Bothersome

Here is my picture of the day... So nice I just had to share it.

Vector, you never cease to impress me. You don't just post some score and say there it is, you actually explained in detail how you got there. Kudos man (or gal if that be the case). We've gotten some very interesting data points out of this challenge so far. I just hope that because the score are high already, others will still try and post a showable craft. Even if your craft won't make top scores, it could still help others in finding efficient ways to get fuel to orbit. I was hoping that when I started the challenge, that because cheaper means higher score, that crafts of early research designs would be posted too. Not just the end of research crafts. Those would help for the early game periods. Keep up the good work everyone.

"Turn Shape" might be listed in MJ's settings but it's really not just a MJ thing. It's normally called a gravity turn. However, MJ tries to keep the flight close to the listed curve so as a result, your rocket is not always pointed "into the wind". This can cause rockets to break apart from forces applied in ways you might not want them applied. That's why most ppl don't launch rockets with MechJeb in RSS/RO because of MechJeb not understanding how to do it properly. You can get a close approximation of the true gravity turn if your rocket is built, loaded, throttled, and balanced right. That's why I posted that rocket. If more people could actually get things to space, they might play RO a little more and learn more about real space travel. That rocket is just a tool for that. In real life, no real person actually controls the rockets going into space. They're all done by computer. So if we are to mimic a real space program, we need flight computers. The real challenge is in the engineering of said crafts to do the planned mission.

Check out this post... 100% MechJeb launched in RSS/RO

OK I think I've put together a nice Rocket with Satellite on top that can get to Geosynchronous or Geostationary orbit using MechJeb to do 100% of the flying. I even took it and landed the satellite on the surface of the Moon to make a Moon relay point. This is while using the following mods... Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157 [D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\MODS] RealSolarSystem7.2 Advanced Jet Engines DeadlyReentry EngineIgnitor RealChute1.2 MechJeb2 RealFuels FerramAerospaceResearch KerbalJointReinforcement RemoteTech TacLifeSupport TweakScale RealismOverhaul ProcFairings Here is the craft file >> MoonSat.craft Here is some information in these screen shots that you might want to gather about MechJeb settings and stuff. Also, note the flight time it took to get to Geosynchronous orbit (5.5 hours). You can use that to help you figure out where to place the satellite. You will also need some basic communications already set up to stay connected to the command center. I launched from South America because it was only 5.2 degrees incline. Showing type and build of rocket. Here I was out of communications for just a bit, notice that MechJeb still carries out the command once communications are re-established. Note the mission time and showing a basic sat network. I still have some planes to set and I'm still just playing around. Just wanted to show that only two sats were used to get it into position. I wasn't keeping this sat, it was just for making this presentation. You will need at least a way to communicate on each side of the planet from where you launch from to set a geo sat. BTW, forgot to mention 0 key activate the satellite antennas and then you need to go to map screen and point two of the dishes to already orbiting sats to set up a flight link (BEFORE LAUNCH). Then just turn on MechJeb.

That's an impressive load you put up into space there. It puts you on top, even though it was for score only. Doesn't really tell us how much actual usable fuel at that cost goes into space. I guess anyone wanting to try the craft for actual work, will just have to look for themselves. By the way, to all contestants, if you wish to update your attempt, either post a new attempt or at least a message to the thread so that I'd know your score needs updating. If you just go back and edit your attempt on some earlier page, I may never know that it was updated.

I just got a communications relay satellite/lander around the moon in RO with the 8192 textures. I must say that it looks spectacular. A sight to behold at 40km above. Makes me want to bring up a rover next time and do a little prospecting. If you guys haven't seen it in highest detail, you're missing out. By the way, is the RAPIER engine a real engine or did it get missed somehow? And, one other question... How do I take a screen shot without Steam in the background? My 64bit doesn't run from Steam.

JMac, That's some good information you posted there about the radio equipment. I think you know a little more about than me. I'm getting remote crafts to orbit just fine now, I've got enough low orbit sats to allow me a connection on the (what I call WIFI) omni-directionals. I didn't know adding more omni antennas would help on the range. I guess RT is using the idea of a broadband access point that has multiple antennas has better range. That would work for a few maybe, but adding more omni antennas would give diminishing returns at some point. Or at least it should. I think my system is working correctly, It's just that the dipole was a bit short on range when the short whip could do 4M, you'd think the dipole could do at least the same. Oh and two other problems I've found... 1. The whip and the extendable round antenna fall off a parked car when switching craft. It does this when parked on the runway or on the grass someplace. I can't keep those antennas attached. I'm using the car as a relay point on the ground. I've put landing legs on it and have it now sitting on the legs instead of the wheels hoping that, that will prevent the jolt from knocking off the antennas. 2. The RD-856 engine says it has infinite restart. Yet I can only get 1 ignition out of it. Bug?

I don't have any electronics reference books on it anymore. I put all those in storage about 20 years ago. I'm just remembering from my old HAM days. Some of the basic things are a little hard to forget. I think you have the antennas feel pretty good, but the dipole, in my mind is set a bit weak. And whips wouldn't catch much air to break them off but will burn off real fast in a re-entry type situation. I'd doubt the game engine is going to allow you to mimic real antennas and radio propagation much. Nor simulate ionosphere reflection for lower frequencies. Basically, a whip antenna for space travel, let's assume you want a full wave antenna (highest frequency possible for a given length antenna), and based on the appearing length of the whip, I'd say you are at about 90MHz. Well into the FM band of common radio. So you wouldn't have ionosphere bounce and reflection problems at that frequency. To receive any good signal from say the Moon's distance, you'd need a good "Moon Raker" antenna (one with many direction focusing elements, sort of like a large TV antenna but with vertical and horizontal elements). You'd need about 500 to 1000 watts for HAM operator type transmissions or maybe about 100 watts for NASA and super sensitive and tuned equipment. That is if you using a 90MHz transmission for the long whip. Higher frequencies (the kind reflectors and dishes use) can use way less power because the energy is focused more. But in the game (RT mod), you have more power being used for bigger dishes and to get further. This is common misconception about radio. To transmit, you need power but it can come from a small antenna. Even the smallest dish can transmit across the solar system given enough power. Probably about 200 watts at 10Ghz. But to receive from long distances, you do need large dishes. The large reflector is like a large magnifying lense for radio waves. You have to gather more of that energy to focus it onto a small little wire inside the feed horn. The bigger the dish, the more energy you collect (provided it's shaped right). To get more immersive on RT, we need movable and tracking antennas. I know, that's probably not an easy thing to do. But it's something that would bring out the coolness of RT. And the dishes, should have at least point in the direction of where you want to communicate. I know that is the maker of RemoteTech to do most of that. But as far as RO is concerned, If it were up to me, I'd just make the dipole go about 4 million meters and make the dipole and the whips stick a little better to their mounting, but weaken the heat factor perhaps. (I have not tried a re-entry on any of these yet, so I don't know if they burn up too quick or not at all)

That's probably THE most impressive space fuel hauling plane I've ever seen that's used stock parts only. Great job there, I'll go post your score.

Thanks a bunch, I'll go give it a looksee. I did manage to make a fairly small rocket finally just for lifting to orbit a small satellite. BTW, I still don't like how extended antennas blow off on the way. They come loose way too easy. The dipole doesn't have enough range and the whip falls off at about 70m/s even while it set up to wind-vane. I guess they didn't have a way to take into account the orientation of the antennas.

Just like to pipe in and say I've been enjoying RO quite a bit lately. I've been playing under the 64bit version of KSP though. I didn't know we weren't supposed to. (I'm guilty of just skimming the read-me files.) I've pretty much had no errors or crashes that I can say were related to any of the mods that I've installed. The only non-standard thing I did when installing the mods is, I went though each one and deleted the older Module Manager DLL file. I only wanted one installed and it is at version 2.2.2 at the moment. I took out all the older versions from some of the older mod packages. When I first tried RO and some of those mods installed together, I was having a game lockup problem. So then I went in and took out the older versions. Here is my current mods that seem to be working well under 64bit... Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157 [D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\MODS] RealSolarSystem7.2 Advanced Jet Engines DeadlyReentry EngineIgnitor RealChute1.2 MechJeb2 RealFuels FerramAerospaceResearch KerbalJointReinforcement RemoteTech TacLifeSupport TweakScale RealismOverhaul ProcFairings I would just like to say, thanks to all you excellent mod makers out there. You have done a fine job. You work improves with each day it seems. As far as game play is concerned, I found it a bit frustrating at first to get a working rocket ship to put my first satellites up. I realized that I needed some first link from the Command Center. So I had to use a manned ship to take up the first satellite. No problem. But not understanding and getting my head around what RemoteTech mod was doing made it a little confusing. After a while and through some experimenting, I finally got my head around the gist of it all and think it's a pretty nice system. I would have thought though that the dipole antenna would transmit further than only a million meters. A dipole is actually pretty sensitive for longer wave signals if you take into consideration of metal structures that can throw off the SWRs and whatnot. The long whip can reach 8 million, so the dipole should probably reach about half that. Depending on the frequency used. And since the dipole is smaller it must be using a higher frequency and therefore would punch through the ionosphere better. But hey, I'm rambling again. Point is, these things make it a little frustrating for the newbie, but their function is definitely worth the learning curve. Keep up the good work. Now, anyone know of any places I can look at some example craft of successful launch vehicles and other stuff for RO?

If you're not adverse to using mods, the game I'm currently playing has challenge out the wazoo in carrier mode... Deadly Reentry MechJeb Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) Better Than Starting Manned

Yes I'll allow FAR but I will post a note by the score noting FAR was used. Far really changes the parameters of the game, but it would be nice to see some crafts that operate well under FAR (or NEAR). The gist of the challenge is to show our newer audience what type of crafts are feasible to get large quantities of fuel to space. This is why more is better than just economy alone. Because a newbie doesn't always know how to dock like an expert and want to avoid it as much as possible. Yet, as we seek a way to get fuel to space, we want to do it on the cheap.

That's in impressive amount of fuel you got there. Put that in orbit and you won't have to worry about running short for a little while. Nice job. Yes, the score rewards bigger, but someone could improve on that just a bit and beat you with efficiency. You are correct in that you could off-load the fuel into a storage tank already in space. As long as honesty is maintained, I have no problem with it. I'll go post your score.

Humm, lets see... For sake of argument, lets say we can get a ship to put 1000 cargo in orbit for cost of only 10000 funds. 1000 / (10000 / 1000) = 100 Now lets say we build the ship a little bigger (say tie two of those together). 2000 / (20000 / 2000) = 200 Like I said, 2 orange tanks in space is better than 1 orange tank in space. So the score should reflect said work. The formula is correct.

s1l3nt_c0y0t3, I looked in your album photos but didn't see a screen showing the cost or a screen shot showing your refunds. The reason why these are required is because the refunds are proportional to where you land. So piloting skills are involved a bit here. You can't just present a proposed or theoretical entry. You must actually do this and show screenshots for the numbers. Sorry, but carrier mode is going to be required. I'll look again, but I don't think I missed it.

The way I see it, is two is better than one. And those that build a good ship that can win the scoring challenge will most likely be able to use that ship in their normal KSP operations. If the score was based too much on efficiency, then people would build ships just to win the competition. Instead I want people to build ships that will have useful value that also happens to win the challenge. Look at Pecan's ship, looks useful to me in normal KSP operations, challenge or not. I have not seen any examples where some crazy design would win the challenge, but wouldn't be a useful ship under normal circumstances. Convince me otherwise. A score based where 80% is based on efficiency is not what I'm after. I want the payload size to be about half of the score value. I want efficiency to get large payloads to space. The challenge may not be aptly named, but it's named enough. It is what it is. Do it or don't.

That looks like a good ship Pecan, congrats, you have top score, so far. I don't think I'll change the scoring system. It seems to be working as expected. More fuel is what we need in space, and simplicity to get it there should be rewarded. Looks like it's working as expected.

I guess I can put it into a non-stock category. I'm more interested in full stock crafts (ignoring piloting assists) because of newer people playing in stock carrier mode, but it seems everybody wants to try it in their own game, so go for it. We seem to have plenty of critics on the formula for scoring, yet I see no postings of a better formula to use. And yes, I did want to reward more work done with a better score. And I don't mean more work done by multiple launches and docking in space to unload.

Because not all of us want an orange tank in space for a fuel depo. What you suggest seems to be legal in the sense of the challenge though, so go for it. Just don't use non-stock parts for tanks, engines, and wings. If you stay stock, then those of us interested might be able to copy or download your craft. You can use space planes to get the fuel up there if you want. We're looking for cheapest cost to get large quantities of fuel and oxidizer up there. Wanderfound posted a link to a plane that supposed to be able to get an orange tank (full) into orbit for the minimum cost of about 4000. I downloaded his plane and gave it a shot but it didn't look as though it was possible to get it to space with my flying skills. I'm not using ANY mods for this challenge, and that might be what the problem is. His plane was tuned for FAR and that's not installed here. So his plane may not be performing as advertized. But, if someone could get that orange tank to orbit for just the cost of fuel, then it probably would set a very high score.

I need fuel in orbit. You really can't do anything great until you get fuel in orbit. It allows you to go places, see things, and do things. But, as always, money is tight. So we need to figure out a way to get fuel into space so we can refuel our space crafts. So, I challenge you to come up with the most COST effective way to put fuel into space. Now, I know some of you will want to just take a 5 gallon can up and call it a day. Even if you find some super cost effective way of doing it, 5 gallons is just not enough. So we will have to have a formula to calculate the winner. Say, (fuel + oxidizer) / (COST / (fuel + oxidizer)). This should encourage a good size payload so we don't constantly have to dock small ships with small payloads to unload a small amount, even if it is cost effective. The rules: 1. MODS are allowed provided only the STOCK tanks and methods of propulsion are used. (No magic engines) You can use any stock method you see fit though. 2. No cheats with editing or any of that. 3. Must get fuel to orbit. 70 x 70 km is fine with me. 4. Screen shots are required. You should have 1 screenshot showing your cost, 1 showing your orbit with fuel quantity, and 1 showing your return money if you have any. 5. You may remove launch towers or other things that will be returned to you upon next launch from the initial cost screen. 6. You may update your attempt as you see fit. For instance, you might not have yet landed back on Kerbin your storage tanks for refund. You may come back and edit your posts for an update once you do claim your refunds. May the greatest tight wad win !! Score Position: 1. Dundral @ 148,179 (using FAR) 2. Vector @ 126,792 3. Laie @ 56,251 (using Procedural Wings) 4. Norcalplanner @ 16,713 5. Wanderfound @ 10,438.8 (using FAR) 6. Pecan @ 1,502.07 7. Bothersome @ 1,487.38 8. s1l3nt_c0y0t3 @ 466.314 - - - Updated - - - OK here is my own attempt at the record... 357506 - (8 x 200 for launch towers) = 355906 10354 + 12654 = 23008 23008 / (355906 / 23008) = 1487.38 <<< this is my score. Later, I will update my scores after I get a refund from the tank once returned safely to Kerbin (if I can save it).

There is some pretty amazing stuff in this thread. I don't tend to build space stations for show anymore or for pleasing looks even though I am impressed with some of the photo shots of some of the stations posted already. This one is of my latest "space station" that is mission bound for the Jool system. From left to right, the SSTO SV-4 lander for carrying down the visitors and bringing them back up. The Ion propulsion pack for long inter-planetary travel. The science package and original control pod (to be upgraded if needed). The science processing lab with extra storage. Then finally the first stage of rocket propulsion to get the station to escape velocity of Kerbin orbit on time. Notice that all these things are attached via docking ports. The landing legs were for a test when the station was first launched (to help pay for the mission), they are not used) We are currently in a holding orbit waiting on the planets to get in proper alignment.

Well, I have done re-entry tests several times (mostly to test after an upgrade). I didn't have any trouble with the above plane. But I kept the nose pointed into the wind at all times. After the flames are gone, I'd give about 10 degrees up so I could keep about 8000 meters altitude to fly home. I know planes of just about any kind will flip out sometimes if you come in with crazy attitude angles. The one above does have a slight slip problem due to lack of large rudders. But rudders are really needed much for doing the heavy lifting. So I opted for not using large rudders. You can barely see them but there are four rudder control surfaces close to the engines. The other thing to keep in mind, is that this plane was designed to also go and take off again on Duna. I know the jet engines can't be used on Duna (no oxygen). Because Duna has very thin air, you need very large wing surface area in order to fly and land at any decently slow speed. That plan can take off at about 40m/s and land at about 28m/s on Kerbin. So I'd estimate about 60m/s landing on Duna, hopefully slower. I won't get into why my Duna mission parameters eventually changed to a rocket SSTO instead of a plane, so-as I don't pollute your thread with counter-plane ideas and arguments.

You need lots of wing surface area because in higher altitudes, there is not much lift applied to the wings. You need "just enough" jet engine(s) to get it to the thin air at decent speeds. You need a boost of some sort to get it into space. Once in space, you need control methods, and a form of propulsion. And of course, usually, you need a reason to go and the tools for the job. Here is my latest space plane. It has PB-Ion propulsion for interplanetary travel (not test yet). Of course, it needs refueling once in space, but that's not hard. Notice the wing surface area. 1 extra ton of weight can really cost you in the amount of fuel you need to start with and how big your craft will grow. In my case the plane needed to be SSTO. If it can't get to orbit on it's own, then probably won't be able to get back to orbit from Laythe.