Jump to content

maccollo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    791

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by maccollo

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    Reaching 650 funds per ton.

    It's the same launch vehicle as my previous entry. Nothing has changed. I'm just pushing it to the limit by adding an additional 4 tons to the payload. It's probably the most perfect launch I'm capable of doing. Took me 5 tries to get those last few m/s :confused:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7LDbW-dCwI

    Launcher cost: 106626
    payload: 164.045 metric tons
    649.98 funds per ton

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    2 hours ago, Nich said:

    Damit maccollo I have been trying to get a 3.75m to work forever but I am stuck around 740/ton

    I see a bit of room for improvement. You are using the 2.5 meter nosecones which simply add cost. Use the cone tanks instead as they hold fuel. This might get you closer to 700 assuming. It also seems you are .  Overall though it seems that a simple sustainer core with kickbacks is difficult to beat. The combination of cost effectiveness, simplicity and having all the required attitude control in the propulsion system is very compelling.

    On that note here's an updated version of my entry. I increased the number of kickbacks to 16 and I added drop tanks on top of the boosters, which is the only way I've been able to justify their inclusion. They don't actually make the rocket more aerodynamic, but they do make it look better.

    Total cost: 141166
    Payload cost: 34540
    Launcher cost: 106626
    Payload mass in LEO: 160 metric tons
    Funds per ton: 666.4


    VAB screen dumbs:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher5.png
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload5.png

    Launch video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP85eYCd5pk

    Craft file:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/sustainer%207.craft

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    @GoSlash27Nope!

    Total cost: 123160 funds
    Payload cost: 28890
    Launcher cost: 94270
    Payload mass in LEO: 139.6 metric tons
    Funds per ton: 675.3

    Beat you by a whopping 2.3 funds! The margins are basically nonexistent though.
    Seems like nose cones just aren't worth it, which is a shame, because they do make the rockets look a bit better. I also really wish we had bigger solids. The clustering of kickbacks is starting to get a bit silly on this scale.


    VAB screen dumbs:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher4.png
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload4.png

    Launch video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOqRBC2QfeQ

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    Well I can see (I think) what this rule is meant for. Rockets often have an upper stage that fires before orbit is achieved.
    However the relative performance of different rockets is not the same at different destinations.

    What I would suggest if the rules were to be changed, is that the payload must be inert. To get a more nuanced picture of the performance the rockets would be graded on their ability to launch payloads to 3 destinations, for example LKO, Eve and Jool.
    You wouldn't actually have to get an encounter, just propel the payload to a specified C3. An entry can attempt all 3 of these, but it must be unmodified. It could also get an overall performance score by taking some weighted average from it's performance to these 3 destinations to get an idea of it's versatility.

    So a 1.5 stage entry might get great cost performance to LEO, but poor performance to Eve and very poor to Jool while a rocket with a big low TWR upper stage might have the inverse result.

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo
    fixed video link. also a word

    Well this wont do. But as Temstar said there is another way to game this which is to simply add as many engines of the high ISP kind as you need to get the TWR required at 500 m/s from orbit. If I got things right this is to allow us to simulate upper stages that fire before orbital insertion. However, what this does not take into account the cost effectiveness of that stage. Case in point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjldySNQcJ8

    Sorry about the blinding brightness. I forgot to turn down the ambient light I used on the nightside. Also forgot the sound.
    Anyway, the launcher portion is exactly the same as before except for the decoupler, so the cost of the launcher is 61262+550, or 61812 funds.
    However, the mass in orbit was increased to 110 tons.
    Cost per tons: 561.9 funds

    While using this many nukes allows me to get the best score I possibly can, it's probably not going to make for the most cost effective launcher since they are extremely expensive.

    @Meithan
    Having the two orange tanks as another set of drop tanks would only add 34 m/s, while the cost would increase by least 1584 + plus reducing the terminal velocity at launch from 700 to about 600.
    So I would need to haul almost 3 more tons to orbit, while also having more drag. Having to go 34 m/s less on the upper stage nets about 0.4 tons, so I'm pretty sure it wont pay off.

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo
    Accounting error

    I will not let this stand! I must admit though, explosive staging was pretty neat. After seeing that I decided to use that too for my next entry because I thought I might be able to breach 600 funds/ton. I didn't, but I am only 0.4 tons away from doing it, so it might perhaps maybe be possible if I pull of a perfect launch.

    Total cost: 87581 funds
    Payload cost: 26319
    Launcher cost: 61262
    Payload mass in LEO: 102.6 metric tons
    Funds per ton: 597.1
     


    VAB screen dumbs:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher3.png
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload3.png

    Launch video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QRPhFu9d04

    Edit: turns out I did crack 600. Counted the payload engine into the cost of the launcher, and therefore got a higher cost/ton value than I actually had.

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    2 hours ago, Temstar said:

    Putting guidance into the payload, particularly reaction wheel and engines that complete the final orbit insertion starts to get into the grey area of "what's an upper stage and what's a payload" like Saturn V's upper stage. It also strongly couples payload to rockets in the manner of "this rocket can put your payload into orbit, assuming your payload can supply 500m/s of delta-V and 30 unit of torque in all three axis".

    My second entry is basically exactly that. Why have expensive liquid propulsion in stage one when you can just use reaction wheels on the payload to wrestle the rocket? It doesn't really matter how much you use since all payload cost is subtracted.
    Actually it wasn't that big of a difference, only about 50 funds compared to my first entry. But I did manage to breach 700, so there's that.

     

    Total cost: 34864
    Payload cost: 16896
    Launcher cost: 17968
    Payload mass in LEO: 26.34 metric tons
    funds per ton: 682.16

    VAB screen dumbs:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher2.png
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload2.png

    Launch video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UQfV17VQnM

    The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    I really enjoy tinkering with my launchers to make them cheaper, so this is right up my alley =)
    Here's my first entry, a skipper powered sustainer core boosted by 4 kickbacks, and an terrier on the payload for circularization.

    Total cost: 44066 funds
    Payload cost: 16170
    Launcher cost: 27896
    Payload mass in LEO: 38.0 metric tons
    funds per ton: 734

    VAB screen dumbs:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher.png
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload.png

    Launch video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA31JnjrbFE&feature=youtu.be

    Spice Launch System [SLS] 0.74

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, tribulex said:

    Maybe this is a dumb question but how do you connect the first stage to the upper stage? Am I supposed to use a 3rd party fairing? 

    Use the EUS interstage. It should be in the same category as the EUS unless the category thing is messing it up. I will put out an update for that tomorrow btw.

    @Dr.K Kerbal You will have to be more specific.

     

    Spice Launch System [SLS] 0.74

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    I use maya for the modelling. It's pretty rudimentary stuff so the software doesn't really matter.

    Apparently propulsion has been an obsolete category since 0.90. It's seems odd this hasn't caused any problems for me. I'll go through the parts and change that this weekend. It's about time I did this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :)

    RSS Moon Landing using stock parts

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    @parzr
    The launch weight was just a few tons under 2700. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/MC2.png
    Attached the vectors to the mammoths to lower the part count. Think my choise of propulsion for the final stage wasn't optimal. Adding 2 more ants would have dropped the delta v by 20 m/s, but I think the increase in TWR from 0.5 to 0.75 would have made up for it in gravity losses during the lunar ascent.

    RSS Moon Landing using stock parts

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    22 hours ago, joshudson said:

    then the precisely timed suicide burn

    It's actually not that hard to get a reasonably efficient decent burn that ends up close to the surface. Take the difference in between your current height and your landing location, divide that by the burn time of the decent stage, and there you have a rough estimate of the decent rate.


    Anyway, If you liked that landing... here is the Jeb entry at 2700 tons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuoHpPy4J3Y

    The Rhino

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    34 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

    I have decided that I will not recommend a re- tasking of the engine, other than to perhaps reduce it's price tag a bit to make it more economical to use.

    The launcher in the video I posted can get 1 ton to orbit for something like 800 funds. It seems to be right inline with the skipper when used in the same role.

    RSS Moon Landing using stock parts

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    14 hours ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

    Anyway, here's the rocket. Once I manage to complete the mission I'll make a lengthy mission report. Nice and sleek ain't she?

    Yet again I can't embed the image

    I'm sure maccollo will have something much less boring.

    Literally a brick XD. How many tons can it haul to LEO?

    Anyway, here is my first entry for level 2. All chemical 1862 ton rocket powered by 27 vectors on the first stage. The mission profile is direct to surface.
    Not sure this will live up to your expectations =P
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ZekYiJn28

    The Rhino

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by maccollo

    It's a pretty good and cost effective sustainer engine for something like 120-150 tons to LEO. It's just to bad you have to cluster the solids if you want to use those.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4TCJ0-T6g

    As for how to make it more useful... I would increase the size of the the Kerbol system. That said, there are uses for it. For example, going to Eve or Tylo and back. Even just sending a single Kerbal require pretty significant payloads.

×
×
  • Create New...