Snakedoctor15 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) I'm going to attempt this today, We'll see how it goes. Will be using this to land on Eve. Javascript is disabled. View full albumShould work nicely and will be bring some fuel pods to drop down and refuel it with. Edited April 28, 2015 by Snakedoctor15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 ^^ If you're trying that in 1.0 it's not going to get off the ground, almost all rocket engines have zero thrust at Eve sea level. If still in 0.90, it looks like not nearly enough fuel.Interested to see your results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakedoctor15 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 You have a good point sir, to the drawling board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelmutK Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Ok, i'm testing my Lander from the Video above, in 1.0 on sealevel (nearly).....puuuh...armageddon is the right word i think.but....have a look in the second half... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo42 Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Well bullocks. Sea-level Eve ascents just got way harder.Given Helmut's video it seems that perhaps aerospikes are the way to go. I'll have to do some testing sometime this week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meithan Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Uhm, my lander design has all aerospikes and I just happen to have a quick save with it at Eve's surface ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) Hey all, as expected everyone looks pretty busy trying not to explode at mach 2 in V1.0 so it may be a little while before reviewers get to the last crop of Beta attempts, which are:iLike Rovers 26 April Meithan 26 April ShadowZone 26 April HelmutK 27 AprilI have not looked at any of these in detail, but I REALLY appreciate those entrants who have highlighted the possible sticking points of their entries (i.e. clipping, potential cheats). That's admirable and in true honest spirit of KSP. In my opinion, any cheats, however necessary, would tend to invalidate an entry--but it may be OK to "build a quicksave". For example, suppose you lifted off from the surface, messed up, exploded the ship, and then realized to your horror that your last save was at Kerbin launch. In my mind it would be OK to rebuild the lander in the VAB and hyperedit it to the point on Eve surface where the original lander landed, duplicating all resources exactly as in the original. If an entrant could provide documentation showing that the 'before' and 'after' lander are identical in construction and resources, that might be OK by me as a reviewer. But I don't speak for the reviewer community or for Laie who is really our "founding kerbal" and who should be consulted on all constitutional matters. Edited May 11, 2015 by Kuzzter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshift OTF Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Looking at the stats the LV-T30 Reliant engine may be the best to use on Eve. It's my favourite looking engine so I am pleased! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelderek Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 This contract would make for a bit of an increase in difficulty for this challenge:I wonder how that much ore would weigh, not to mention the equipment needed to drill for it (which could be left behind on Eve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphor Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 This ship can get to orbit from Eve sea level. It has about 8500 m/s of vacuum delta-v. Still have to find a way to land it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshift OTF Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 So it takes less DeltaV to get into orbit now? I was expecting that but not 4000 DeltaV less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelmutK Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Here some more tests with my Evelander. Based on the experience of these tests, i make a simple calculation:thrust / weight = perfomancelevelAerospike thrust 154 (ASL) / LV-T800+Aerospike weight 6t = 25,6 <--too lowAerospike thrust 154 (ASL) / LV-T400+Aerospike weight 3,75t = 41 <--very highWhole Evelander thrust 5896 (ASL) / weight without extrafueltanks (decoupled on start) 256t = 23 <--no wayThe parts I have started in the first testvideo have a performancelevel of 35, it seems to be a good value.Maybe this helps you to build a new Evelander in 1.0 @metaphorsorry, no chance to lift off on sealevel for your lander (there is a Skipper in the middle, right? whole performancelevel 21) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radam Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) It also only takes about 3000 from kerbin with the right approach, aka very high twr.Hmm, maybe even less that 6000 dv from Eve!Or just 5000 if you start from 7km up. Edited April 30, 2015 by Radam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphor Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 The Skipper doesn't actually activate until all the aerospike stacks are depleted. There aren't any fuel lines on the ship.Here's a video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelmutK Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Sorry, I've make a mistake by count your engines.You have 24 aerospikes not 16...oh, my eyes are not the youngest 16 spikes + 1 skipper / 144t = 2124 spikes no skipper / 144t = 25,6That's the value of the LV-T800+spike.Ok, 25.6 in a complete vessel is enough to lift off from sealevel.Thanks a lot for your demonstration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bekiekutmoar Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 The Eve Rocks Challenge is still valid for 1.0 I hope? I have a lander-design that worked pretty well with FAR and DRE in versions 0.24.5 and 0.90, but I assume I'll have to redesign stuff with the nerfed engines. Guess the first stage has to be something with Aerospikes, combined with multiple big reaction wheels and a load of battery's ... ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laie Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) The Eve Rocks Challenge is still valid for 1.0 I hope?Nope. But thanks for the reminder, I'll update the front page.I won't have the thread closed just yet. I can't speak for Astrobond, Norcalplanner, Starhawk or any of the others, but if there are still pre-v1.0 entries and if there's still someone willing to review them, it may as well happen here. Please note that the above sentence contains two "if", though. Edited May 2, 2015 by Laie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meithan Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 These are the outstanding pre-1.0 submissions (collected by Kuzzter):iLike Rovers 26 AprilMeithan 26 AprilShadowZone 26 AprilHelmutK 27 AprilWhat requirements must a reviewer meet? Does it have to be someone who has completed the challenge? Because I'd be willing to review one or two in the hopes that someone will review mine . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhawk Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I am still willing to review remaining 0.90 entries, as long as the entrants are wiling to have a bit more patience. I am still rather caught up in learning the new version. Soon. .Happy landings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Now that I've completed the challenge I'll offer myself as a reviewer. I'll take ILikeRovers's entry to start. Will be a couple of days as I, too, am learning the new version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaG Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Why isn't it 1.0 anymore? Is it considered too easy or too hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelderek Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Whether it is easier or harder, it is definitely different and deserves a separate challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Unfortunately, I think it's going to be impossible to evaluate this challenge in V1.0. Used to be all a reviewer had to do was check for impossible Isp and thrust, or evidence of hyperedit. Now we'd pretty much have to confirm the atmosphere wasn't changed at any time during Kerbin ascent, Eve descent and ascent! And which atmosphere? 1.0.0? 1.0.2? "roll your own" tweakables? Maybe at some point there will be an stock aero everyone agrees on, but there is no such thing yet in V1.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meithan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I am still willing to review remaining 0.90 entries, as long as the entrants are wiling to have a bit more patience. I am still rather caught up in learning the new version. Now that I've completed the challenge I'll offer myself as a reviewer. I'll take ILikeRovers's entry to start. Will be a couple of days as I, too, am learning the new version Thanks for taking this on, guys. Hopefully this pushes my own entry closer to review .By the way, Kuzzter, I checked your mission report for the challenge and I have to say that it's a great design overall, and pretty aesthetic too. I specially liked your "towing boom". How is the lander mated? Docking port Jr.? Did it greatly reduce your turning rate?Also, I had a "duh" moment when I saw you just let the Eve lander get to Kerbin orbit on its own propulsion, and then refuel (if it can liftoff from Eve, it can sure as hell liftoff from Kerbin ... duh!). Good thinking there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 By the way, Kuzzter, I checked your mission report for the challenge and I have to say that it's a great design overall, and pretty aesthetic too. I specially liked your "towing boom". How is the lander mated? Docking port Jr.? Did it greatly reduce your turning rate?Also, I had a "duh" moment when I saw you just let the Eve lander get to Kerbin orbit on its own propulsion, and then refuel (if it can liftoff from Eve, it can sure as hell liftoff from Kerbin ... duh!). Good thinking there.Thank you! Yes, it's mated with Jr. ports, and I did indeed have to be very careful turning. I disabled the reaction wheels on the lander for the entire time it was mated, and made sure to let everything 'settle' periodically during maneuvers. As mentioned in the report there was a pretty bad 'pogo stick' oscillation mode until I hit upon balancing the two aerospikes of the Wasabi Maru with two from the lander.Appreciate also that you liked the lander's Kerbin SSTO performance. Perhaps not all Eve landers can do that, though: some may not fly well without dropping stages. My lander could get away with almost anything in 0.90 due to the riduculous thrust of my Kerbodyne core stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts