Fastest orbit with a conventional rocket.

[doggonemess]

1 hour ago, catloaf said:

Maybe we could just have rules rather than using vague words and lines. My idea is:

Kerbal g force limits on.

Must be kerballed.

No exploits that don't fit within the spirit of the challenge (decouplers, aerodynamic exploits, phantom colliders, sepatrons.)

Uncut video footage required as proof.

So an Apollo or Soyuz style launch, right?

[catloaf]

2 hours ago, doggonemess said:

So an Apollo or Soyuz style launch, right?

In terms of ascent profile no. Th best ascent profile would be to reach escape velocity going straight up, then turn in ~120 degrees around and burn till you have a periapsis outside the atmosphere. A pile of vector engines would do this the best, and would fit in my rules. Banning this would get back to the original problem of where we draw the line.

 

 

[Pds314]

This is still super vague. Is fuel crossfeed conventional? Is putting the entire thing inside s fairing conventiona? Is taking off from the runway conventional? Is aerodynamic shenanigans conventional? Just saying "Stratzenblitz and Whistance are not conventional" is insufficient. Especially because at least Whistance is a forum member who could well be entering this challenge and obviously can't build a rocket he didn't build.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Pds314

[dnbattley]

2 hours ago, Pds314 said:

This is still super vague. Is fuel crossfeed conventional? Is putting the entire thing inside s fairing conventiona? Is taking off from the runway conventional? Is aerodynamic shenanigans conventional? Just saying "Stratzenblitz and Whistance are not conventional" is insufficient. Especially because at least Whistance is a forum member who could well be entering this challenge and obviously can't build a rocket he didn't build.

This isn't my challenge, but I'd suggest: yes; yes; yes; no. Stratzenblitz and Brad Whistance both know (and usually say) when they are exploiting the aero engine (usually by, e.g., stacking components in an odd order and then offsetting back into a "normal" position). My hypothesis is that you can't really "accidentally" do that sort of thing, though would admit there could be greyer areas (e.g. physically attaching fins to the back, rather then the sides, of a rocket to try and gain an advantage) that may be hard to police: hence recommending an "honour" system...

EDIT TO ADD: therefore, the "non-grey" rule might be this: no <mod>-offsetting?

Edited July 14, 2020 by dnbattley

[Bej Kerman]

On 7/10/2020 at 8:04 PM, catloaf said:

Maybe we could just have rules rather than using vague words and lines. My idea is:

Kerbal g force limits on.

Must be kerballed.

No exploits that don't fit within the spirit of the challenge (decouplers, aerodynamic exploits, phantom colliders, sepatrons.)

Uncut video footage required as proof.

When does using decouplers, sepratrons and aerodynamics become exploiting them?

[dnbattley]

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

When does using decouplers, sepratrons and aerodynamics become exploiting them?

When you do this:

Spoiler

 

 

[Bej Kerman]

48 minutes ago, dnbattley said:

52 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

When does using decouplers, sepratrons and aerodynamics become exploiting them?

When you do this:

The video doesn't make the line any clearer. It's still a blurry line that could get your submission disapproved.

[dnbattley]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The video doesn't make the line any clearer. It's still a blurry line that could get your submission disapproved.

I think you are over-thinking this. Is there a specific exploit/technique you wish to use to compete in this challenge that you want to discuss?

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, dnbattley said:

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The video doesn't make the line any clearer. It's still a blurry line that could get your submission disapproved.

I think you are over-thinking this. Is there a specific exploit/technique you wish to use to compete in this challenge that you want to discuss?

I wouldn't say I'm otherthinking this.

[The_Stinky_Broccoli]

if i were to try this i would say pictures are ok. maybe its just me but i don't know how to do videos

[eee]

On 7/20/2020 at 1:31 PM, epicfailure2020 said:

if i were to try this i would say pictures are ok. maybe its just me but i don't know how to do videos

You can do any.

Screenshot of orbit with in-game timer,

video,

or a picture album.

Edited July 27, 2020 by eee
h

[catloaf]

On 7/14/2020 at 8:22 AM, Bej Kerman said:

I wouldn't say I'm otherthinking this.

It's impossible to draw the line perfectly, however in my opinion exploiting it is when your craft wouldn't work in real life. So using a fairing to protect a payload from drag is okay, but using a fairing to have almost no drag is not. Using a separation and decouplers to separate a stage is ok, but using them to provide 100+ m/s²  acceleration is not. 

So using a part how it's intended is okay, but over-clipping and using mod offset is not. It's very hard to accidentally abuse the aero model, so an honor system is probably the best way to do this, with obviously part abusing entries removed.

Edited July 28, 2020 by catloaf

[jinnantonix]

Do you mean something like this?

 

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, catloaf said:

On 7/14/2020 at 4:22 PM, Bej Kerman said:

I wouldn't say I'm otherthinking this.

It's impossible to draw the line perfectly, however in my opinion exploiting it is when your craft wouldn't work in real life.

Blurry lines galore

[catloaf]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Blurry lines galore

Fine, no <mod> offset. However, like I said you don't accidentally abuse the aero model, so an honor system should be fine.

[sevenperforce]

If you want to make this actually a workable challenge, you need to think more in terms of what IS allowed rather than a set of restrictions about what ISN'T allowed. The former is manageable; the latter is infinite.

You want a conventional rocket? Great. Define that.

For example, you could say that we must only use serial staging, that we cannot part-clip inside fairings, that all impulse must be provided by bipropellant rocket engines, and that total launch mass must be under 100 tonnes. That would be a start.

[eee]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

 

For example, you could say that we must only use serial staging, that we cannot part-clip inside fairings, that all impulse must be provided by bipropellant rocket engines, and that total launch mass must be under 100 tonnes. That would be a start.

Yeah, pretty good definition.