Roads to Duna: No Moar Boosters (UPDATES!)

[Kergarin]

5 minutes ago, ManEatingApe said:

Nicely done!

If I've read the thread correctly then you should be also be able to include Loop The Loop for an even lower score!

(of course @sevenperforce will have to confirm)

Thanks! 

I don'tknow if loop the loop gets replaced by Elon Style or if I can have both. 

[ManEatingApe]

Our benevolent overlord seems to say yes...  

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165251-roads-to-duna-no-moar-boosters/&do=findComment&comment=3168196

Edited September 9, 2017 by ManEatingApe

[Kergarin]

7 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

haha, it didn't even occur to me that a mission to duna with only a handful of those tiny oscar fuel tanks and 2 sparks could be viable  that's really impressive!

also, i liked the use of those I-Beams to line up the docking ports - that's a clever idea

Thanks 

It could be even smaller using a single launch and without all these docking ports. And a single seater can be really tiny 

It works even on one spark, but it's less efficient.

I do often see to big engines on Duna crafts. A single terrier for example is enough for a direct single staged ascend of an Mk3 pod.

[Kergarin]

41 minutes ago, ManEatingApe said:

Our benevolent overlord seems to say yes...  

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165251-roads-to-duna-no-moar-boosters/&do=findComment&comment=3168196

Ah, thank you 

Have fixed my score

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, Kergarin said:

So here it is... finally

Heaviest payload: 1.695t
5 launches:
1x 1.690t
4x 1.695t

I think i've got:
Old School 5%
Brute Force 12%
Slow Climb 4% (why did i bring this ladder? )
Elon Style 25%
Consistency 6%

Edit: Loop the Loop 15% (thanks @ManEatingApe)

= -67%

Score 0,55935
(if i didn't get another thing wrong )

 

The ship:

 

The whole tour:

https://imgur.com/a/R8sPz

 

 

 

Wow, that's fantastic. Really ridiculously impressed!

Unfortunately, it doesn't qualify for Loop The Loop; that's if you have a transfer vehicle that brakes back into Kerbin orbit and remains in orbit, ready for the next trip. Think the Hermes or an Aldrin cycler. But even without LtL you're still at an impressive 0.8136!

[Grand Ship Builder]

5 hours ago, ManEatingApe said:

If I've read the thread correctly then you should be also be able to include Loop The Loop for an even lower score!

 

5 hours ago, ManEatingApe said:

you should be also be able to include Loop The Loop for an even lower score!

 

5 hours ago, ManEatingApe said:

for an even lower score!

How much sense does this make?

[Kergarin]

6 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Wow, that's fantastic. Really ridiculously impressed!

Unfortunately, it doesn't qualify for Loop The Loop; that's if you have a transfer vehicle that brakes back into Kerbin orbit and remains in orbit, ready for the next trip. Think the Hermes or an Aldrin cycler. But even without LtL you're still at an impressive 0.8136!

Thanks 

Ok, removing loop the loop. 0.8136 is low enough 

[sevenperforce]

11 hours ago, Grand Ship Builder said:

<snip>

How much sense does this make?

Lowest score wins.

[Grand Ship Builder]

17 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Lowest score wins.

I'll do nothing so I get 0 points so I get the lowest score so I win.

[qzgy]

48 minutes ago, Grand Ship Builder said:

I'll do nothing so I get 0 points so I get the lowest score so I win.

Right, but you didn't do the challenge....

[mk1980]

one question @sevenperforce regarding the bonus 

On Tongues of Fire. Use no chutes; propulsive landings on both Duna and Kerbin. 10% decrease in highest payload mass.

can we use airbrakes for this?

currently thinking of a (possible) way to beat the current top score not by going even smaller (don't think that's possible) but rather by stacking more bonuses. if i can cook up a mission plan similar to my original mission, but dropping the glider in favor of some vehicle that uses airbrakes and some thrust to soften the landing, i could raise the score multiplier from the 70% i had in my first run to 81% (assuming i can pull that off). so a mission that uses max module size of ~4 tons would get a score of about 0.8 and anything less than 4 ton per module could beat the current top score.

i guess if i game the system and use some silly monster rocket that does crewed starts all the time and has a LES on top (for the"safety first" bonus), that modifier could be stacked to a ridiculous 86%, so even a module size of ~5.8 tons would end up with a score of ~0.8.

[sevenperforce]

18 hours ago, Kergarin said:

Thanks! 

I don'tknow if loop the loop gets replaced by Elon Style or if I can have both. 

Loop The Loop can definitely be compatible with Elon Style, but typically if you have Loop The Loop then you'd also end up with Stayin' Alive. Elon Style necessarily includes Old School. 

I think I should add a sizeable bonus for including a rover on the lander, to induce larger, more true-to-life landers, but I don't want to unbalance it.

 

2 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

one question @sevenperforce regarding the bonus 

On Tongues of Fire. Use no chutes; propulsive landings on both Duna and Kerbin. 10% decrease in highest payload mass.

can we use airbrakes for this?

currently thinking of a (possible) way to beat the current top score not by going even smaller (don't think that's possible) but rather by stacking more bonuses. if i can cook up a mission plan similar to my original mission, but dropping the glider in favor of some vehicle that uses airbrakes and some thrust to soften the landing, i could raise the score multiplier from the 70% i had in my first run to 81% (assuming i can pull that off). so a mission that uses max module size of ~4 tons would get a score of about 0.8 and anything less than 4 ton per module could beat the current top score.

i guess if i game the system and use some silly monster rocket that does crewed starts all the time and has a LES on top (for the"safety first" bonus), that modifier could be stacked to a ridiculous 86%, so even a module size of ~5.8 tons would end up with a score of ~0.8.

Yes, you can absolutely use airbrakes.

I'm going to add a couple more bonuses here in a bit.

[qzgy]

Been muckin about with this one.

 

Probably going to go for winged, Elon style, Loop the Loop, Old School, Slow Climb, Stayin Alive, Consistency, and Saftey-First

Report coming Soon-Ish^TM

^{BTW, will the SRB escape system also need to be landed by wing if I want to do that with Wing it?}

Edited September 10, 2017 by qzgy

[Grand Ship Builder]

Right now i'm working on finding a way to make my re-usable rocket actually re-usable, the single launch kind of re-usable. I might use it for a Red Draken mission.

[mk1980]

ok. but adding more and more bonuses might cause problems. simply avoiding a 100% stacking may not be enough. if someone can stack lik 95%, that would still allow for some pretty huge modules that only achieve a good score due to the nature of % stacking.

[Grand Ship Builder]

Here's my current progress so far:

Spoiler

 

I was just chilling and then this happened:

Spoiler

 

[Grand Ship Builder]

At least my rocket was mostly intact:

Spoiler

Besides a broken solar panel

 

[sevenperforce]

29 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Been muckin about with this one.

^{BTW, will the SRB escape system also need to be landed by wing if I want to do that with Wing it?}

Winged, rolling landings are only for the manned landings, so you can do a completely separate ascent vehicle. Of course, if you're leaving your glider on Duna and taking a separate ascent vehicle, you'll need a separate gliding lander for Kerbin to get Wing It. And that precludes Elon Style.

32 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

ok. but adding more and more bonuses might cause problems. simply avoiding a 100% stacking may not be enough. if someone can stack lik 95%, that would still allow for some pretty huge modules that only achieve a good score due to the nature of % stacking.

If they can manage it, more power to them!

17 minutes ago, Grand Ship Builder said:

At least my rocket was mostly intact:

  Hide contents

Besides a broken solar panel

 

Impressive kaboom.

[qzgy]

8 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

And that precludes Elon Style.

Wait why?

I can do my ascent with this rocket SSTO and glide back, no? Thus fufilling both the "Fully reusable and not nuke/ion/airbreather" and "Gliding landings"

Edited September 10, 2017 by qzgy

[mk1980]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Yes, you can absolutely use airbrakes.

I'm going to add a couple more bonuses here in a bit.

did some fooling around with a lander i alt+f12 cheated  to duna orbit. it lander didn't quite make it back to orbit (but fairly close). but the idea might have potential. might be doable.

https://imgur.com/a/gHN7C

don't know if it would also be able to survive LKO reentry and have enough TWR for a suicide burn there, though.

tested a modified version using small plane landing gear instead (high crash tolerance + suspension). wouldn't want to sit in that capsule when ithits the ground at 45 m/s, but it surived the impact without blowing up parts

https://imgur.com/a/JrsEd

 

it's about 3.5 tons, so if i could improve it a bit and design the other parts to be roughly the same mass, the 80% bonus i'll be shooting for would yield a score slighly lower than current top score

 

lot's of "if" and "would", but i might go for it. not tonight, though.

Edited September 10, 2017 by mk1980

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, qzgy said:

Wait why?

I can do my ascent with this rocket SSTO and glide back, no? Thus fufilling both the "Fully reusable and not nuke/ion/airbreather" and "Gliding landings"

Oh, I was answering the question about the SRB escape system. There is a bonus for using a solid-fueled separate ascent vehicle...maybe you weren't asking about that, though?

[qzgy]

16 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Oh, I was answering the question about the SRB escape system. There is a bonus for using a solid-fueled separate ascent vehicle...maybe you weren't asking about that, though?

Ohh, I misunderstood. Sorry.

I think I understand better, thanks

[mk1980]

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

4 hours ago, mk1980 said:

ok. but adding more and more bonuses might cause problems. simply avoiding a 100% stacking may not be enough. if someone can stack lik 95%, that would still allow for some pretty huge modules that only achieve a good score due to the nature of % stacking.

If they can manage it, more power to them!

tbh, i'd remove the bonus for adding a launch escape system and probably also the bonus for adding a ladder to the lander.

slapping a ladder on a lander can is trivial and really not worth a bonus. the launch escape system seems like an invitation to come up with some silly design to squeeze out some free points from the part of the mission that is trivial anyway (launching stuff to orbit with an unspecified, unrestricted launch system). 

[sevenperforce]

4 hours ago, mk1980 said:

tbh, i'd remove the bonus for adding a launch escape system and probably also the bonus for adding a ladder to the lander.

slapping a ladder on a lander can is trivial and really not worth a bonus. the launch escape system seems like an invitation to come up with some silly design to squeeze out some free points from the part of the mission that is trivial anyway (launching stuff to orbit with an unspecified, unrestricted launch system). 

I'll take the LES bonus off (even though I did it on my own rocket). It does restrict launch types somewhat, though. Not going to remove the ladder one, just because people have already gotten bonuses for it. 

[mk1980]

i don't want to re-do an optimzed version of my original mission just with smaller stuff. that would be kinda boring.

currently thinking of a new and (somewhat) different mission profile that involves a separate ascent vehicle and a small rover.

i can see a fairly high potential for bonus stacking in such a mission (thanks to the new rover bonus).

a transfer ship with extra cabins that ends the tour in kerbin orbit is already worth 33%.

bringing 2 separate landers (one that brings the crew and a small rover down, another one that lands unmanned and is used as the ascent vehicle) adds another 33%. i guess the ascent lander could also be shot to duna as a separate launch indpendent of the main ship?

we don't have to worry about full reusability of those landers since we don't aim for elon style this time, so they can be more efficient than an SSTO design that must make it back to the mothership in one piece.

slow climb & old school are easy enough to get and if we roughly standardize the size of the individual modules, we can also get the "consistency" bonus for using the same launcher.

with those stacked bonuses, we're already at 79% which gives us some "wiggle room" for design since individual launches of ~4 tons or less would result in a score roughly on par with current top score.

if we go one step further and also use propulsive landings rather than chutes, that's another 10% bonus, ie. a total bonus of 89%. so the modules could be really big - a little less then 8 tons per module with 89% bonus end at roughly the same score as the current leader.

 

so i guess that's what i'm going to aim for