The Cheap and Cheerful Rocket Payload Challenge 1.0.5

[GoSlash27]

Norcalplanner,

Looks good from my house!

Best,

-Slashy

[Nich]

Damit I just fixed maccollos entry the increased twr on the middle stage makes gravity turns much easier just follow prop all the way

26.28t

Total cost 34968

Payload 18450

lifter cost 16518

628 funds/ton

 

 

[Norcalplanner]

8 minutes ago, Nich said:

Damit I just fixed maccollos entry the increased twr on the middle stage makes gravity turns much easier just follow prop all the way

26.28t

Total cost 34968

Payload 18450

lifter cost 16518

628 funds/ton

 

 

Nich,

2.0 isn't live yet, and I didn't close the challenge to new entries, so this will get onto the 1.0 leader board just under the wire.

Anyone else in a similar situation should get their last 1.0 entry in soon. We'll likely go live with 2.0 in 3 hours or so.

[GoSlash27]

Darn it!

 My new entry is ready and Photobucket's down for maintenance

I'll just share the craft file for now and upload the pics when I can.

http://wikisend.com/download/420034/GenII20.craft

This is the Gen II "Cheep 20". Total cost at launch $31,060 minus payload $17,710 = $13,350 expended.

 Payload in  82x5 orbit 19.7 tonnes, which yields $677.66 per tonne.

*edit* This is an entry for the new 2.0 challenge.

*edit*  Pics are up.
http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/CnCRocketFactoryII

Best,
-Slashy

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Norcalplanner]

The OP has been updated, and the 2.0 version of the rules is now in effect.  Have at it!

And Slashy, I'll put you up on the new leaderboard as soon as I see some photos or a video.  KSP isn't fired up at the moment.

[Nich]

Nice Goslash I verified all numbers and a 91x72 orbit easy as cake.  It probably could have gotten 80x80 if i was paying attention

 

[Norcalplanner]

Slashy,

Looks good. Nicely optimized under the new rules. What thrust setting are you using for the Kickbacks?

Anyway, consider yourself on top of the new leaderboard. It'll be at least 7 or 8 hours before I can update the OP, since I'm driving most of today, but bask in your glory as best you can in the meantime.

[maccollo]

@GoSlash27Nope!

Total cost: 123160 funds
Payload cost: 28890
Launcher cost: 94270
Payload mass in LEO: 139.6 metric tons
Funds per ton: 675.3

Beat you by a whopping 2.3 funds! The margins are basically nonexistent though.
Seems like nose cones just aren't worth it, which is a shame, because they do make the rockets look a bit better. I also really wish we had bigger solids. The clustering of kickbacks is starting to get a bit silly on this scale.

VAB screen dumbs:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher4.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload4.png

Launch video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOqRBC2QfeQ

Edited January 30, 2016 by maccollo

[Nich]

Damit maccollo I have been trying to get a 3.75m to work forever but I am stuck around 740/ton

 

 

Here is my attempt at a lifting body but with the extra cost/weight of lifting surfaces I cant get it below 870ish and that includes cheating and counting lifting surfaces on the payload.  Seeing how well you conquered my old nemisis maybe it is possible but I am giving up

 

 

[maccollo]

2 hours ago, Nich said:

Damit maccollo I have been trying to get a 3.75m to work forever but I am stuck around 740/ton

I see a bit of room for improvement. You are using the 2.5 meter nosecones which simply add cost. Use the cone tanks instead as they hold fuel. This might get you closer to 700 assuming. It also seems you are .  Overall though it seems that a simple sustainer core with kickbacks is difficult to beat. The combination of cost effectiveness, simplicity and having all the required attitude control in the propulsion system is very compelling.

On that note here's an updated version of my entry. I increased the number of kickbacks to 16 and I added drop tanks on top of the boosters, which is the only way I've been able to justify their inclusion. They don't actually make the rocket more aerodynamic, but they do make it look better.

Total cost: 141166
Payload cost: 34540
Launcher cost: 106626
Payload mass in LEO: 160 metric tons
Funds per ton: 666.4

VAB screen dumbs:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/launcher5.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/payload5.png

Launch video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP85eYCd5pk

Craft file:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/cheapLaunch/sustainer%207.craft

Edited January 31, 2016 by maccollo

[GoSlash27]

Well... I figured I wouldn't have the top spot long

Best,
-Slashy

[Nich]

Well making mediocre improvements made 84x75 but I really only have 23 dv to play with due to my flight path.  It seems the most efficient launch is to pick up most of your horizontal velocitly as you climb slowly from 40-55km so a 55x80 is about as low as I can go.

Total cost 149447

Payload cost 42567

Launcher Cost 106880

Payload 146.39

730.10/ton

I thought it was the launch clamps, nose cones, and quad connectors holding me back but even if I subtract those I only get down to 680 on an impossible to build craft

 

 

[Norcalplanner]

Finally got back to a computer and updated the leaderboard.  I'll have to give this a whirl tomorrow to see what I can do.

[Norcalplanner]

Here's my entry for 2.0.  I'm coming up last on the leaderboard, but I take consolation in both improving my 1.0 score, and in having the largest payload.  As an interesting side note, I also ended up with a 22.5% payload mass fraction, which is pretty decent.

190,524 funds for the lifter with a 258.07 ton payload is 738.26 funds/ton.  More information in the photo descriptions.

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Norcalplanner
added payload mass fraction info

[ihtoit]

I'm going to tot up my Falcon 9 vehicle, just 'cos I love the design. Reusable first stage and (potentially) reusable payload stage (I didn't equip it for a tail landing) with crew for 32t or without crew and no SRB strap-ons for 9t payload. Probably won't come near the leaderboard for cost efficiency...

 

Total cost (payload+launcher): 264,906

Total mass: 272.7t

Payload mass: 34.7t (32.0 on orbit)

Payload cost: 55,784

Total cost per tonne: 971.41

Payload cost per tonne-on-orbit: 1743.25

 

For reference, here's my satellite launcher configuration (I have no shots of the crewed cabin available right now, just think of it as about 8m taller):

Edited January 31, 2016 by ihtoit

[Norcalplanner]

46 minutes ago, ihtoit said:

I'm going to tot up my Falcon 9 vehicle, just 'cos I love the design. Reusable first stage and (potentially) reusable payload stage (I didn't equip it for a tail landing) with crew for 32t or without crew and no SRB strap-ons for 9t payload. Probably won't come near the leaderboard for cost efficiency...

 

Total cost (payload+launcher): 264,906

Total mass: 272.7t

Payload mass: 34.7t (32.0 on orbit)

Payload cost: 55,784

Total cost per tonne: 971.41

Payload cost per tonne-on-orbit: 1743.25

 

For reference, here's my satellite launcher configuration (I have no shots of the crewed cabin available right now, just think of it as about 8m taller):

Sounds good, ihtoit.  Looking forward to seeing full info for your entry.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Norcalplanner

[Temstar]

Are we doing reusable now? Cos that's my speciality.

[GoSlash27]

Well, I couldn't quite catch maccollo with this one, but it's the best I've managed to do with a pseudo- asparagus lifter.

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/CnCRocketFactory/Cheep135

$90,490 worth of disposable lifter for 135.58 tonnes of payload yields $667.43/tonne. It feels like it could do more, but I just can't seem to make it happen.

Here's the craft file if you folks want to play around with it: http://wikisend.com/download/420430/Cheep135.craft

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

[Norcalplanner]

3 hours ago, Temstar said:

Are we doing reusable now? Cos that's my speciality.

Not at this time.  If you want to enter a reusable craft, go ahead, but it'll still be scored the same as the disposable craft.  Even though it will likely have a four figure score, you can still tout its virtues.

38 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Well, I couldn't quite catch maccollo with this one, but it's the best I've managed to do with a pseudo- asparagus lifter.

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/CnCRocketFactory/Cheep135

$90,490 worth of disposable lifter for 135.58 tonnes of payload yields $667.43/tonne. It feels like it could do more, but I just can't seem to make it happen.

Here's the craft file if you folks want to play around with it: http://wikisend.com/download/420430/Cheep135.craft

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

Are the separatrons really necessary?  Seems like a place to cut some cost, weight, and drag... unless the whole thing goes boom without them.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Norcalplanner

[GoSlash27]

10 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

Are the separatrons really necessary?  Seems like a place to cut some cost, weight, and drag... unless the whole thing goes boom without them.

Probably not necessary, but they make it a whole lot more "cheerful". It's 100% reliable with the sepratrons, maybe 65% without them.

 I could forego them and save about $4.50 per tonne, but it feels cheaty to me.

 

*edit* OOoooo... I've got an idea (evil grin)

It'll have to wait until tonight, but I think I can substantially boost the payload and slash the cost of this design.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited February 1, 2016 by GoSlash27

[GoSlash27]

I've done it! It wasn't such a bad rocket. All it needed was a little love...

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/CnCRocketFactory/Cheep135II

$124,697 on the pad minus $34,825 payload = $89,878 disposable launcher.

divided by 135.7 tonnes in orbit equals $662.68 per tonne *cool shades*

Best,
-Slashy

 

[Nich]

What did you do improve the aerodynamics?

[GoSlash27]

Nich,

 The big improvement was replacing the FL-T series tanks on top of the stack with a single Mk3 to 2.5m adapter. This holds the exact same amount of fuel, but weighs less and costs less. It allowed me to replace the 2.5m decoupler with a 3.75m decoupler and ditch 4 struts. Finally, I used the extra weight savings to replace the nose cone with the more streamlined tailcone A.

 The end result was a lifter that did just a little more, but cost a good deal less.

 I'm starting on a new lifter that uses the same principle more aggressively. I'll see where that takes me.

Best,
-Slashy

[Nich]

Is the nose cone better or worse then the spike?

[GoSlash27]

Nich,

 In this case it's better, since the mass and cost of the tailcone is "free". The Tailcone A is the lowest drag part in the game so long as you keep it aligned with the air flow.

Best,
-Slashy