swjr-swis

Uhm ok... wasn't really expecting it to be added to the leaderboard. I guess I need to re-run with an actual kerbal in it then, before someone slaps us with the rules?

Ok I gave it a run (why still on the pre-release btw?). I managed 0:11 on the acceleration and 1:12 to a full stop on the first attempt. I meant to follow your flight profile, but executed my own flat run instead; since it actually made it quicker, I didn't retry with a more vertical profile. I also cut throttle right before the turn and used the tiny bit of left-over fuel to get a small boost once pointed back at the runway. I was lazy though and didn't add a gantry to board a kerbal, so it was instead simulated by a 0.1t dead weight in the seat.

I consider it Applied Physics. You're selling yourself short if you don't use KSP's specific brand of physics to the fullest advantage. Although a 'cargo bay airbrake' may also work in real life - if the fuselage doesn't get torn in two when it's engaged.

I know; I meant in a traditional horizontal run. I was actually arguing to ensure your entry stayed valid, since that's exactly what happens when turning straight up to take full advantage of a rocket-powered craft. Also, high-G resistance. My tests with a vector-powered craft, while getting amazing acceleration times, have so far resulted in complete disassembly in the turn, even though it was pulling considerably less Gs (50-70) than my jet-powered craft (130-155). Extreme strutting makes zero difference, which leaves me a bit puzzled as to where the structural failure begins. I'll have to try something else. Well, I hold or claim no patent on my flight profile, use it to your advantage. I do it flying pure stock with mouse and keyboard, arguably the worst control method for planes. I think it's within everyone's reach to replicate it, as long as your aircraft is balanced/stable enough so it can pull a high-G turn with minimal unwanted roll/yaw (the less to correct when coming out of the turn, the better). This may sound silly/suicidal, but it helps a lot: rotate your view to watch your plane from the front! If your aircraft has even a bit of lift, you won't need more than a light tap to get airborne, and there's nothing but flat runway/ocean 'behind' you, so as long as you keep level or climbing, you're good. Being able to watch your alignment with the runway the whole run is a major advantage for the return leg though. Fly the speedrun as low and level as you can/dare (optional for very high-TWR craft: cut throttle right before the turn to keep it tight) Pitch up hard until just past inverted - this should leave your alignment with the runway mostly intact Roll upright and adjust runway alignment while still slow from the turn - it becomes increasingly difficult to be accurate as you pick up speed again (power up again if you cut throttle for the turn) Try to get down to about 100-150m and level out as best you can - this may be the hardest part, as the control authority needed for the tight turn hinders fine control here Cut throttle/brake as late as you (and your airbrakes) can handle Actual airbrakes stick out a lot and can get damaged at landing, and are slow at deploying - I can very much recommend my 'cargo bay airbrakes' as a very effective, instant-deploying, and safer alternative for hairy landing scenarios. They can produce even more extreme stopping power by adding additional sets of elevons. Copy away - they work!

There must be: the resource panel shows 5 units of EVA Propellant, which corresponds with exactly one kerbal - I'm guessing in the fairing at the front of the central stack. I support the idea of defining more clearly what is a valid entry, but that phrasing presents a bit of a problem for those who pursue a mostly vertical flight path (like @vyznev and @TheFlyingKerman). I think they have good reason to go straight up with rockets, and no one would argue it wasn't actual flight... but the entire flight may happen above the runway, regardless of how far up they flew. It's also indirectly setting an arbitrary limit on how fast we're allowed to accelerate - a bit strange for a 'drag race', perhaps. Theoretically at least, someone could feasibly add enough thrust to push a properly flying aircraft to 1000 m/s before the end of the runway; don't we want to see that? Would it perhaps keep with the spirit of the challenge to simply state that valid entries have to a) be in flight for more than 50% of their run and b) come back to land in roughly the opposite direction they departed (thus requiring contestants to include a ~180 degree turn in there somewhere)? This would require a flyable and reasonably controllable craft, and incorporates a return leg. At the same time, it still allows for vertical flight and for the extreme accelerations people expect from drag races. Heck, if someone can actually fly horizontally to 1000 m/s, turn within the length of the runway, and still land intact in the other direction... I'm gonna be impressed.

Hmm. No need to worry about high-G turns or risky landings... if one doesn't quite leave the runway in the first place. This could slash 'roundtrip' times by a good bit. Note though, that rule 3 seems to make take off and landing mandatory, which would require the craft to be airborne even if it's just right over the tarmac for a split second. Plus @Klapaucius does remind us to keep to the spirit of the challenge and not simply build missiles. Looks like the fine line between 'piloted aircraft' and 'kerbal-payload-cruise-missile' may need some pinning down before people start teasing the spirit...

Crazy TWR and guzzles fuel like there's no tomorrow... sounds like Vectors have entered the race. I figured we'd still be doing jets for a bit longer, wasn't gonna touch the rockets just yet. Have you tried pitching straight up from take off (hint: SAS Radial Out), and letting gravity help you on the no-fuel return? Might be a better tactic with that kind of craft. How close to the runway do you dare to flare...

It pays to build with balance in mind. When you have that solved from the start, you can make the plane as controllable as you want, or as twitchy as you can handle, with very minor adjustments. It's worth sacrificing a bit of blistering speed to get a bit more control. A few tips from looking at your entries here: I think you could use more yaw and roll stability - it seems lack of those that are making your turn/approach so random. At the same time, if you haven't dialed back the gimbal on the engines, try that too - the default causes wild over-corrections. And when you start stacking engines: maybe consider cutting throttle when starting the turn, and only powering back up when you have aligned yourself again - the resulting tighter turn could end up saving seconds. Ya, the 19 sec come out of the design - it will need changing to get under that. The potential improvements are in the return leg. I think 43 secs roundtrip is a very real possibility, I've been close a few times; but the return needs to be flawlessly aimed and executed. For now though the record stands and I need to redesign to beat your 16 secs again.

With that name, it's not surprising she decided to shake her booty.

I wanted to give it a try. I tried to fool 1.3.1 to load it with some craft file editing, but no dice: it keeps telling me some format is incorrect or something and ends up only loading the cockpit. I considered for a moment just rebuilding what I see from your screenshots and movie, but seeing as even tiny offset/rotation differences can make a big difference in this sort of challenge, I decided against it. Which left me with a drag race itch to scratch. So, the SpeedyReturn-2b was born, with 4 Panthers this time. I didn't see any point in mixing engine types, as the thrust curve advantage of the Whiplash over the Panther hardly comes into play before hitting the 1000 m/s, but the weight difference is still very much an advantage for the Panther. I also got rid of the retro rockets, out of frustration more than anything - I kept forgetting to use them at the right time. Added two drag chutes instead (which, you guessed it, half the times I still forgot to deploy). A dozen or so runs later, I can present new top times for both objectives: the SpeedyReturn-2b speeds in 0:19 to 1000 m/s, and comes to a full stop on the runway in 0:51. Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/JicZRc1 And of course the video: Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SpeedyReturn-2b There's room for improvement on the roundtrip - the edge of the runway can be reached in 40-41 secs on a near-perfect run, and with airbraking and drag chutes it can be at a full stop within a few seconds. So feel free to beat me with my own craft... it can be done.

That was the first iteration of the console release, iirc based on 1.0.5, and still under the Deported banner. Enhanced Edition was the second iteration, based on 1.2.2, and under TTI as a new publisher.

Ok, my first entry for this challenge: the SpeedyReturn-2 - 0:22 to 1000 m/s, 0:54 to full stop on the runway: Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/rg3xe5w And a video: Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SpeedyReturn-2 (consider yerselves challenged to beat my time in this baby ) The roundtrip can be done better: the one posted could've been under 50 seconds, but I forgot to fire the retro rockets to come to a full stop quicker. My fastest run was on the very first trial (46s!), but I wasn't recording that one. For now, this one takes the top spots.

https://www.getpaint.net/ You don't really need much more.

Thank you. It's not about the place on the leaderboard - I don't want people to lose interest in participating in challenges, there's all sorts of things to learn from the entries made. I hope you will consider updating it when @sevenperforce gets the 9-terrier vertical solution working with a kerbal. Plus someone may still come up with a no-part-shedding SSTO version. There's still life in the original challenge.

Yeah, good luck with getting any entries for that. Please re-read the challenge posting rules, take a look around to how other challenges are run, and decide whether you are actually willing to do the work that is expected from a challenge poster. It's rather disrespectful of all the time and effort entrants spent to just completely ignore them and not acknowledge when they post successful entries. Now you basically invalidate ALL good entries made so far by completely changing the challenge objective, even while there are still people working on new entries. It now just looks like we've all been posting nonsense for the first two weeks of the challenge. If you're bored with your challenge and want to move on to a different one, mention that you're closing it in the OP and post a new thread. I tell you though, don't expect much interest - no one likes to waste their time when they figure out the OP is not really interested.

Don't change too much, it's already almost there. Maybe just drain some of that excess LFO from the last tank; that should be pretty close to the extra mass of command seat and kerbal.

The challenge objective is to get a Kerbal to orbit though. You still have 5 units of LFO left in orbit - that might be just enough to get the job done.

It could've been, but it ended up being a highly contested choice between "Bills" and "Coins", and they put it to a vote, splitting the KSC right through the middle on the issue: Half of them (everyone in the Administration Building, Mission Control, R&D, and the Runway personnel) felt Bills was the obvious choice - rectangular and flat, administratively neat, efficient storing. The other half (Launchpad personnel, Tracking Station, VAB, SPH and Tower) felt that it absolutely needed to be Coins - stackable, rounded, more payload, and flippable to decide who gets to test the next contraption. The vote ended in a deadlock, so to keep the peace it was decided to join the two in the name.

Maybe 'Billcoins' is appropriate, in honour of the (not-so-anonymous?) kerbal geek that redirected every spare cycle of the KSC mainframe into blockchain code to fund the space program.

Actually, it can be done in the craft file too, if you just want to make this change once for that one craft. Search for the following in the craft file: XSECTION { h = 0 r = 0.625 } XSECTION { h = 0.598072052 r = 0.625 } XSECTION { h = 1.24200153 r = 0.523973823 } The fairing part in the craft file will have an 'XSECTION' per (height) segment of the fairing. h is the start of the segment counting from the top of the fairing base, and r is the radius, both in meters. The first XSECTION is effectively where the fairing touches the base, and should always retain the standard values. Keep in mind that the fairing code will try to 'soften' abrupt changes in diameter, which may cause some of the segment edges to be wider/narrower than the exact number chosen.

Well... you have now. Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/OEaCRFo Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/McTailfins

I had a nagging suspicion that it should be possible to do a very lean horizontal take-off - all I needed was to get the orbital stage of my rocket entry up to 120 m/s and 1km high, or better. So I stripped the rocket booster stage, rotated it to horizontal, and made it into a spaceplane. It ends up being a similar staging concept to that of @vyznev, except I'm a bit more ruthless in staging off stuff I no longer need. This allowed me to stick with just three Terriers, needing a lot less wing too. The end result is the Terrier2LKO-2b, a 10.1t 3-Terrier craft that starts as a spaceplane and takes off from the runway, and then sheds parts while transforming into a rocket in a gravity turn. 100+km LKO can be reached, and the orbital stage can safely bring the kerbal back to the surface again. Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/UfQAM3W Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Terrier2LKO-2b Btw @DAL59, are you going to update the leaderboard with everyone's entries?

Juno engine power curve, it's not surprising. It's worth the risk dipping as low to the surface as you can if you are just a few decimals away from reaching the next full m/s. The 5 m difference could help, but you would definitely need to switch to fine controls (why are you not using that?), and disengage SAS entirely and fly on trim (I can't tell from your screenshots if you do or not). It also helps to lower your elevator authority to 10% or less, to make your pitch control more gradual and accurate. Not that curious either: there's an equilibrium point where the aerodynamic forces, gravity, and remaining engine thrust balance out, allowing the plane to keep cruising without loss of airspeed. You can briefly dip above that, but this is basically done by exchanging airspeed for altitude, which makes airspeed and lift drop below the balance point, until you inevitably lose the gained altitude again. I think you are partly drawing the wrong conclusions. The role of gravity in maximizing your craft top speed is almost negligible compared to the aerodynamic forces (drag!). I do agree you could do with a lot less Junos though, and still get more speed out of that frame. I did a quick rebuild in 1.3.1 to test: You could do even better by entirely removing the two Mk1 LF tanks - they are just adding superfluous mass and drag to the craft, as even just the 200 LF in the intake is enough to reach any place on Kerbin within an hour. The above craft are simple WYSIWYG stock rebuilds based on your screenshots, with offset adjustments on snap to move CoM/CoL where I wanted. No real fine tuning was done, leaving potential for better numbers by either fine tuning, adding extra Junos, or replacing parts for better alternatives (pre-cooler comes to mind). Any other 'tricks' used to achieve the results (elevon deployment, flight method, etc) are visible in the screenshots. Use to your advantage. I would feel inclined to disagree.

Technically third, since @Klapaucius entered two different eligible Mk2 planes, in separate posts. That draggy open node in the back is killing all that excess thrust - it's like flying with a giant deployed airbrake. Remember my Dodo from a few pages back? It doesn't take all that many Junos to push a streamlined Mk3 craft close to Mach 2 and beyond. The added weight of the extra parts is well worth it: Mk2 planes can be quite fast with a minimum of Junos too: Make it so the fuselage angle of attack nears zero (and thus body drag), and you'll slice through the air on a minimum of thrust, even when using the notoriously draggy mk3/mk2 parts.

The text box widget seems to present text in the same way basic HTML does: it completely condenses all whitespace, which includes CRLF and empty lines. The way I have been working around this is by placing a line with just a single period by itself. The period is almost invisible, and you get nicely separated paragraphs. Cave at: the single period does have some strange interaction when directly preceding or following a bullet list: it will prevent the list from showing as bullet points, skip the paragraph (and line, sometimes) separation, or both. Extra workaround in that case: add an extra empty line between the single period line and the bullet list.