eee

Fastest orbit with a conventional rocket.

Recommended Posts

Just a fun idea. Time counted with game counter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stratzenblitz75 attempted this on his YouTube channel and as of July 2020 holds the record for fastest time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, catloaf said:

@Stratzenblitz75 attempted this on his YouTube channel and as of July 2020 holds the record for fastest time.

Thats not a conventional rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe look at Bradley Whistance's attempt. He doesn't use part clipping or aerodynamic exploits like stratzenblitz does (in that video, he does use part clipping and aerodynamic exploits in every other video.)

Edited by catloaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rocket that would send a sat or kerbal into orbit.

Thats what I mean by conventional.

Also, congrats on 100 posts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, eee said:

A rocket that would send a sat or kerbal into orbit.

Thats what I mean by conventional.

Also, congrats on 100 posts!

You mean like a rocket that can't do a grand tour if it was flown correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Draw the line between conventional and unconventional. There's no such thing as a "conventional rocket". Case in point:

Shuttle.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, doggonemess said:

Just to clarify, you mean fastest TO orbit, right? 

Yes.

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Draw the line between conventional and unconventional.

Bradley whistance and Danny 2462 and Stratzenblits75 style rockets are unconvientional.

Normal player rockets are conventional.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I get it. Fastest to orbit with a rocket that doesn't look like Kerbal engineers built it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, doggonemess said:

Ah, I get it. Fastest to orbit with a rocket that doesn't look like Kerbal engineers built it. :D

That rules out Energia 2 (and N1 which performs like Kerbals built it.)

It looks like this may be a piloting challenge, so maybe we should have a standardized ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a couple test runs and I can't do better than 0:58. I'm sure someone can beat that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eee said:
  6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Draw the line between conventional and unconventional.

Bradley whistance and Danny 2462 and Stratzenblits75 style rockets are unconvientional.

Normal player rockets are conventional.

No, those are still blurry lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standardized ships:  

Orbital Mechanics on KerbalX, wich I cant link cus the site is down.

KerbalX, the stock ship.

Dynawing

Comsat LX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a lot harder than I expected. Getting the correct flight profile is a real challenge, and I have not figured it out yet. I got very close once, but ran out of fuel with a PE of 68000 at about 95 seconds.  If you go to shallow you don't get enough altitude soon enough and heating becomes a major issue, but it is also very easy to overshoot and leave Kerbin's SOI before you have brought your PE up enough--assuming you don't run out of fuel first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, eee said:

Standardized ships:  

Orbital Mechanics on KerbalX, wich I cant link cus the site is down.

KerbalX, the stock ship.

Dynawing

Comsat LX

You're still not drawing a line. Can you actually define what you want? Because there is no such thing as a "conventional rocket", no matter how many blurry lines you draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

You're still not drawing a line. Can you actually define what you want? Because there is no such thing as a "conventional rocket", no matter how many blurry lines you draw.

I think the intent of OP is reasonably clear, and perhaps the simple solution here is to require kerbal g-force limits to be enabled to preclude decoupler/kraken drive forces, with an honour principle not to deliberately exploit the aero physics engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dnbattley said:

I think the intent of OP is reasonably clear...

Well it's clearly not.

Just now, dnbattley said:

...and perhaps the simple solution here is to require kerbal g-force limits to be enabled to preclude decoupler/kraken drive forces, with an honour principle not to deliberately exploit the aero physics engine?

That would be a much simpler rule than a vague word that has no grasp in a world where the Space Shuttle existed and had about 50 variations designed before construction, like the one where a booster carried a disk and another with a hammerhead fairing on top of the big red tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well it's clearly not.<snip>

If it was ever considered feasible in real life, even if not ultimately used, then I think most would consider that to be a "conventional" rocket, but if you still don't feel comfortable with the challenge then I would politely suggest it may be preferable to avoid it rather than aggressively questioning a newer member of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a rocket that would carrie a sat or kerbals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dnbattley said:
27 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well it's clearly not.<snip>

If it was ever considered feasible in real life, even if not ultimately used, then I think most would consider that to be a "conventional" rocket, but if you still don't feel comfortable with the challenge then I would politely suggest it may be preferable to avoid it rather than aggressively questioning a newer member of the community.

Still a blurry line.

7 minutes ago, eee said:

Just a rocket that would carrie a sat or kerbals.

That describes basically 99% of all rockets. Not sure anyone has ever attempted a fastest to orbit challenge without control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dnbattley said:

If it was ever considered feasible in real life, even if not ultimately used, then I think most would consider that to be a "conventional" rocket, but if you still don't feel comfortable with the challenge then I would politely suggest it may be preferable to avoid it rather than aggressively questioning a newer member of the community.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, eee said:
2 hours ago, dnbattley said:

If it was ever considered feasible in real life, even if not ultimately used, then I think most would consider that to be a "conventional" rocket, but if you still don't feel comfortable with the challenge then I would politely suggest it may be preferable to avoid it rather than aggressively questioning a newer member of the community.

Yes.

As I said, still a blurry line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.