Superluminaut

I don't have experience with code, is anyone working on a simple user interface?

Something that lets you define a custom contract. For example define the desired orbit for a satellite, and then the contract comes up in mission control like regular ones. The goal is to do the missions I want to do, and still get rewards.

How can I create my own custom contracts and make them appear in mission control?

That's a good point about the number of times spacex tests its engines. I wonder if they have a specified number of ignitions they build it for. Also I wonder if the low pressure environment during flight would cause additional wear and tear. I have not yet heard about any planned infrastructure for vehicle inspections. I would assume they try to do it largely through on board sensors. Repair also raises a new issue to consider in the rocket equation. Would the additional mass of exchangeable parts be beneficial, or would it be more efficient to replace entire engines.

One of the problems with the shuttle program was the excessive cost and time necessary for each post flight orbiter inspection. Do you expect spacex will be plagued with the same problem? As far as I know spacex has not proven the repeat reliability of its engines, or the whole first stage really. I know the two experimental prototypes where flown multiple times, but how much of the hardware was reused, and what kind of turn around cost was associated with it. Not to mention the second prototype failed. Getting your hardware back seems only half of the cost reducing solution. How much development has actually gone into making that hardware reusable, and how extensive of a process is that expected to be?

I had a moment of clarity today while training kerbals. Kerbals are gerbils, and orbits are hamster wheels. The existential implications. o.O

I tried this on your suggestion and it keeps repopulating kerbals with the same names. Is there a value somewhere that influences the names that are selected? Too cruel, I can't do it. I like the randoms names, just not most of them. lol, my relationships with my kerabsl is complicated.

Has anyone found a way to regenerate the list of kerbal astronaut applicants? I don't like the names I got so I'd like to get a new pool to pick from. ---------- I found a weird way to do it. Go into your persistent file. Delete all applicant kerbals except one. Load the persistent. Hire that kerbal. Exit the astronaut complex. Go back in and you should find all new kerbals. You can then reject that one kerbal you had to hire.

Hi, we have a new version of this challenge, in case you are interested. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86575-Kerbal-Grasshopper-%28VTVL%29-First-Contract-edition

SpaceX already has a plan to reuse the second stage. Its just like your plan except it doesn't keep the capsule attached.

What rule did I stretch? Part clipping has no affect on mass or fuel or drag, the effect is purely aesthetic, so no clip is allowed. If you don't like the capsule just call it payload and ignore it. What does dirty pool mean? If I factored octagonal struts and launch clamps into cost, my cost savings would be even higher because those parts don't use any fuel. Other than that no parts are expended. The only thing not recovered was fuel. I'm somewhat confused about what exactly you disagree with.

Nice! Yes to land on the pad without air jets would involve a lot of luck. Part of the spirit of this challenge is repeatability. Essentially a rocket you could play the game with and get the same result every launch. I like the ambition though, doing it without air is 1000x harder. I'll assume FAR just gave you readouts and does not alter stock aerodynamics.

Here is my rocket and flight.

Check the previous version of the challenge (link is in the original post). I think it may explain things better. This challenge simply tries to replace distance with recovery percentage.

Air is 100% allowed. Half of this challenge is flying the thing. If you can do this challenge without mods and air jets you win everything.

Is that a mod? If so then not for the score board. However you can show off anything you like related to the challenge. I'd love to see it.

Alright the first contender, however somehow I neglected to state that the idea is to land on the launchpad. I did not realize the runway is also a 100% recovery zone. If you don't want to do it again I will give you a special mention, sorry about the confusion.

I added a new rule, atmospheric trajectory mod is ok. I have also begun work on the flight video for this challenge.

I'm still working on this. This challenge would be easy if, we had landing legs that stretch past the KR-2L, and I wasn't so aesthetics obsessed.

I'm not sure, I have never played with FAR or deadly reentry. You would also need some kind of moving parts mod. It should work. If you build a space ship one replica the center of gravity is at the front, center of pressure is at the back, and you have that huge tail thing to help with supersonic flight. Scaling the numbers to match a KSP flight may be tricky. You could start a challenge, max survivable velocity/altitude with a SS1 lookalike and SS1 functionality.

Actually mercury went about twice as high and twice as fast.

Space ship one is sub orbital. A KSP analogue wouldn't even reach 70km, just high enough to see stars. 35km ish? So its not that hard.

I think you misunderstand the problem. The robot isn't actually doing the science, it is done by investigators competing for missions, time, priority, and funding. The Curiosity situation is, that it is a small, limited, and very slow laboratory with researchers from all over the world elbowing for a chance to conduct research. 10 year projects are not going to get funded, and few investigators are in a career situation that allows for such a lengthy and costly project. The hardware may last 10 years on mars, however all the conventions of any other lab on earth still apply. Not necessarily. It’s usually not diversity that is desired but replication. You can email a technician to go out, pick up some of sample type x, y, and we would also like to experiment with z if you see any. Experience can make this very quick work for a person, as in done before noon. It would take dozens of robots in that same 10km radius to get similar results. Research is full of those nuances that robots can’t yet do. Take a geologist to a site and within a few minutes they can determine all the points of interest, the most valuable samples, determine how the geology came to be, quickly turn over a few rocks, break away some layers, do a quick rappel if needed, while it would take a robot months to do the same. Take a look at this. http://youtu.be/RBK7hmOR9_g?t=12m55s The point is that state of the art lab equipment is extremely massive, requires a lot of power, has a huge volume, is unreliable, and is prohibitively expensive. This is why everything on the rovers is developed mission specific. Technology developed for space often fills niches back home. Lab equipment for mars, if produced in quantity to lower unit costs, meets all the requirements desired by labs all over the planet (and beyond), and would make a lab on mars much more affordable.

Actually quantity and speed is very important in science. You want multiple samples, not a huge amount cause you can prove anything with that. However you want statistical power. Science is all about reproducibility. Speed is important for the process of experimenting. It's rare for an investigate to envision the perfect experiment for a hypothesis. Usually it is a trial and error process until a good methodology is found. Technicians on the ground can do this. However there is a problem with this. It requires a complete lab, fully stocked for the duration of activity. This can also be a blessing though. Science equipment production is basically stagnant. Most labs are filled with equipment 50-15 years old. Unless its a newly developed technique, ancient crap gets used. Given the current science funding crisis, the whole world is crying out for cheap, reliable, and if possible space and power efficient equipment. It's a demand not supplied, begging for some entrepreneur to utilize government funding to develop this stuff.

The Challenge Build and pilot a rocket that is recoverable via powered descent, launching and landing on the launch pad. Land on or as close as you can to the launch pad for points. Leadership Boards Contract Awarded = 100% Superluminaut Reusable Rocket ≥ 98% Young Grasshopper ≥ 97.9% Footnote in History ≥ 97.8% Mech Jeb assisted Contract Awarded = 100% Reusable Rocket ≥ 98% Young Grasshopper ≥ 97.9% Footnote in History ≥ 97.8% Other Cool Stuff Produced Jean Deaux SanderB The Inspiration The Rules Average all recovery percentages per mission for your final score Stock (with the exception of mech jeb and atmospheric trajectories) Flight entries with mech jeb must note the use of mech jeb No parachute/drogue chute use Rockets only, no space planes Every part of the rocket that goes up must be recovered, except for separators, the payload, and fuel You must achieve orbit = (periapsis ≥ 70 km) If your strategy involves multiple vehicles, each vehicle must be able to meet the challenge Quick load all you like No clip construction is ok The rocket may not touch down before its final landing No administrative strategies Share pictures of your flight showing how you did it Some notes The Challenge is deliberately open for interpretation. Note that a payload is not required for completion. Because mech jeb is so popular it will be allowed. However mech jeb flights will be scored separately for better comparison in class. Any ideas for improving the challenge are welcome. If you are having trouble taking screenshots, try remapping the key. This is a reincarnation of my previous challenge, find it here for examples. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25204-Kerbal-Grasshopper-(VTVL) This challenge is for .24 and up.