Pro SSTO builder/pilot Challenge

[Starhawk]

Don't worry I will give your craft a try and see if I can mange it.

Thanks!

As for scoring you were close but I believe you worded it a bit wrong so I will give an example.

Deliver 30 Kerbals to a station

First 6 give you 12 points

Next 14 give you 14 points

Last 10 give you 5 points

Total of 31 points

Okay. That makes much more sense. Thanks once again.

Happy landings!

[Nich]

Sting Ray summery (PASS)

Well pilot error I expected this thing to overshoot and I aimed WWAAYYYY too short. Ended up landing on the desert on the continent before KSA. Good craft has no need for airbrakes at all. I should have used a normal decent this craft was very draggy after it was emptied. It doesn't need air brakes you are correct. Lack of solar panels does make it challenging. I turned off reaction wheels until I got to space and even then it was a challenge to dock before running out of electric. I docked with 7.5 electric left. Landing speed is closer to 60 m/s which makes rough field landings very easy.

Cost 7287 (-7.29)

6 Kerbals to LKO (12)

Total 4.713

Edited August 31, 2015 by Nich

[Nich]

Camacho summery (PASS)

Cost 949

6 Kerbals to LKO easy could probably get 150x150 (12)

6 more (6)

Total = 17.05

Very nice craft. I enabled roll on the canards and yaw on the rudder and set up an action group for Rappier. Landing speed was about 55 m/s made life easy. Breaking the sound barrier was a little hard but not bad.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I don't know about my entry, but after 1 test, it shows promise. I don't know what my score will be, but i just want that badge. Presenting, Haste, my entry into the long-range SSTO category. Craft File: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B588M8xKv0QKaWVNaXNfX0pwTEU/view?usp=sharing

Action groups:

Toggle Rapiers-1

Switch Rapier mode-2

Toggle Nuke-3

Toggle Solar panels-4

Flight path:

Takeoff at a 20 degree angle, don't worry about AoA( USe Rapiers in airbreathing, if it wasn't obvious)

If thrust starts to drop from Rapiers, use the nuke for a short burst

Once atmos. marker is in the normalish blue section, use fine controls to pitch at 10 degrees

When Rapier air breather thrust goes below 200, activate nuke

When Rapier thrust+ nuke isn't enough to push AP away, switch to rocket mode

Circularize with Rapier and nukes.

Delta-v is unknown entirely, because i don't use any mod like that, so it MIGHT be possible to get to Minmus, maybe the Mun, seems sketchy though...

Reentry procedures:

Just reenter like this

So that's it! Happy Flying!

P.S, if this is successful, how do i add badges to my signature?

P.P.S The one in the download has solar panels and radiators

Edited August 31, 2015 by SpaceplaneAddict

[Starhawk]

Sting Ray summery (PASS)

* happy dance *

Thanks Nich. I'll be sure to include solar panels or batteries on the next design.

My first test run, I had 121 electricity left after reaching orbit, so I thought the cockpit's power would be enough.

Happy landings!

[The_Rocketeer]

Yes I am not super worried about actually rotating kerbals however I am very strict on must dock with a station. I have been pretty lax with proof required as this is a "honer" based challenge that and I have flown most the craft anyways.

Don't worry I will give your craft a try and see if I can mange it.

As for scoring you were close but I believe you worded it a bit wrong so I will give an example.

Deliver 30 Kerbals to a station

First 6 give you 12 points

Next 14 give you 14 points

Last 10 give you 5 points

Total of 31 points

I dont know if I can do simple algbra but here is my try

{[1-6]2x, [7-20]x, [21-infinity].5x}

I hate non-continuous equations

Thanks for clarifying, I'll probably make a submission sometime soon. What multiplier for Duna?

[Nich]

Multicord Thrasher MK2

A little wonky (to much control I suspect) but other then that a good plane made 110x110

Cost 31316 (very expensive payload dropped off)

2 Kerbals to station (4)

3.44 ton payload (12+.88)

Total -14.436

[GoSlash27]

Delta-v is unknown entirely, because i don't use any mod like that, so it MIGHT be possible to get to Minmus, maybe the Mun, seems sketchy though...

SPA,

For what it's worth, I don't use mods to calculate DV. If I read it right you have 1,378 units after your retroburn. That's 7.66 tonnes of fuel for the LV-N (units/180).

If you know the mass of the ship in orbit (info tag) and the Isp of the engine (right click on the engine) then you can calculate the DV.

DV= 9.81*Isp*ln(Ship mass/(ship mass-fuel mass))

I don't know what it's mass is in orbit, but it doesn't look very heavy. I think you could make Duna.

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

I grabbed the craft file and checked the mass. I make the dv in that pic to be over 3000 m/s.

Duna is easily within reach. It could even do a Mun landing and return. Not that that would help you in this challenge.

I'll try to give the craft a go later.

Happy landings!

[Nich]

@starhawk - Yes the turbo and spike both generate power so I was full when I was in orbit. I tend to use a reaction wheel and main engine for docking so that drained it pretty quick. Had I used more monprop (you had a ton) I would probably have used a lot less.

@The Rocketeer - I think 3.2 is a good multiplier for Low Duna orbit (1690 dV) or 6.5 for landing at a Duna base (3000ish plus dealing with landing at Duna). If anyone wants to chime in I am open to suggestions. I would recommend a transfer window time for your pilot and/or a Duna entry procedure so noobs (like me) don't mess it up.

- - - Updated - - -

@SpaceplaneAddict what were your development cost?

To add the badge:

1. go to the first and highlight the one you have earned

2. ctrl-c

3. Click settings in the top right of the forum window

4. Goto edit signature on the left hand side

5. ctrl-v

6. save.

Or at least it works for me in chrome. If that doesn't work I will have to figure out the html code version (been a while since I did it that way)

Edited August 31, 2015 by Nich

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Though i haven't tested it a second time, please note that since I added solar panels and radiators, it may affect the flight path, acsend with caution.

Delvelopment cost? Fully fueled it is 58350 Kredits. Other than fuel, nothing was destroyed/killed during testing

Edited August 31, 2015 by SpaceplaneAddict

[Starhawk]

Delvelopment cost? Fully fueled it is 58350 Kredits. Other than fuel, nothing was destroyed/killed during testing

Development cost will be the cost of the fuel used in testing.

Happy landings!

[Nich]

Ya I was just going to take the craft and reduce the fuel to what he had in the screen shot and call that his cost. If it becomes a contender for top spot I may tack on a 500-1000 kredit penalty for not correctly tracking cost.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Oh i see, I'll do what i can to find the dev cost.

- - - Updated - - -

2000 Kredits, just saying.

I was wrong again, forgot to empty the Mk.1 Jet fuel tanks

New kost is... 2460 Kredits

- - - Updated - - -

Does this mean I get the badge, or do I have to wait for someone to fly it?

Edited August 31, 2015 by SpaceplaneAddict

[Nich]

Sadly you have to wait. That is the worst part in my opinion, however I can now add you to the Board

Or you can get your pro pilot certification flying any other craft already available.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Nich

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Will do!

[Stoney3K]

When doing test flights, do the recovery costs count as career scoring without transponders, meaning, if you land away from the KSC your points get deducted, as opposed to landing back on the runway? It's a bit cumbersome to fly a high altitude stability test only to find out that you've circumnavigated halfway around Kerbin and you need 30 minutes of tedious straight-and-level flight just to get a plane back to the KSC.

Also, do we get extra points for safety features and backup systems to allow pilots to succesfully recover the craft (and crew/payload) in an eventual crash or failure? Do unflyable/unlandable designs count as a penalty towards pilots or towards builders?

[Nich]

I am not sure what you mean by transponders however yes high altitude tests that take you half way around Kerbin would hurt your score because of the low recovery value. Safety features are a good idea and I had a couple when I was doing initial tests on my first craft. As a bonus at least all you have to do for your pro builder badge is build a plane that is able to make orbit and return safely. Does not mater how well it scores. Unforunitly the way the competition has shaped out the best craft are generally untested to keep development cost down (funny this is how they try to keep cost down in real life as well)

All development cost (and heaven forbid kerbal deaths) are added to the (current cost) category which then is subtracted from the Pro pilots score. So it affects the pilots and builders final score.

Eventually my first 2 designs crashed while trying to improve them after comments from the thread which caused the negative points to go so high there was no point in entering the new version. At that point you can start a new design and start summing up new development cost.

[Stoney3K]

I am not sure what you mean by transponders...

With that I was referring to the "Recovery Transponder Fitting" strategy you can activate in the Administration Building, which will increase the value of parts recovered outside of the KSC.

yes high altitude tests that take you half way around Kerbin would hurt your score because of the low recovery value. Safety features are a good idea and I had a couple when I was doing initial tests on my first craft. As a bonus at least all you have to do for your pro builder badge is build a plane that is able to make orbit and return safely. Does not mater how well it scores. Unforunitly the way the competition has shaped out the best craft are generally untested to keep development cost down (funny this is how they try to keep cost down in real life as well)

I meant that, when doing a (successful) high altitude test, a plane would be able to return to the KSC and land under its own power, a task which is relatively trivial. Unless people enjoy staring at a screen of an aircraft flying level Mach 2 at 18km for 45 minutes, it may be easier to just assume the plane landed safely after such a high altitude test, provided enough fuel is on board.

Put otherwise: if I land a plane on a flat piece of land halfway around the globe and there's more than enough fuel on board to take off, fly to the KSC and land safely, there's no need for a penalty since the craft can return to the KSC under its own power. Having the cost of ALL fuel deducted as development costs in that case would be fair.

All development cost (and heaven forbid kerbal deaths) are added to the (current cost) category which then is subtracted from the Pro pilots score. So it affects the pilots and builders final score.

I was thinking the other way round: Have a builder gain a bonus or subtract a points penalty for having sufficient redundancy or lacking it. If a builder builds an unlandable plane and the pilot crashes it, it's obviously not pilot error but the points penalty should be completely attributed to the builder. Conversely, if a pilot screws up completely but there are sufficient safety features on board to get the aircraft down and be recovered safely, this could warrant a builder bonus, with zero additional points awarded for piloting skills.

[GoSlash27]

Stoney3k,

The designer is only awarded points for somebody else's flight. It is therefore in the designer's best interest to make a flyable spaceplane. If the plane fails due to pilot error, no worries. Another pilot should have success with it. If all the pilots crash it, it's obviously not a winning design. If all the pilots have good success with it, then clearly it's a solid design.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited September 1, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Nich]

Transponders from the administrative building is a great idea. I had never thought about that. Yes utilizing this strategy along with hostile negotiations would drive down development cost. It might even be exploitable to make money. Good thinking.

As for the monitiney of flying a plane back I have said before this is an honer based challenge I can not force you to fly the plane back however I am going to require it unfortunately.

[Starhawk]

@SpaceplaneAddict - I didn't get a chance to test your craft yesterday. Will try to get a run in later today.

I'm somewhat concerned about the radiators and solar panels you added. We'll see how it goes.

Happy landings!

[Nich]

@Starhawk - your the pilot in command if you feel the plane is not airworthy feel free to remove them. However I can not allow any additions or off sets. I get done with work early today as well so I may beat you to the punch

Oh forgot to mention I loved the monoprop placement on the stingray. No risk of blowing up and control was wonderful I am definitely stealing this design practice for now on.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Nich

[Stoney3K]

Transponders from the administrative building is a great idea. I had never thought about that. Yes utilizing this strategy along with hostile negotiations would drive down development cost. It might even be exploitable to make money. Good thinking.

As for the monitiney of flying a plane back I have said before this is an honer based challenge I can not force you to fly the plane back however I am going to require it unfortunately.

I do believe that is fair. It's also in the best interest for me, as a builder/test pilot, to have all designs come back to the KSC in one piece even if they fail to complete their objective. In that case, the only development cost would be spent fuel.

[Starhawk]

@Starhawk - your the pilot in command if you feel the plane is not airworthy feel free to remove them. However I can not allow any additions or off sets. I get done with work early today as well so I may beat you to the punch

OK, gotcha. I'll probably get rid of the radiators, at least.

Oh forgot to mention I loved the monoprop placement on the stingray. No risk of blowing up and control was wonderful I am definitely stealing this design practice for now on.

Thanks! I've had the RV-105 thruster blocks explode on me more than once, so I spent some time finding a good alternative. Knowledge is meant to be shared and used.

A couple of notes about placement. First, if your dry CoM is any significant distance away from your wet CoM, you'll want to set the thrusters on that centre axis closer to your dry CoM (this assumes you'll be closer to empty than full when in orbit). The neat thing about this setup is that you don't have to worry about thrusters on the fuselage obstructing hatches or docking ports.

One other feature is that the docking port has been set as the root part so you can dock properly using the navball and 'set as target' + 'control from here' and not have to use visual docking or a camera/alignment mod. (Although I do have and use Navyfish's Docking Port Alignment Indicator in my career game).

Happy landings!

Edited September 1, 2015 by Starhawk