Pro SSTO builder/pilot Challenge

[Nich]

Well I am definitely not a Pro SSTO builder. Apparently if you have less then 3000 LF in the Neagle MK3 it is impossible to balance..... I must have checked it, moved the wings and forgot to recheck it.

edit...

In retro spec that was the craft without asymmetric wings. I will check the original craft and see if it is any better. I remember setting the lift way behind the loaded COM in an attempt to prevent this when it was empty. Oh well fingers crossed no idea how I am going to get through work wondering about this all day.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Nich

[Jakalth]

could the link for my multicord craft be updated on the main page to show that it is now mk2? I updated it as a seperate download so as to not break things. for the current one(mk1) can you place a score of KIA or something similar to show that the craft is a complete failure?

[GoSlash27]

Nich,

It occurred to me today at work that the scoring of this challenge is pretty badly broken.

You get 2 points for transferring a Kerbal in orbit and would lose 2 points for expending $2000 in the process.

The problem is that it doesn't take $2000 to orbit a Kerbal in an SSTO spaceplane. An efficient small Mk 2 design can orbit a Kerbal for under $125. This price drops under $50 if you use large Mk 3 designs.

A design that orbits a huge number of Kerbals (even if it's highly oversized and inefficient) can still rack up insane points so long as it's easily flyable. You could even afford a huge R&D budget and not worry about it.

I don't know what you'd do to fix that.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

The Probuilder 3.0 is an example of what I mean. It's about the smallest thing I'd care to make with Mk 3 parts and I took some extra flights to tweak it out. $6,836 on R&D, but because it carries 20 kerbals, it can get over 30 points. This one has a lot more orbital DV than is necessary to do the job and I've run 2 full missions to make sure it's got no kinks.

Flies pretty much like the 2.0. A little shallower on the initial climb and a little cleaner on reentry (include s-turns in the descent profile). The wings have a lower heat tolerance, so take care. Let them cool before doing the reentry and don't push it.

I don't normally do large- scale passenger transports because I never have a need to move large numbers of kerbals at once, but this is about the smallest thing I can do at this scale. Increasing from here will only make the scoring sillier.

Download link

http://wikisend.com/download/493856/PB30.craft

Best,

-Slashy

[Nich]

I 100% agree. I hate changing the rules but I think we need to give payload more of an incentive because it costs more kredits to deliver some loads then points you get. Would 3 points per ton throw it off? Maybe 2.5? Also I was hoping someone wouldn't do it but I had a feeling it was about to happen. I was just about to implement a 6 kerbal limit but since you already made 20 kerbal craft and it makes sense (1 command pod and 1 passenger cabin) I think a 20 kerbal limit is fine. I am thinking 6 kerbal EVA limit from 6-20 you are required to have a docking port or sr docking port for tourist transfer. (can you transfer tourist?)

Congrats on developing that craft for only 6,836 although you took quite a bit of risk as you could have had -200 points for dead kerbals. I think that does kind of balance it out and you still need someone to successfully fly it. I have not had a lot of success with those wings as I cant figure out the entry profile and they tend to get explody on me.

As for PB2.0 since it is a top score craft I am going to be a stickler about the rules and yes you would have to add my costs. I have been lenient with lower score craft as I know how hard it can be. You only lost .075 points for the missing solar panel so I would just wait for someone else to beat my score with it.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Nich

[Nich]

Updated the Multicord to point to the original post (finally figured out how to do that) I plan on doing this for the rest of the craft when I have more time.

I also checked the Neagle MK3 while it was better it still needed a minimum of 1500 LF in the front tank to maintain stability. I have started development work on the Neagle Infinity

-Checked empty COM COL

-Checked full COM COL

-Solar panels

-Batteries

-No removable payload to worry about.

-Stiffness looks good dropping it on the runway.

-Added a 2.5m reaction wheel to ensure control authority.

Begin low fuel testing after work today

Edited August 4, 2015 by Nich

[GoSlash27]

Nich,

I'm totally fine with a 6 kerbal limit if that's your preference, even if it DQ's my PB 3.0. I'd rather have that than a big transport arms race.

If we're getting 2 points per kerbal, then 4 points per tonne of cargo makes sense since a 4 kerbal pod weighs 2 tonnes. The penalty for costs really needs to rise dramatically though or you still have a race to huge spaceplanes. The penalty for orbiting a kerbal should be about equal to the reward for orbiting a kerbal. That way there's no incentive to build bigger and bigger ships, but rather more efficient and cost-effective ones.]

Best,

-Slashy

[Nich]

Larger planes are harder to design and pilot in my opinion. A botched landing or slight miscalculation can doom a project. My revised Neagle would have a cost of 250,000 and 6 dead kerbals, my revised Neagle MK3 would have a cost of 145,000 and 4 dead kerbals. Neither plane has a chance of getting positive so I have not even bothered submitting them.

I apologize for changing the rules most craft will not be effected but I have implemented a diminishing returns and given a little more incentive for payload

+2 per Kerbal rotated at a station (1-6) +1 (7-20) +.5 (21+)

+4 per ton of inert payload delivered to a station or orbit (0-3) +2 (4-12) +1 (13+)

+4 per ton of fuel delivered to a station (units of fuel *5 /1000) (0-3) +2 (4-12) +1 (13+)

Edited August 4, 2015 by Nich

[GoSlash27]

Larger planes are harder to design and pilot in my opinion. A botched landing or slight miscalculation can doom a project. My revised Neagle would have a cost of 250,000 and 6 dead kerbals, my revised Neagle MK3 would have a cost of 145,000 and 4 dead kerbals. Neither plane has a chance of getting positive so I have not even bothered submitting them.

I apologize for changing the rules most craft will not be effected but I have implemented a diminishing returns and given a little more incentive for payload

+2 per Kerbal rotated at a station (1-6) +1 (7-20) +.5 (21+)

+4 per ton of inert payload delivered to a station or orbit (0-3) +2 (4-12) +1 (13+)

+4 per ton of fuel delivered to a station (units of fuel *5 /1000) (0-3) +2 (4-12) +1 (13+)

Nich,

Not the way I do it (evil grin). I can afford to skimp on the testing because I already know it'll fly decently and do the mission while still in the VAB. The first flight is to make sure that it handles well throughout the profile. The second flight is to ensure that it has sufficient DV to achieve orbit. The last flight is a full- up mission to ensure that everything works as designed.

If I'm feeling confident, I skip the last verification test.

Best,

-Slashy

[Nich]

May I present the Neagle Infinity (cost is 30215)

-36 cost

4 kerbals = 8

3t LF = 12

9t LF = 18

3t LF = 3

Total = 54.2 (forgot minimus multiplier)

She is a little sluggish off the end of the runway. You could take out 1500 ore as she has TONS of dV to make minimus

For some reason she can vier on takeoff roll (any tips?)

I just set her to 10 degrees off the end of the runway (or you will slap nukes)

Watch the solar panels they get hot (any tips? i thought they would be shielded from most the heat there)

At 17km follow propagrade

At 22km light the nukes with space

When PE is 30 seconds away press 1 to switch the rapiers

When AP hits 60km you can press 1 again to turn off rapiers nuke can finish the job

If you need to you can make LF while floating up to AP but it should have enough to circularize

2 deploys solar panels

3 opens bay doors

4 deploys the drill

Re-entry

No idea how to keep the gigantors from blowing up (any tips would be much appreciated as I am going to try a grand tour with this craft)

There is a solar array for backup power (keep some OX handy)

Once in a 100x100 orbit lower PE to 45

Balance craft

-40 LF to front precooler

-Up to 1000 LF to front MK3 LF tank

-Rest in the wings MK2 LF tanks

Enter ATM with 90 degree bank until orbit dips into KSA

Follow propagrade with air bakes on and it should hold its path. Might want to aim just a bit short

Once you are slower then 800 m/s you can move fuel back so the tail is only producing a little down force to make it less of a lawn dart

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited August 5, 2015 by Nich

[Pecan]

Because no-one else seems to have done one, here's my SSTO to Eeloo, the "SS* you don't need to know what TO** means":

http://imgur.com/clnqYS2

Standard launch and gravity turn, jettison launch stage once in orbit, spend a looooong time getting anywhere.

Untested but i) T-45s work well with light loads, ii) KER wouldn't lie to me.

[*So Simple, **To Orbit]

[Nich]

Badges are official now If you have safely completed a flight you may apply the Pilot badge. If someone else has safely completed a flight with your aircraft you may apply the Builder badge. If you have done both you may apply the Master badge.

- - - Updated - - -

Pecan I don't see any craft file.

I am guessing this is untested so no development cost?

Basted off dV requirements I suggest the Eeloo multiplier should be 6 but I am open to suggestions

updated...

Badges were too large so I shrunk them

Edited August 12, 2015 by Nich

[GoSlash27]

Nich,

Love the badges!

I have no suggestions for the Eeloo multiplier. It'd have to be a huge amount, since I haven't seen anyone get an SSTO to Eeloo yet.

Best,

-Slashy

[Pinchy]

I had a play with the Neagle - and I couldn't get above 30K before running out of fuel - I followed the 8-10 degree ascent and lit up the nukes at 20K and continued on same plane, but ran out of fuel - am I supposed to be using the converter whilst ascending to keep fuel topped up?

Maybe I am a bad pilot but I also had to change the landing gear from small to medium to even get off the runway as it veered badly and when I did get it going straight, when I lifted the nose the bottom nuke dragged on the runway and blew. I also added struts to the back as the nukes were very bouncy!! I also destroyed both gigantor solar panels as soon as I was about 20K and on the hard acceleration

[Nich]

Ya easiest thing to do is drop 1500 ore. Oh and disable the airbrakes for pitch and yaw. Dont pull up until you have run off the end of the runway. Larger landing gear and struts might make it just draggy enough that you cant get AP to 70 km. I forgot to mention don't let the ship get below 10 degrees when following propagrade. Dont turn on the converter while burning for some reason it messes up the nukes but you can while coasting up to AP.

[Pinchy]

ok - will try again tonight as you suggested

[Nich]

Ok I really really want my master badge. This plane will not do well in points but it is SUPER easy to fly

Over lifted

Over powered

Over fueled

Extremely stable

100x100 flying straight up at 20 degrees

Lands at 50 m/s

Approach 90 m/s

Development cost = 1172

Danob

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[GoSlash27]

Nich,

Sure, why not? I'll give it a go...

I dragged it into the hangar before the flight, looked it over, and made a few changes:

-removed the monoprop from the docking port (I don't need that much)

-disabled the active rudders (personal preference)

-disabled the nosewheel braking

-set the engines to manual switching

Here's hoping I didn't screw it up!

Launch cost $48,800

Best,

-Slashy

Edited August 14, 2015 by GoSlash27

[GoSlash27]

Halfway through the mission. Just waiting for reentry window now.

Some notes while we wait...

- Don't like the ailerons (too twitchy), but the airframe is stable.

- There's definitely no shortage of thrust. It blew right through Mach 1.

- Switched to closed cycle at 1480 m/sec

- I didn't need to worry about launching late. Arrived in orbit well ahead of the station.

- Handling for docking was very nice. Offloaded 5 kerbals to the station in LKO.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

Successful flight!

I had a good reentry, but overshot (pilot error). It was cleaner than I had expected.

I disabled roll on the ailerons and enabled it on the canards. Jeb approves!

Recovery price $47,850

Total expenditure including development $2,122

Total points 7.88

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Danob

Congrats on a very good design! You've got your master's badge.

Best,

-Slashy

[Nich]

Sweet. I normally give credit for all possible Kerbals once docked which would give you 9.88. I guess the question is do you want to be on top of the builder board or pilot board lol

[GoSlash27]

Sweet. I normally give credit for all possible Kerbals once docked which would give you 9.88. I guess the question is do you want to be on top of the builder board or pilot board lol

Nich,

Don't alter your scoring on my account! Put me on top of the pilot's board. I'm sure I won't be there long.

Best,

-Slashy

[A_name]

I want to sign up for testing people's planes! How do I do that? Also I would like to submit a build, hopefully I'll have time tonight. Do I just post the .craft file here?

[GoSlash27]

A_Name,

Just grab one and go for it. Remember, you only get one shot!

Good luck,

-Slashy

[A_name]

A_Name,

Just grab one and go for it. Remember, you only get one shot!

Good luck,

-Slashy

Any one? Doesn't matter if someone flew it already?

Also how will you know if I did it on my first go, just honor system or is there some kind of proof I need to include?