mhoram

For what? If you provide screenshots, I will gladly include your submisssions to the leaderboard, but thanks for the info of your reached altitude. Don't know ... you tell me. From the other entries it seems like the maximal reachable altitude is around 60km, but if you were able to push this to over 70km it would be a huge step. Please provide more info on how you handled the throttle during the ascent, so that it can be reproduced. Do you have any physics or part changing addons installed?

Thanks for the sumbmissions, I updated the leaderboard You may adjust the thrust limiter of the engine, since it does not improve the engines performance. When I tested the rocket at full throttle, I reached a maximal altitude of 40km. So I am having difficulties verifying your result of 58km. Do you have any mods installed that alter the properties of parts or change the physics? The problem is that a higher velocity induces higher drag, so the faster you fly the more you decelerate by air friction. The trick is to optimize the thrust for the whole launch. I believe 60k is reachable. The calculations for the theoretical limit are a bit tricky. You keep the submissions coming in faster than I can update the leaderboard Gratulations for beating 60km (and not 60000km)

Here is my first entry with an altitude of 49261m It was a manual launch with KER for readouts. I tried to adjust throttle so that there was no visible airflow around the rocket. - - - Updated - - - Since I don't use FAR, I can't even test, if the provided rocket will fly reasonably with FAR-aerodynamics. In the case that I try FAR and validate the rocket, I will adjust the challenge rules accordingly.

It has been a long time (V0.16) since someone brought up the Goddard problem here on the challenges-forum. So I felt it is time with the new aerodynamic system to have a new take on it. Mission Description Launch the provided rocket "Triple-G" from the launchpad as high as possible into the upper atmosphere. Scoring The score you get is the altitude in meter as shown in a screenshot you provide. The higher the better. Restrictions Use this stock rocket (Triple-G.craft) without changing it (thrust limiter adjustments are allowed) No cheating, config file changes or debug console No gui-altimeter or physics changing addons KSP V 1.0.4 Please verify that you have an original stock physics.cfg (available in this thread) In order to be able to use MechJeb, Telemachus or kOS, I provide an officially sanctioned module manager config file (goddard.cfg) { MODULE { name = kOSProcessor diskSpace = 5000 } MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } MODULE { name = MechJebCore MechJebLocalSettings { MechJebModuleCustomWindowEditor { unlockTechs = flightControl } MechJebModuleSmartASS { unlockTechs = flightControl } MechJebModuleManeuverPlanner { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleNodeEditor { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleTranslatron { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleWarpHelper { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleAttitudeAdjustment { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleThrustWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleRCSBalancerWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleRoverWindow { unlockTechs = fieldScience } MechJebModuleAscentGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleLandingGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleSpaceplaneGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleDockingGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } MechJebModuleRendezvousAutopilotWindow { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } MechJebModuleRendezvousGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } } } } @PART[probeStackSmall] Submissions A valid submission must contain at least the following information A screenshot depicting the rocket at it's highest possible altitude or a F3-readout after reaching apoapsis. A list of addons you used, that helped with the launch (readouts, steering, thrust) Optionally it would be great if you would provide stats about the ascent (Telemachus for example) or infos on how you reached the altitude Leaderboard 61867: Padishar (kOS-script) 61761: Nich (manual launch) 61704: Sando Mutt (manual launch) 61525: Gaarst (manual launch) 61503: Nao (manual launch) 61478: MadChris48 (manual launch) 61296: Padishar (manual launch) 61194: SpaceWeaver (manual launch) 61175: Feradose 61137: mhoram (kOS-script) 58824: kookoo_gr (manual launch) 58330: Foxster (manual launch) 56969: Cool791 53914: Kaboom! 49261: mhoram (manual launch) 46070: littlebuddy0 The Attic - the place where you beat yourself 61604: Padishar (kOS-script) 60915: Padishar (manual launch) 60883: MadChris48 (manual launch) 59963: MadChris48 (manual launch) 59531: MadChris48 (manual launch) Pending Verification (to be verified: 62891: adamgerd) (manual/MJ launch) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/128509-Goddard-Problem-Maximal-launch-altitude-Challenge?p=2158468&viewfull=1#post2158468 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/128509-Goddard-Problem-Maximal-launch-altitude-Challenge?p=2159963&viewfull=1#post2159963 Since it was requested, participants may use this badge: (large version)

Here is a puller-design I used a while back for class E asteroids; have not tested it however with the new temperature system. The idea was to increase the distance between engines and asteroid so far that the exhause "ends" before the asteroid.

I had until now three Mech-Jeb phases: 1. I started playing KSP without MJ: Basic maneuvering within Kerbins SOI was easy enough to not use it. But landing on Mun/Minmus was hard. 2. I used MJ for DV&TWR-Stats and for convenience for recurring things like Hohmann Transfers, Launching & Landing and Rendezvous 3. Currently I don't use MJ. For setting up maneuvers I use PreciseNode; Pinpoint landings on the Mun I can do by hand; for DV&TWR-stats there is KER. Since #2 was the longest phase, I am still a bit undecided how to vote.

I believe this equation is used in the case that (inaccuracies caused by KSP's patched conics) - you enter Kerbins SOI with a speed of Vh - want to exit its SOI with a speed of Vf - want to calculate the dV needed to make this happen by a single burn at periapsis So this formula does not fit to the situation you want to calculate.

You want to calculate the gain of the oberth effect between two flight paths. In your second calculation you compate the two flight paths - Burn in LKO directly to a Jool-intercept - Burn to get out of Kerbins SOI and burn to Jool after leaving Kerbins SOI And the numbers match my experience. In the description of your first calculation I can not see which two flight paths you do compare and also have problems understanding the reasoning for this equation: Perhaps the following helps you to see the connection to the escape velocity: You can calculate the dv needed for a LKO-Burn to Jool via Escape velocities in the following way (which was also used in this thread to calculate ideal refueling orbits) To do this calculation, the first step is to calculate the speed Ve you need at the SOI change. For this use the Vis-Viva equation for an orbit around Kerbol with Periapsis @ Kerbin and Apoapsis @ Jool to calculate the speed at Periapsis. Subtract from that number the velocity that Kerbin has around Kerbol and you get the velocity Ve =2760m/s. Next step is to calculate the semi-major a=-468623 of the orbit of an object around Kerbin that has a velocity Ve at Kerbins SOI. (you can use the Vis-Viva euqation again) And a third application of Vis-Viva with the semi-major a and Periapsis at LKO gives you the target velocity at Periapsis = 4233m/s. Subtract from that number the current LKO-speed 2280m/s and you get in the 1950m/s range.

A while back I made a Delta-V Map for the method described in the OP. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80857-A-Delta-V-Map-for-simple-flightpaths Note that the Kerbin Launch to LKO now needs less m/s than stated in that map and some atmosphere heights have changed.

It was the opening of a solar panel structure during the Kerbal Energy Crisis challenge. I wonder how the launch would work with v1.0 aerodynamics ;-)

I use RCS Build Aid to align my center of thrust with my center of mass.

The orientation of the wheels depends on the part from which you operate the ship. Usually it is the pod of the ship or the command seat (with an EVA Kerbal) and may change by docking/undocking. However there is a manual override: You can find in the context menu of docking ports and pods an option to steer the vehicle from this part. Usually I place a dockingport or pod on the rover for exactly this reason and switch to it while driving and verify on the Spaceport before the launch, that it's orientation is correct. The navball on your picture shows that the part you control the rover with has a wrong rotation. On the navball the sky should be on top.

Thanks for the info. Have not known about this change.

One other way would be the following: - Rise your Apoapsis to nearly Dunas SOI - At apoapsis change your direction so that it matches Karen's - Rise your Periapsis to match Karen's orbit - Fiddle around to get an encounter with Karen. Can't tell you the exact amount of dV needed, but changing your plane is always more efficient the farther away from the Planet you are. And Using Ike for a gravity assist to rise your apoapsis is also an idea to reduce the total amount of dV needed. Also your red maneuver node is located very inefficient. Try to burn only at periapsis or apoapsis.

And for the calculation, gravity is not 9.81 m/s2 but 9.82 m/s2. Have a look here: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Specific_impulse#Conversion_factor

Happy and successful challenge !! I intended to revive my old rocket-payload-fraction challenge in a week or so, but as it seems you were faster ;-)

By usual consens in the forum it takes about 4500 m/s to get from Kerbins Spaceport to a 70x70km orbit. To get from a 70x70km to a 70x450km orbit it takes a single burn with about 236 m/s. To get from a 70x450km to a 200x450km orbit it takes a single burn at 450km with about 83 m/s. So in sum you will need about 4500 + 236 + 83 = 4819 m/s of Delta-V to get into a 200x450km orbit. I used the Vis-Viva equation to calculate the needed Delta-V for the two transferburns. It might be the case that a direct launch to the target orbit needs a bit less Detla-V but it should be of the same magnitude.

A while back (V0.23) I held a payload-fraction to orbit challenge. Top contributers managed to get payload fractions of over 20%. My current Lopac lifter family has payload fractions of around 16-18% if I recall it correctly. While the focus of that lifter family was a low partcount, it came out with a reasonable payload fraction too. Main construction ideas behind the larger Lopac lifters: - Asparagus staging for better utilization of engines in comparison to serial staging (Also see Temstar's post) - High ISP engines in later stages (like LV-N or KR-2L). These Engines burn the whole time so their high ISP helps to reduce the amount of needed fuel. - For the vertical ascent part I initially tried to take as many engines as necessary to keep the ship near terminal velocity, but this method was replaced by the strategy of starting with a (Kerbin-Surface)-TWR of ~1.4-1.5 and reducing it with each stage until a (Kerbin-Surface)-TWR of ~0.5 in the final stage. The reason for this change was that by experimentation I came to the conclusion that using more fueltanks and less engines made for more efficient lifters with less parts. Costs per ton is something I would improve by using jet engines or solid fuel boosters.

Have a look at chapter 5.1 of my Physics of KSP. One thing to keep in mind is that the air resistence is calculated based on the velocity relative to the atmosphere and not the orbital velocity.

Yes, the update is that there is an update. It seems like it was very easy to fix the subassemblies for V0.90.0. I simply had to subassembly-save them from the original ships and now they seem to work again. Download links are in the Opening Post. I did not testfly them as thoroughly as in my previous releases. But I hope that the specifications of the parts did not change so much, so that the lifters still bring their payload into orbit.

As a small addition, it should be noted that as stated in http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Specific_impulse#Conversion_factor the conversion factor in KSP is not 9.81 m/s2, but can rather be approximated by 9.82 m/s2.

If you want numbers on the Delta-V needed for this kind of transfer to the other planets, I made some tests. Hava a look in this thread: A Delta-V Map for simple flightpaths.

Thanks for the hint. Hopefully I will get some time during the holidays to look into this.

A) Feel free to support the Latex petition Write a message to KasperVld. Already talkted to him about LaTeX as a response to his request for forum improvement suggestions, but at the moment LaTeX has a low priority. Support from more people might change that.

I made a Delta-V map that displays the needed Delta-V for your first suggestion without the gravity-assist and compared it to Low-Kerbin Departure-Burns. The comparison showed that the margin is so large that a Mun-Gravity-Assist is by far not enough to compensate for the Oberth-Gain at LKO. (The orbital velocity of the Mun is 542 m/s and the velocity gain from a gravity-assist is at most twice that number. It is not only useful but also an accomplishment. I was really thrilled the first time I managed to perform a planned gravity assist. Once I had the problem that my Minmus-Lander did not have enough fuel to return to Kerbin, but with the help of a Mun-gravity-assist he made it back safely.