Reusables

I'd like to reboot this challenge (or make a similar challenge) in another form. Would it be okay? Roughly, I'll change the scoring system to be based on absolute price per launch for a given payload mass, because bigger craft tends to be cheaper as cost per payload mass. Since most lifters can lift payload lighter than what's intended, it will be reasonable to list lifters which are cheapest choice for its intended payload mass. For instance, 1000 for 0.5t, 1200 for 1t, 1600 for 2t, 3000 for 3t, 3500 for 5t can be listed. And 1700 for 1.8t can't be listed here, since it is cheaper to 2t lifter with 1600 to lift 1.8t As spaceplanes are inevitably the best in efficiency while being time-intensive, there will be three categories: I, II(Vertical Launch+Reusable), III(Spaceplanes). How do you think?

For the first time, I got a second stage on the runway! Forgt to take some screenshots of flight before parachute is deployed. Even though it has wings, it flew like a dart. Didn't want to turn, which made this landing so hard. Anyway, it's landed!

Forever, I can't make anything aesthetically fine(or at least not absurd). The best I can get is always a well optimized craft (performance-wise).

Those are for re-docking, to make it warp-proof while hauling. Primarily to haul it to Eve & Duna. Also it's necessity for SSTO propeller planes.

I was overestimating the effect. As you said, the small difference in rotation speed doesn't cause too much roll! Though, I found planes with single electric propeller tends to roll even with efficient fairing bearing. It needs at least half of the reaction wheels on the plane to compensate it, decreasing the performance greatly. Maybe friction is not small enough to ignore.

Sorry, but the rule doesn't allow 100% recovery for stages detached before reaching stable orbit. It should land in KSC to count as 100% recovery, otherwise it follows the recovery rate of stock career. Looks like Kerbal & Efficient entry, though!

Here goes my entry: Lifted 13.42t in 5077. Thus 378.32/t. (Full album & Certification of the cost) In detail, the first stage costs 17110, and recovered 13134. The second stage is returned from orbit, so counts as 100% recovery. The fuel on the stage costs 1101. The payload is command pod, parachute and docking ports with ore tanks, so it can't be crossfed to anywhere. This craft and launch profile is still suboptimal, and there's plenty of dv margin on the second stage. Relatively small, too. Still, this one is the first on IIa category! I'm going to submit an improved entry with my own launch profile. I'm sure that it'll be cheaper, with better recovery!

Yeah, that's true for many practical situations. A challenge is a challenge, though. Also I think a LKO mission is good enough standard for many launches. (As far as not going to shoot Minmus or other destinations, directly from launch) So, I agree with @Avo4Dayz here. Well, you need to follow the rules. But other than that, that's great design with good-looking craft! I think it'll be efficient as well. Please repurpose it a bit and post it an entry, I'm looking forward to it.

Efficient and Good-looking spaceplane? Was it ever possible? (I thought one need to sacrifice efficiency to make a ssto spaceplane which looks good) Also it looks lacking wings, but still flies well! Just wow. Certainly be listed as the first on III!

I didn't know (actually, forgot) that. Makes sense. The current font just looked too strict as in-game text for me. Or it might be from the annoyance from the bug with spacing on resource tab and such.

Oh... I wants to change the font. Maybe I'd have to wait for the next release.

Is there some option to choose font? I can't find it. (edit) In my opinion, 82000 words of translation looks way small compared to the changed lines of code(4000000).

It's out. And it does not want to start... EDIT: It was just a problem on my end. So here's the font of the title screen changed: Well.. Okay, I should have reminded that this version is unfinished prerelease. Waiting for fix...

@rcp27, Decoupler is required for every staged rocket, and SSTO is almost always less efficient than staged rockets. The dry mass is nearly twice for those, so you'll need much more fuel. Also fuel is expensive in ksp, so single FL-T400 already costs more than the 1.25m decoupler. I think the only reasonable SSTO is one from Twin-Boar. Though, the cost (including adapters) matters when comparing different sized rockets. It's definitely a weak point of my analysis to improve. (Minor note: I recall that Reliant needs more than FL-T800 tank as first stage)

That looks like something which can get to orbit with kickback only. With TWR adjusted to be in range of 1.5 to 2.0, and proper gravity turn profile. In this way delta-v requirement decreases about 600m/s. Also, I heard that Kickback + Terrier can be good enough if configured well.

So SRB only rocket? That's great concept. Although, AFAIK SRB is useless as second stage. Terrier/Reliant(yes reliant)/Poodle is good enough, for the low TWR requirement. Also it seems that you're going for a bit high TWR. Try adding more mass(payload) over the Kickback / Thumper. I had no problem tilting them on TWR 1.6~1.7

If you need plenty of margin in dv(2.5km/s~3km/s), Nuke is better for TWR under 0.6. Poodle is better for TWR over 0.7.

My claim on combination of engines was wrong. Individual engine is always better than in (lifter cost) / (payload mass). The proof involves in gradient and local minimum. (And a bit of eyeballing). It's just wall of text, so I'd rather not post it here. If you want it, ask me here or PM me.

Experiment! Always better than theory. Though, I think this one is inconsistent with mine and this (some more here). It's for 1.1.3 and drag profile changed a bit on 1.2, but it shouldn't be changed these things a lot. Kickback provides good amount of dv, which is really helpful for first stage and augmentation. Besides, what do you mean by Payload Assist Module? Does that mean side boosters augmenting the thrust of the center?

Yeah, I missed that in the simplifications. Right. I'm trying to find the the maximum efficiency. By the way, I'm still working on the combination of the engine. Showed that combination of 3 or more engine types can't be better than a single engine or two engines. It was hard math with bunch of equations wandering around, so I can't post it here.

It'd be better if the screenshots were taken out of the map mode, but this one seems to be enough. (Unless you continuously cheated, where it shouldn't be the case)

I see, good precision will be hard while running out of time.

Yeah, I know, I played with those limits. My question is that it is feasible to perform the full boost-back burn before getting out of physics range or not. Besides, the limit is about 25km.

Under 500/t with SSTO rockets? Looks great! Though, you didn't take any screenshots of the launch profile. There's an issue with validity there... Please post the screenshots on the launch profile. Good (old?) SpaceX style there, with Shuttle on the second stage? Like it, you got both aesthetics and efficiency! So reusable category now goes with under 400/t! Oops; I'll fix that. What about switching back just after performing boost-back? Doesn't it work? Besides, the dV cost should be small enough since the first stage won't pick up horizontal speed. This is why SpaceX launch is practical, I think. EDIT: By the way, I should fly economic mission in my own launch profile. I want to see how good and competitive it could be!

Isn't it already divided? I recall that there were several players on 1.1.3, 1.0.5 and even 0.23.5. In my opinion based on my experience, the greater factor is the major change of the API. It is a main obstacle for an update of a mod, leading to mod update delay. Sometimes, it evem means complete halt of the mod update. If it is one of the major mods with wide playerbase, it will certainly divide the community.