mhoram

Gratulations on making it to the top of the leaderboard! Replacing the separator by the (originally required) TR-2V Decoupler would increase your Delta V because it is lighter.

Simply look at your current orbital speed: that is about the dV you need to stop your craft. I have no ship around Eve, so I can not lookup this value, but it can also be calculated via the orbital energy. You can calculate the thrust as Thrust = mass * dV / burnduration

You might want to have a look at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54880-Share-your-launchers-MEGATHREAD and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55017-any-other-rocket-families Launchers with a focus on payload fraction are available at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55615-Payload-Fraction-Challenge For lifters with a focus on payload mass, there is this thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59291-Showcase-Heaviest-Lifters%21-How-much-can-you-get-into-orbit-1200t-so-far%21 My own launcher family is availabe here.

Finally I managed to testfly all the VTOL contestants. My voting deprends mostly on handling and engine type and my first choices are: - MiniMatt: Snack Wagon VTOL - Ravenchant: PackMule - Xeldrak: CRPLTV Jet engines take time to change thrust, so they are in my opinion not suitable for beginners trying to land. Here are the details Xeldrak thanks for hosting a great challenge again - learned some things about handling landers. Good luck to the finalists!

Thanks for the second version. I updated the leaderboard and think you earned some reputation for dominating this challenge in all three main categories!

Great payload fraction!!! Although you scratch one of the rules: Before I commit it to the leaderboard with an "excess torque" notification, I wanted to give you the chance to replace the ASAS modules.

So this time I am going with a VZ-9 Avrocar aproach. The Kerbol Flying Object... (.craft) With 2200-2600 dV it is in the range of the original and I really enjoy creashing it ... Jeb mostly survives.

For a Challenge I launched the Giant Gigantor an oversized solarpanel structure with nearly 800 parts to KSO. For editing the top parts in the VAB I had to shift the bottom parts below the groundfloor, because the building was not high enough.

IAscentPath is there to calculate pitch based on altitude. As a starting point it is good, but it will run into problems when the same altitude is crossed twice or more often. Generating ascent profiles based on my PSOPT simulation I ran into such an example while testing one of Kasuhas' lifters. For testing my implementation I created several rockets with different TWR distributions. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3pi0zifgfsn0ehp/cm2atqMjya Feel free to use them for your tests under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. So far I did not manage to bring "Slowgoing.craft" into orbit. Currently I am writing a reimplementation of my PSOPT-based simulation for an arbitrary number of states, but it still has some issues. PSOPT also uses Ipopt as standard solver besides the commercial SNOPT. I found http://bocop.org/ to be interesting as a control solver, but did not get too much into the details. kOS Scriptable Autopilot System seems to have a reasonable manageable interface via file loading. Last time I looked, it seemed abandoned by it's creator, but a few days ago, a new maintainer and 0.23 compatible version emerged.

I come up with 1.4625T dry mass and 0.5T of fuel for these parts. (I assumed Command Pod Mk1) Somehow I am missing the ships mass in this formula. (Area = 0.008 * currentMass) What starting altitude do you use? I usually start the ascent around 70-80m

About the issue of vectors, I meant, that you have to represent the velocity of the ship as the horizontal and a vertical component. The forces also have horizontal and vertical components, so accelX = (thrustforceX*factor -dragforceX -gravforceX) / mass accelY = (thrustforceY*factor -dragforceY -gravforceY) / mass and the directions of the three forces are different: - Gravity points towarts the planets core - Thrust points towarts the current orientation of the ship - Drag points in the opposite direction of the current momement of the ship A simple subtraction of the absolute force values will lead to errors. If you implemented the status of a rocket with the compoments altitude, horizontal velocity and vertical velocity then the issue of the atmosphere is irrelevant, because you most likely assume already that the ship moves relative to the atmosphere.

Somehow I managed to clean the album. It is working again.

You can find a rough overview in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55401

Velocity should be the the velocity relative to the atmosphere - that was one mistake tavert made me aware of during my implementation. There should be a way to replace the "back'n'forth estimation" by a one-way-back calculation beginning with target altitude and target drag ratio. This will increase the performance. You probably mean?! accel = (thrustforce*factor -dragforce -gravforce) / mass velocity[next] = velocity[now] + accel * timedelta altitude[next] = altitude[now] + velocity[next] * timedelta Edit: And these values are handled as vectors and not scalars. Depending on the magnigude of timedelta the last two formulas can lead to significant rounding errors. The larger the timedelta the larger the rounding errors. The reasong for the issure of 90% terminal velocity is hard to guess without seeing the code.

There are a few excellent AddOns out there that simply improve the user interface and do not change the inflight behaviour. Enhanced Navball GitCraft Editor Extensions When you start with docking ships, RCS Build Aid is very helpful. When you start to ask yourself the question "does my rocket have enough fuel to reach X?", Kerbal Engineer Redux is recommendable. If you don't want to miss certain points in time Kerbal Alarm Clock will help. If you get bored doing the same thing over and over again (and not before!), MechJeb might help.

My once approved core design seems to be unusable. The weak link between fuel tanks and capsules caused in an initial test to wobble excessively, the double-docking ports for additional engines were not reliable and one LV-N is not enough. So I want to forefit my total points (0) ;-) and start new with my new core (MechJeb, TacFuelBalancer, EnhancedNavBall, KerbalAlarmClock). - much sturdier, but also heavier - increased TWR - more senjor docking ports As you can see I already did the first mission in the hope that the design gets approved. And here is my calculation of the score. Hopefully my interpretation fits, please adjust it otherwise. Mission complete: 150 Minmus polar & equtorial satellite orbit: 10 Mun polar & equtorial satellite orbit: 10 Additional satellites: 20 Additional Kerbals on Minmus: 35 Additional Kerbals on Mun: 35 Minmus landing at both poles and equator: 10 Tested rover on both planets: 20 Littering the system: -0 I know what I need +25 Bring the Gang along for the ride: 80 (in pod except during moon-landings) Back to the drawing board: -0 Home Sweet Home: 40 Sum: 435

That is an issue that interests me very much. Currently I use an external tool PSOPT in order to optimize control (thrust and direction) of KSP-rockets for minimal fuel consumption. You can find more infos in this thread.

Thanks, I am a true fan of those LV-N's, you noticed that there are no 48-7S in my ship. Gratulations for taking the lead in the heavy category! And thanks for sharing the .craft file. The bottom view looks like many birthday cakes ;-)

So here is my entry for the heavy category - brought to orbit by MechJeb Ship mass: 995.55 ton Payload mass 180.60 ton Stages: 6 18.14% payload fraction .craft file of a similar ship: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67230

Version 1.0 2014-01-25 for Kerbal Space Program V 0.23. Lifter Family with 18% Payloadfraction and tug engines that participate in the liftoff. Download on Spaceport http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/tangent-rockets Download on Dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/sh/573rc6a1jtnmkow/jM_6Pq1X8f This is the second generation of the Tangent rocket lifter family. For infos about the first generation see this forum thread. This lifter family provides High payload fractions of over 18% to a LKO of 75km Payload capacities of 20, 30, 60, 120 and 180 ton Tug engines (LV-N) that stay optionally with the payload Enough RCS fuel to deorbit the final stage of the propellant for a debris free orbit Flat surface on top of the nuclear engines for building the payload Support payload that provides no own rotational control Stock parts only MechJeb tested and verified ROCKETS Currently this set consists of the Tangent 2, 3, 6, 12 and 18. The download contains .craft files with predefined payloads and subassemblies. The rockets were tested with differently formed payloads. The folder 'example-payloads' in the package contains payloads that were successfully brought to orbit manually and with MechJeb. Here are the specifications: USAGE The ascent trajectory differs from the first generation greatly. While the rockets of the first generation were quite easy to handle in manual ascent, the second generation requires more skill and practice to get into orbit. To get a feeling how to perform the gravity turn, try MechJeb. ADDONS If you use MechJeb 2.1.1, the following settings were tested successfully with all rockets. - orbit: 75km - inclination: 0° - Turn start altitude: 10km - Turn end altitude: 70km - Final flight path angle: 4° - Turn shape: 40% The only difference to the first generation rockets, is the final flight path angle changes from 0° to 4° KNOWN ISSUES The margin for steering errors is quite small, so keep a steady hand during the gravity turn and don't overshoot the 75km LKO too much. (Actually this is not an issue but a feature) Tangent 12 is a little bit squishy, so do not take much time until liftoff. CHANGES 0.1 - Initial Release 0.2 - Added Tangent 12 with a payload fraction of 16.70% 0.3 - Updated all rockets to KSP 0.22: - the payload fraction dropped a bit - Reworked Tangent 3 and 6 to be handled by MechJeb without problems 1.0 - Second generation - complete redesign - Start Nuclear Engines at liftoff (Thanks to Rune for the hint) - Tested and verified with MechJeb 2.1.1 - Update to KSP 0.23 - Increase Payload fraction from 16% to 18% FUTURE Tangent 1 forces a very difficult design because the nuclear engine must be placed in the center for symmetry reasons. Only made it work during initial tests with a payload fraction < 15% which I am not happy with. So don't expect many rockets with an odd roman numeral in the Tangent series - actually Tangent 3 will stay most likely the only odd numbered rocket in this series. Tangent 48 will probably never be finished because the part count exceeds 500 without the first propellant stage and struts. Lag is no fun!

Valid argument. I can see now the point of my misjudgement.

There is a difference between "make your orbit level with the plane of the solar system" while in the SOI of Kerbin and "make your orbit level with the plane of the solar system" while in the SOI of Minmus. After refueling at Minmus (in an Minmus-Equatorial-Orbit) and leaving the SOI of Minmus, you have a 6° inclination relative to Kerbin and to the solar system, because Minus has this inclination. Or in other words: try to reach the refueling station at Minmus from Kerbin, while your inclination to Kerbin is 0°.

KER seems to have an odd behaviour. In the VAB when a new ship is loaded, KER does not reset the input-locks. It gets triggered in GitCraft

Thanks for the hint about input locks. I found out how to reproduce this issue with any ship. Move the git-window so that the load-button is within the bounds of the KER window. Click on the load button while the mouse pointer is also over the KER window. It seems like this is more of a bug in KER that it does not reset it's input lock when a new ship is loaded. Workaround: Before clicking on the git-load button make sure that the mouse pointer is not over the KER window.

Minmus has an orbital inclination of 6°, which also makes it unattractive as starting point for interplanetary travel.