vyznev

Members
  • Content Count

    270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

374 Excellent

1 Follower

About vyznev

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Technically, I could do a bielliptic plane change followed by aerobraking without ever raising my periapsis above 70 km. But I guess the second part rules that out.
  2. Good point. I'm more used to doing these kinds of maneuvers around airless moons, where that's more difficult. Anyway, whether aerobraking is allowed or not, I'd still like to see an altitude limit of some kind. I guess something like "periapsis > 70 km, apoapsis < 250 km" (which matches the in-game definition of "in space low over Kerbin") would make a reasonable default if you don't want to be stricter.
  3. Can we get a definition of what counts as LKO, please? Specifically, what's the highest allowed apoapsis? I ask because I'm pretty sure the way to do this with minimal delta-v is either with a bi-elliptic transfer or a gravity assist off the Mun or Minmus — both of which will first put you into a highly eccentric equatorial orbit that you then need to circularize with a retrograde burn at periapsis, and the shorter that burn can be, the less delta-v you'll need. (Also, is using 1.8 + HyperEdit / VesselMover allowed?)
  4. Well, that was unexpected. And your entry does indeed appear to be perfectly valid under the challenge rules, too. I'm not 100% sure whether to just give you first place in the general category or to start a whole new category for fully automated craft. I guess I'll put you in general for now, and think about possible new categories if and when more robotic entries show up. (I'm also wondering, if I do make a new category, whether I should allow kOS in it.) In any case, thanks for the awesome entry, and congratulations on taking first place!
  5. I still haven't flown the mission, but instead I ended up rebuilding my lander from scratch because I wanted it to look nicer. I feel like this is starting to look pretty close to the renderings. (Also, the actual structural linkages are now much less janky, since this time I actually had some idea of where I was going when I started building this version.) I did fly a couple of test hops at KSC, since this thing actually has enough thrust for it. Like @jinnantonix's version, this one also has some difficulties with attitude and horizontal speed control. I might need to add a few more RCS ports. (The renderings actually show a pair of RCS nozzles above the crew compartment that I haven't included so far.) Landing in full Kerbin gravity can get a bit rough, but at least the core structure is surprisingly durable.
  6. I'm also working on a Dynetics-style lander.
  7. Honestly, the Dynetics lander kind of looks like it was designed in KSP to begin with. (Not saying that to disparage the design in any way — I'm just saying that a lot of the parts look kind of familiar. And mounting the lander sideways inside the fairing during launch feels like a very Kerbal solution, as does the use of disposable drop tanks for extra landing delta-v.)
  8. BTW, a few questions and remarks about the scoring: I wouldn't mind if the scores for Tylo and Moho were swapped. As it stands, there seems to be no point in going to Tylo, since it takes more time and delta-v and bigger antennas, and it's harder to land there too. For that matter, I kind of suspect the scores for bodies with an atmosphere (Eve, Duna, Laythe, Jool) are a bit underrated. For very small landers like this, an atmosphere seems to be almost more of a hindrance than help, since even the smallest heat shields and parachutes in KSP are quite heavy (a tiny heat shield with no ablator weighs 25 kg, while a single Mk16 or Mk2-R chute is 100 kg, i.e. nearly as much as the total dry mass of my Mun lander!). I'm not 100% sure I've understood the time scoring exception for the Jool system and Eeloo correctly. Does it just mean that a mission to those planets (and their moons) always gets a time bonus of at least 10 points regardless of the actual mission time? (If so, basically the only destination where you won't be guaranteed at least 10 points for mission time is Duna, since a standard Hohmann transfer to Eve or Moho takes less than 200 days.) For that matter, is having multiple science instruments supposed to give any bonus score? It seems like you might've intended that, since there's limit on how many one can have and a footnote that they must all be distinct, but I don't actually see such a bonus listed in the scoring rules. Or am I just missing something? Overall, the scoring seems a bit coarse-grained: it's not that hard to max out the score for a given destination (noting that a transfer time of < 10 days to anywhere but Mun or Minmus is basically impossible, and so not worth even considering). Maybe the launch cost penalty of could be changed to something like -1 point for every 1000 funds, with no lower limit? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice challenge in any case. But I feel like fine tuning the scoring a bit more could turn it into a great challenge.
  9. This seemed kind of similar to the Smallest Moon Lander Challenge from November 2018, so I decided to adapt my entry. Basically all I needed to do was add some landing legs (made out of cubic octagonal struts, since they're cheap and lightweight) and a booster stage for getting to LKO: More screenshots in the album at https://imgur.com/a/0c4hZ2L Notably, this craft has no reaction wheels or RCS at all, steering with engine gimbals only. That's not nearly as hard as it sounds, except that I made a slight mistake while tweaking the lander and moved the engine closer to the center of mass, which significantly reduced the steering authority I had for landing. (Did I mention this thing also has no SAS?) I still managed to make it to the surface in one piece (at least after a couple of reloads), but if I were to redo this mission, I'd definitely pull the probe core further away from the engine. Or maybe replace it with an OKTO2 so I could use retrograde hold. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, this should give me 10 + 5 + 20 + 15 = 50 points for landing on the Mun, plus 15 points for doing it in less than 10 days. I believe this also should count as a small rocket, so that's +5 points, and the cost is well under 40k, so no penalties there. Thus, my total score should be 50 + 15 + 5 = 70 points, i.e. the maximum for a Mun landing. Of course, going to Tylo or Moho could beat that. I might try a Moho mission later… I think this is also the smallest lander so far. The total launch mass is 10,832 kg, of which the lander weighs 190 kg fueled (the dumpling tank isn't quite full) and 102 kg when dry. Ps. Craft file here: https://pastebin.com/eMqmMK71
  10. That's bloody insane! You did skirt a few of the rules a bit there, but the sheer craziness of your contraption definitely deserves at least an honorary mention.
  11. I guess this counts as an excuse to trawl through my old forum posts for some of the crazy contraptions I've posted here before, like: a rocket with a helicopter as its first stage (built before BG came out), a one meter tall Tylo lander, a five-part LF only SSTO (flies half of the ascent backwards), a gyroplane (that's really hard to fly), a kerbal diving bell for planting flags underwater (plus a pointless torture device), a method of toggling Sepratron thrust on and off using elevons (for orbital rendezvous and docking using only solid fueled rockets), and what's probably my most prized piece of underappreciated silliness so far: an airplane that can fly upside down, backwards and sideways (and any combination of these). (Quite appropriately, that last one was made for your own earlier challenge. So thank you for the inspiration. )
  12. Might be SAS-related. You could try turning SAS off (or switching to stability assist mode) before separation. On my non-basket runs I found that the active pod would start drifting apart from the others if I kept SAS locked to retrograde. Apparently that's because the active pod stayed in retrograde mode, but the others automatically switched to stability assist. Since the pods are aerodynamically stable and will hold surface retrograde just fine even without SAS, I just turned it off entirely before staging. I'm not sure why you're getting more than one pod flying off, though. It might be because the ship is flexing slightly due to automatic control inputs, in which case turning SAS off might still help.
  13. Well, having said that, obviously I had to give it a try. That's 27 crewed pods with a max distance of about 3.5 meters. I believe that means the scoring works out to: 10 points for each command pod with one or more occupants: 27 * 10 = 270 For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20: 270 – 0 * 20 = 270 Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km: 3.5 m = 0.0035 km Divide the score by the distance apart in Km: 270 / 0.0035 = 77142.857 Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost: 28128 / 77142.857 = 0.3646 Take the total number of parts and divide by (score / 10) to get the adjusted parts: 114 / (77142.857 / 10) = 0.01478 Of course, this score is quite easy to beat: just build a bigger basket.
  14. Yep. Down to 9.6 meters now. And I even flew the pods to orbit this time. Scoring: 10+1 points for each command pod with one or more occupants: 10 * 11 = 110 For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20: 110 – 0 * 20 = 110 Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km: 9.6 m = 0.0096 km Divide the score by the distance apart in Km: 110 / 0.0096 = 11458.3 Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost: 29288 / 11458.3 = 2.556 Take the total number of parts and divide by (score / 10) to get the adjusted parts: 63 / (11458.3 / 10) = 0.05498 I think any major further score improvements will come from using something like @mystifeid's box trick to pack the pods more closely together after landing. Something like 27 pods packed in a 3x3x3 cube ought to work nicely. Oh, I didn't notice that before @doggonemess pointed that out above. In that case my adjusted costs and part counts are overestimates. I'm not sure what the correct values should be, though, since I'm not sure which parts of my craft(s) count as the "orbital vehicle". Just the pods, chutes and decouplers? Those plus the completely superfluous nose cone? Or maybe all those plus the fairing, fuel tank and Terrier engine? And if the latter, should I count all the fuel in the tank for the cost, or just what I actually had left after achieving orbit? Or just what I burned to deorbit? And for the fairing, should I count just the cost of the base or the full cost of the shell (given that only the base reached orbit)?
  15. I think most of the attempts so far have made the mistake of trying to land the pods side by side. It's a lot more effective to have them all stacked in a long line aligned surface retrograde to prograde, so that they all fall along the same trajectory. My test landing with 10 pods in a row achieved a maximum separation of 117.2 meters. And I'm pretty sure I can do better by delaying the parachute semi-deployment until later. Anyway, if I understood the score calculation right, this test run should score as follows: 10 points for each command pod with one or more occupants: 10 * 10 = 100 For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20: 100 – 0 * 20 = 100 Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km: 117.2 m = 0.1172 km Divide the score by the distance apart in Km: 100 / 0.1172 = 853.2 Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost: 17524 / 853.2 = 20.54 Take the total number of parts and divide by (score / 10) to get the adjusted parts: 45 / (853.2 / 10) = 0.5274