Stock Payload Fraction Challenge: 1.0.5 Edition

[Red Iron Crown]

quasarrgames, I can't validate an entry without pictures and it looks like something is wrong with your imgur album.

[Val]

Val, it is now confirmed that you have unlimited time and patience.

Seriously. The C-1 payday takes 40 frikin' minutes to get to orbit!

40 minutes? It only took 16 and a half minute when I did it. Well, mission timer, anyway. I guess, with low framerate, it might be longer in real time? Of course I had to do many, many attempts and tuning before I managed to pull it off. So, I guess, your points still stands.

[quasarrgames]

quasarrgames, I can't validate an entry without pictures and it looks like something is wrong with your imgur album.

Wierd well, fixed it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Looks good, quasarrgames, added to the board. Not really relevant to this challenge, but how well does it fly without the payload and most of the fuel gone? Looks like it will be tail heavy and hard to control at first glance.

[xebx]

Here is a new entry, i had to try this challenge.

The HypersonicCarrier2 did 35.5% : (Single stage)

239t on runway

85t payload in orbit (5 large ore tanks)

Size Length 33.3m, Width 23.2m, Height 9.3m, 86 parts (100% stock) without payload

10 rapier (i didn't like it with 8 rapier)

Big delta wing classic design

Enough fuel remaining for little orbital and air maneuvers

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Classic flying path (supersonic asl, climb 17°, better reach 1200m/s just before 20km, increase to 1550m/s at 20km, climb 15° switch rapier at 25km, orbit)

Note : there are really good designs in the top of the leaderboard.

Edited September 4, 2015 by xebx

[Red Iron Crown]

Welcome aboard, xebx! Great entry, I've added it to the leaderboard.

One of these days I'll get a Mk3 SSTO working properly like so many of you have.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

If I suck at math, and I know all of the basic numbers, can one of you friendly people help? Thanks.

[Red Iron Crown]

Sure, it's pretty easy:

(PayloadMass / TotalLaunchMass) * 100 = PayloadFraction

If you just list your payload mass delivered to orbit and mass on the pad/runway I can calculate it from there (pics showing these are required for the entry anyway).

[SpaceplaneAddict]

My entry has been completed. After 2 months of development. I don't know about any of you people, but I just wanted to say befor I show you the craft. Wow. So many hours, all, all... enjoyed:D

Anyways, I would like to present, Strive, my cargo vessel. Because, seriously, you never know when someone has a 10.6 ton payload small enough to fit in 1 medium Mk.2 cargo bay. I know you said keep part clipping to a minimum, but the only thing clipped was the payload itself, just to add more into a minimal space. I'll go for smaller payload if it becomes an issue.

Edit: How do I add Imgur albums?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited September 6, 2015 by SpaceplaneAddict

[Red Iron Crown]

If your imgur link looks like this:

http://imgur.com/a/WK14J#0

You just put [noparse]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[/noparse] to make it show up in the post.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Done.

By the way, forgot to mention the payload fraction. It came at 27.04%, nothing fancy. But this was my first dedicated "cargo" SSTO.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm terribly sorry, SpaceplaneAddict, but I can't accept payload clipped to fit a smaller bay or fairing. It has less aero drag than if it were in an appropriately sized bay, so this clipping has a real performance benefit. I invite you to refine your design with a bigger bay and resubmit, it's a cool looking plane.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Will do

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I may or may not have something at 31%. We'll see

[tseitsei]

Top entry on the SSTO division!

32.6t at launch 15.25t payload = 46.78% payload fraction

http://imgur.com/a/Q07Rw

450m/s at sea level

pitch up about 30degrees until at 8km

level up slowly at around 14 km

gather 1400m/s speed

pitch up 10-15 degrees

switch to rocket mode when you start decelerating

circularize

[Red Iron Crown]

Well done, tseitsei, I've added your entry to the board. Interesting strategy of building the plane around the payload, seems to have worked nicely.

[Val]

Top entry on the SSTO division!

32.6t at launch 15.25t payload = 46.78% payload fraction

...

Well done!

Looks like I have my work cut out for me.

I had already started on a similar concept.

Both parts are self sufficient and can launch/land individually or together.

I'll need to trim it down to make it able to contend here, though.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[tseitsei]

Well done, tseitsei, I've added your entry to the board. Interesting strategy of building the plane around the payload, seems to have worked nicely.

Yep, I was heavily inspired by the current overall leader Nefrum's awesome Stingray Mk1

Well done!

Looks like I have my work cut out for me.

I had already started on a similar concept.

Both parts are self sufficient and can launch/land individually or together.

I'll need to trim it down to make it able to contend here, though.

http://imgur.com/a/me7pr

Thanks!

And come at me bro! It's on...

[Val]

Oh. Yeah. New record!

Take-off weight: 50.75 t.

Cargo to orbit: 25.00 t.

Payload fraction: 49.26 %

Craft file: SSTO C-5 Modular Mk.2

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[tseitsei]

Oh. Yeah. New record!

Take-off weight: 50.75 t.

Cargo to orbit: 25.00 t.

Payload fraction: 49.26 %

Craft file: SSTO C-5 Modular Mk.2

http://imgur.com/a/7mJyU

Wow! You almost reached 50% with ssto. Very gj! I must see what I can do to that

[selfish_meme]

Would love to see you divide up the SSTO's by returnable (would bump me up the ladder for no effort at all )

[Red Iron Crown]

Oh. Yeah. New record!

Take-off weight: 50.75 t.

Cargo to orbit: 25.00 t.

Payload fraction: 49.26 %

Craft file: SSTO C-5 Modular Mk.2

http://imgur.com/a/7mJyU

I'm on the fence with this one, despite it being very impressive. It looks to me like you've attached a nosecone or other drag reduction device to the back of the LV-N and then clipped it into the engine (and possibly flipped it around for even less drag). On the one hand this is very similar to the rapierspikes that have been permitted in the challenge so far, on the other it's a bit more exploitative to flip it around. I can't look at your craft file now as I'm not at my KSP PC, but my ruling on this one is that it is OK if the cone is tapered end back, if the cone has been flipped so that it is tapered end forward then unfortunately I must disqualify this entry for a physics exploit.

Can you clarify how the the rear of the LV-N has been treated?

Would love to see you divide up the SSTO's by returnable (would bump me up the ladder for no effort at all )

"Returnable" is tough without it being demonstrated, and their are some entries I think could have returned but the entrant didn't bother as it's not part of the challenge. The board is getting pretty busy, maybe it would be better to just include the best entry from each participant in each category and split the rest off to another board. What do people think of that idea?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Val]

I'm on the fence with this one, despite it being very impressive. It looks to me like you've attached a nosecone or other drag reduction device to the back of the LV-N and then clipped it into the engine (and possibly flipped it around for even less drag). On the one hand this is very similar to the rapierspikes that have been permitted in the challenge so far, on the other it's a bit more exploitative to flip it around. I can't look at your craft file now as I'm not at my KSP PC, but my ruling on this one is that it is OK if the cone is tapered end back, if the cone has been flipped so that it is tapered end forward then unfortunately I must disqualify this entry for a physics exploit.

Can you clarify how the the rear of the LV-N has been treated?

The Small Nose Cone is only offset into the engine. Flipping it does not improve a tail mounted cone's drag, because it would be treated as being in front of a stack. The flipping exploit only benefits nose cones that are at the front of the stack, so it is treated as being behind. Yakuzi showed that indirectly in his investigation.

... Inverted rockets constructed from the bottom node of the LV30 engine as proposed by drewscriver did not result in any substantial performance gains over the cone-less control.

I'll make a new attempt with no cone on the LV-N, just to ease your mind.

---

"Returnable" is tough without it being demonstrated, and their are some entries I think could have returned but the entrant didn't bother as it's not part of the challenge. The board is getting pretty busy, maybe it would be better to just include the best entry from each participant in each category and split the rest off to another board. What do people think of that idea?

I wouldn't mind this split. But I'd much prefer splitting Air-Breathing in Single and Multi-Stage.

Would love to see you divide up the SSTO's by returnable (would bump me up the ladder for no effort at all )

Tomorrow (won't have time tonight), I'll make mine returnable/recoverable and bump the fraction up a little. I'm confident that the design is not fully optimized, yet. Edited September 15, 2015 by Val
Clarify Small Nose Cone

[Red Iron Crown]

Thanks for clarifying so quickly Val, I've added your entry to the board. It's odd, adding a cone to the back of a Rapier somehow feels like less of an exploit to me than doing so on the LV-N, even though it amounts to exactly the same thing (it's completely irrational, I think based on appearance). You don't have to bother with another run, that one is acceptable.

Thanks too for relieving my ignorance regarding the reversed cones.

[Val]

Thanks for clarifying so quickly Val, I've added your entry to the board. It's odd, adding a cone to the back of a Rapier somehow feels like less of an exploit to me than doing so on the LV-N, even though it amounts to exactly the same thing (it's completely irrational, I think based on appearance). You don't have to bother with another run, that one is acceptable.

Thanks too for relieving my ignorance regarding the reversed cones.

You're very welcome

Actually, I agree. It may be connected to the changed appearance. And an argument could be made against adding a tail cone to an LV-N. In my experience, thrust is blocked on the LV-N unless you offset the cone. On the RAPIER thrust is not blocked if you leave the Small Nose Cone where it attaches to the node.

On the other hand the shroud/auto-fairing that appears on the LV-N supposedly has mass, like regular fairings, once you launch (haven't verified for sure. Not at a KSP computer either).

On an entirely different subject, even though it is allowed in the challenge rules, you will not see me making entries with command pods as part of the payload. I'm pretty sure I could get better fractions, if I did.