ATEC

Stock Payload Fraction Challenge RE-BOOT

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

If the rule is "Do NOT clip parts" then how is that acceptable? Not a dig at @SpaceplaneAddict, just wanting to understand how that rule is supposed to work.

I quite second this. We need a clarification 'ere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Red Iron Crown and @SpaceplaneAddict
1st of all sorry for the late reply (Had finals)

2nd of all i changed the rules so now:
Clipping functional parts aint allowed (So that clip won't be allowed) And clipping parts like winglets / constructional parts will be allowed now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ATEC said:

@Red Iron Crown and @SpaceplaneAddict
1st of all sorry for the late reply (Had finals)

2nd of all i changed the rules so now:
Clipping functional parts aint allowed (So that clip won't be allowed) And clipping parts like winglets / constructional parts will be allowed now.

'Ere we go, that makes sense. I'll be showin' off my stuff in about a few days then :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bomaye Does it comply with the rules?
If answer === Yes, Then it is allowed

If answer === No, Then it's not allowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the leaderboard is still being maintained,  but I decided to make another entry.

Conventional wisdom has it that NERVs are heavy and are only justified on longest range, interplanetary SSTOs.      Therefore  a  100% liquid fuel only , heavy lifting SSTO that only goes to low orbit must be the worst idea ever?

When I set out building this thing, I knew that i could get about 50 tons supersonic comfortably enough with 1 rapier and 1 panther,  and then go on to exceed mach 4.     I've also managed to accelerate in the upper atmosphere with just 1 nuke per 25 tons with a sufficiently high lift/drag ratio.

So, the blueprint for this design was 3 Rapiers, 3 Panthers and 6 Nukes for 150T gross weight.       Unfortunately, I got to 135 tons and couldn't figure out a way to put any more strakes on the aircraft without it looking even sillier, so we're a bit fuel light.     It definitely feels like you could lift more ore if the fuel capacity was upped,  since it doesn't struggle to accelerate or climb.

Gross Weight   135.260 T
Payload            59.145 T   (43.7%)
Fuel Mass        31.025 T  (fuel fraction 22.9%)
Dry mass         33%

Craft file here - 

https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/partridge

Apologies for the rather ropey flying in this vid, but i'm using a keyboard. The video is sped up 3x !

re-entry and landing vids to follow, sorry my internet isn't fast (live out in the boonies)

Landing it - just enough fuel left to buzz the tower.      Recorded at normal speed.

 

Edited by AeroGav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, i didn't know about this challenge existence, couple of things like reaction wheel, batt and antenna is clipped in for aesthetical reasons, and 75*75 instead of 100*100 km orbit in the proof, although it have some deltaV in reserve, so no scoring attempts can be made, but i have pretty capable craft right here: Skyranger 4

Test run was made with 102050 kg of cargo, which is 46% of gross mass, with efficiency of 86 funds per 1 ton of cargo to LKO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.