Economy Challenge 1.2 (Reboot)

[Reusables]

19 minutes ago, Nefrums said:

That should be possible as a almost empty first stage has lots of twr,  Doing it with any kind of accuracy will be very hard thou.

I see, good precision will be hard while running out of time.

[Avo4Dayz]

2 hours ago, Abastro said:

Under 500/t with SSTO rockets? Looks great! Though, you didn't take any screenshots of the launch profile. There's an issue with validity there... Please post the screenshots on the launch profile.

No worries, apologise as my first time doing a challenge, wasn't sure what info to share... Here (assuming this is what you meant:
Several screens during ascent phase and circularization 
http://imgur.com/gallery/PbmWH

I would show you the mechjeb flight recorder graph if I knew how to export one

Also here is the craft file in case you wish to make an attempt for validity also... (requires mechjeb and I aimed for a 72km orbit for reference)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/au0tybndr21xo12/AAA7YZ1qSyn_FKa9JF-RRGpRa?dl=0

3 hours ago, Nefrums said:

Doing the boost-back is a bit hard as both first and second stage needs to be above the atmosphere in order to switch back and forth between them.  It took a couple of attempts to find a ascent path that left the first stage with a AP >70km, and at the same time the shuttle had to have enough time to do most of the circulation burn before the first stage dropped back down.

The dV cost for doing a boost-back was way less then I expected. 

Nice, very tempted to make a crack as this style next.... will modify my initial entry, as well as some back to drawing board attempts.... Been on my mind all day haha

Edited March 14, 2017 by Avo4Dayz
added link

[Reusables]

16 hours ago, Avo4Dayz said:

No worries, apologise as my first time doing a challenge, wasn't sure what info to share... Here (assuming this is what you meant:
Several screens during ascent phase and circularization 
http://imgur.com/gallery/PbmWH

It'd be better if the screenshots were taken out of the map mode, but this one seems to be enough. (Unless you continuously cheated, where it shouldn't be the case)

[Avo4Dayz]

.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Avo4Dayz
Double Post...damn phone

[Avo4Dayz]

On 15/03/2017 at 1:56 PM, Abastro said:

It'd be better if the screenshots were taken out of the map mode, but this one seems to be enough. (Unless you continuously cheated, where it shouldn't be the case)

Originally couldn't be bothered but video of whole flight to come... 
The trick with this style of rocket with such small fuel margins is perfecting the re-entry profile...as you'll see

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Avo4Dayz
added link

[NightshineRecorralis]

On 3/14/2017 at 3:32 AM, Nefrums said:

Doing the boost-back is a bit hard as both first and second stage needs to be above the atmosphere in order to switch back and forth between them.  It took a couple of attempts to find a ascent path that left the first stage with a AP >70km, and at the same time the shuttle had to have enough time to do most of the circulation burn before the first stage dropped back down.

The dV cost for doing a boost-back was way less then I expected. 

 

 

RMFS is updated for 1.2 (I think, I use it and it works fine ^^)

[Avo4Dayz]

This isn't really a submission but just sharing of a concept i put together..... The kickback booster lifts the satellite to a parking orbit that reaches an apoapsis of 173km. After which the spark engine on the 1.13t sat circularises the orbit

Whole System costs 10,799(3,409 for just the launcher) funds to lift the 1.13t sat (takes to a parking orbit of 170 so I'm sure it could get to orbit on it's own if flown on the right profile....


Maybe someone would like to play with the idea of using the kickback to launch a payload to orbit.. I may try just get

This was designed for the following challenge

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Avo4Dayz

[Reusables]

18 minutes ago, Avo4Dayz said:

snip

That looks like something which can get to orbit with kickback only. With TWR adjusted to be in range of 1.5 to 2.0, and proper gravity turn profile. In this way delta-v requirement decreases about 600m/s.

Also, I heard that Kickback + Terrier can be good enough if configured well.

[Avo4Dayz]

3 minutes ago, Abastro said:

That looks like something which can get to orbit with kickback only. With TWR adjusted to be in range of 1.5 to 2.0, and proper gravity turn profile. In this way delta-v requirement decreases about 600m/s.

Also, I heard that Kickback + Terrier can be good enough if configured well.

Yeah I think it can be good enough to get to orbit purely with the kickback... for it's original purpose it had the Thrust turned down to about 49% and 300 units of fuel removed so it could make the transition without much thought put in. For the other challenge I initially made one large booster to carry all 8 required sats up to orbit then let them disperse... so was just using the same satellite subassembly

Having trouble piloting it well enough to get it to sustainable orbit myself though.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Avo4Dayz

[Wanderfound]

Take one basic Mk3 cargo bus:

 

With a 41,240kg payload:

 

Easy up:

 

Ten degree climb through transonic:

 

Stay on airbreathers until the jet ceiling:

 

None of the cargo fuel used:

 

A vigorous reentry and landing approach:

 

Safely down:

 

So, that's 5966 units LF and 3985 units O to deliver 41.24t to orbit. At  √ 0.8/unit for LF and  √ 0.18/unit for O, that's  √ 5440.1 total cost, for a score of 131.91/t.

Craft file (with a very slightly lighter cargo on board) at https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfq60n0yfspeihe/Kerbotruck.craft?dl=0

[Andetch]

Not sure I really understand the idea here? I see KSP community is somewhat obsessed with putting payloads into LKO..... Where as I find LKO (70 - 200 km) just a pain in the cheeks to do anything in, I don't tend to leave anything there! I play completely stock, no mods. I don't refuel in LKO, the Delta V for RV is too high for day to day activities, and other than for being able to have one, I don't see why I would want a massive station in LKO.... I tend to have my main activities focused around Minimus.

That being said, I have designed a ship that allows me to recover both the SRB stage that puts it into a suborbit, and also the main passenger ship. My only lost parts are 4x FLT-800 and x1 X200-32 fuel tank, costing 6,200 kbucks, so a flight only costs 6,200 + fuel. I use it to drop survey and coms sats off where-ever they need on it's route, although it does need to meet a refuelling rig depending on where it is going. It goes as far as Duna or Ike (so far). Of course, not using mods it is a challenge to land back at KSC especially when you only have aerobraking for the final approach, but usually I can get within sight of the KSC with the upper stage, and of course the SRB's usually land in Korea.

Does it count?

Pictured is on the pad, but if it counts, I will do a special mission for this thread!

[Avo4Dayz]

7 hours ago, Andetch said:

Not sure I really understand the idea here? I see KSP community is somewhat obsessed with putting payloads into LKO.....

I think the point of LKO is just to make it easy to reach allowing for many different designs. You could start an economy challenge for mimmus or Duna or even Jool. But this would result in designs getting more and more a like. An easier goal results in new innovative ideas that in the long run can change the deep space game to.

Still fascinating design!

Edited March 18, 2017 by Avo4Dayz

[Andetch]

1 hour ago, Avo4Dayz said:

I think the point of LKO is just to make it easy to reach allowing for many different designs. You could start an economy challenge for mimmus or Duna or even Jool. But this would result in designs getting more and more a like. An easier goal results in new innovative ideas that in the long run can change the deep space game to.

Still fascinating design!

I see what you mean....I think the main challenge in KSP is to have a re-usable system in place, so that ships go up to your chosen refuel spot, go out to whatever planetary system, and return - or not as the case is for labs, just keep refuelling and moving. So that way you're only launching one small ship at a time that can meet whatever landers and refuelling rigs as needed. So not really workable as a challenge thread

I am glad the design is fascinating I am sure she could put weight equal to or greater than the upper stage  into LKO.

[Reusables]

18 hours ago, Wanderfound said:

Awesome Entry

Efficient and Good-looking spaceplane? Was it ever possible? (I thought one need to sacrifice efficiency to make a ssto spaceplane which looks good)

Also it looks lacking wings, but still flies well! Just wow.

Certainly be listed as the first on III!

[Reusables]

10 hours ago, Andetch said:

Not sure I really understand the idea here? I see KSP community is somewhat obsessed with putting payloads into LKO..... Where as I find LKO (70 - 200 km) just a pain in the cheeks to do anything in, I don't tend to leave anything there! I play completely stock, no mods. I don't refuel in LKO, the Delta V for RV is too high for day to day activities, and other than for being able to have one, I don't see why I would want a massive station in LKO.... I tend to have my main activities focused around Minimus.

Yeah, that's true for many practical situations. A challenge is a challenge, though. Also I think a LKO mission is good enough standard for many launches. (As far as not going to shoot Minmus or other destinations, directly from launch)

So, I agree with @Avo4Dayz here.

10 hours ago, Andetch said:

That being said, I have designed a ship that allows me to recover both the SRB stage that puts it into a suborbit, and also the main passenger ship. My only lost parts are 4x FLT-800 and x1 X200-32 fuel tank, costing 6,200 kbucks, so a flight only costs 6,200 + fuel. I use it to drop survey and coms sats off where-ever they need on it's route, although it does need to meet a refuelling rig depending on where it is going. It goes as far as Duna or Ike (so far). Of course, not using mods it is a challenge to land back at KSC especially when you only have aerobraking for the final approach, but usually I can get within sight of the KSC with the upper stage, and of course the SRB's usually land in Korea.

Well, you need to follow the rules.

But other than that, that's great design with good-looking craft! I think it'll be efficient as well. Please repurpose it a bit and post it an entry, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Wanderfound]

48 minutes ago, Abastro said:

 

Also it looks lacking wings, but still flies well!

 

[Avo4Dayz]

3 hours ago, Andetch said:

I am glad the design is fascinating I am sure she could put weight equal to or greater than the upper stage  into LKO.

most deffinitely would lift larger amount to LKO.. would be interesting how cost effective to

[Reusables]

Here goes my entry:

Lifted 13.42t in 5077. Thus 378.32/t.

(Full album & Certification of the cost)

 

In detail, the first stage costs 17110, and recovered 13134.

The second stage is returned from orbit, so counts as 100% recovery. The fuel on the stage costs 1101.

The payload is command pod, parachute and docking ports with ore tanks, so it can't be crossfed to anywhere.

 

This craft and launch profile is still suboptimal, and there's plenty of dv margin on the second stage. Relatively small, too.

Still, this one is the first on IIa category!

 

I'm going to submit an improved entry with my own launch profile. I'm sure that it'll be cheaper, with better recovery!

Edited March 20, 2017 by Reusables

[Andetch]

Okay, so I got this..... PTSO design. Lifted 75.9T into an orbit far too elliptical, should have packed in more weight. Cost at launch was 174,000, including payload. Payload costs 18,369. Assuming full recovery of both stages, possible (and allowed under the rules?) the cost of fuelling the mission is 21,031.

21,031 divided by 75.9 = 277.08 kerbal bucks per ton into orbit.

Right?

Okay, I crashed the SRB stage a bit, because I forgot to set it retrograde while out of the atmosphere. I landed the upper stage 80KM from KSC. I fly by hand, stock install.

I personally think that I should try and stick an extra 10 -20 T on it to improve the handling during the grav turn.

Ship FIle: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxP5XMEnEjPibTdOT1h5VXRaTXM

On 19/03/2017 at 4:27 AM, Avo4Dayz said:

most deffinitely would lift larger amount to LKO.. would be interesting how cost effective to

 

On 19/03/2017 at 2:42 AM, Abastro said:

Yeah, that's true for many practical situations. A challenge is a challenge, though. Also I think a LKO mission is good enough standard for many launches. (As far as not going to shoot Minmus or other destinations, directly from launch)

So, I agree with @Avo4Dayz here.

Well, you need to follow the rules.

But other than that, that's great design with good-looking craft! I think it'll be efficient as well. Please repurpose it a bit and post it an entry, I'm looking forward to it.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Andetch

[Reusables]

17 minutes ago, Andetch said:

Assuming full recovery of both stages,

Sorry, but the rule doesn't allow 100% recovery for stages detached before reaching stable orbit. It should land in KSC to count as 100% recovery, otherwise it follows the recovery rate of stock career.

Looks like Kerbal & Efficient entry, though!

[Avo4Dayz]

13 hours ago, Abastro said:

Sorry, but the rule doesn't allow 100% recovery for stages detached before reaching stable orbit. It should land in KSC to count as 100% recovery, otherwise it follows the recovery rate of stock career.

Looks like Kerbal & Efficient entry, though!

If you put in a bit more time to attach parachutes and have it land in the water even all the way up to approximately 88km from Kerbin gets you 94% recovery cost..worth a shot if interesting in run at challenge. The 2% is hardly worth it for how efficient it already is.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Avo4Dayz
numbers were wrong

[Andetch]

Yeah, can chuck a few more chutes on the SRB stage, and even given deductions from landing the SRB's in Korea I think she is still pretty good. I am now working on the fabled 100T payload. I will get back to you all

And apologies about my confusion, in the mission I was getting some of the finer wordings from the brief muddled up. I was pleasantly surprised when I first looked at the cost of recovering stuff from Korea so I guess she should be good.

I won't be doing this tonight though, but I will relaunch and obtain the correct numbers.

[Reusables]

I'd like to reboot this challenge (or make a similar challenge) in another form. Would it be okay?

Roughly, I'll change the scoring system to be based on absolute price per launch for a given payload mass, because bigger craft tends to be cheaper as cost per payload mass. Since most lifters can lift payload lighter than what's intended, it will be reasonable to list lifters which are cheapest choice for its intended payload mass.

For instance,

1000 for 0.5t, 1200 for 1t, 1600 for 2t, 3000 for 3t, 3500 for 5t can be listed.

And 1700 for 1.8t can't be listed here, since it is cheaper to 2t lifter with 1600 to lift 1.8t

 

As spaceplanes are inevitably the best in efficiency while being time-intensive, there will be three categories: I, II(Vertical Launch+Reusable), III(Spaceplanes). How do you think?

[Clancy]

I'm not really sure what the price points mean, but I see the benefit of splitting entries by class. I think there should be more heavy classes though. I would propose:  1t,  5t, 10t, 25t, 50t. 

Choose a payload and see how cheaply you can get it to orbit!

[Reusables]

6 hours ago, Clancy said:

I'm not really sure what the price points mean, but I see the benefit of splitting entries by class. I think there should be more heavy classes though. I would propose:  1t,  5t, 10t, 25t, 50t. 

Choose a payload and see how cheaply you can get it to orbit!

Yeah, like that, but in much better form!

Let me give an example.

If there are submissions for 1000 for 0.5t, 1200 for 1t, 1700 for 1.8t, 1600 for 2t, 3000 for 3t, 3500 for 5t, 7500 for 8t, 7000 for 10t, 10000 for 14t, 10000 for 15t

1700 for 1.8t, 7500 for 8t, 10000 for 14t will be excluded on the list because there is a better(cheaper) entry. The rest remains in the list, comprising the cheapest lifters for the region of payload.