Norcalplanner

Just a few things to say before I sign off: Mainsail sustainer with quasi-asparagus staging. 118.63 ton payload. 699.23 funds/ton. Pictures tomorrow.

There was a similar thread a while ago. Here's a link to a post where I describe how to build a 10 km/s Mun rocket: No Asparagus Rocket. I also did an imgur album (below) showing what this rocket looks like:

There was a fabulous thread on this a while back. It starts with where the crossover point is for dropping periapsis first vs burning straight from a higher orbit, but the discussion goes all over the place with regard to orbital height. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/122445-oberth-effect/&page=1

I guess I've just gotten into the habit of putting docking ports on everything. On some of my earlier KSP missions, I would end up with discarded stages in orbit that still had fuel, or probes which had run out of fuel and became useless. Having a docking port on all my unmanned craft has just become a habit at this point, albeit one which allows me to relax a bit more. It's much easier to adapt and change things up mid-mission if docking is am option.

Two reasons - First, no Kessler syndrome. I have a bias against stack separators for this reason. Second, it gives you flexibility in the future. You can refuel and/or relocate the satellite, or even attach to an orbital science lab to offload the data for processing.

It's very possible. My favorite way to do it is by stacking satellites on top of each other, joined by small docking ports. See below:

Wow, I never thought things would get this low. Putting you back on top of the leaderboard. I've set a personal goal for myself of getting below 700 funds/ton with my own design. Entering the VAB...

Well done, Slashy. Adding you to the top of the leaderboard.

Not at this time. If you want to enter a reusable craft, go ahead, but it'll still be scored the same as the disposable craft. Even though it will likely have a four figure score, you can still tout its virtues. Are the separatrons really necessary? Seems like a place to cut some cost, weight, and drag... unless the whole thing goes boom without them.

So KJR is not allowed?

Sounds good, ihtoit. Looking forward to seeing full info for your entry.

Here's my entry for 2.0. I'm coming up last on the leaderboard, but I take consolation in both improving my 1.0 score, and in having the largest payload. As an interesting side note, I also ended up with a 22.5% payload mass fraction, which is pretty decent. 190,524 funds for the lifter with a 258.07 ton payload is 738.26 funds/ton. More information in the photo descriptions.

Finally got back to a computer and updated the leaderboard. I'll have to give this a whirl tomorrow to see what I can do.

Slashy, Looks good. Nicely optimized under the new rules. What thrust setting are you using for the Kickbacks? Anyway, consider yourself on top of the new leaderboard. It'll be at least 7 or 8 hours before I can update the OP, since I'm driving most of today, but bask in your glory as best you can in the meantime.

All this talk about fairings - I've been using the Stock Clamshell Fairings mod for quite some time and am happy with it. It doesn't look as slick as procedural fairings, but doesn't introduce any new parts. I suspect it's pretty lightweight. When used in combination with Claw's Stock bug fixes, you can also specify how many panels the fairing separates into (such as three panels, which I've found is less likely to get hung up on my payloads).

The OP has been updated, and the 2.0 version of the rules is now in effect. Have at it! And Slashy, I'll put you up on the new leaderboard as soon as I see some photos or a video. KSP isn't fired up at the moment.

Nich, 2.0 isn't live yet, and I didn't close the challenge to new entries, so this will get onto the 1.0 leader board just under the wire. Anyone else in a similar situation should get their last 1.0 entry in soon. We'll likely go live with 2.0 in 3 hours or so.

Rules are currently silent on lifting surfaces. I'd say that they're allowed, so long as thrust is limited to LFO engines and SRBs.

You might also want to try thrust limiting the Twin Boars slightly. Try kicking it down to 94.5% and see if you still have the overheating problem.

And if that doesn't work, switch temporarily to another craft or KSC. It will definitely be gone when you switch back.

I'm finally back at a computer and have had a chance to digest everyone's suggestions. Here's what I'm going to do. The initial ruleset and leaderboard will be rechristened the 1.0 version of the challenge. No further entries will accepted under the old ruleset. As a consequence of this, the asterisk section of the 1.0 leaderboard will be combined with the rest of that leaderboard. The asterisks will stay, but the "subsequently prohibited" text will be removed. Maccallo is officially the winner of the 1.0 version of the challenge. The 2.0 version of the ruleset will have a new leaderboard, and will incorporate the following changes: Explosive staging will be prohibited. Payload may contain electricity and a probe core. 1.25 meter and 2.5 meter payloads may each have a single reaction wheel or manned capsule of that diameter. Because there is no stock 3.75 meter reaction wheel, 3.75 meter payloads may have two of the 2.5 meter reaction wheels. Score must be calculated when the payload Ap is a minimum of 80 km, Pe is a minimum of 1 m (i.e., you can see the Pe marker in map view), and altitude is at least 70 km. In other words, you can detach from the lifter while still in atmosphere, so long as the payload still meets the Ap/Pe criteria after it exits the atmosphere. The payload may not contribute any thrust to meeting the above criteria, and the payload mass must remain constant from launch until after the lifter detaches. While the payload may contain an engine, using that engine is outside the scope of the challenge. In other words, if you can't bear to see your payload fall back into the atmosphere, you can include an engine in the payload, so long as you score your entry before firing up that engine. (This is intended to accommodate OCD/completionist/roleplaying types, and also allow people to enter existing craft they've used in a career save.) If anyone has any further suggestions, please let me know in the next few hours. I'd prefer not to make any changes after the 2.0 version of the challenge starts.

As I see it, we have a few options. I'd appreciate constructive feedback. In no particular order, the options I see are: 1. Make no further changes to the rules and keep going with what we have. 2. Make a minor change or changes, like limiting the payload injection burn to a single LFO engine, or only allowing a single reaction wheel or manned capsule in the payload. 3. Either alone or in combination with #2, reduce the amount of delta V that the payload can contribute. Slashy proposed something which was effectively less than 100 m/s (lifter must get payload to an Ap above 80 km and Pe above 1 meter before detaching). 4. We go with an oddball handicap system. The one that seems to jump out at me is to start with 500 m/s, but your payload delta V allowance is reduced by 100 m/s for every dot you have beneath your forum avatar. 5. We scrap this challenge and start over with a new one which requires that the payload be completely inert. Please give this some consideration, and then let me know what you think.

I feel obliged to point out the text of the special rule, which hasn't changed since the third post or so of the thread several days ago: "Special Rule: An LFO engine or engines which are part of the payload may be used for up to 500 m/s of an orbital insertion and/or circularization burn after the payload detaches from the lifter. If an engine on the payload is used, then the final payload mass is the mass after the orbital insertion burn is complete." LV-Ns don't comply with the rule. Ions don't comply with the rule. Since nearly everyone appears to be using a single engine for orbital insertion or circularization, we could certainly amend the rules again and specify that only a single LFO engine can be used. However, at this point I'd rather not make any more changes - I hate changing the rules after a challenge has begun, and I don't want to rely on something as subjective as the Wheaton Rule. Just in case everyone hasn't read it, here's a little quote from the OP of the Cheap and Cheerful tutorial thread to keep in mind: "C&C is about rockets - practical rockets that exist at the intersection of cost, capability, part count, ease of operation, and tech requirements. Building a rocket that has almost as much capability as an optimized design, while having a lower part count and costing a fraction of the funds - this is the C&C way." Now let's get back to having fun playing KSP.

If you're thinking about running fuel lines from the payload to the lifter so that they're not counted towards the cost of the lifter, but you get to count the empty fuel tank mass as part of the payload, then I'm afraid I'll need to put on the black hat again. The intent is for a small, realistic circularization burn, not for launching an empty fuel depot. If that was the intent, then the rules would allow for SSTOs to remain in one piece, as Nefrums asked about back in the second post. I think I'll preemptively clarify that particular rule.

The only forum I've been involved with that was close to this was the Combat Mission forum around 15 years ago. I recall memorable discussions ranging from in-game scenario balance, to beauty-oriented mods, to minutiae like differences in optical glass and gun laying mechanisms, to real-world vs. "book" stats for vehicles and equipment. And those debates about Bren tripods... Good times.