KASA "Preferred Vendor" challenge #2 is up!

[SanderB]

I've made another attempt, the launch vehicle cost 15,810$ after subtracting the cost of the satellite. 14,103$ was recovered on the launchpad (this counts as on KSC grounds, right?). The Satellite was off by 7.1° according to KER. The cost of 1 launch is approximately 141.03$ from the launch vehicle (dividing 14,103$ of the recovered vehicle by 100). The cost of the fuel and the extra equipment on the satellite is 1,707$. The total cost of the mission I think is 1,848$. 100k divided by 1,848$ is 54.11 raw points according to my calculations.

http://youtu.be/qKEOh-TmY_M

Edit: Another attempt with the same vessel but this time fully stock: I think performance was the same, although I did not land precisely on the launchpad, I still landed on the flat KSC grounds.

http://youtu.be/YTobNl570_g

Edited May 18, 2015 by SanderB

[GoSlash27]

SanderB,

You should show off that video every chance you get. That's one heckuva performance!

59.52 points (bonus for reserve DV on orbit). Looks to me like you're within 5° of nominal, also.

That's gonna be a hard one to beat...

Best,

-Slashy

[ikehaiku]

Well, here's the KsyNet entry

I don't really get what expendable means, but here ya go.

- The total launch cost is 5960 - meaning the "actual" mission cost is 3290.

- Since I went stock only (no mechjeb or KER used during the mission*), I don't know how much dV I got left. But probably way more than 50m/s

- I was right on time, deploying the comm. after 1h59 minutes of mission

- And I can't believe how accurate this was. I actually thought I set the wrong target or something... Bull-eyes from the "vertically-aligned seeker"

- The downside is...no real re-usable parts. But hey, good enough for me...

* Although I do use Precise Nod, I just flat out refuse to use vanilla nodes

[Starhawk]

I was thinking about this challenge last night and I figured reusable FTW. SanderB's example proves the point.

Allow me to present to you the Space Goose. Starhawk Speculative Investments, LLC's smallish, simple cargo spaceplane. Designed for precisely this sort of mission, though it usually hauls a bit heavier cargo.

I disabled fuel crossfeed for the docking port, but it didn't work. I still had to refill the satellite's tank once I was in orbit. I suppose if I had moved the engine to another stage, the tank wouldn't have drained. The tank was attached directly to an engine in a separate stage, but it still drained. Anyway, I filled it all the way back up which was absurd. After establishing orbit, it has 923 m/s on board. That's a lot of station-keeping!

Now for the accounting. The base cost of the Space Goose without fuel is 18 137, so there is a 181.37 depreciation cost.

The total fuel cost was 377.68, and the tank and engine for the satellite cost an additional 180.

This gives a total mission cost of 739.05 funds giving a score of 135.31. The 10% bonus for delta-v gives a total score of 148.84.

This was done with stock + KER.

Happy landings!

Drop the mic, eh? Harrumph.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Starhawk

[SanderB]

The space goose flies to space like a breeze, it can not be said in words how easily it gets to space and how cheaply it gets to space. It's like a goose taking off from a lake on a nice sunny summer afternoon. Take off and pitch up 30° and level off to 15-20° and maintain that 15° pitch until apo is >75km, at which point it is a simple matter of fast forwarding until you circularize. With help of mods and such it isn't too hard to land either but its a challenge (for me, anyway).

[Starhawk]

The space goose flies to space like a breeze, it can not be said in words how easily it gets to space and how cheaply it gets to space. It's like a goose taking off from a lake on a nice sunny summer afternoon. Take off and pitch up 30° and level off to 15-20° and maintain that 15° pitch until apo is >75km, at which point it is a simple matter of fast forwarding until you circularize. With help of mods and such it isn't too hard to land either but its a challenge (for me, anyway).

I am very pleased that you enjoyed it! I find landing more challenging now than in 0.90, but I've practiced it a lot already.

Happy landings!

[GoSlash27]

ikehaiku,

Good job. Your design would be considered "expendable", since it's stages were intended to be thrown away.

I'll file this under "stock" and it looks to me like you've got more than 50 m/sec DV left on that sat. I could tell you for sure if I knew it's mass, but it looks safe.

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

Starhawk,

Clearly SSTO spaceplanes are the way to go! Excellent job on all phases of the launch. I'm thinking the only way anybody can edge you out is by building a more efficient spaceplane, but that would be a tough job.

Prime Contractor is yours (again).

Best,

-Slashy

[Mesklin]

This is my entry with small and economical unmanned SSTO - "Bullet"

Cost of empty ship - 12448$, fully reusable, have restricted possibilities for pinpoint landing. Fuel cost for mission - 327$ + depreciation in 1/100 of ship cost - 124.48 + additional equipment on satellite - 170$ = total launch cost - 622$. Base points is 160.80 + 10% bust from some dV on satellite almost exactly position of satellite final points is 176.88

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mesklin

[Starhawk]

All right. The Mallard is a modified version of the Space Goose. Stripped down for efficiency and without all that fun stuff like a cockpit, wings and wheels. She has a depreciation cost of 145.59 and did the mission using 286.27 worth of fuel. 180 worth of additional equipment on the payload gives a total cost of 611.86. For a base score of 163.44 +10% for delta-v gives 179.78.

Pictures added.

Happy landings!

Edited May 19, 2015 by Starhawk
added pics

[juzeris]

To the engineers at Abstract Aerodynamics it seemed somehow wrong that a the unassisted entries were getting better scores than the assisted ones. So, after a good night of brainstorming, they made an ingenious plan to sabotage all the other entries, which, (un)fortunately, was somehow misplaced during a subsequent paper airplane tournament.

Hence they needed another plan, and, as usual, it ended up with the interns designing the most impractical contraption they could, which somehow still gets the job done. Ladies and gentlemen, presenting to you the Satcarrier 6 (download link), a three stage KSO satellite delivery system, of which two are fully recoverable and reusable due to advanced recovery guidance systems. The last stage stays in orbit and is used for station keeping. Or flying to the moon, if it strikes your fancy, as it has over 1km/s delta V. The full delivery takes just 70 minutes, and can be executed very reliably, so long as you do not lose the tissue with the trajectory angles written on it (88.5 for initial stage, 55 for second stage), though precise recovery of the second stage will need computer guidance, or you might end up taking a boat 1km into the ocean to pick it up.

The full craft costs 9 708 including the satellite, however most of it is recoverable. Here's the cost summary:

Additional equipment on the satellite (including fuel) costs 180

Stage 1 costs 1 683

Fuel for stage 1 costs 92

Stage 2 costs 5 054

Fuel for stage 2 costs 29 (we recover a drop of that, but it usually gets spilled while rolling it into the hangar).

So total 180+16.83+92+50.54+29=368.37 for a score of 271.466...+10%=298.61

We also recorded our showcase launch for those who missed it:

1. I forgot to remove a previous test from orbit, so there already was another satellite there, but I did not use it in any way.

2. There could be some confusion which was the launched one, so I checked both

3. I didn't time warp to check if they stay there, however you can see from MechJeb orbital data the orbit period is exactly one day and the orbit is almost circular. If there are any doubts, I'll go make some screenshots, it's still up there.

4. There's a teeny tiny jump at 10:00 mark, as the free version of Bandicam limits recording length to 10 minutes

5. I also accelerated the landing of stage 2 a bit, because it was soooo sloooow.

6. Any other questions?

[GoSlash27]

Wow, what an absolutely incredible batch of last-minute entries! I'll need a little bit of time to process these, then I'll post the next challenge.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

Juzeris,

I have an error in your tally. Cost for fuel in stage 2 is $92, not $29. Adjusted, you still have an outrageously high adjusted score of 255.00.

Correction: Your original figures are correct. It's stage 1 that has $29 worth of fuel, not stage 2. Apologies!

Well-done!

Mesklin,

Do you have a name for your company? I put in a filler and will change it if you prefer a different one.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited May 19, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Mesklin]

OK, lets fight, no mercy . But maybe to late. Completely redesigned launcher from Blue Whale Inc. (Jeb is a head designer for this craft). Fuel cost for mission - 21.60$ + depreciation in 1/100 of reusable first stage - 42.75 + additional equipment on satellite - 475$ = total launch cost - 539$. Base points is 185.41 + 10% bust from some dV (415 m/s) on satellite gave a final points 203.95.

Launcher has 2 stages: first stage deliver second stage to trajectory with AP in 70-80 km in almost vertical ascent, then second stage make orbit in long almost horizontal burn. First stage after mission land to KSC area with help from parachute.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

ADD: Ooops, after I placed this post I found incredible clever craft juizeris. It is a great idea about save both stages.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mesklin

[GoSlash27]

OK, lets fight, no mercy . But maybe to late. Completely redesigned launcher from Blue Whale Inc. (Jeb is a head designer for this craft). Fuel cost for mission - 21.60$ + depreciation in 1/100 of reusable first stage - 42.75 + additional equipment on satellite - 475$ = total launch cost - 539$. Base points is 185.41 + 10% bust from some dV (415 m/s) on satellite gave a final points 203.95.

Launcher has 2 stages: first stage deliver second stage to trajectory with AP in 70-80 km in almost vertical ascent, then second stage make orbit in long almost horizontal burn. First stage after mission land to KSC area with help from parachute.

http://imgur.com/a/4LrRa

ADD: Ooops, after I placed this post I found incredible clever craft juizeris. It is a great idea about save both stages.

Mesklin,

Excellent design, but unfortunately round #1 is closed and we can't accept any more entries. Good luck on round 2!

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

Well, here's my first entry for round 2. This craft is called 'Battery Up'.

It put 10 of the Z-400 batteries in a 75 x 104 km orbit. Slight overshoot.

Total cost is 9680.

There's lots of room for improvement here.

Happy landings!

Edited May 20, 2015 by Starhawk

[GoSlash27]

Well, here's my first entry for round 2. This craft is called 'Battery Up'.

http://i.imgur.com/3u29t4R.png

It put 10 of the Z-400 batteries in a 75 x 104 km orbit. Slight overshoot.

Total cost is 9680.

There's lots of room for improvement here.

Happy landings!

Starhawk,

You're first on the boards. It'll be interesting to see what people come up with for this...

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

It's an interesting challenge. When I read the cost ceiling I thought 'How hard can it be?'.

Then I went into the VAB. Wow, that cost cap forces some limiting choices. Especially with that battery cost.

Financially, my payload fraction was 56.81%. I have no idea how good that number could get in theory, but it should be very interesting to see what people come up with.

The biggest issue I had with my entry was piloting. The cost savings led to a rather less forgiving craft than I usually allow myself.

Thanks for the challenge!

Happy landings!

[davidparks21]

Luckily for KASA the KSP program keeps a spare parts junkyard consisting of the left overs from many a crash landing and late night unintended ignition at the lab. Perfect for just such an occasion when the budget is severely limited.

Our spend thrift engineers are proud to have been able to put 12 z-400 batteries into LKO orbit just above 72,000m. There wasn't anything pretty about the aerodynamically incoherence two-stage rocket that got it there, but there it sits, just waiting for the day a Kerbal finds himself stuck in orbit without a battery in sight.

After crunching the numbers the bean counters have come up with a final tally of \F 9,955, and some of them have begun openly questioning whether there is budget enough to cover their next paycheck.

The engineers tell us that this rocket was controlled by a Probodobodyne probe core hidden among the battery packs. Perhaps entirely coincidentally Probodobodyne, Inc. has recently reported one of it's early test-model probe core units missing inexplicably.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 20, 2015 by davidparks21

[Mesklin]

My result is 11 Z-400 batteries. Drag from all of these batteries is a real and big problem. After several tries I found only one way - place all batteries in cargo bay or under fairings. Launch cost is 9987$ and 300 m/s of spare dV on orbit.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[GoSlash27]

Wow, you folks are good!

When I put this together, I didn't figure that anybody could get 10...

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

Drag from all of these batteries is a real and big problem.

Do the drag calculations ignore PhysicsSignificance = 1? I just checked, and the z-400 is still physicsless.

Happy landings!

edit: I just realized that there must be some drag calculations done, because the batteries get hot if not shielded.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Starhawk

[juzeris]

Abstract Aerodynamics engineers have cludged together a craft which delivers a whopping thirteen batteries to LKO. Now, there may be certain.... abstractions in the aerodynamics of the said craft, but it still appears to be completely stock.

Delivered 13 batteries for the low low cost of 9 748 funds. You can confirm this by checking the craft, visually, or just by electricity charge amount - 5200/400=13.

The craft is submitted for peer review (download link), because it has certain irregularities in it's behaviour - sometimes the cargo bay generates drag, sometimes it does not. The solid booster always generates drag, so it's not a breakdown of the aerodynamics system, just some kind of physics weirdness. So if after ditching the booster and engaging the puny engine mode you find your speed dropping, you probably need to revert to launch. I'm uncertain what or how this is caused right now, so any insight is welcome. I would also be glad for any confirmation if you can replicate this, or is this my installation going nuts.

I'm using MechJeb a bit because I'm lazy, but I don't think it adds any noticeable edge in this challenge.

Here's the footage of the launch:

Also, Starhawk, it is my understanding that the behaviour of physicsless parts was changed in 1.0, and now they add their mass to the craft, but at the parent center of mass. It looks like drag is also added at the parent center of drag. So having them placed asymmetrically is not a problem, but they are not 'free' anymore. Now I've heard rumors that they don't add anything if placed on another physicsless part, but based on my experience drag still works to some extent at least, yet I haven't tested it sufficiently to fully form an opinion.

Edited May 20, 2015 by juzeris
Added MechJeb note

[GoSlash27]

Juzeris,

I will happily take your word for it. If anybody would like a review, they are free to IM me and it will remain confidential.

I also don't see MechJeb giving any advantage in this challenge.

Congrats,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

Also, Starhawk, it is my understanding that the behaviour of physicsless parts was changed in 1.0, and now they add their mass to the craft, but at the parent center of mass. It looks like drag is also added at the parent center of drag. So having them placed asymmetrically is not a problem, but they are not 'free' anymore. Now I've heard rumors that they don't add anything if placed on another physicsless part, but based on my experience drag still works to some extent at least, yet I haven't tested it sufficiently to fully form an opinion.

Interesting. I never caught that.

On another point, what is the purpose of the cubic octagonal strut at the front? I'd download and test your craft, but I don't have MJ installed.

Happy landings!

[Mesklin]

It is true, no more massless parts in version 1.0.2, I made some experiments for test new aerodynamics and you can see results on this picture (bottom side):