[Stock] The 30 Second Altitude Challenge- Revived for 1.0!

[Noname117]

Alright, I'm having trouble developing this thing to surpass the current record. For now I'll just post the current highest altitude I've gotten and work on this thing a little later. It's good enough to get me in second place though.

All required pictures, along with pictures of each staging event, were posted.

The NOLAPR (Noname's Overly Large And Pointless Rocket)-A1 reached a final altitude of 61,353m in 30 seconds. Not quite as good as I was hoping, but it is still quite good. I'll see what I can do to improve that shortly.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Noname117

[obi_juan]

Only 50k... I have an idea to beat the actual champion... but is difficult...

http://imgur.com/a/ZA2u1#0

A lot of time passes since my last challenge... I don't remember how to embed the album.

Oh, the most incredible detail is that the ship finish on its way to moho.

Edited May 10, 2015 by obi_juan

[Jodo42]

Alright, I'm having trouble developing this thing to surpass the current record. For now I'll just post the current highest altitude I've gotten and work on this thing a little later. It's good enough to get me in second place though.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238131715378708/DE3F0AA900940F06F9B26594D19A4E0459BAB986/http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238131715377402/772820CBF3E82B2B714E086F5EEB9A0A26D6C948/http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238131715377718/1899AC3DEBCF9E1F8F437439993B32495BB3E5CA/http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238131715378055/9EBEAD3168701E75AB6CFD6DA7C31AB6FA91B9A2/http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238131715378229/E4B7C48FE2DF4372AB34705E886EDC67E4354462/http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238131715378614/F9504FB80F3DEBA80752189148AF35FCB6B7BB9F/

All required pictures, along with pictures of each staging event, were posted.

The NOLAPR (Noname's Overly Large And Pointless Rocket)-A1 reached a final altitude of 61,353m in 30 seconds. Not quite as good as I was hoping, but it is still quite good. I'll see what I can do to improve that shortly.

Added! I'm glad to see another 60K+ entry. It sure seems like those monoprop engines will be the way to go.

Only 50k... I have an idea to beat the actual champion... but is difficult...

http://imgur.com/a/ZA2u1#0

A lot of time passes since my last challenge... I don't remember how to embed the album.

Oh, the most incredible detail is that the ship finish on its way to moho.

Added as well! 50K is pretty awesome, so it's hardly fair to yourself to say "only". That's still over 1.5km/s, on average! It's enough to put you in the top 3.

[Noname117]

I'm curious, would it be OK to have seperatrons clipped into a small fuel tank if there is absolutely no fuel in the tank and its only use is to provide an anchoring point for the seperatrons?

[zekes]

Here's my entry - nothing fancy, but I'm not cheating (Ie using massless parts to accelerate *coughs* ). Just raw power.

[Jodo42]

I'm curious, would it be OK to have seperatrons clipped into a small fuel tank if there is absolutely no fuel in the tank and its only use is to provide an anchoring point for the seperatrons?

I'd be inclined to say no, as there's plenty of other ways to mount sepratrons, and the tank would occlude the sepratrons, but if you show me a picture of its intended application I may reconsider.

Here's my entry - nothing fancy, but I'm not cheating (Ie using massless parts to accelerate *coughs* ). Just raw power.

http://i.imgur.com/NVYua0a.png

http://i.imgur.com/u2dNetG.jpg

I'll need an image of your F3 menu to add you, as unfortunately KER's altitude display only shows terrain-relative altitude and the height meter is unreliable.

I have to admit I debated whether O-10s should be allowed or not when they were first used, due to their somewhat exploitative nature. I ultimately decided so, as they're present in the game for everyone to use. The only problem with this is that I'm disallowing other stock "features" (ie clipping), with the rational being that their nature would circumvent the spirit of the challenge.

I'd like to hear what you all have to say about O-10s. Yea or nay?

[Noname117]

I would say "Yay" for O-10s. The more stuff you have to work with, the better. I hate it when challenges get so restrictive that being clever may not be an option.

Also, the fuel tank would not occlude the seperatrons, because radially mounted objects are not occluded in the current aero model (from my understanding). But even if they were occluded, I could still make the argument that the fuel tank is being used just as a strut and a fairing. There isn't any fuel inside, so I would not be packing large amounts of fuel into a smaller area, rather just making a rocket more aerodynamic or be able to have thrust in an area where it realistically should but couldn't because of the rules.

Also, the main reason for me asking was that I had mounted seperatrons in all the other ways around the tank, and it would be far simpler to stick a few more in the center too for more thrust.

As you can tell, I'm working on an entirely seperatron entry.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Noname117

[Jodo42]

I would say "Yay" for O-10s. The more stuff you have to work with, the better. I hate it when challenges get so restrictive that being clever may not be an option.

Also, the fuel tank would not occlude the seperatrons, because radially mounted objects are not occluded in the current aero model (from my understanding). But even if they were occluded, I could still make the argument that the fuel tank is being used just as a strut and a fairing. There isn't any fuel inside, so I would not be packing large amounts of fuel into a smaller area, rather just making a rocket more aerodynamic or be able to have thrust in an area where it realistically should but couldn't because of the rules.

Also, the main reason for me asking was that I had mounted seperatrons in all the other ways around the tank, and it would be far simpler to stick a few more in the center too for more thrust.

As you can tell, I'm working on an entirely seperatron entry.

I guess I'll allow it and update the OP.

Rationale: in reality rocket fuel tanks have rather complicated systems of pumps and internal tanks that would have to be gutted for fitting of engines inside. We can assume these structures are incorporated into the empty mass of the tank. Since the empty mass does not change after putting in the engines, it is as if these structures were kept rather than being discarded, providing a balance for the added thrust.

[Noname117]

Also, a word of advice for newcomers: Do NOT take the full-on seperatron route. Just tried it, reached only about 40,000m in 30 seconds whilst lagging my computer horrible for the first 25. It doesn't work as nicely as you would expect it would.

[obi_juan]

My last idea is working... 60km (59.890m) with only 21s of combustion... I will try to finish the entry tonight.

No, I can not do it... I have everything correct...

http://imgur.com/a/92af1#0

(60.316m)

The TWR is in all the stages higher than 15... but the first stages have a very high drag...

I tried to do it with other engines... But the TWR down to 5... And include a new stage don't increase the velocity... There are 3 seg without engines working... but if I include a ninth stage the height at 30 sec is only 55km

Edited May 10, 2015 by obi_juan

[cybersol]

Also, a word of advice for newcomers: Do NOT take the full-on seperatron route. Just tried it, reached only about 40,000m in 30 seconds whilst lagging my computer horrible for the first 25. It doesn't work as nicely as you would expect it would.

I also had similar experiments with 3+ sepratron stages fail. However, I still think sepratrons might make a good second to last stage as I was getting 17-34 TWR there without going too extreme on the part count.

My last idea is working... 60km (59.890m)

That is actually pretty impressive, as adding stages past 5 or 6 always hurt performance for me during other experiments. So actually getting that beast past 60 km seems impressive!

[Foxster]

Not an entry - just a tip...

In 1.0, what were massless parts are still massless if attached to another massless part.

Example:

This craft can reach 568m before running out of fuel...

This craft can reach 870m...

Edited May 10, 2015 by Foxster

[Jodo42]

My last idea is working... 60km (59.890m) with only 21s of combustion... I will try to finish the entry tonight.

No, I can not do it... I have everything correct...

http://imgur.com/a/92af1#0

(60.316m)

The TWR is in all the stages higher than 15... but the first stages have a very high drag...

I tried to do it with other engines... But the TWR down to 5... And include a new stage don't increase the velocity... There are 3 seg without engines working... but if I include a ninth stage the height at 30 sec is only 55km

Added. This entry brings our number of entries up to 10, meaning the leaderboard is full. If you'd like to stay on, you'll have to improve your previous entries! Note: you can have more than 1 entry on the board at a time.

I think I'll try to make a badge for anyone that can exceed 70km, to give y'all a little more incentive. I'm loving the creativity and knowledge in this thread. I feel like I learn something every time I come back.

[Noname117]

Alright: One question: Can I add a structural pylon inside a monopropellent tank for structural support purposes only? It shields it from atmospheric heating, but I do not believe it shields it from atmospheric drag. The amount of added weight is next to nothing.

[Jodo42]

Alright: One question: Can I add a structural pylon inside a monopropellent tank for structural support purposes only? It shields it from atmospheric heating, but I do not believe it shields it from atmospheric drag. The amount of added weight is next to nothing.

The more clipping I allow the harder it gets to judge entries. I'd really like to avoid making clipping something I need to address on a case-by-case basis, as any inconsistency I show will upset people. As such I think I'll have to say no to this one. If you want to clip struts inside tanks to mount engines, though, that's fine.

[juzeris]

While I thought my last entry was "slapdash", apparently it came out pretty good, was pretty hard to exceed it myself.

Thus presenting to you the Acceleron 6 (download link) - for the times when you really need to clear the atmosphere in 30 seconds or less. Came up to 73 337 meters in the test run.

Just make sure you clear the fairings with action groups (2 and 1) before staging, and the monoprop engines like to drain fuel from upper stages, so the staging needs to be precise for the best results, but in my run I ended up with fuel remaining after 30 seconds, so there is a bit of slack.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Also here's the testing video:

[Noname117]

Then dissalow my last entry, it had to use that so the entire second stage didn't wobble itself to inappropriate oblivion.

On the other hand, how did the 65km entry stay stable? That makes me wonder.

Just figured it out. Attaching the struts to the engines was brilliant, and should be adapted into my craft

Edited May 10, 2015 by Noname117

[Jodo42]

While I thought my last entry was "slapdash", apparently it came out pretty good, was pretty hard to exceed it myself.

Thus presenting to you the Acceleron 6 (download link) - for the times when you really need to clear the atmosphere in 30 seconds or less. Came up to 73 337 meters in the test run.

Just make sure you clear the fairings with action groups (2 and 1) before staging, and the monoprop engines like to drain fuel from upper stages, so the staging needs to be precise for the best results, but in my run I ended up with fuel remaining after 30 seconds, so there is a bit of slack.

http://imgur.com/a/1nxts

Also here's the testing video:

Congratulations, you're the first user to ever break 70k! Added.

Through the magic of video editing, I made this, to simulate the launch in real time and do it justice. Hope you don't mind.

EDIT: Apparently there's some questions regarding craft stability and clipping; I'm checking craft files; give me a minute or two.

- - - Updated - - -

Then dissalow my last entry, it had to use that so the entire second stage didn't wobble itself to inappropriate oblivion.

On the other hand, how did the 65km entry stay stable? That makes me wonder.

Just figured it out. Attaching the struts to the engines was brilliant, and should be adapted into my craft

Could you show me a picture of what you did? Or a craft file? I'm not entirely sure I get what you mean. When you say structural pylon, do you mean this part? Or something else? And you're placing it inside the monoprop tanks? I didn't see anything wrong with your entry, but I guess that'd made sense if I couldn't see the clipped parts.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Jodo42

[Noname117]

I meant the Cubic Octagonal Strut. Sorry, so many pieces have similar names and uses that sometimes it is hard to communicate the piece you are talking about correctly.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Noname117

[Jodo42]

I meant the Cubic Octagonal Strut. Sorry, so many pieces have similar names and uses that sometimes it is hard to communicate the piece you are talking about correctly.

I'm not sure how the cubic octagonals themselves provide structural support, but if they're inside full tanks then I can't allow that, sorry. Are you sure the design doesn't work without them?

EDIT: Initally, yes, I was thinking struts. You're right, all these structural parts get confusing with their names, haha.

I'll take you off the board for now. If you get a working entry with external struts I'll re-add you.

Funnily enough, in yet another wonderful twist of physicsless parts, cubic octagonals don't appear to obstruct the O-10s exhaust:

Edited May 10, 2015 by Jodo42

[Noname117]

Are you thinking of the strut connecters? The Cubic Octagonal Strut is the tiny square-piece which I have clipped in the middle as a mounting point for the strut connecters. And yes, the strut connecters work when clipped inside this way. This gives me an advantage in stability, but one which I have now found out could be just as easily done as connecting struts to the monopropellent engines. I'm probably actually at a small disadvantage come to think of it.

[juzeris]

Through the magic of video editing, I made this, to simulate the launch in real time and do it justice. Hope you don't mind.

EDIT: Apparently there's some questions regarding craft stability and clipping; I'm checking craft files; give me a minute or two.

Sure, no problem. It runs even slower than usual when capturing video, so yeah, the video speed does not do it justice, I did not have to go through that in the testing runs.

Not sure if it contains any significant clipping though, there is some minor clipping of radially mounted cubic struts where the mass of monoprop engines is for ease of mounting them all, but I do not think it has any effect on the aerodynamics. In earlier versions of the Acceleron I did have some more significant clipping, but ended up throwing it all out - it did not give the desired results, and the staging was getting messy.

Also I just did another run, and the results are very replicable, got to slightly over 74km this time, but going at 8km/s a kilometer here or there is really just measurement error.

One note regarding stability, if you just stage it as it is, for me some monoprop engines fail to activate throwing a message "cannot activate while stowed", also the penultimate stage has a tendency to clip a falling fairing part and flip over, so release the fairings slightly in advance. The first fairing is action group 2, the second one is action group 1.

[Jodo42]

Sure, no problem. It runs even slower than usual when capturing video, so yeah, the video speed does not do it justice, I did not have to go through that in the testing runs.

Not sure if it contains any significant clipping though, there is some minor clipping of radially mounted cubic struts where the mass of monoprop engines is for ease of mounting them all, but I do not think it has any effect on the aerodynamics. In earlier versions of the Acceleron I did have some more significant clipping, but ended up throwing it all out - it did not give the desired results, and the staging was getting messy.

Also I just did another run, and the results are very replicable, got to slightly over 74km this time, but going at 8km/s a kilometer here or there is really just measurement error.

One note regarding stability, if you just stage it as it is, for me some monoprop engines fail to activate throwing a message "cannot activate while stowed", also the penultimate stage has a tendency to clip a falling fairing part and flip over, so release the fairings slightly in advance. The first fairing is action group 2, the second one is action group 1.

Everything checks out. I encountered the stowed engine issue but resolved it in the way you suggested. I'm not personally able to replicate your values due to some rather nasty lag but I can reliably get within 5km, and there's no evidence of illicit construction, so you're good to go. It's a rather impressive entry! Your use of the offset feature to prevent clipping from the quadcoupler is interesting. At least there's a few struts holding the pieces together!

I launched at a time that slowed my sun-relative velocity, so my periapsis wound up well below Moho's orbit. It got so low, in fact, that if you followed the probe after its launch, it got so close that it overheated and blew up.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Jodo42

[Noname117]

I think I am done with this challenge anyways. I've spent too much time working on stuff for it with little to no good result, so I think I'll let other people continue this one.

And no, it didn't work without the octagonal struts. It would get wobbly to the point where it was bent around 45 degrees. Putting the struts on the outside would just wind up having them burned off, causing the exact same issue. I probably could build a version with struts connecting to the O-10 engines, but with the loading times involved and the place i would get I just cant be bothered anymore.

[Jodo42]

I think I am done with this challenge anyways. I've spent too much time working on stuff for it with little to no good result, so I think I'll let other people continue this one.

And no, it didn't work without the octagonal struts. It would get wobbly to the point where it was bent around 45 degrees. Putting the struts on the outside would just wind up having them burned off, causing the exact same issue. I probably could build a version with struts connecting to the O-10 engines, but with the loading times involved and the place i would get I just cant be bothered anymore.

Sorry to hear this, but I definitely can relate to getting caught up in challenges. Maintaining a relatively small challenge like this can get to be a chore at times. I can't imagine how somebody like Ziv or Laie managed it for as long as they did. You had some pretty good concepts and rockets going.

In other news, I made a badge for anyone who's broken 70km (I'm hoping we'll eventually get more entries!):

There's also a clean version:

Not my greatest work, but feel free to add it to your signature regardless.

I've also changed how the leaderboard works and updated the OP. Any one person with multiple entries in the top 3 has those entries consolidated with their top entry being the one that remains. Multiple entries from 1 person work normally for places 4-10. This should allow for more people to appear on the board and create a more competitive challenge.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Jodo42