Right

Whats your favorite resource mining tool? If something other than Kethane or Karbonite, post what it is.

Whew... Long and taxing trip, but managed $53 Funds/Ticket! So I determined that utilizing a direct capture to Laythe, and a direct burn to Kerbin from LLO, the trip would use less than 3000 dV! However, I failed the calculate for docking rendezvous and some other minor burns, which forced a very complicated return burn since I was short of fuel. I painfully did a powered gravity assist off of Tylo managing a return from LLO for only 700 dV. Never again. (So many quick saves ) Vessel cost is 48,640 and recovery was 47,789 for 16 kerbals. (Man did they lag on Laythe for some reason) The interplanetary shuttle had non-command seat accommodations for the kerbals, and included a little bit of fuel for the initial docking rendezvous (which was replenished by the SSTO before deorbiting kerbin).

Ooh, exciting! Very challenging indeed. I've been developing a grand tour style challenge myself for awhile now, which may never actually come to fruition though I am still optimistic. One recommendation that may fit within the scope of your challenge: Allow UbioZur Welding for those of us without computers that can handle high part count ships. Also, I would appreciate if you could link each of the suggested challenges with the corresponding mod(s) discussed. One question I have about the 3 kerbal rule: Do they all have to be aboard the active vessel? If yes, can you still control other vessels remotely? (Like a ScanSat probe launched from the mothership) I've been sort of obsessed with grand tours as I feel they represent a kind of capstone, as you also alluded to. I'm excited to draft up a plan for this one!

Is there an atmosphere ceiling on the 1 point per kilometer? If not, Jeb better bring some extra supplies, he'll be in orbit for awhile Also, I assume the plane requires its own propulsion, and thus towed or launched gliders are out.

@KCS Thanks for pointing out the typo. And way to make my eyes bulge with such a massive SSTO payload! Perhaps the most impressive aspect is that you did it with so few parts! Those B9 engines and giant intakes are a big help I'm sure. Still, a plane that size in FAR is equally impressive. Kudos indeed! @Laie I've been waiting for someone to bring the nuke engines into the big leagues! I experimented with it myself, but to no avail. I must be flying your craft wrong though. I can't get the boosters stage to land for recovery before reaching the 2.5k bubble, even without arming the chutes until just before landing. Funny enough though, I'm working on a design which uses the same idea as your booster 'shenanigans'

If you have only ever used one, and you still use it, vote for it! This poll data will be put to good use

Keep up the good work man!

Aye, I use it and it does help alot. While it does improve asymmetrical all together flameout, it doesn't resolve the issue where the engines on one side force a throttle down. I don't know if this issue is a result of intake air directly, or in-game thrust limitations based on speed/height. More likely the ladder. Even at zero (heck I've tried negative values) it throttles down wayyy too soon.

This would be a good mod for the challenge: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96031 Works with FAR too

I just noticed that back in October the method for calculating crash tolerance and stuff was changed to be much more in line with stock, very happy to see that! That was my biggest problem with the mod. You guys are my heroes Question: if you weld physicsless parts, do their masses get added to the weldment as their listed masses or actual masses? (Ladders, small batteries and such)

I remember this function working quite well. But now, it throttles down much too early. Is there any pluggin fix or a work around?

Wow, this is a good leap forward! And on top of that, a >100 ton lifter! Most unusual flight path and awesome recovery plan. Congrats on taking the #1 spot...for now Quite an exotic design! Color me impressed. I would not attribute such accomplishments to the craft based on looks alone haha. So what do you think the key(s) is? Airhogging? Nuclear engines? And I have to ask, would the craft do worse if those 4 basic jets were turbos? On a side note, how do you prevent asymmetrical flameout/throttle down. I stack my intakes properly, but I still get one side's jets throttling down while the other side is on full. You both earned some rep with those!

Circumnavigated west to east in this fish-like jet. All stock, no pluggins used. Thank goodness for time warp. Had to revert like 3 times from blowing the cieling cap haha

@ Pamynx: Is that really the most efficient gravity turn in FAR? I know its supposed to be much earlier, but 0.6km with a 5% turn shape? Wow. @ Laie: I'm eager to see this! Thats impressive. @ttnarg: Not bad! I'll grant you 100% recovery because you landed so close. However, as a rule that 1st stage should be calculated at actual recovery value, since the distance from KSP corresponds to how much you gravity turn and save fuel. On a side note: whats up with the side mounted probes? You could do without that extra mass lol

And finally, a jet entry: Launch vehicle cost: 13,998 Recovered: 13,825 Payload mass: 6.765 tonnes Payload cost efficiency: 24.1 Funds/tonne Definitely not mechjeb compliant. I'm noticing jet based designs are very finicky when trying to optimize your cost efficiency. Moderate to heavy dependance on small differences in the flight path, and tweaking of more than one fuel source can be a headache. Landing took many attempts without wings, so definitely need to include some of those next time. Also forgot batteries which was almost fatal...However I managed to set up a suborbital trajectory and throttle up before running out of power. When I re-entered the atmosphere, the jet's alternator kicked in and saved me haha

It was becoming clear that there was already plenty of incentive to have a sustainable design (no orbital debris). Why put junk in LKO when you can bring it back for a full refund? Also, every entry earned it, making it unremarkable. In its place I've created tech level based awards. This should add a completely new layer of competition as well as pragmatism to designs. And if some spiffy text award isn't incentive enough, just think: your launch vehicle might become famous as the best way to get stuff into LKO in some portion of career mode. Wow, way push the bar! Excellent job. And your right about the tanks, I completely forgot to check them! Its valid, though modded entries have a separate bracket. Beautiful plane, and excellent flight log!

The 500 funds/tonne barrier has been broken! Payload Mass: 26.3 Launch Vehicle Cost: 94,880 Recovered: 81,768 Part count: 35 Payload Efficiency: 498.6 Funds/tonne Some notes to build on: The S3 engine is extremely good. One of the lowest TWR and very reasonable ISP. The large Kerbodyne tanks have a worse dry mass ratio (counter-intuitively) than other tanks, so avoid using them when possible. 1 Parachute for every ~12 tonnes of landing mass is generally all you need. Land on small gear bays to save on mass, or on engines with high crash tolerance. The small RT-10 SRBs are the most cost effective at accelerating a craft to terminal velocity.

If anyone wants to give partial credit for a craft to someone else, let me know and I'll list more than one name. Sure, I'll set up a bracket for modded entries. For now it will be pretty catch all, but if we get enough entries I will set up multiple categories like stock.

I have complete faith in you Thanks! Fixed.

The pictures suffice My point was that the receptacle vessel cost money to get into orbit, and that cost is not being factored into the efficiency. Other than that though it appears to me they possess no inherent advantage (I don't consider convenience as one) over a craft with a dedicated payload. However, I hope you will forgive me if I still don't permit them simply because it would add another layer of exceptions and counter-exceptions to the rules. As to the question about kOS, I don't think I see a problem with it. Is there any conceivable situation in which it would give a higher theoretical efficiency? Excellent results on the second entry! I think your multistage recovery techniques will be the key to the best efficiencies for rockets. I'll look past the RCS thing, its SO minimal I doubt it would even make a difference to the accuracy we're measuring. I wonder, do you think using an even steeper ascent and landing the first stage at KSC would improve the score? Would require more fuel, but probably not more than the extra 4% you would get. Looks like you had enough fuel to push the peri up and still deorbit. Proof enough for me. Besides, I'd rather you spend time seeing if you can improve or redesign than fly things again and again. You're welcome to set up a tow truck for fun! As the OP says though, you can assume 100% recovery if its clear you can potentially land it. Entries look good! Good tip about the landing. I'm thinking about putting some wings on my designs so I can have a bit of glide ability before chuting. Also, I would have loved to see your face while you were landing the entry #4. Fuel ran out just before reaching the ground and it looked grim for those nuke engines haha.

Since this is a design oriented challenge, I've made the requirements for recovery more lenient. Basically, just show that your final stage is recoverable and you may calculate 100% of funds for that stage, empty, as recovered. This removes the burden of needing a career mode with all science unlocked, and of often painstakingly flying your ship back to KSC. I think you have the right idea actually. Optimize payload cost on a small craft, and then scale it up with similar ratios. As for your craft, I'm betting you would be able to bring that number up a lot if your craft's total mass was closer to 10-12 tons, with some of that being extra fuel, but mostly payload. I like the design of the first stage, as well as the coordinated multistage recovery! Unfortunately neither of these crafts have a dedicated payload. As a result, its hard to apportion the true cost of the payload since they depend on a receptacle vessel already in orbit. With a little tweaking, they should be able to provide similar cost efficiency while complying with the restrictions. Rules aside though, that is a very efficient fuel delivery vehicle! Looking forward to it! You fly with the earmarks of one who has piloted many-a-payload to LKO haha. You're entry does not meet the 75k periapsis requirement. However, since you obviously had plenty of fuel to spare (and which was ultimately dumped just before landing), I think we can assume that it would not have been an obstacle for your craft. In fact, thanks to your detailed documentation, I'm going to recalculate your score based on 100% recovery (empty) since its clear you easily could have landed on the pad. Haha, great choice for the payload. Better believe that scores kerbals will step into ships built by the lowest bidder. I read a great post by you at some point recommending the ram air intake based on their superior intake and drag. Might give that craft a bit more through?

Greetings! Well your payload does have RCS thrusters on board which is prohibited. However, since you're not evidently offering your most competitive possible entry (90k Peri, larger theoretical payload) I will go ahead and tentatively list it. Besides, it has great style!

A basic first submission for a lightweight rocket based design Payload mass: 8.942 Launch vehicle cost: 40,426 Part count: 20 Funds recovered: 34,551 (40,426 - 34,551)/8.942 = 657 funds/ton

Derived from mhoram's Payload Fraction Challenge. Mission Description Design a launch vehicle with the highest payload cost efficiency and bring it from the launchpad to a Kerbin-orbit with a periapsis of 75km or higher. Scoring Calculate the payload cost efficiency as total ship cost before liftoff minus payload cost minus recovered funds divided by payload mass in orbit; AKA (Total ship cost - Payload Cost - recovered funds)/Payload Mass. The lower the value, the better. Restrictions No cheating, debug console, part clipping, infiniglide No participation of the payload in the ascent No engines in the payload (Xenon and RCS also count as engines) Fuel tanks in the payload must reach the orbit full (LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, XenonGas, MonoPropellant and SolidFuel) No excessive usage of torque in the payload (explanation) The cost and mass of all lift surfaces applies to the launch vehicle, and not the payload. [*]Drag coefficient of the payload must be 0.2 or higher [*]Stock KSP V0.90 (MechJeb, KER, & other Info Mods OK) [*]Use of FAR, or NEAR will go under modded designs Submissions A valid submission must contain at least the following information Payload mass Launch vehicle cost at launch (ship cost - payload cost) Part count Picture of the ship in the VAB/SPH Picture of the ship after reaching orbit and decoupling the propellant (periapsis altitude, payload mass & resources-tab must be visible) If the final stage is recoverable, you may calculate 100% return of the stage if you either: A.) Show that the stage has at least 1 radial chute per 10 tons (empty), control, torque, and enough dV to deorbit after decoupling the payload B.) Or show picture of the stage landed at KSC after delivering the payload Documentation of the drag coefficient of the payload either by displaying it in MechJeb (Vessel -> Drag coefficient) or by submitting the payloads craft file or detailed pictures of the payload must be provided where each individual part (in this case keep the number of low drag parts small) is recognizable Entries which use jet engines will be listed in a separate category Awards MechJeb Compliance Award MechJeb can bring this ship into orbit without human interaction. To qualify for this award state that MechJeb was used and submit a screenshot of MechJeb's ascent path editor. After launch no human interaction is allowed while the periapsis is smaller than 74km. Tech Level [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Award This craft requires a maximum tech level of [#] to build. (Use the advanced filtering mode on your build parts panel) Leaderboard Rocket-Engine Designs Light Category (Payload < 10 ton) 657 Funds/tonne - Right (8.942 Tons, 20 Parts) MechJeb Compliance Award 1193 Funds/tonne - SanderB (1 Tonne) "Kinda" MechJeb Compliance Award Medium Category (10 ton <= Payload < 100 ton) 440.5 Funds/tonne - Mesklin (20.84 Tonnes, 25 Parts) MechJeb Compliance Award 498.6 Funds/tonne - Right (26.3 Tonnes, 35 Parts) MechJeb Compliance Award 520.0 Funds/tonne - Laie (50.8 Tonnes) 571.2 Funds/tonne - ttnarg (36 Tonnes, 29 Parts) 639.1 Funds/tonne - SanderB (18.4 Tonnes) MechJeb Compliance Award 687.8 Funds/tonne - GoSlash27 (41.4 Tonnes, 73 Parts) Heavy Category (100 ton <= Payload) 390.5 Funds/tonne - Laie (137.3 Tonnes, 107 Parts) 421.4 Funds/tonne - ttnarg (102.5 Tonnes, ~100 Parts) Jet-Engine Designs Light Category (Payload < 10 ton) 24.1 Funds/tonne - Right (6.765 Tonnes, 19 Parts) 1123 Funds/tonne - hoioh (0.065 Tonnes, 17 Parts) Medium-Heavy Category (10 ton <= Payload) 15.3 Funds/tonne - Laie (144 Tonnes, 184 Parts) 31.46 Funds/tonne - Astrobond (32.2 Tonnes, 240 Parts) 246.3 Funds/tonne - ttnarg (82 Tonnes) Modded Rocket Designs 631 Funds/tonne - Pamynx (21.6 Tonnes) [FAR, DRE, RT2, ProceduralFairings] Modded Jet Designs 151.56 Funds/tonne - kcs123 (32.25 Tonnes, 98 Parts) [FAR, B9, B9PWings, Adjus. Landing Gear]

Does anyone know how to use Dynamic Pressure Fadeout? I assumed it softens or disables the AoA limiter based on the current dynamic pressure, but I can't seem to get it to do that with any value I put in.