Bring our boys far [winged SSTO "advanced" challenge]

[Signo]

Well then, it's been a while since I submitted my first "K-prize" craft and it's been a while since I read my first "very big and fundamental" argument on how a winged SSTO should be built.

So now it is my time (my first time indeed) to propose a challenge.

This is a "stockish" challenge - MJ, KER and stuff like that is allowed.

B9 and similar "part adding" mods are not exactly allowed but they will have a different roll of honor because I am very "including".

 

"Da Challenge"

 

You must build a winged SSTO. (it should take off horizontally from the landing strip)  

It must be powered by no more than 3 "standard" engines. (vernors, puffs and RCS are free for all)

Your craft must be able to take off from Kerbin and reach a 150x150 orbit.

It must be able to get back home.

You must provide "proof of landing" (everybody usually does, but you know, for the sake of the challenge)

Anything that has got a Mammoth, Vector, Rhino, Twin Boar or Mainsail goes in the Passionfruit table.

Anything with a TWR lower than 1 goes in the banana table, anything with a TWR higher than 1 goes in the raspberry table.

Score will be calculated as follows: (ln(1+TWR)*dV) - TWR and delta-v referring to the craft in a 150x150 orbit, only the engines providing vacuum propulsion will be taken into account - KER/MJ are encouraged due to the lack of in game data - remaining fuel might be taken into account if your faith forbids the use of any kind of in-game help of sort. For KER users, the data of interest is displayed under the name of "Surface TWR".

Crew will be used as a "playoff" - same scoring crafts will "face off" on crew capacity.

We expect comfortable crew lodgings, so "chairs" are not encouraged and will account for just 0.33 the crew number during this challenge.

Docking capability is encouraged and it is going to account as a second "playoff".

There are different lists based on TWR: lower than 1 will fit in the "Team Banana" while higher than 1 will be listed under the "Team Raspberry".

Staging is forbidden - anything that goes up needs to get back down.

 

Everybody will receive a feedback on his/her entry. 

Do not think your craft is not worth a submission even if it is "lacking" in your eyes - it may be a breakthrough for somebody else.

 

Cheaters, if discovered of course, will be banned from the challenge.

Messing around with the configuration files is bad. Photoshopping random numbers on a pic is even worse and it is not good for your ego either. (I've seen things you people wouldn't even believe...)

 

So, please, gentlemen (or gentle attack helicopter) - on your marks and thank you for reading.

 

Sample/example (wrong in many ways, but that is the kerbal way to provide an example)

(Score: ln(1 + 0.52)*3325 = 1392.21 points) - Team Banana, for the records.

 

Standings:

 

"Stock-ish - Team Banana"   

 

1) tseitsei89 - 1741.52 points (3282m/s - 0.70TWR - 1 pilot) ***1 rap + 2 nukes***

2) AeroGav - 1353.87 points (3639m/s - 0.45TWR - 3 crew, docking port available but missing operative capability) ***1 rap + 2 nukes***

3) Firemetal - 887.05 points (4285m/s - 0.23TWR - 5 crew, no docking) ***2 raps + 1 nuke***

 

 

"Stock-ish - Team Raspberry"   

 

1) tseitsei89 - 2606.23 points (1880m/s - 3.00TWR - 1 pilot) ***2 rapiers + Skipper***

2) Thor Wotansen - 2074.58 points (1936m/s - 1.92TWR - 1 Pilot) ***3 rapiers***

3) ABalazs - 1490.22 points (1271 m/s - 2.23TWR - 3 crew, dockable) ***3 rapiers***

4) Thor Wotansen - 1159.57 points (1008m/s - 2.16TWR - 3 crew, dockable) ***3 rapiers***

5) Hodari - 1087.23 points (725 m/s - 3.48TWR - 1 pilot, dockable) ***2 rapiers***

6) qzgy - 515.98 points (500m/s - 1.80TWR - 7 crew, dockable) ***3 rapiers*** *** Payload ***

 

"Stock-ish - Team Passionfruit" 

 

1) tseitsei89 - 3864.92 points (1995m/s - 5.94TWR - 1 pilot) *** 3 mammoths *** 

2) Eidahlil - 3125 points (1357m/s - 9.01TWR - no crew/tech demo) *** 2 raps + 1 mammoth ***

3) Foamyesque - 740.21 points (348m/s - 7.39TWR - 20 crew, dockable) *** 3 vectors *** *** Largest crew ***

 

 

 

Thanks again to all the entrants.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Signo

[Hodari]

Here's my entry(and also my first YouTube video ever!).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f81DjmcmKw

Just raw footage for now, but I'll try to edit it down later.

Mods used: http://imgur.com/a/hDGSg

Edited December 21, 2016 by Hodari

[Signo]

19 hours ago, Hodari said:

Here's my entry(and also my first YouTube video ever!).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f81DjmcmKw

Just raw footage for now, but I'll try to edit it down later.

Mods used: http://imgur.com/a/hDGSg

 

Thank you for your entry. A very good one to warm up the challenge. 

I classified it under the "stock" list, if I am right your score is 725 * 3.48 = 2523.

 

Well done, @Hodari. 

 

EDIT - sorry for the rule change, but it was a necessary amendment. Your new score is 1087.22

Edited December 22, 2016 by Signo

[Eidahlil]

23 hours ago, Signo said:

Score will be calculated multiplying your remaining D/V by your "actual" TWR

How is the score calculated for craft with different engines having different dV?

For a rather extreme (unmodded) example the craft below - the high TWR rapiers have rather limited dV, the ion engine has tons, however the rapiers do contribute to deltaV a bit, so it would not be fair to say that only the ion TWR counts?

Takeoff:

Spoiler

Landing:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Eidahlil

[tseitsei89]

7 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

How is the score calculated for craft with different engines having different dV?

For a rather extreme (unmodded) example the craft below - the high TWR rapiers have rather limited dV, the ion engine has tons, however the rapiers do contribute to deltaV a bit, so it would not be fair to say that only the ion TWR counts?

Takeoff:

  Reveal hidden contents

Landing:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I'm not op but IMO it would make sense to count it like this:

For example for a craft like yours with rapiers + ions/ lfox + xenon you would count: dv(with lf/ox)*twr(with lf/ox) + dv(with xenon)*twr(with xenon)

So you calculate dv*twr seperately for different fuels and then sum these up for the final score

[Signo]

9 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

How is the score calculated for craft with different engines having different dV?

For a rather extreme (unmodded) example the craft below - the high TWR rapiers have rather limited dV, the ion engine has tons, however the rapiers do contribute to deltaV a bit, so it would not be fair to say that only the ion TWR counts?

Takeoff:

  Reveal hidden contents

Landing:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Well, this is a case I did not think about while setting up rules - however points will be calculated separately for the different engine sets (the way @tseitsei89 described above fits perfectly - thanks mate)

The purpose of the challenge is to evaluate the best compromise in terms of "range vs. raw power (with an eye to utility)". I am of course open to any suggestion on how we could improve and refine the score system.

So, @Eidahlil, at the moment I do not have enough data to calculate a consistent score: I can see you have maybe 4 seconds left of rapier propulsion and one ion engine. I can assume the twr of the "ion only" is around 0.02.

So the aggregated score may be calculated as follows: (50m/s * 1.72) + (17504m/s * 0.02) = 86 + 350.08 = 436.08

Thank you very much for your entry.

If you want you can provide further flight informations to better refine your score or you could submit a new entry to improve your current standing (unlimited entries are allowed).

Edited December 22, 2016 by Signo

[Eidahlil]

4 hours ago, Signo said:

If you want you can provide further flight informations to better refine your score or you could submit a new entry to improve your current standing

You give it too much credit. The rapiers have about 25 m/s dV remaining, MechJeb shows the ion engine has a TWR of 0.01, but it's actually actually closer to 0.001, as it has only enough electricity to run at about 9% power (one RTG). It would take ~75 days to burn all that xenon.

So about 61 points.

On that note, can I do another not-very-reasonable entry? I tried to haul up a mammoth on two rapiers, and, unfortunately, succeeded. (The parts are not clipped in the fairing, though the big fuel tank and the mammoth are, for CoM reasons.) Mechjeb data of TWR of 9.01 and dV of 1357 m/s should be reliable for this one.

Though, judging on the score it gets, probably high TWR is rewarded too much? Not sure how to fix that one, we'll have to call @tseitsei89 again. (ln(1+TWR)*dV?)

Btw, it's a great challenge.

Takeoff (the mammoth is fired to bring speed up to about 500 at takeoff, so rapiers produce somewhat reasonable thrust):

Spoiler

Landing:

Spoiler

 

[ABalazs]

I tried some plane configurations, this one provided the best results so far.

The X-155, originally a fighterbomber design, cancelled when somebody realized that there is no enemy present in Kerbin, because everybody went to the astronaut school. So KSC reused the plans, replaced the bomb bays with large LFO tanks and a passenger compartment squeezed in to make the plane as civil-looking as possible. RCS system and a docking port also present. Now the plane can reach 150 km orbit, but it could throw bombs as well, if necessary.

http://imgur.com/a/cMa06

(Ehh, I'm suffering with picture embedding from Imgur, the old codes seems to be obsolete...)

Edited December 22, 2016 by ABalazs

[ABalazs]

36 minutes ago, Eidahlil said:

Btw, it's a great challenge.

 

Agreed.

Edited December 22, 2016 by ABalazs

[Signo]

48 minutes ago, Eidahlil said:

You give it too much credit. The rapiers have about 25 m/s dV remaining, MechJeb shows the ion engine has a TWR of 0.01, but it's actually actually closer to 0.001, as it has only enough electricity to run at about 9% power (one RTG). It would take ~75 days to burn all that xenon.

So about 61 points.

[snip]

Yep, I had the same "feeling" about TWR - the logarithm will work better and it is now the rule that will be applied. 

You are the king of the lab. Thank you.

I will amend the table accordingly.

 

@ABalazs: thank you very much for your entry -  following the new "ln" rule you are now on top of the table with 1490.22 points. Nice shot.

 

I am pleased you are enjoying the challenge. 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Signo

[Firemetal]

Completed!

Imgur Album.

Here are the stats.

Nightingale SSTO:

Total Mass With Ox: 34.587t

TWR At liftoff: 0.61

Total Mass without Ox: 32.937t

Dry Mass: 15.187

DV with 100% LF: 6075 m/s

Mass in 150x150 orbit: 26.22t

DV in 150x150 orbit: 4285

TWR in 150x150 orbit: 0.23

 

Score is 985.55. It cannot dock and has room for five Kerbals. Can probably reach Duna too.

Fire

[tseitsei89]

1 hour ago, Eidahlil said:

You give it too much credit. The rapiers have about 25 m/s dV remaining, MechJeb shows the ion engine has a TWR of 0.01, but it's actually actually closer to 0.001, as it has only enough electricity to run at about 9% power (one RTG). It would take ~75 days to burn all that xenon.

So about 61 points.

On that note, can I do another not-very-reasonable entry? I tried to haul up a mammoth on two rapiers, and, unfortunately, succeeded. (The parts are not clipped in the fairing, though the big fuel tank and the mammoth are, for CoM reasons.) Mechjeb data of TWR of 9.01 and dV of 1357 m/s should be reliable for this one.

Though, judging on the score it gets, probably high TWR is rewarded too much? Not sure how to fix that one, we'll have to call @tseitsei89 again. (ln(1+TWR)*dV?)

Btw, it's a great challenge.

Takeoff (the mammoth is fired to bring speed up to about 500 at takeoff, so rapiers produce somewhat reasonable thrust):

  Hide contents

Landing:

  Hide contents

 

Nice, you actually did what I first thought when I saw this challenge

And yes I agree that it kind of breaks the scoring system but whatever

At least we could get some...interesting looking crafts with this scoring even if they are not that useful

[Thor Wotansen]

This is my entry, it has space for 1 pilot and 2 passengers, and has a docking port in case one encounters a space station or stranded spacecraft.  Takeoff and orbital insertion are fairly standard,

158km x 152km orbit with 1,068m/s DeltaV and a TWR in space of 3.68

It's easily capable of deorbiting and landing, it's very stable on reentry

but due to my abysmal piloting skills I could not land it in one piece.  I submit that my inability to pilot a craft should not be held against the capabilities of said craft, and should anyone with greater ability than I wish to test it for themselves I would be happy to furnish the craft file.

[Hodari]

17 minutes ago, Thor Wotansen said:

 I submit that my inability to pilot a craft should not be held against the capabilities of said craft

Gotta disagree on this one at least to some extent.  There's a lot of factors that go into designing a craft, some of which may not be immediately obvious just from looking at a picture of it, so it should be up to the person submitting an entry to demonstrate that they(or at least SOMEONE) is capable of actually performing the task.  Landing an airplane(and especially a spaceplane is definitely one of the harder things I've tried to do in this game, so it's not something that should simply be left to "Well it looks like it should be able to, so that's good enough." 

Similarly, there's a lot more that goes into being able to dock than simply "It has a docking port."  You need to reach orbit, perform additional maneuvers to achieve the rendezvous, have the ability to make the fine adjustments(in all directions) needed to actually dock rather than simply crashing into the target, and finally STILL have enough dV left after all those maneuvers in order to separate from the target and perform your deorbit burn and land.  I've had a few times when I had a ship that I thought SHOULD be able to do all of those things until I actually tried to dock it and then find out that there's no RCS control along a particular axis or that it can't slow down fast enough.  Or even that the vessel was just too big for the docking port to stay connected.

I'd say it's fine to say "I'm not very good at this so I had to quicksave and revert a few times in order to get it right." but not to completely give up and say "I can't do it but I think it should be possible, so that should still count." 

19 hours ago, Signo said:

@Hodari  EDIT - sorry for the rule change, but it was a necessary amendment. Your new score is 1087.22

Yeah, I agree that high TWR was rewarded too much and the change was necessary.

[Signo]

@Firemetal: Thank you very much for your entry, based on the new "ln" rule your score should be 887.05 [ln(1.23)*4285].

I enjoyed a lot your mission, I love when I get in trouble. Deltas can be a pain in... a foot while reentering. Largest crew to date, honorable mention. Good job.

 

@Thor Wotansen: Alas I can not admit this one at the moment. The theoretical score is high. Just give it another try. 

 

 

 

[Thor Wotansen]

Oh well, off to practice touch and go's.

[tseitsei89]

Or should it be ln(twr+1)*dv ?

Since now every entry that has a twr of 1 gets 0 points. If we only want entries with >1 twr then that is fine but if we use ln(twr+1) crafts with low twr can still compete but are penalized accordingly...

[Signo]

15 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

Or should it be ln(twr+1)*dv ?

Since now every entry that has a twr of 1 gets 0 points. If we only want entries with >1 twr then that is fine but if we use ln(twr+1) crafts with low twr can still compete but are penalized accordingly...

The formula is exactly like you wrote. I still feel that high TWR crafts have got a little edge but it is a lot less biased. Moreover I am really interested in high TWR crafts - that is why I did not want to completely rule out mammoths and vectors: I would be really interested to see a 3 mammoth powered craft that could get to orbit with fuel to spare and get back to KSC. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Signo

[tseitsei89]

4 minutes ago, Signo said:

The formula is exactly like you wrote. I still feel that high TWR crafts have got a little edge but it is a lot less biased.

Ah ok. My bad. I thought you were using ln(twr) instead of ln(twr+1) but I was wrong

[Thor Wotansen]

Ok then.

I tried again with a slightly upgraded version.  The SSTO is named Hippopotomostrosesquipedaliophobia for some reason, I think the gang in mission control was trying to scare off all the raving fans.

Album is here http://imgur.com/a/InMex

I even landed it!

Delta V in orbit is 1,008, TWR is 3.59  The craft has a pilot and 2 passengers, a docking port and the relevant RCS gear ti preform a rendezvous and docking maneuvers.

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means "the fear of large words"

Edited December 22, 2016 by Thor Wotansen

[Signo]

@Thor Wotansen: Well done, practice makes you perfect. Your score is 1536.07.  By the way, we will refer to it as "a viking craft".

The drakkar sails to the first place.

[Thor Wotansen]

Hang on, score is (1+TWR)*DeltaV, right?

So (1+3.59)*1,008 = 4,626.27     or am I missing something?

[Signo]

17 minutes ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Hang on, score is (1+TWR)*DeltaV, right?

So (1+3.59)*1,008 = 4,626.27     or am I missing something?

You are missing the natural logarithm before (1+TWR). So it is the natural logarithm of 4.59 (that is 1.52something). 

Low TWR crafts (under 1) must have a chance to compete. I am already thinking about splitting the table - difficult to find a common scale for "apples" and "bananas".

You are "top of the crop" anyway and free to submit a new entry if you wish so.

 

[Thor Wotansen]

I tried looking up natural logarithms but my brain started hurting.

So hypothetically if I built a SSTO that had 1936m/s DeltaV and a TWR of 3.01 in a 152,249.8m x 151,101.9m orbit what would my score be, hypothetically?

 

Please note that this is simply a vague thought experiment, with no bearing on reality other than to help me understand mathish stuff.  Besides, where would I get such a thing?

Edited December 23, 2016 by Thor Wotansen

[Signo]

2688.69, sir.

 

edit: such a score would be decisive on splitting tables

Edited December 23, 2016 by Signo