KASA "Preferred Vendor" challenge #2 is up!

[GoSlash27]

KASA would like to focus more on science and exploration and less on design and launch operations. Accordingly, they have placed a request for proposals for future launches through private contractors (i.e. "you").

In order to establish their prime contractors, they will be presenting a series of challenges and see who can best meet them.

Future contracts will be awarded proportionally to those who can best satisfy the objectives of the challenges.

Challenge #2: Budget Constraints

Due to an economic downturn and mounting political pressure, KASA is forced to look to outside help meet their obligation to keep the KISS supplied for cheap. We can only afford $10,000 total mission budget (which includes initial vehicle cost as well as the cost of the batteries themselves).

Objective: Deliver as many z-400 batteries as you can to LKO (72 km) for $10,000 or less.

Mission criteria:

-Stock parts only

-Scoring will be the total number of batteries delivered to an orbit of 72x72 km. Ties will go to the cheaper mission.

-Mission cost will *not* be reduced by recovery of parts.

-Launches must leave no debris in orbit.

Challenge #2 top vendors:

1)Abstract Aerodynamics (Juzeris) 16/$9,911

2)Parks Salvage & Aerospace (davidparks21) 12/ $9,955

3)Blue Whale, Inc. (Mesklin) 11/ $9,987

4)Starhawk Speculative Investments, LLC (Starhawk) 10/ $9,680

5)

Challenge #1: Place a satellite into KSO economically and reliably.

1 HECS core, 1 communotron 88-88, 2 z-100 batteries, 2 ox-4l solar panel arrays. It costs $2,670, so it's cost is not included in the mission cost.

Objective: Place this commsat into KSO directly overhead KSC. Do it as cheaply, rapidly, and accurately as you can.

Mission criteria:

-Stock parts only.

-Scoring will be inversely proportional to mission cost. 100,000/mission cost.

-Mission cost can be offset by any parts recovered on KSC grounds

-Reusable vehicles are assumed to have a usable lifespan of 100 missions, so 1% of the reusable portion (less expendables such as fuel) should be applied to the cost of the mission.

-Launches must leave no debris in orbit.

-A 20% bonus will be awarded to expendable designs. This is to encourage mission-specific designs from off-the-shelf components.

-A 10% bonus will be awarded to designs that leave the satellite with at least 50 m/sec DV on station.

-A 10% penalty will be assessed for every 5° error in the satellite's location overhead KSC.

-A 10% penalty will be assessed for every hour elapsed above 2 hours from the moment of launch until arrival on station. The satellite must not be adjusted after this time.

*UPDATE*

Entries using add-on guidance assistance (MechJeb, autopilot, etc) will be allowed, but will be placed in a separate leaderboard.

Documentation:

The launch process should be filmed or documented with pics. Accuracy will be confirmed by tracking the sat from a vertically-aligned seeker on KSC grounds. Location is to be checked 6 hours and 9 hours from satellite placement in orbit.

Good luck!

-Slashy

Challenge #1 top vendors (stock):

1) Starhawk Speculative Investments, LLC (Starhawk) 179.78 points<-- Prime contractor

2) Blue Whale, Inc. (Mesklin) 176.88 <-- Preferred vendor

3) Eight Corners, Inc. (SanderB) 59.52 points <-- Approved vendor

4) KsyNet (ikehaiku) 39.51 points <-- Approved vendor

5)

Challenge #1 top vendors (assisted):

1) Abstract Aerodynamics (Juzeris) 298.61 points <-- Prime contractor

2)

3)

4)

5)

Edited May 22, 2015 by GoSlash27

[moogoob]

I don't normally do challenges (and am all thumbs when it comes to Kerbo-stationary orbits) but I like the idea of this challenge. There's a real challenge in building efficient little lifters.

If I may ask, what's the purpose behind the time penalty? To discourage ion drives and slow (but efficient) placement at KSO?

[GoSlash27]

I don't normally do challenges (and am all thumbs when it comes to Kerbo-stationary orbits) but I like the idea of this challenge. There's a real challenge in building efficient little lifters.

If I may ask, what's the purpose behind the time penalty? To discourage ion drives and slow (but efficient) placement at KSO?

moogoob,

I hope you decide to participate. I just got a lifter put together as a demonstrator and it's pretty fun.

The main purpose for penalizing tardiness isn't so much to discourage ions (they are crazy-expensive anyway), but rather to push the entrants to demonstrate that they can launch their sat into the correct position rather than getting it into KSO and then walking it to where they need it to be.

KASA would like to see that their contractors can get a sat into position on short notice JIC they need that ability in an emergency.

Best,

-Slashy

[goduranus]

To encourage getting it right the first time I think. If you go for KSO and miss, then it'd be several hours before you can line up again. Hence the time penalty.

[GoSlash27]

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Vendor%20challenge%201

This is our challenge entry from Mainway Aerospace. I left some room for improvement and won't be directly competing.

Mission cost: $7,018

Raw score: 14.25

Bonuses: 20% for expendable design, 10% for >50m/sec DV on station (105 m/sec remaining)

Penalties: None. Satellite maintains 3° azimuth error at both checks and arrived on station 1:57:25 after launch

18.53 points.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited May 16, 2015 by GoSlash27

[juzeris]

With the aggressive tender participation quotas here in Abstract Aerodynamics And, there was no way the staff were gonna miss this one. So we attached a spacemower engine to the satelite, rolled out the first booster we could find in the garage, and launched. It flipped over almost immediately, so an enthusiastic intern origamied some fins from aluminum foil, and off the satellite went.

We had lots of questions, but figured we'll correct our entry when we figure it out rather than never start:

1. Is MechJeb ok?

2. Is +10% and +20% = +30% or 1.1*1.2=+32%? (Based on example +30%?)

3. How does the "inversely proportional scoring" work? (Based on example 100 000/cost?)

4. What is a "vertically-aligned seeker" (sounds really cool, but...)? We think we figured it our from the example though. This is the measurement after 10 days, but if it's still there after that, it should be fine, no?

5. We also couldn't figure out what it was we should be measuring at 6 and 9 hours, so we just calculated that our orbit period is just 20 milliseconds off for a full Kerbin day, and watched the sat stay where it is for 11 days, and left it at that.

The booster turned out to be expensive, so the launch cost is 6 155 - 2 670 = 3 485, for a raw score of 100 000 / 3 485 = 28.6944, and the launch looks fairly expendable and lots of delta-V left, so that's +30% = 37.30, if we figured it out correctly.

So here's our launch footage:

Edited May 16, 2015 by juzeris

[GoSlash27]

With the aggressive tender participation quotas here in Abstract Aerodynamics And, there was no way the staff were gonna miss this one. So we attached a spacemower engine to the satelite, rolled out the first booster we could find in the garage, and launched. It flipped over almost immediately, so an enthusiastic intern origamied some fins from aluminum foil, and off the satellite went.

We had lots of questions, but figured we'll correct our entry when we figure it out rather than never start:

1. Is MechJeb ok?

2. Is +10% and +20% = +30% or 1.1*1.2=+32%? (Based on example +30%?)

3. How does the "inversely proportional scoring" work? (Based on example 100 000/cost?)

4. What is a "vertically-aligned seeker" (sounds really cool, but...)? We think we figured it our from the example though. This is the measurement after 10 days, but if it's still there after that, it should be fine, no?

5. We also couldn't figure out what it was we should be measuring at 6 and 9 hours, so we just calculated that our orbit period is just 20 milliseconds off for a full Kerbin day, and watched the sat stay where it is for 11 days, and left it at that.

The booster turned out to be expensive, so the launch cost is 6 155 - 2 670 = 3 485, for a raw score of 100 000 / 3 485 = 28.6944, and the launch looks fairly expendable and lots of delta-V left, so that's +30% = 37.30, if we figured it out correctly.

So here's our launch footage:

Juzeris,

Neat concept; just chuck the package up there with an SRB

Q1) Yes, MechJeb is legal.

Q2) it would be 30%. Bonuses and penalties are additive.

Q3) Scoring is simply 100,000/your mission cost. The cheaper your mission, the higher your score winds up being.

Q4) The idea is to put a guidance unit on KSP grounds looking up so that you can verify that the satellite is within 5° of perfectly overhead. While you have demonstrated that your sat stays put and that KSC is below you, it could be off quite a bit and still look fine from up there.

Therefore, we need something on the ground at KSC showing where the satellite is.

Q5) we're verifying that the satellite is within 5° of perfectly overhead in order to prove that the satellite isn't wobbling around up there as it orbits.

Your score looks very impressive, but we really need to verify it's position from the ground. If you can take a screen cap of that, the rest of the launch checks out fine and puts you atop the leaderboard as the "preferred contractor".

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

Juzeris,

Sorry, I missed your attached pic the first time.

That is more than satisfactory. Congrats! You are now the prime contractor.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

After pondering it a bit, I have decided to place entries using MechJeb and the like into a separate category.

A large part of the difficulty of this challenge is figuring out how to get your satellite in the right place at the right time. As Juzeris demonstrates, this is very easy to do with MechJeb.

Although my example demonstrates that it can still be done (I used a resonant parking orbit and transfer window timing), people using an all-stock installation would be placed at a severe competitive disadvantage.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited May 17, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Jodo42]

As far as I can tell, juzeris, you have Mechjeb working without having the part on your rocket. How did you get it to work?

Working on an entry, but juzeris' should be hard to beat.

[juzeris]

As far as I can tell, juzeris, you have Mechjeb working without having the part on your rocket. How did you get it to work?

There was this "MechJeb embedded" mod some versions ago, apparently it still works (it's just a simple modmanager script which adds MechJeb functionality to all command pods though). I should probably add the default cost of the MechJeb part to my entry, didn't think about that, apologies. I use it mainly because having the MechJeb part when sharing .craft files is a problem when people try to load it with the vanilla game.

Working on an entry, but juzeris' should be hard to beat.

Also I had over 400 m/s delta V leftover when I got there, I think it should be possible to do this with the BACC booster, which would be a significant cost saving. Maybe I'll try it without MechJeb, might be fun.

Is it OK to use an existing satellite as a reference object (including, of course, the stock intercept functionality )?

Edited May 17, 2015 by juzeris

[GoSlash27]

Is it OK to use an existing satellite as a reference object (including, of course, the stock intercept functionality )?

Juzeris,

Hahah, naay.

Gotta do it the hard way

Best,

-Slashy

[SanderB]

how do you check your KSO satelite with a vertical seeker?

[juzeris]

how do you check your KSO satelite with a vertical seeker?

Place something looking straight up on the ground, set the satellite as a target in map view (M), and watch where the purple circle is on the navball. The closer it is to the center - the better. There are kind of circles in white lines on it, for each full circle you are away from the center, you get -10%.

I did it this way:

Edited May 17, 2015 by juzeris

[GoSlash27]

^ exactly the way Juzeris demonstrates, except it's -10% for every broken circle (5° marks)

I did it the hard way.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited May 17, 2015 by GoSlash27

[ghostbuzzer7]

Kerbal Engineer doesn't count as assisted?

I never got something in KSO but hey, shouldn't be that hard considering that I got 4 falcon 9's orbiting kerbin, the DSP-23 Satellite, ISS *Multipart lab 7 huge parts*, and now this . I think I will give it a go after I finish the F-16 replica.

[GoSlash27]

Kerbal Engineer doesn't count as assisted?

I never got something in KSO but hey, shouldn't be that hard considering that I got 4 falcon 9's orbiting kerbin, the DSP-23 Satellite, ISS *Multipart lab 7 huge parts*, and now this . I think I will give it a go after I finish the F-16 replica.

ghostbuzzer,

I honestly don't know enough about KER to say whether it would give users an unfair advantage or not. I'd have to see a demonstration of it at work in this challenge.

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

KER can be configured to display the orbital period. That might be considered a significant advantage. It doesn't do any sort of piloting, though.

I have the craft, I have the flight profile, now I just need to get the timing right and I'm all set.

Hopefully you'll see my entry later today.

Happy landings!

[SanderB]

I've made a shot at this. The main launch vehicle in the VAB costs 5,151$. the fuel 734$.

I'm not sure how 99% recovery works in this challenge but if recovery = recovering anywhere on kerbin then the cost of the 1st stage is 51.5$ plus 734$ from fuel. The 2 additional parts on the satellite are 180$. The total cost of launch is then 965.5$. I believe points then are 100,000 / 965.5 = 103.57 Points.

If 99% recovery = on the launchpad then the cost is 2,027$ because the 1st stage was still 66.3% recovered. Points then probably are 100,000 / 2,027 = 49.47 Points.

Click for video of the launch.

There was plenty of dV left on the stage and the positioning was off by about 5°, this probably cancels out any bonus. I realize I didn't fast forward 6 hours, but I hope that the difference in timing between peri and apoapsis prove that the satellite is stable.

Edited May 17, 2015 by SanderB

[ikehaiku]

Just out of curiosity, when is the challenge deadline?

[GoSlash27]

SanderB,

Golf clap and kudos on the expert piloting without any aids!! Well done.

Now for the bad news: Recovery of reusable parts only counts if it's on KSC grounds. We'll have to treat this run as disposable to save your bonus, but I bet with a little tweaking to the profile you could set up a return to KSC and save a lot of loot.

That places your raw score at 16.49. 20% bonus for expendable design. The bonus for arriving with plenty of DV is offset by being 5° off of station.

I think we can tell by the numbers that your orbit is solid, so I'll take it as read (although if you wish to rerun it to get the full benefit of your design, please include the ground track checks so everybody's happy).

That comes up to a grand total of 19.79 points and makes you the prime contractor for stock category. Congratulations!

Oh... do you have a name for your aerospace firm?

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

Just out of curiosity, when is the challenge deadline?

ikehaiku,

There's not a closing date set yet.

Once it looks like this one's run it's course, we'll set up a new challenge.

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

KER can be configured to display the orbital period. That might be considered a significant advantage. It doesn't do any sort of piloting, though.

I have the craft, I have the flight profile, now I just need to get the timing right and I'm all set.

Hopefully you'll see my entry later today.

Happy landings!

Starhawk,

If that's it, then I think I'll allow it. figuring out a keostationary orbit is easy. It's getting into the right point on that orbit that's tricky.

Best,

-Slashy

[SanderB]

Hi Slash,

I'd like to call my company Eight Corners Inc.

Fully stock, recovering your 1st stage on KSC grounds is nearly impossible without a lot of dV and in my opinion involves a lot of luck of which I wasn't having any today (having tried about 10 times to do a landing with about 300m/s dV remaining before deorbiting to the grounds with a rocket shaped 1st stage and getting within a 100km stretch each time.)

Edited May 17, 2015 by SanderB

[GoSlash27]

Hi Slash,

I'd like to call my company Eight Corners Inc.

Fully stock, recovering your 1st stage on KSC grounds is nearly impossible without a lot of dV and in my opinion involves a lot of luck of which I wasn't having any today (having tried about 10 times to do a landing with about 300m/s dV remaining before deorbiting to the grounds with a rocket shaped 1st stage and getting within a 100km stretch each time.)

SanderB,

You could try temporarily orbiting the booster and deorbiting it on the back-side. You're pretty close to the DV needed.

IAC I've updated the leaderboard for you.

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

Well, I have to say that this is definitely a challenge. The engine stat adjustments have left the selection of engines for this mission a bit 'thin on the ground'.

I kept trying and trying for a lighter solution. There may be one, but I didn't find it.

I thought timing was the challenge, but it turned out that ascent profile was everything with this craft. The first stage has extermely high TWR and needs to be throttled back. The final stage has very low TWR and needs to have a very specific set of conditions when it lights up for the mission to be successful. My first try was a case of beginner's luck. My second try left me about 50 m/s short and then it took several tries to find the proper ascent profile. So much for overconfidence.

In any case, here is the entry from 'Starhawk Speculative Invetments, LLP'.

Initial cost is 8775, less the payload cost is 6105.

Giving a raw score of 16.38. +20% for expendable and +10% for (a ridiculous) 282 m/s remaining gives 21.29.

Thanks for the challenge!

Happy landings!

Edited May 19, 2015 by Starhawk

[GoSlash27]

Starhawk,

I kinda picture you "droppin' the mic" After this one

Very well done!

Starhawk Speculative Investments is now the stock prime contractor.

Best,

-Slashy

[SanderB]

SanderB,

You could try temporarily orbiting the booster and deorbiting it on the back-side. You're pretty close to the DV needed.

IAC I've updated the leaderboard for you.

Best,

-Slashy

this is what I've been trying with about 400 m/s dV after reaching orbit with the 1st stage. I'll first try it with mechjeb today.