The KSP Caveman Challenge 1.3.x - 1.10.x [re-booted]

[Rakaydos]

Rendevus is much easier in caveman if there's a functional, powered probe core on  the target. (it's the difference between needing a >150m blind flyby with ship swap, select port, ship swap, target port; and needing a >50m blind flyby and good rightclick skills to catch a docking port as it flies by.) The tylo lifter will need to rendezvous with something small to get it back to the mothership in high elliptical tylo orbit, 1210 m/s away. (plus a healthy rendezvous margin)

Since this is a 1-off module, it can be more finely tuned than the pods, but it will have more dry mass. I pull out the Tylo lifter craft file, rename to Tylo escape tank, strip off all the stuff that stages away, drain the tanks, and (in the VAB) dock a probe core with 2 baguette tanks to it. 1.353 full, .995 dry, calculating out to 1360.51 m/s. A little tight on docking margin, I can waste up to 400 m/s just in kerbin orbit getting a rendevus and docking. Adding a third tank changes the wet to 1.838 and the dry to 1.029, for a DV of 1822.11 m/s, plenty of margin. (especially if I dock with reserve in the lander tanks, and lock those tanks as a docking reserve)

Set the core to default to hybernation and lock the electric charge- I dont need it to actually control anything, just to let me target it easier. Reroot from the lander to the tanks, pull off the lander. Because I have the D/v margin, I throw on some solar panels too- there's none on the tylo lander or lifter, and the spark doesnt have an alternator. Adding .015 to both wet and dry mass drops the DV to 1802.18, which is still plenty. That gives a probe/tank mass (minus the lifter/capsule) of 1.066.

9.801 wet for the tylo lander/lifter, + 1.066 for the tylo orbit escape tank, is 10.867 tones I need to get from tylo escape to tylo orbit. again, 1210 m/s, but no need for a docking reserve. The lander already has 3 lightweight engines, so this is somethig that can be done by throwing standard fuel pods at the problem. (2.256 tons wet, .366 tons dry  each)

Two attached above the lander engine pods should be pretty secure- 15.369 wet, 11.599 dry is 883.17 m/s. A third pod as a separate stage above the orbit escape adds (17.625 wet 15.735 dry) 355.96, for a total of 1239.13 m/s, just clearing the maneuver. The stack is now 4 pods high, though, so wobbly rocket cosign losses may cost some of it. We'll see. Worst case, I recalculate the lander with 3 engine pods and the the tylo approach with 3+1 tanks, with the core using the y-connector pod varients. Docking all 4 port pairs at once may be difficult, but if it works it should be less wobbily.

Thats probably as far as I should go without actual assembily and testing. Kerbin return requires at least 1700 m/s and 2.5m heat shields capable of bleeeding off something like 4400 m/s in kerbin atmosphere. (or at least 1200 of it on the 1st pass, for kerbin capture + a rescue mission)

[IncongruousGoat]

On 6/25/2018 at 6:35 PM, GoSlash27 said:

Also, "cheat menu" is forbidden in caveman attempts, including for testing purposes even when done in another session.

Best,
-Slashy (the O.G. caveman)

Ah. That may be a problem. At the very tail end of my NCD run, I cheat menu-ed the Duna/Ike ship into LKO in a test save a couple times in order to A: make sure there weren't any catastrophic flaws in the design, and B: teach myself to fly Caveman Duna transfers. There's no technical reason I couldn't have built a lifter capable of putting the whole assembly in orbit - it's stable under acceleration, and this was a test save so pad and VAB upgrades weren't a problem. I just didn't think of doing it that way.

@The Dunatian, if you feel this disqualifies my run, feel free to take it off the leaderboard. I probably won't be making another go - it was too much work the first time around.

[GoSlash27]

IncongrousGoat,

Dammit!!

 You are a KSP kung- fu master, your NCD run is an inspiration to others, and your use of the cheat menu in another session doesn't materially affect the difficulty of what you have accomplished. IMO it shouldn't matter.

 You are also a very honorable person for admitting this. Most of us (including me, probably) would've kept quiet about it, especially after all that work.

 The thing is... People are always looking for ways to cheat the game; bend the rules to accomplish what you have done without the difficulty you put up with, which cheapens your accomplishment. The rules must be strict in order to safeguard against that. If we let you slide, then others will just look to exploit it.

 So here's my recommendation (keeping in mind that I'm not driving this train these days):

 The rule about using F4 for testing purposes in another session *only* is overly-strict IMO. It should not be used for anything other than bypassing the tedium of launch from KSC to orbit, though. And then, not in the career itself. It is not to be used for testing landers, launch vehicles, or returns from other bodies.

 F4 should preferably not be used for any purpose whatsoever, just to eliminate all doubts of validity.

 I'd like to see IG's run stand, with the understanding that future runs will not use the cheat menu for any purpose other than this, and never used in the caveman career itself.

 Again, this isn't my call anymore. It's up to the clan.

Best,
-Slashy

[JAFO]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

 You are a KSP kung- fu master, your NCD run is an inspiration to others, and your use of the cheat menu in another session doesn't materially affect the difficulty of what you have accomplished. IMO it shouldn't matter.
 ...
 The rule about using F4 for testing purposes in another session *only* is overly-strict IMO. It should not be used for anything other than bypassing the tedium of launch from KSC to orbit, though. And then, not in the career itself. It is not to be used for testing landers, launch vehicles, or returns from other bodies.
...
 I'd like to see IG's run stand, with the understanding that future runs will not use the cheat menu for any purpose other than this, and never used in the caveman career itself.

Seconded on all points above.

[Superfluous J]

21 minutes ago, JAFO said:

Seconded on all points above.

Thirded.

"Did you see that? I just made a basket from across the street!"

"No, sorry, your toe was clearly a quarter inch over the curb so technically you were not across the street but in it. DISQUALIFIED."

Lumping this in with someone building their ships in a separate save with KER installed is a strict adherence to the rules that even I - who am pretty strict with the rules adherences - don't agree with.

Edited June 29, 2018 by 5thHorseman

[dvader]

On 6/26/2018 at 12:35 AM, GoSlash27 said:

Also, "cheat menu" is forbidden in caveman attempts, including for testing purposes even when done in another session.

Uh oh... I was not aware of that rule... That affects me too. I don't remember anymore but I probably used it back in corundum and diamond to test craft since I was sandboxing a lot back then (recreating the craft in caveman of course, no lifting of craft files). Actually, I'm sure I used it when testing how much punishment a command module could take. I don't think I've used it much for that kind of testing in NCD since I remember and repeated stuff from Diamond but just yesterday I used it to get some dV estimates around Jool (feasibility study only, haven't decided what to do). Still, remembering reentry altitudes that were once derived using cheat menu should/could be just as illegal as redoing the testing.

8 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

 The rule about using F4 for testing purposes in another session *only* is overly-strict IMO. It should not be used for anything other than bypassing the tedium of launch from KSC to orbit, though. And then, not in the career itself. It is not to be used for testing landers, launch vehicles, or returns from other bodies.

 F4 should preferably not be used for any purpose whatsoever, just to eliminate all doubts of validity.

 I'd like to see IG's run stand, with the understanding that future runs will not use the cheat menu for any purpose other than this, and never used in the caveman career itself.

Agreed, but obviously I'm partial.

In general, my very partial opinion is that a strict interpretation of the rules makes it hard to distinguish between what is learnt/derived from other (modded) games and what is cheating. For example, I could have used a save game with ships already parked in Jool orbit to get dV estimates but cheat menued out  of convenience. A hard interpretation of the rule would not allow any use of cheat menu estimates but would allow estimates if derived from a regular (possibly modded) save game if ships were flown there. But, what if I had used an existing craft in my sandbox where stuff has been cheat menued every now and then and I can no longer tell which is which? I don't really see the difference between using cheat menu and using previous save games for dV estimates.

Another example, the screenshot I used to find the Mun Greenolith (here somewhere) was from a previous career game (where I had mods and tech that is unavailable to a caveman, but probably no cheat menu). If that is cheating, I could just look up the locations on the internet where people have posted the same info, probably using things like cheat menu or reading data files. Also, biome maps on the internet are made with mods and probably cheat menu. I don't think looking it up on the internet is better than making it yourself so banning the making of a biome map but allowing the use of one makes little sense.

I suppose we can agree on the basic rules regarding sandboxes:

• Craft files must not be copied or moved from another save game to caveman.
• No use of mods (KER etc) when designing crafts in other save games.

But, I can't figure out how to write a rule about the cheat menu or what information may carry over from other games (or the internet). Maybe, "Only cheat menu to Kerbin orbits allowed" but does that mean dV estimates around Jool are forbidden if you cheat menu there directly but not if you use another save game? Maybe, "No testing of physical ship features like heat resistance, rover handling etc" but it is not so much the cheat menu as it is the save-reload feature which saves time when doing reentry testing. I usually go to orbit, burn to X m/s, save, crash-burn, reload. Would that be allowed?

So, I'm torn between "any information may carry over" and something less permissive that I can't really put into words without questioning my own habits and practices.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by dvader

[GoSlash27]

Well, the objective is to not use a parallel career/ sandbox as an excuse to employ mods or cheat menu to gain an unfair advantage. You can't help knowing what you know, but the sandbox shouldn't be used to generate information intended for use in the caveman run. Specifically ship design and mission planning.

I don't know how to write a simple direct rule that specifies what's legal in this large gray area, so I prefer to keep it simple. No mods, no cheat menu. I guess in cases where it's murky, the clan should decide collectively whether a run should be allowed.

Best,
-Slashy

[IncongruousGoat]

20 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

F4 should preferably not be used for any purpose whatsoever, just to eliminate all doubts of validity.

F4 or F12? The only use of F4 I know of is using Alt-F4 as the world's least controllable save revert.

[qzgy]

28 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said:

F4 or F12? The only use of F4 I know of is using Alt-F4 as the world's least controllable save revert.

F4 also toggles the ship tag highlight display thing, the little markers when piloting normally (pretty sure) .  Just you might like to know. 

[Rakaydos]

Speaking of docking, documenting a rendevus and docking in screenshots is confusing. Especially when the first docking gets 90% completed when I discover I've been draining fuel from the payload and it's too late to quickload.

Fortunately it was the pod, not the lifter.

[GoSlash27]

Sorry, I meant F12, not F4. The cheat menu thingy

-Slashy

[Rakaydos]

Not much accomplished, but it may be amusing.

https://imgur.com/a/HMSsyqA

And the actual proper docking.

https://imgur.com/a/2wOhg0F

Edited June 30, 2018 by Rakaydos

[dvader]

On 6/29/2018 at 6:47 PM, GoSlash27 said:

Well, the objective is to not use a parallel career/ sandbox as an excuse to employ mods or cheat menu to gain an unfair advantage.

OK, that sounds fair. Don't use cheat menu or mods in sandboxes or other game saves.

On 6/29/2018 at 6:47 PM, GoSlash27 said:

You can't help knowing what you know, but the sandbox shouldn't be used to generate information intended for use in the caveman run. Specifically ship design and mission planning.

Ah... oh... I hope sandbox use without mods or cheat menu is still OK. Because, if it is not, probably all my missions after normal or hard would be questionable. I've been using sandboxes and other save games whenever I don't know what I want to do, can do or how to do.Things like, how can I send a Kerbal on EVA to space without him catch fire? That was both ship design and mission planning in one (but without mods or cheat menu). I even posted some of the prettier failures, like this one:

which shows that even if your science hopper can withstand the impact, the VAB can not (I think it was the weight). It's a lesson in Kerbal Physics I do not want to learn in the real caveman career.

 

[GoSlash27]

10 hours ago, dvader said:

Ah... oh... I hope sandbox use without mods or cheat menu is still OK. Because, if it is not, probably all my missions after normal or hard would be questionable.

dvader,

 I don't see any problem with that sort of thing. The point of those rules was to avoid people using sandbox as a loophole in order to employ mods or cheat menu to gain an unfair advantage.

Best,
-Slashy

[Rakaydos]

If I've done my calculations correctly, this should be a functional Tylo lander and lifter.

https://imgur.com/a/lDGtNPk

Edited July 2, 2018 by Rakaydos

[Rakaydos]

Album https://imgur.com/a/lDGtNPk will appear when post is submitted

[Mr. Peabody]

Calm down guys. I'm not disqualifying anyone. Just keep that rule in mind in future attempts.

[Rules edited]

Edited July 2, 2018 by The Dunatian

[dvader]

15 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

Calm down guys. I'm not disqualifying anyone. Just keep that rule in mind in future attempts.

[Rules edited]

Now it says "No testing crafts in separate games" which could be interpreted as not using separate games for testing at all. Could we perhaps reformulate as "No use of Mods or Cheat Menu in separate games" if that is the conclusion of the debate? That is, it is not sandboxing itself which is forbidden, just the use of forbidden aids.

I have finally posted another update and have now passed the half-way point with only 420 science left. Spoiler:

For some reason, Bob had much more trouble holding on to the craft above the Mun than above Minmus. Maybe he's got slippery gloves from all the grease in space.

 

 

 

[Mr. Peabody]

3 hours ago, dvader said:

Now it says "No testing crafts in separate games" which could be interpreted as not using separate games for testing at all. Could we perhaps reformulate as "No use of Mods or Cheat Menu in separate games" if that is the conclusion of the debate? That is, it is not sandboxing itself which is forbidden, just the use of forbidden aids.

You are correct. I have edited the rule to more clearly communicate my meaning. Thank you for bearing with me.

This particular rule was somewhat confusing in that it was in the original challenge, but disappeared in the version 1.1 & 1.2.x reboot. In any case, it was part of the original and now it's here to stay.

Your Nano-Diamond attempt is looking great! I'll be looking forward to seeing future progress reports.

[Rakaydos]

Tylo orbit circularization stage:

https://imgur.com/a/LP3830E

[dvader]

14 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

You are correct. I have edited the rule to more clearly communicate my meaning. Thank you for bearing with me.

Thanks for taking good care of this historical challenge! I both enjoy playing it and watching the crazy contraptions people come up with.

Speaking of crazy, I look forward to see that Tylo lander in action @Rakaydos.

[Rakaydos]

Currently working on a heat shield module and fuel for kerbin return. A lot depends on whether I need to bring 2 or just 1 heat shield, to reenter from jool intercept velocities, because each heat shield masses twice as much as the dry lander capsule.

Any suggestions for computing this?

[Muetdhiver]

Actually shields are not needed for the comeback from jool. A 1.25m service bay below the capsule is enough and will also protect the science container just fine. 

Don't do a direct landing though, do a 40-45 km aerocapture then landing. IIRC I did 42 km.

It weights 0.1t vs a lot for a heat shield.

Most OP module In the game if you ask me

As for fuel: it will be quite costly from tylo but not too bad. I did return on a lf-t 400 plus spark. (From bop)

Spark > terrier for 1t capsule + lf-t 400 So long as twr is not important... (in fact the spark is still better even with an 800 tank)

Edited July 5, 2018 by Muetdhiver

[Rakaydos]

Except that, for the Tylo lander, I need a lander can instead of a capsule, which needs a 2.5m heatshield to protect it. Extra mass on return, but lighter on the TWR critical stages.

[Rakaydos]

So, I have no idea what I'm doing with this math, but bear with me. A 2.5m heat shield has a cross section of about 5 square meters. (1.25^2 x 3.14 = 4.9) and the mass for the dry lifter + heat shield is about 2 tons and has a drag coefficent of 0.2. At a kerbin reentry velocity of 4500 m/s, that's about a 1g (9.8m/s/s) deceleration at 5/6 the atmospheic height, (58 km) if I read the math right. 10g deceleration at 4/6th the atmospheric height. (46 KM)

Those height seem high, compared to other vehicals (which makes sence, since 2/3 of the mass is just ablator) so I suspect a single heat shield will be sufficent.

But I may just be convincing myself here.