Stock Budget Cap Challenge 1.0.3/4

[juzeris]

Creative use of the claw, but not very scaleable. Somehow I can't see a 100-ton station lurching towards a small spaceplane, with claw outstretched... :-)

Well, the claw is used simply as a docking port, because radially attached parts create disproportionate amounts of drag, so I didn't want a docking port or two on the missile. The procedure doesn't change as compared to docking ports - the missile comes to the claw, the placeholder station doesn't even have engines or RCS, just reaction wheels. Though, arguably, the ability of the claw to attach anywhere makes it even easier.

Or, yes, you could have a small tanker with RCS, if you can be bothered, as maccollo suggested.

[Norcalplanner]

I think it's mainly a combination of envy ("why didn't I think of that") and fear ("kraken bait - run for your lives!") that was the Genesis of my comment. Fwiw, my most recent design places a docking port on top of the fairing base, allowing both the ultra-aerodynamic nose cone as well as a kraken-resistant docking mechanism.

[FlipNascar]

In my calculations 96t of fuel from the booster stage is valued at √8,812.8, as 1t of LFO is √91.8. The value of the entire vehicle without booster fuel is √26,173 and with the fuel it is √34,986, the difference is √8,813 combined with the payload that's √12,263 expended.

I went and looked again, and the cost of your rocket (without payload) was 31,536 - in the video you left the payload portion attached, so you're calculating your payload into the cost twice... Anyhoos...

A spaceplane attempt for the √80,000 Category

http://youtu.be/u0-m4ScGtDE

Type: Spaceplane (001 Spaceplane)

Expended Funds: √2,921 <- √1,174 (LF) √172.3 (O) √1,575 (Payload) *Fuel used was calculated based on what was left at landing.

LFO To orbit: 1400

Cost / LFO: √2.09

Added.

Oxfam Missile, somewhat unsurprisingly, submitted for the Oxfam level. I honestly don't know if it's a spaceplane or a rocket, but it's fully reusable, and on the test flight delivered 820 units of fuel (9:11 LF+O mix) to 75x75 LKO.

It costs 13 742 at launch, 12 917 dry, and I recovered 6 funds worth of fuel, so total flight cost is 819. So for all practical purposes delivered funds to LKO for 1 fund per unit of fuel including the cost of said fuel. For non-practical purposes, that's 0.99878 funds per unit.

Craft file included for those interested: http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Oxfam-Missile.craft

Excellent stuff. Added you to the board.

I think it's mainly a combination of envy ("why didn't I think of that") and fear ("kraken bait - run for your lives!") that was the Genesis of my comment. Fwiw, my most recent design places a docking port on top of the fairing base, allowing both the ultra-aerodynamic nose cone as well as a kraken-resistant docking mechanism.

Oh ye of little faith, the Klaw has been fixed....! I have now of course guaranteed that for eternity the Klaw shall summon the kraken in any of my designs.

[t3hJimmer]

The flight I recorded was pretty ugly, I was having some stability issues due to poor fuel balancing and excessive drag from the dual intakes mounted at the tip of the craft causing some tumbling. The test flight immediately before went smooth as butter, but of course as soon as the cameras start rolling everything goes wrong. Regardless, the mission was successful despite the dodgy aerodynamics.

Aircraft Specs:

name: "Cheepsk8"

powerplant: single RAPIER

parts: 18

mass: 8.8 t

length: 9.5 m

wingspan: 5.5 m

http://pastebin.com/bTHfsbrA

Mission Performance:

Cost at takeoff: √14,998

Recovered value: √14,039

Fuel Deilvered: 200 units total

Efficiency: 4.795 √/unit

Edited June 20, 2015 by t3hJimmer

[SanderB]

I went and looked again, and the cost of your rocket (without payload) was 31,536 - in the video you left the payload portion attached, so you're calculating your payload into the cost twice... Anyhoos...

I went and looked, the Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank costs 3,000 and the nose cone costs 450, which makes for 3,450 for the payload and 96*91.8 = 8,813 for the fuel for a grand total of 12,262.8 or 3.83 a unit.

[FlipNascar]

If you edit your post to remove the color tags around the video link it will work.

Aircraft Specs:

name: "Cheepsk8"

powerplant: single RAPIER

parts: 18

mass: 8.8 t

length: 9.5 m

wingspan: 5.5 m

http://pastebin.com/bTHfsbrA

Mission Performance:

Cost at takeoff: √14,998

Recovered value: √14,039

Fuel Deilvered: 200 units total

Efficiency: 4.795 √/unit

Kudos for this attempt and a sub-15k spaceplane-thingamybobby.

- - - Updated - - -

I went and looked, the Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank costs 3,000 and the nose cone costs 450, which makes for 3,450 for the payload and 96*91.8 = 8,813 for the fuel for a grand total of 12,262.8 or 3.83 a unit.

I will change it back to your value. Clearly we're both convinced we're right so we'll leave it at that.

[FlipNascar]

Open for 1.0.4 if there's interest. Added a new leaderboard.

[maccollo]

Solids got a nice boost in both ISP and fuel fraction, so I'll start with an expendable boosted sustainer rocket in the white collar class. Almost all the thrust (94%) comes from the solids so I'll call it "boosters galore".

Total cost of the launch is 76386.

The vehicle delivers 76.68 tonnes to orbit and 13560 units of fuel, giving a funds per fuel ratio of 5.633 √.

Edited June 24, 2015 by maccollo

[FlipNascar]

Solids got a nice boost in both ISP and fuel fraction, so I'll start with an expendable boosted sustainer rocket in the white collar class. Almost all the thrust (94%) comes from the solids so I'll call it "boosters galore".

Total cost of the launch is 76386.

The vehicle delivers 76.68 tonnes to orbit and 13560 units of fuel, giving a funds per fuel ratio of 5.633 √.

Nice stuff!