Norcalplanner

maccallo, Very impressive achievement - I didn't think that anyone would be able to get below 700 funds/ton, let alone 600 funds/ton. Well done. As I stated above, I've made the call that future entries cannot use explosive staging, so you are now (and possibly forevermore) the winner of this particular challenge. Your score will be placed at the top of the asterisk section of the leaderboard.

Slashy, Very creative, and a great score. As I indicated above, I've made the call to prohibit any further explosive staging entries, so this wonderfully low score will go in the asterisk section of the leaderboard.

Great job, Temstar. Best LFO entry so far, and it's nice to see a little 3.75m love. Putting you on the leaderboard.

Gentlemen: First, I finally found the link for the real proposed craft which used that technique of putting fuel tanks on top of radial SRBs - the Saturn V/4-260. Check out the specs in the link - I get giddy thinking of what we could have done with that kind of lifting ability had the craft been built. Second, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that I have to put my foot down on the issue of explosive staging. I know that this is KSP, not real life, but it's hard to simultaneously encourage a real-world responsible launch profile (small amount of delta V from the payload) while also allowing a completely unrealistic and near-suicidal staging system that nobody in their right mind would ever use IRL. Therefore, I am amending the rules to specify that all staging must be done via a decoupler, stack separator, or docking port. No further entries with explosive staging will be allowed. Existing entries which have used explosive staging will be put on the leaderboard, but they're going to get the Barry Bonds asterisk treatment and be put in a special section. Sorry to have to take the step, but one of the ideas with this challenge is to help equip KSPers with practical design ideas and good launch habits.

Is that explosive decoupling I see? Wow, you really did game it on this one. I'll look at it in detail tonight.

Slashy, Thanks for the suggestion. By my reckoning, the idea would essentially reduce the payload contribution to less than 100 m/s. While many folks on the forums wouldn't have any problem designing and flying a craft like that, it would likely scare away some players of intermediate skill. With the current leader not using any thrust from the payload, I'm also not sure that there's a need to tighten up the rules at this point. I'll keep this idea in my back pocket with the others, ready to bring out if there starts to be a problem. And I look forward to your new entry. :-)

Temstar and Nich, Two very nice looking entries, both breaking out the 3.75m parts and using fuel crossfeeding. I'll look at these in detail later today when I'm not on my phone.

Nich, very creative staging. Reminds me of that one Saturn V MLV variant which never got built that had four giant SRBs with liquid fuel tanks on top of them, feeding the central S-IC. However, I can't place this on the leaderboard yet. The rules for the challenge are clear that an engine which is part of the payload can only add up to 500 m/s of delta V to the final orbital insertion of the craft, and only after detaching from the lifter. While I don't have any clear indication of how much delta V that Rhino contributed, it looks like it drained four orange tanks, which was likely a lot more than 500 m/s. To put it another way, asparagus staging (which your craft uses a variant of) isn't going to be allowed by the challenge rules because the center stack fires while still attached to the rest of the lifter, and provides a lot more than 500 m/s of delta V. That said, your basic design could be retained and still comply with the rules if you place the Rhino on a decoupler and stage it at the end, so that it's no longer part of the payload. Unfortunately, that would reduce your payload mass by 9 tons and increase your lifter cost by 25,000 funds, which would affect your score. Feel free to submit a revised design that complies with the rules. Again, full props for creativity, but this craft as it currently stands doesn't quite comply with the rules for this particular challenge.

So I decided to make a craft just for this challenge. The basic Orange Tank Refueler design got scaled up, with 1.5 more orange tanks added to the payload. The lifter consists of a Mainsail sustainer with 16 Kickbacks on four radial decouplers. Nose cones on the Kickbacks are omitted to hold down the cost. I stole a page from some other entries and beefed up the reaction wheels in the payload to make it easier to turn. In the end, we have the biggest challenge payload so far, and the first time ever that I've personally managed to crack the 800 funds/ton barrier with a rocket for a challenge. Final score: 76,800 funds to lift 96.22 tons to orbit equals 798.17 funds/ton. Full info is in the descriptions in the album. Enjoy.

Nicely done, SanderB. You're definitely the 1.25 meter leader, and also have the distinction of having the lowest absolute price for any lifter entered so far. I learned a thing or two from your ascent profile, too. Adding you to the leaderboard.

Slashy, I knew you couldn't let it stay above 900 funds/ton. I look forward to whatever else you come up with. Adding you to the leaderboard.

Great rocket, Streetwind. I like that you've come up with something that's cheap and accessible very early in career. A little thin on the entry documentation, but I've been there IRL, so I understand. Putting you on the leaderboard shortly.

SanderB, That's a good looking rocket - I was playing aeound a bit with single Kickback designs, but yours is better than anything I came up with. In looking at the video, it appears that you're not quite high enough. Pe needs to be at least 80 km, so I can't put you on the leaderboard just yet. Please feel free to polish the design a bit, omitting the tweakscaled fins, and resubmit your entry.

Oops - accidental voice recognition post

Congratulations to maccallo, Slashy, and dragonaether! All of your entries have been placed in their respective slots on the leaderboard.

Temstar, I look forward to your entry! You've definitely built some nice rockets previously. Regarding the ability to use the payload to circularize, I definitely hear where you're coming from, as the rule makes it difficult to compare the results of this challenge to other, more traditional lifter challenges. In the end, however, I wanted this challenge to be about practical lifters that are useful in a career save, and that means an orbital insertion engine which has the option to do double duty as part of a transfer stage. I figure if the Saturn V used the first burn of the S-IV to reach orbit, and the Shuttle used the OMS to reach orbit, then there's adequate precedent for blurring the lifter/payload line a little. I would point out that using the payload for the final push to orbit is optional - maccallo's second entry, currently sitting atop the leaderboard, delivers a payload that only contributed torque, power, and guidance - no thrust.

Streetwind, These are some nicely optimized low tech lifters - definite Cheap & Cheerful. I'd encourage you to pick your favorite, then modify it to turn it into a full-blown entry - I think the special rule should bring your cost per ton down even further. If you'd rather not, there could certainly be an "honorable mention" section added which would be appropriate for your lifters.

Great looking entry, maccallo. I'll review it in detail and put you on the board tonight. In looking at the video on my phone, I couldn't see how many m/s your insertion burn was. What's the figure? Edit : got it, 332 m/s, thanks

Me too!

Streetwind, Funds per ton to 80 km orbit is the scoring mechanism. Cheaper is better. I'll add notes next to each entry based on what you call out in your description, so if one of the things you like about your lifter is low tech requirements, or that it can be launched from a Level 1 pad, go ahead and mention that in your description. Please submit what you've got and we'll see how things stack up. If a clear divide develops based on engine diameter or payload weight, then I may end up splitting the leader board. I look forward to your entry!

Slashy, I'm holding that idea in my back pocket for now. Let's wait and see if there's a clear difference among entries before splitting things up. And I look forward to your entry. :-) Dragonaether, First entry! I'll review this in detail later today - I'm on my phone right now, which isn't the best for this sort of thing. If everything looks good, you'll be added to the leaderboard.

Nefrums, I'm not sure I understand the question. A maximum of 500 m/s of the orbital insertion / circularization burn can be performed by the payload. The first 2600+ m/s has to be performed by the lifter, which is not counted as payload. In re-reading my OP, I now see that the special rule isn't 100% clear. I'll change it to specify that I'm talking about an engine which is part of a payload which has detached from the lifter. SSTO won't really generate any benefit under the current rules, as there's no recovery. That said, if you and a number of other entrants really, really want to do SSTO rockets, then we'd probably use the stock recovery mechanic for any lifter that lands back at KSC and subtract any returned funds from the total lifter cost when figuring cost to orbit. We'd definitely need to split the leaderboard in two if we go that route, since it would be an apples to oranges comparison.

Thanks for the quick feedback. I guess what I was thinking (and didn't communicate very clearly) is that it would be good to have something prominent on a confirmation screen (is there one?) when choosing a strategy which will close off other strategies, either temporarily or permanently. Similar to how stock admin strategies warn that the cost of adopting a strategy is nonrefundable, having a final "are you sure" screen could point out the nonrefundable costs, the other "program" strategies which will be closed off forever or temporarily unavailable, and what other non-program strategies are temporarily unavailable while a strategy is active.

Welcome to the Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge! (2.0 Ruleset Edition) This challenge grew out of some of the discussion on my Cheap and Cheerful (aka C&C) tutorial thread and elsewhere regarding various rocket designs which are optimized for cost-per-ton to orbit. While Red Iron Crown's challenge for best payload fraction has yielded some incredibly capable and occasionally unorthodox designs, it's not the most helpful for those who don't enjoy spaceplanes but still want to get payloads into orbit in a cost-effective manner. This challenge is designed to mimic a typical rocket launch in a career game, and I fully expect that some entries will be players showing off their existing lifter designs. The Challenge: Launch a payload into an 80 km orbit with a rocket at the lowest cost you can. The payload doesn't have to fully circularize - see the Orbital Height rule below for details. Scoring: Divide the cost of your lifter (in funds) by the mass of your payload (in tons). For example, a lifter which costs 30,000 funds and gets 20 tons into orbit would have a cost of 1,500 funds/ton. Lower is better. The Rules: KSP Version: 1.0.5 only, with stock stats and costs for all parts. The challenge will likely end when 1.1 drops. Payload: The payload must be at least 2.25 tons, and must detach from the lifter before scoring. The payload may contain electricity and a probe core. Reaction Wheels: 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. Lifter: The lifter must be vertically launched and use only LFO engines and/or SRBs. Staging: All staging must be accomplished with a decoupler, stack separator, or docking port. Decouplers and docking ports used for staging may not remain attached to the payload. Explosive staging is prohibited. Recovery: Not for this particular challenge. We're looking for Cheerful as well as Cheap. Parts: Stock parts only. One of the goals of this challenge is to showcase designs which anyone can recreate. Mods: KER or MechJeb is recommended, as is Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Immersion and information mods, including Editor Extensions, are all allowed. Anything besides KJR which alters physics (e.g. FAR) or parts (e.g. Tweakscale) is prohibited. Cheating: No editing of config files, infinite fuel, hacking gravity, or any other such tomfoolery. Autopilot: MechJeb or other autopilot ascent is fine. This is primarily a design challenge. Orbital Height: Achieving a full orbit is not required for this challenge, as it is intended to simulate launch of a payload which can complete circularization by itself. 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 the payload from the lifter while still in the atmosphere, so long as the payload still meets the Ap/Pe criteria after it exits the atmosphere. Payload Special Rule: 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.) Regarding the Orbital Height and Payload Special Rules, they're encouraged to: a) encourage responsible launches (no Kessler syndome); b) encourage proper ascent profiles; and c) allow for more realistic use of lifters. C&C design is about practical rockets, and many rockets in both KSP and RL use an engine in the payload for final circularization. If all the above seems too complex, simply launch your payload to an 80 km orbit and then detach the lifter at that point - such an entry will still comply with the rules, and you're only giving up a few dozen m/s of delta V. Entry Requirements: Provide photos or a video showcasing your lifter design and launch. Be sure to include shots in the VAB showing the total rocket cost, and then the cost of just the payload; the difference is your lifter's cost. Clearly show the final mass of the payload in orbit, after it's detached from the lifter, using KER, MechJeb, or the info button in map view, rounded off to two decimal places. Include a brief description of your design, either in your post or in the captions for the photos. Be sure to note any particular techniques or parts which are used in your design. Feel free to sell how wonderful it is on other criteria - low tech level requirements, limited part count, ease of piloting, or whatever else you like about your lifter. Calculate your own score as part of your entry. Divide the cost of your lifter (in funds) by the final mass of your payload (in tons). Round off to no more than two decimal places. Leaderboard: A single leaderboard will be kept, with notes to point out any key characteristics of an entry. If there's a clamor of interest to add recovery, or to establish weight classes, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Advice: Please launch your craft during the daytime. Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is highly recommended for larger craft. If you're stuck for ideas, take a look at my Rules of Thumb for Building Cheap and Cheerful Rockets. The Leaderboard (2.0 Ruleset) maccallo - 645.93 funds/ton - 164 ton payload, refinement of previous design GoSlash27 - 648.36 funds/ton - 137.3 ton payload, quasi-asparagus staging with a Twin Boar sustainer maccallo - 649.98 funds/ton - 164.05 ton payload, quasi-asparagus staging with radial tanks on top of two big SRB clusters GoSlash27 - 662.68 funds/ton - 135.7 ton payload, quasi-asparagus staging using more Mk3 plane parts for lowered cost and better aero maccallo - 666.4 funds/ton - 160 ton payload, refined version of previous entry with drop tanks on top of larger SRB clusters maccallo - 675.3 funds/ton - 139.6 ton payload, 3.75 meter entry, center Rhino sustainer with radial SRB clusters GoSlash27 - 677.66 funds/ton - 19.7 ton payload, all SRB first stage, Poodle transstage Nich - 730.1 funds/ton - 146.39 ton payload, 3.75 meter entry, center Rhino sustainer with drop tanks on top of radial SRB clusters Norcalplanner - 738.26 funds/ton - 258.07 ton payload, combination of standard and quasi-asparagus staging with a Mammoth sustainer Looking for the old 1.0 ruleset and leaderboard? It's hidden below.

So I gave this a whirl over the weekend. The idea has a lot of promise, but there's still plenty of room for improvement. Here are my quasi-organized thoughts on the matter. 1. Overall concept: Very good. I love the idea of being able to focus on a specific area for your space program, whether it's exploration, contracts, or what have you. 2. Clarity: Needs some work. Examples: Like many an experienced KSPer, my first foray out of LKO was a manned mission to Minmus, since it's easier than the Mun and probe cores aren't unlocked yet. I chose the Minmus program and enjoyed my enhanced rewards (at the cost of some reduced rewards for things I was doing at the same time on Kerbin itself). Unfortunately, it wasn't clear at the time I chose that focus that it would preclude me from doing the other three Mun and Minmus programs, which then became permanently locked out. Some warning would be nice, or possibly rejiggering it so that Mun and Minmus don't cross-preclude each other. Other strategies also appear incompatible, such as "To Boldly Go" and "Free Ice Cream", but this isn't clear in the in-game documentation or screen graphics. 3. Upgrades: Couldn't figure it out. I had chosen "To Boldly Go I" and it wouldn't let me choose "To Boldly Go II". Do I have to cancel the first before starting the second? If so, how does it figure out the discount for upgrading? An "upgrade" button or something that holds your hand a little bit more would be helpful. 4. Suggestions: This biggest drawback seemed to be when running an actual space program, using KAC and having multiple missions on the way at the same time to different destinations. To help, you might consider making some vaguer, weaker strategies, such as "Kerbin's Moons" which would let you run multiple manned and unmanned missions to the Mun and Minmus simultaneously at a reduced benefit level. Similarly, a weaker strategy for "Kerbin's Neighbors" would allow simultaneous missions to Eve and Duna, while "Far Out, Man" would allow simultaneous missions to Moho, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo. 5. Observations: Not really compatible with SETI, since that nerfs the stock world's first contracts. That's it for the moment. I really like this concept, and with a little more development and some polish, it could work even better. Even with its current shortcomings, it's still better than the stock admin building. P.S. Big rockets are "colossal" (spelling error).