Darren9

I think there's a bit of misuse of the term "Gravity Turn" going on. To achieve an orbit you need to add both horizontal and vertical velocity from the start position at rest on the planet surface, since you start pointing up you need to turn on the way up to add horizontal velocity. That's what we're doing in KSP, turning the rocket on the way up attempting to find the most efficient path to the desired orbit, and there's no escaping it, you have to add a horizontal component or you can't achieve an orbit. Normally a craft wont just turn itself, you need to spend energy rotating it (RCS, activate a control surface which increases drag, gimbal engines and divert some thrust to rotate the craft, use the magical rotation power of command pod/SAS units). A gravity turn achieves the necessary direction change to make orbit without any energy expended by the craft to rotate it (apart from the initial turn to set it up), you make one control input to initiate the turn and then no other input. The effect of the CoM not being directly above the CoT turns the craft "for free" with no input/energy use (gravity pulls the nose down). It's a complex calculation though and what makes rocket science rocket science . If your not making one initial control input to set the calculated angle for that particular craft and then no other directional input (no RCS, gimbal or SAS, only adjusting throttle and staging) to arrive at your desired orbital height perfectly horizontal then you aren't performing a "Gravity Turn", you're just making the necessary turn to achieve orbit and spending some energy to do it. It's a small saving, hardly noticeable in KSP (with a perfect gravity turn you wouldn't need RCS at the top, the craft would just fall into pro-grade for you), but in real space travel small savings are still massive amounts of money. The result seems to be though that nobody is actually calculating and gaining a benefit from a true "Gravity Turn", we're just making the necessary direction adjustments to make orbit by expending energy (in KSP you get free rotation energy in some cases) to turn the craft and calling it a "Gravity Turn" and claiming we're gaining from it with "you need a gravity turn". Really it's a trajectory optimisation that's beyond the scope of the game. You only need to turn if you want to achieve an orbit, and there's many reasons in real life to want an orbit first as already mentioned. The problem with testing in KSP is different craft perform differently in the same ascent profiles. I did some testing as well. In an attempt to negate all other variables I used a single stage with constant ISP (the same in atmosphere and vacuum) and MechJeb'd it with "Limit to terminal Velocity". Under those conditions straight up appears to be the winner, it seems to be expected (to me at least) - straight up has the lowest loss to drag (shortest course through atmosphere) and there's no gain in staging/ISP changes that orbit first may offer. As soon as you make a design with staging/varying ISP you can have a craft that will perform better going to orbit first. This is the problem I think, you can design two different craft and each will perform better/worse going either way so there's no correct general answer as to which you should use. Without staging/isp, drag/atmospheric differences with specific craft designs both ways should be equal??? (you can'ny break the laws of physics Jim!)???

You can tweak the .cfg of that engine to get faster/more thrust vectoring and also yaw control as well as pitch. I still don't have a successful design that doesn't need some lift parts though to be vaguely controllable. Cockpit attached by KAS only makes for pretty much an uncontrollable craft, with quantum strut also you can make something that can be controlled and landed.

I like it I'll submit my old one but expect another now I've got B9 and some other stuff.

That was my thought, aside from benefits of staging/engines both ways should be equal, it would be true in a vacuum but what about atmospheric effects. If you do a gravity turn in the atmosphere you cut a longer path through it and loose more to drag - how can you regain that?

Certainly more fun than the stock ones Maybe you could add a slick and a knobbly variant, one with a slightly higher grip level than the other? They seem to slide very easily at the moment - not that that's really a bad thing though.

I did the same mission again with a single Sabre since the Star Trek engine was deemed unsuitable, also the refuelling worked and the strengthened rover bumped the part count over 300. Needed an extra 30 ton of fuel on the launcher compared to the last one. 500 - The Big One 500 - No Pod Left Behind 100 - Yo Dawg 100 - Fill 'er Up! 1,000 - Jebediah's Side Quest 500 - Difficult Side Quest 500 - There and Back Again 200 - I'm on Fire! 100 - Side Quest 100 - Orbit Achieved 50 - Spaaaaace! 500 - The Dive 100 - Landing Like a Pro 10 - Up There 20 - Getting Higher 50 - The Border 50 - Supersonic 100 - Hypersonic 100 - The Behemoth 100 - Low Roller 10 - I Got Wheels!

I put you on the scoreboard, it needed a stock entry to show it was possible - well done

Does thrust really effect anything? To me above 2000 seems pointless (bordering on unusable) but is there a difference between a 4000 thrust at 50% throttle and a 2000 thrust at 100% in terms of fuel use if all else is equal? I don't really have a clue what maths is going on, doesn't higher thrust just burn through the fuel faster and not allow carrying less fuel for the same Delta-v?

That'll be tricky If you're allowing 3x the isp of stock parts (turbojet at 1200, Sabre at 3600) then NERVA is 800 so it'd be 2400 in space, the already banned nacelle is 3000 atmosphere and space. If it's altered to 3600 atmosphere and 2400 in space it'll fly the same mission on the same fuel load, it looses 600 isp in space and gains it back in the atmosphere. You'll need to cook up a rule that allows the 3x OP isp of the Sabre in atmosphere but prohibits 3x isp in space - why would you do that though? Or in other words disallow any other OP engine with isp above the Sabre specifically and make that the one that's used for the big scores.Once you allow one 3x isp OP main engine how can you ban others? This challenge will just become "use the Sabre only - it's the only OP I'm allowing". Why would a challenge be tailored to one OP engine?

Yeah, my first attempts used carefully balanced parts, I had to load on four reactors to power those props and it would still only move at 140m/s. This was really a reply to someone else using an OP main engine (more than three times the isp and also better thrust/weight ratio), how are we supposed to know what's too OP and what isn't?

I had another go as well, the more OP main engine you use the more you can get done it seems I found one that beats the 3600isp Sabre that's in first place. I'd planned refuelling and returning the rover to make an hour drive followed by a VTOL landing on the VAB roof but the KAS glitched and my fuel rover warped 5Km and exploded so I got low on fuel, I had a quicksave but it does the same every time I get 200m from it You won't believe the landings my space brick survived - ID Strong Struts! I *think* I have: 500 - No Pod Left Behind 100 - Yo Dawg 1,000 - Jebediah's Side Quest 500 - Difficult Side Quest 500 - There and Back Again 200 - I'm on Fire! 100 - Side Quest 100 - Orbit Achieved 50 - Spaaaaace! 500 - The Dive (He's inside the cargo bay but free-falling detached from the ship) 100 - Landing Like a Pro 10 - Up There 20 - Getting Higher 50 - The Border 50 - Supersonic 100 - Hypersonic 100 - The Behemoth 10 - I Got Wheels! The clock is 2:05 if you can't make it out. I had to reduce screen resolution to have half a chance of landing with the input lag recording gives me.

This is a great looking part that gets you where you want to be with minimum effort It's, um, quite high powered though, auto-pilots tend to rip ships apart with the 8000 thrusts you get from having to radially attach two for balance. I hope you don't mind but I've made a half sized/quarter thrust version for my personal use - do you think something like that should be included in the pack?

Do I even need to tell you.

Yep, just when I launch the ship there's no box that controls the servo's and the keys I assigned don't move them. Edit - I didn't see r4m0n's post, I'll wait until it's fixed. Thanks r4mon.

It's strange, I can load Mechjeb 1.9.8 and also load the parts in the SPH/VAB (need to add "PART{" to the top and "}" to the bottom of the .cfg) and set up servo's. Once I launch though I can't move them. Hopefully someone will get this going again.

I've had some fun with boats. My favourites are the personal hydrofoil and amphibious rover. Try and keep it so no parts break the surface when you move to go fast, they're either in the water or above it - then they don't break up.

Ok, I'll let you decide. The Rover heads out towards Tim with everything on-board and is returned to KSC before the end. I could have: 500 - No Pod Left Behind 100 - Made it Back in One Piece 100 - Yo Dawg 100 - Fill 'er Up! 100 - Landing Like a Pro 100 - Hardcore Pilot 200 - VTOL FTW 10 - Up There 20 - Getting Higher 100 - The Behemoth 100 - Low Roller 10 - I Got Wheels! I should of gone 100ms on rover wheels, put Tim on the VAB and waited 15 mins at the end but two and three quarter hours is a long mission for me. I had to end it It's a fun challenge - Thanks.

For Low Roller, it's touching the ground for almost 3 hours, only about 5 mins with me actually controlling it though.

Especially without claiming the 300+ patrs challenge. I have more questions while a vid of latest attempt uploads. Say I have a craft on a craft for Yo Dawg, and that craft on a craft has a craft in it, another separate Dawg. Or I split into two crafts and they separately complete the same challenges? And, I'm leaving a rover parked for a couple of hours and then returning it to KSC, is on the ground but not actively flown good?

I never managed to beat Zarakon in that either, even with more thrust, better brakes, less weight and more lift from mod parts. Seems I just can't fly

I'm sorry mate but you can't get onto the scoreboard if you fly, the same as it's already been decided (without such a fuss from anyone, or randoms appearing in the thread telling me what I don't understand) that you also can't boat the course or have horizontal lift parts. I do understand it's harder to make a rover go as fast with no up or down horizontal lift parts - That's why it's there.It's just a challenge, if you believe you've completed it satisfactorily then award yourself the appropriate medal. If you believe it's a bad challenge or I'm unfair then don't enter and find/make a better one. If you want to go on the scoreboard drive the whole course with no horizontal lift parts. Is there really a rule that says I can't judge my own challenge, or change it if I want (even though I haven't), or must have a precise legally binding description? I didn't realize this bit of fun was so serious.

Umm, I made the OP - can I have my interpretation please This discussion about up and down force Lift parts happened already on page one/two, there was already an accepted decision that they weren't allowed, and a craft was changed. I don't think I should back down now. If you really think a rover two wheels that flies should qualify, well, I don't! It can be a problem that I didn't cover every possible loophole in the text, or we can go with the "spirit of a rover race" as I intended it.

Thanks, I have a screenie from the VAB, but there was no timer vehicle near the VAB when I got the persistence file and started my assault on your challenge. Many hours of my life are gone. And it's 5am here. It certainly was fun though I might do it again and add some more points in - I've got nearly 2 hours to use up.

Can I see horizontal lift parts there? I need to quote the OP It's a bit easier with up/down force from wing parts, that's a very fast time but I can't allow it under the original rules. We're not breaking the universe with negative time just yet

I had a go, if I achieve hypersonic inside the atmosphere and then leave it does that count? I'm supposing it does. Can 100m/s on water be an achievement? First my 138 ton rover wheeled contraption trundles 2Km over the ground towards Tim. [i Got Wheels!] [The Behemoth] It then takes off and achieves hypersonic speed inside the atmosphere and goes on to pass 69Km height and into space. [up There] [Getting Higher] [The Boarder] [supersonic] [Hypersonic] [spaaaaace!] It drops back into normal atmospheric winged flight after jettisoning the ascent stage, flies the rest of the way to Tim under nuclear electric propeller and lands normally as a forward propelled aircraft, Tim then mounts the "suicide seat". [Landing Like a Pro] [Yo Dawg!] It drives down to the water and travels as a powered boat at 100m/s for around 20Km and takes off from the water. [i'M ON A BOAT] After flying back to KSC it lands over 2Km short of the VAB as a VTOL and reaches 100m/s over land. [Race Car] [VTOL FTW] [Take Me for a Ride!] It finally lands Tim on top of the VAB. [batman] It could be around 1430 depending how it's judged. Maybe more if 100m/s on water is an equal achievement to doing it on land. The whole mission took one and a quarter hours.