Jump to content

The Eve Rocks Challenge (v0.90 only)


Recommended Posts

^^ 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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 April

I 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 by Kuzzter
Link to post
Share on other sites

This contract would make for a bit of an increase in difficulty for this challenge:

XbMoTed.jpg

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 post
Share on other sites

Here some more tests with my Evelander.

Based on the experience of these tests, i make a simple calculation:

thrust / weight = perfomancelevel

Aerospike thrust 154 (ASL) / LV-T800+Aerospike weight 6t = 25,6 <--too low

Aerospike thrust 154 (ASL) / LV-T400+Aerospike weight 3,75t = 41 <--very high

Whole Evelander thrust 5896 (ASL) / weight without extrafueltanks (decoupled on start) 256t = 23 <--no way

The 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 :)

@metaphor

sorry, no chance to lift off on sealevel for your lander :wink: (there is a Skipper in the middle, right? whole performancelevel 21)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Radam
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 = 21

24 spikes no skipper / 144t = 25,6

That'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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 by Laie
Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the outstanding pre-1.0 submissions (collected by Kuzzter):

iLike Rovers 26 April

Meithan 26 April

ShadowZone 26 April

HelmutK 27 April

What 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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...