways.

(1,590 + 3,700)/6.389 = 828$ / t if my calculations are correct, which if they're not they can be recalculated with the numbers KER shows. No tail fins, 80km orbit. I think this is it. Launching it is pretty simple once you have it tilted correctly in the VAB; launch, stage at burnout, maintain prograde (20 degrees) minimum pitch, circularize at 80km and separate payload. The tilt is the hardest part to design because the slightest change results in drastic differences to the ascent profile. If you change the payload only a little, everything changes. My design can be currently gotten here: http://www.filedropper.com/03expendablelauncher If I'm not mistaken this design is the most cost/t efficient for of all the vehicles with a 1.25m cross section (even though there is not a separate leaderboard for them as far as I know). There is space for a bit more efficiency but I didn't want to spend the time to fine tune it THAT much.