Let's All Land Together

[linuxgurugamer]

How many pods can you land at the same time?  This challenge is designed to test your reentry design skills.

The problem is simple:  Land as many individual populated command pods as you can simultaneously.  They cannot be connected, meaning that each will need to survive reentry by itself.

Bonus if you launch them with a rocket first.

Rules

1. Build a vessel with multiple, manned pods.  They don't all have to be command pods, but you will need at least one control unit (probe core, command pod, etc) for control purposes.  Note that you will require at least one engine of any type to do a de-orbit burn.  Note:  External Command Seats are not allowed, the manned pod has to be a manned pod, not a service bay with an external seat inside.
2. Use HyperEdit or the cheat menu to get to a safe orbit around Kerbin.  If using HyperEdit, the orbit needs to be at least 86751
3. Note:  The cheat menu will allow you to set a minimum Semi-Major Axis of 686750, which ends up being an orbit of 86751m.
4. All the command pods must be separated/staged by the time you hit 50,000m
5. All the command pods must be manned.  No extra points for more than 1 kerbal in a pod, the idea is to see if the pod survives without killing the occupants
6. Whatever you use to slow down the vessel must get the initial PE to be below 50,000m
7. Part clipping is allowed within reason, primarily for aesthetics
8. Control:  The vessel MUST have the ability to face prograde, and then retrograde before leaving orbit
9. Mods are allowed with the following provisions:
   1. All mods (other than graphical) must be listed
   2. Parts mods must be reasonable (ie:  No OP parts).  If in doubt, ask
10. Landing counts, meaning that if a pod survives the reentry but not the landing, then it counts of destroyed

Scoring

1. Separation at landing will influence the score
2. There will be two categories:
   1. Adjusted Cost per Manned Pod
   2. Adjusted # Parts per Manned pod.

Scoring Calculation

1. Start off with 10 points for each command pod with one or more occupants
2. For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20
3. Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km
4. Divide the score by the distance apart in Km
5. Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost
6. Take the total number of parts and divide by (score / 10) to get the adjusted parts

Note

You can get the vessel location of each landed vessel in the Tracking Station if they are too far apart.  If all are in view, you can get the distance between vessels by double-clicking on the vessel you want the distance to.

Submission

When taking pictures, please adjust the Ambient Light so that the vessel(s) are fully visible, even at night.

Submit pictures showing it in the editor (VAB/SPH) with the Engineer's Report showing, in orbit with the altitude shown, both prograde and retrograde, before the reentry burn.  A video of the entire mission is also acceptable, as long as the resolution is good enough to show the numbers in the editor and in flight.

Extra Points

1. Launch the whole thing with a rocket, and get it into the desired orbit
2. Add to the initial calculation (step 1) 1 point per manned pod which is launched
3. Submission must include a picture of the orbital vehicle only in the VAB/SPH, this is needed for scoring purposes

Notes

I have been able to land 7 individual pods at one time (was not trying for a record at that time).  I am NOT posting pictures at this time since I want people to come up with their own ideas.  I will post some pictures after a few submissions have been made.

If the moderators request it, I can send them the pictures privately showing that I have been able to do it

I'm declaring this challenge over.  I must confess that the ingenuity shown far outreached my expectations, and it ended up being a test of patience and computer power.

The scoreboard is below, listed in order of entries.  The scoring calculation I came up with was insufficient to handle the entries.

Thank you all for entering

Scoreboard

User	Adjust Cost	Adjust Parts
doggonemess	9731.3	123.9
Pds314	298.8	10.5
jinnantonix	18.75	0.962
vyznev	20.54	0.5274
vyznev	2.556	0.05498
mystifeid	1.1038	0.0354
vyznev	0.3646	0.01478
mystifeid	0.2587	0.0102
jinnantonix	0.156	0.0087
mystifeid	38.82	0.8531

Edited April 19, 2020 by linuxgurugamer

[doggonemess]

This sounds like a job for the Kolossus II MIRK - Multiple Independent Reentry Kerbals!

https://kerbalx.com/LevAerospace/Kolossus-II-MIRK

Note: I've never actually tested if this thing works. I might try that and see what happens.

Edited April 15, 2020 by doggonemess

[doggonemess]

And, it works! I made a pure stock version of the craft to do this.

https://kerbalx.com/LevAerospace/Kolossus-IIA-MIRK

I'll upload some screenshots and calculate my score shortly. Fun!

[doggonemess]

So my craft cost 271,638 and had 178 parts. It launched five pods with five Kerbals and landed all safely in the ocean after 1 orbit. They were 4.7 km apart on landing. By my calculation, I get 11.7 as the score used to get the final cost and part totals. By that math:

Cost Score: 23,216

Part Score: 152.1

If my math was wrong, please let me know. I'll upload some screens to an album and post a link.

I expect these scores to be completely shattered in no time!

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, doggonemess said:

So my craft cost 271,638 and had 178 parts. It launched five pods with five Kerbals and landed all safely in the ocean after 1 orbit. They were 4.7 km apart on landing. By my calculation, I get 11.7 as the score used to get the final cost and part totals. By that math:

Cost Score: 23,216

Part Score: 152.1

If my math was wrong, please let me know. I'll upload some screens to an album and post a link.

I expect these scores to be completely shattered in no time!

Congrats.  Looks like the 178 parts includes the launcher, which is not part of the score.  Go into the editor, delete the booster and just leave the orbital vehicle to get the part count.

For now, I'll put you in as a tentative score

[mystifeid]

Five, seven?? Sheesh, I musta read the rules wrong because it looks like hundreds and hundreds are possible - you know, how good is your computer sort of thing. Anyway, I am only barely literate so have probably got things wrong. You can watch the video below and tell me how I screwed up. If by some miracle I didn't screw up, then I'm not very slick at arithmetic either and scoring looks kinda complicated...and besides, this will end up being a low score.

65 MK1 pod group landing. Interesting how only half the pods have the red stuff around them...

 

[Superfluous J]

@mystifeid that was glorious. I'm really surprised that they not only stayed together (I always thought that EVERYTHING you decoupled always went faster than you did) but also that the lower ones experienced more drag and therefore slowed down slightly faster (I always thought that the drag model assumed all craft were at the exact same altitude as the current craft)

Very cool.

[mystifeid]

Yeah I probably should have put a strut around that outside ring. I was bit disappointed there were a few rogues.

[jrodriguez]

 It has been several years since I don't participate in a challenge, however I think I can break all records in this one haha

And I will do it in RSS  AND IT WILL BE A POWERED LANDING

Edited April 16, 2020 by jrodriguez

[Pds314]

Well, I managed a separation of just 2.1 kilometers for five landers.

25 parts, 7115 cost, and 1470 kg in orbit. The landers are not as cheap as I'd like them to be, slightly outpricing a Mk1 pod with a parachute, and of course have higher partcount, but hey, if we were counting the cost you'd need to get it to orbit, this thing would be perfect. As a bonus, the deorbiter tug can make it back to its original orbit and doesn't need to reenter with the reentry vehicles.

Scoring:
 

1. 50 points for 5 command pods.
2. no pods lost.
3. 2.1 km.
4. Score: 23.8.
5. Adjusted cost per pod: 298.8
6. Adjusted parts per pod: 10.5

[linuxgurugamer]

57 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Well, I managed a separation of just 2.1 kilometers for five landers.

25 parts, 7115 cost, and 1470 kg in orbit. The landers are not as cheap as I'd like them to be, slightly outpricing a Mk1 pod with a parachute, and of course have higher partcount, but hey, if we were counting the cost you'd need to get it to orbit, this thing would be perfect. As a bonus, the deorbiter tug can make it back to its original orbit and doesn't need to reenter with the reentry vehicles.

Nice.

What pods are those, I don't recognize them.  Nice to have the tug get back to orbit, although it does seem to have increased the part count by a few.

I'm guessing those are service bays with an external seat inside?  I'll allow it for you, but not in the future, 

6 hours ago, mystifeid said:

Five, seven?? Sheesh, I musta read the rules wrong because it looks like hundreds and hundreds are possible - you know, how good is your computer sort of thing. Anyway, I am only barely literate so have probably got things wrong. You can watch the video below and tell me how I screwed up. If by some miracle I didn't screw up, then I'm not very slick at arithmetic either and scoring looks kinda complicated...and besides, this will end up being a low score.

65 MK1 pod group landing. Interesting how only half the pods have the red stuff around them...

Very nice, I like the pattern.  Re the red stuff, if you had switched to some of the lower pods, those would also have had the "red  stuff" while the higher ones would not.  From what I've seen, the further you get from the active vessel, the less is shown.

Scoreboards will be updated by this evening

[Pds314]

48 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Nice.

What pods are those, I don't recognize them.  Nice to have the tug get back to orbit, although it does seem to have increased the part count by a few.

I'm guessing those are service bays with an external seat inside?  I'll allow it for you, but not in the future, 

Very nice, I like the pattern.  Re the red stuff, if you had switched to some of the lower pods, those would also have had the "red  stuff" while the higher ones would not.  From what I've seen, the further you get from the active vessel, the less is shown.

Scoreboards will be updated by this evening

They're service bays with command seats and a parachute. I was basing it off rule 1.
"Build a vessel with multiple, manned pods.  They don't all have to be command pods, but you will need at least one control unit (probe core, command pod, etc) for control purposes.  Note that you will require at least one engine of any type to do a de-orbit burn."
So I can't see any other conceivable interpretation of this rule that allows non-command pods, but doesn't allow that particular kind of non-command pods.

I did another run, but the vehicles are unstable at supersonic speeds so they dispersed 8 kilometers! Sadly this means the vehicle won't be competitive as goes cost.

The vehicles themselves are designed to be extremely cheap, and are based around a $300 1.875m service bay (the entire vessel is 4770, of which each pod is only 815). The pods land by lithobraking.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Pds314

[jinnantonix]

My craft has 16 command pods, each with a chute, use hard points as decouplers, and has a probe core, terrier engine with two baguette fuel tanks to power the de-orbit.  I was able to land all the pods, no deaths, with a maximum distance between pods of 174.5m

1. 10 points for each command pod with one or more occupants = 160 + 16 (for the launch vehicle) = 176
2. For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20 = 0
3. distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km = 0.1745
4. Divide the score by the distance apart in Km = 176/0.1745 = 1008.6
5. Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost = 18910 / 1008.6 = 18.75
6. Take the total number of parts and divide by (score / 10) to get the adjusted parts = 97 / 100.86 = 0.962

[vyznev]

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.

Spoiler

For the test run, I cheated the upper stage into orbit with Alt+F12, even though it should be more than capable of getting to space with a simple lower stage attached.

Here's the landing stage just after the re-entry burn and staging:

The pods are attached together with 0.652 m stage separators, with the decoupling force lowered down to 1%. Here's how they look just after separation at 51 km ASL:

They're coming down all nicely stacked up, even though there's nothing but friction and atmospheric drag holding them together any more:

The chutes semi-deploy at about 17 km by default; it turns out this breaks the stack and scatters the pods. Delaying the deployment probably would've helped.

Fortunately full chute deployment (which I'd set to happen at 5 km) stops the pods from drifting further apart.

Splashdown! All 10 pods are visible in the screenshot, with the active pod closest to the camera and the target pod furthest away:

Anyway, if I understood the score calculation right, this test run should score as follows:

1. 10 points for each command pod with one or more occupants: 10 * 10 = 100
2. For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20: 100 – 0 * 20 = 100
3. Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km: 117.2 m = 0.1172 km
4. Divide the score by the distance apart in Km: 100 / 0.1172 = 853.2
5. Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost: 17524 / 853.2 = 20.54
6. Take the total number of parts and divide by (score / 10) to get the adjusted parts: 45 / (853.2 / 10) = 0.5274

Edited April 16, 2020 by vyznev

[jrodriguez]

Work in progress

[mystifeid]

9 pods landed 5.8m apart? Wait...I can hear something coming...yikes, it's a rule change!

 

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, mystifeid said:

9 pods landed 5.8m apart? Wait...I can hear something coming...yikes, it's a rule change!

Ingenious!  Definitely not what I was expecting, but then again, I really had no idea what to expect.

No rule change follows!  I would hope that future entrants would not just blindingly copy this.

Somwhat is your score?

[doggonemess]

23 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Congrats.  Looks like the 178 parts includes the launcher, which is not part of the score.  Go into the editor, delete the booster and just leave the orbital vehicle to get the part count.

For now, I'll put you in as a tentative score

Does the same logic apply to the cost? I'm betting a lot of the cost was the booster sections.

[vyznev]

5 hours ago, vyznev said:

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.

Yep. Down to 9.6 meters now. And I even flew the pods to orbit this time.

Spoiler

Scoring:

1. 10+1 points for each command pod with one or more occupants: 10 * 11 = 110
2. For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20: 110 – 0 * 20 = 110
3. Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km: 9.6 m = 0.0096 km
4. Divide the score by the distance apart in Km: 110 / 0.0096 = 11458.3
5. Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost: 29288 / 11458.3 = 2.556
6. 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.

 

23 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Congrats.  Looks like the 178 parts includes the launcher, which is not part of the score.  Go into the editor, delete the booster and just leave the orbital vehicle to get the part count.

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)?

Edited April 16, 2020 by vyznev

[mystifeid]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Definitely not what I was expecting, but then again, I really had no idea what to expect.

No rule change follows!  I would hope that future entrants would not just blindly copy this.

So what is your score?

Wow, not what I was expecting either.

Originally I tried keeping the platform as the active craft. When that worked, I made Jeb's pod active when I staged the pods and that was what was shown in the video. It was hands off after 51km.

Anyway, the platform had stuff attached to it that obviously isn't needed and which inflates the cost a bit but I think I'll just leave it at that. I'll also leave the engine, fuel tank and decoupler in the part count and cost.

55 parts with a cost of 17128 and separation of .0058km. Sooo -

Adjusted cost - 1.1038

Adjusted parts -  0.0354

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by mystifeid

[vyznev]

2 hours ago, vyznev said:

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.

Well, having said that, obviously I had to give it a try.

Spoiler

This time I didn't bother to even try flying it to orbit, but just used Alt+F12:

Aiming for a 30 km periapsis, as before:

Separating pods at 51 km:

The re-entry effects are pretty impressive...

...but ultimately harmless:

The basket maintains a stable retrograde orientation due to its elegant aerodynamic design. Also, from this angle, one can see how the conical pods are arranged in nine stacks of three pods each, with every seconds stack rotated upside down for optimal packing:

Chutes deploy at about 17 km, as usual. One improvement I made to @mystifeid's design is that all the chutes are on the basket, so the pods don't get pulled out.

Landing just west of the mountains near KSC:

A few parts of the basket broke on landing, but all the pods are fine:

Maximum distance between pods: 3.4 meters. Or maybe 3.5 — there's a bit of wobbling going on. I'll round it up just to be safe.

That's 27 crewed pods with a max distance of about 3.5 meters. I believe that means the scoring works out to:

1. 10 points for each command pod with one or more occupants: 27 * 10 = 270
2. For each pod destroyed during reentry, subtract 20: 270 – 0 * 20 = 270
3. Measure (if possible) the distance between the two most seperated pods, distance to be in Km: 3.5 m = 0.0035 km
4. Divide the score by the distance apart in Km: 270 / 0.0035 = 77142.857
5. Take the total cost and divide by the score to get the adjusted cost: 28128 / 77142.857 = 0.3646
6. 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.

Edited April 17, 2020 by vyznev

[jinnantonix]

2 minutes ago, vyznev said:

Of course, this score is quite easy to beat: just build a bigger basket.

Or build a better basket?   [video pending]

[mystifeid]

35 minutes ago, vyznev said:

Well, having said that, obviously I had to give it a try.

Hell's Handbasket. I love it.

[Klapaucius]

Did I have something to do with this? 

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, doggonemess said:

Does the same logic apply to the cost? I'm betting a lot of the cost was the booster sections.

Yes.  Cost and part count are without the boosters.