Who Needs Parachutes Anyway?

[SinisterSonar]

After a worker from the VAB complained about having to untangle and repack all the parachutes after use, the KSC has decided to stop using parachutes and drogue chutes entirely. Some kerbals say this was an extreme, others say it is a great excuse to try out new landing techniques!

                                                                                                                      Challenge Rules

-Your must start in an orbit with a minimun periapsis of 100km

-You are allowed to have a de-orbit booster, but it must be detached before hitting the atmosphere 

-The only reason you are allowed to slow down in orbit is to preform a de-orbit burn

-While preforming your de-orbit burn you must be pointing fully retrograde

-You may use hyperedit to cheat into orbit, but no other cheats allowed

-You are allowed mods that add flight assistants

-No parachutes or drogue chutes

-Your craft must carry at least one kerbal

-Try to include a picture or two

-No mods that add parts or dramatically change aerodynamics

-Glitches are allowed

-Kerbal must be in a command seat or control module when contact with the ground is made

-Have fun!

                                                                                                                         Scoring System

-You start with 500 points

-For every kerbal on board you gain 10 points

-For every wing, stabilizer, or control surface you lose 35 points

-If you brake a part you lose 75 points

-For every kerbal killed you lose 100 points

-If you land at the flat grassy area by the KSC you gain 40 points

-If landing is on the island with the runway you gain 50 points

-For every landing gear or landing strut you lose 30 points

-Your overall thrust measured in kilonewtons at sea level divided by 4 will be subtracted from your score                                                                                              Leaderboard

1st- @qzgy With 3145 Points!

2nd- @BogusDionysus48 With 590 Points!

3rd- @goduranus With 530 Points!

                                                                                                    If you have any questions just ask.

                                                                                    Best Of Luck To All!

Edited June 29, 2017 by SinisterSonar

[sevenperforce]

So...the challenge is to send a Kerbal to an apoapsis greater than or equal to 100 km, then land without chutes and without breaking any parts?

Are you scoring it in any way? What's the challenge in that, exactly? There are dozens of ways to do this. Most people can land a liquid rocket on its tail easily enough, or you can slaps wings and landing gear on it. Heck, you can ditch in the water without landing gear pretty easily.

[Spricigo]

 

well...https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Kaingang  is collecting dust in my hangar.

It usually follows a typical gravity turn (original design goal was to go orbital) , straight up to 100km and return is even easier. (And that is the problem with your challenge: vessels to complete the task are as common as explosions in KSP* )

Maybe if you add some constraints or a score system to encourage borderline designs you can make it in a fun challenge, but in the current status is, unfortunately, not interesting at all.

*as @sevenperforce posted while I typed.

[SinisterSonar]

Thanks to both of you I will be sure to optimize this challenge so any suggestions would be expected.

[Sivonen]

I have a suggestion:

-No wings allowed

-No engines can be used after apoapsis of more than 100km

-Only the kerbal needs to survive, craft can break

-more tweaking....?

[sevenperforce]

56 minutes ago, BogusDionysus48 said:

Thanks to both of you I will be sure to optimize this challenge so any suggestions would be expected.

Good on you for wanting to improve it.

What are you looking for, exactly? Risky suicide burns? Landings without engines or landing gear? Something else entirely? It's something to consider.

If you're looking for risky suicide burns, you can make it a God-and-Heinlein challenge. "Build a VTOL SSTO capable of taking at least one Kerbal to orbit and returning to land on its tail, intact." I'd recommend disallowing jet engines, though; I have a RAPIER-and-nuke VTOL SSTO that can do Duna. Your score could be the weight of the LV divided by the number of Kerbals it can take to orbit.

Edited June 28, 2017 by sevenperforce

[SinisterSonar]

I appreciate the feed back, I will end up scrapping this topic and refining a new one that should be out in 1-2 days.

[Spricigo]

well, without parachutes the slowdown need to be done with wings and engines, a score system that encourage minimal wing area and engine activation would make things interesting. You may even make 2 separated categories, for example flaming suicides cannot use any parts with a lift rating, relying on engine thrust to stop and will be ranked considering how much of propulsive power is required to stop (not sure exactly how) while flying elephants cannot use engines and are ranked by lift/weight ratio with lower being better.

Also instead of failing from 100km I'd consider start from a circular orbit just out of atmosphere (minimum periapsis 70km) with a small deltaV budget for a deorbit burn. The reasoning its that it encourage more practical design, reentry from space being more common than kerbin's sub-orbital flight (at least based in the anecdotal evidence of  my experience) and also it seems a more restricted situation than just apoapsis over 100km.

Just now, BogusDionysus48 said:

I appreciate the feed back, I will end up scrapping this topic and refining a new one that should be out in 1-2 days.

well keep it open as an "Work In Progress" until you decide for how to refine the challenge. And don't forget to post a link to the new thread before asking a moderator to locck this one.

[SinisterSonar]

Very true, I'll take that into consideration while rebuilding this challenge.

3 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

well, without parachutes the slowdown need to be done with wings and engines, a score system that encourage minimal wing area and engine activation would make things interesting. You may even make 2 separated categories, for example flaming suicides cannot use any parts with a lift rating, relying on engine thrust to stop and will be ranked considering how much of propulsive power is required to stop (not sure exactly how) while flying elephants cannot use engines and are ranked by lift/weight ratio with lower being better.

Also instead of failing from 100km I'd consider start from a circular orbit just out of atmosphere (minimum periapsis 70km) with a small deltaV budget for a deorbit burn. The reasoning its that it encourage more practical design, reentry from space being more common than kerbin's sub-orbital flight (at least based in the anecdotal evidence of  my experience) and also it seems a more restricted situation than just apoapsis over 100km.

well keep it open as an "Work In Progress" until you decide for how to refine the challenge. And don't forget to post a link to the new thread before asking a moderator to locck this one.

Yes I will be sure to link the new thread but not until the new one is out.

[SinisterSonar]

Disregard This

Edited June 28, 2017 by SinisterSonar

[SinisterSonar]

Update: My revised challenge is out with a leaderboard and a scoring system, the whole shibang! Please check it out at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/162643-who-needs-parachutes-anyway/!

[qzgy]

Question - Can we cheat our craft into orbit? Or do we actually have to do a full mission. I just ask cause the focus is on descent and landing, right?

Also, what about SSTO's? I can;t detach the deorbit thing from that....

Edited June 28, 2017 by qzgy

[SinisterSonar]

11 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Question - Can we cheat our craft into orbit? Or do we actually have to do a full mission. I just ask cause the focus is on descent and landing, right?

oh yes of course, (changes the rules) of course you can. 

As long as the periapsis is 100km or above you can do whatever you want. (as long as it follows the rules) 

Edited June 28, 2017 by SinisterSonar

[Urses]

The only thing that is missing is your own entry @BogusDionysus48 to show what exactly you mean and to start a race

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

[Ultimate Steve]

Heh. This doesn't qualify for the challenge, but it reminds me of the time I went to Eeloo with a mothership but forgot the parachutes at the end. Oh, and the crew did survive.

[SinisterSonar]

1 hour ago, Urses said:

The only thing that is missing is your own entry @BogusDionysus48 to show what exactly you mean and to start a race

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

I play console so pictures might not happen but I'll submit the stats and overall score.

Update: I built a service bay lander with a five kerbal capacity no wings engines or control surfaces, and I landed at the VAB (if you were wondering it lands on the open bay door and pops right back up again until it stops)

Edited June 28, 2017 by SinisterSonar

[qzgy]

Ok, quick entry.

I didn't detach the deorbit thing, but it wasn't used for landing.

So, total score should be 640 points - nothing lost, 100 kerbals carried. (6*16 + 4)

Edit: Score should be as above... - did my math wrong.

Edited June 29, 2017 by qzgy

[Vanamonde]

The two copies of this challenge have been merged. You can edit your final version of the rules into the first post. 

[goduranus]

This was some time ago, but I bet the technique still works. 530 points

 

[Spricigo]

Not sure if Kaingang is still a valid entry .  I never had it with periapsis over 75km. It can comply with the rules(without any issue) ,  just I didn't made an 'official run'. 

 

[sevenperforce]

So, let's see...if I stack eight 16-kerbal pods on end, slap a short XL tank and a Mammoth on the tail, and drop it onto the island runway, I get...1795 points?

Hold my beer.

Edited June 28, 2017 by sevenperforce

[Spricigo]

I suggest a small tunning in the scoring system.  Make the penalties based on Lift rating and Trust instead of number of wings/engines. 

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Hold my beer.

@Spricigo drinks @sevenperforce beer. 

[SinisterSonar]

11 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

I suggest a small tunning in the scoring system.  Make the penalties based on Lift rating and Trust instead of number of wings/engines. 

@Spricigo drinks @sevenperforce beer. 

I have decided to change the thrust thing but not the wing one. Please read rules

Edited June 28, 2017 by SinisterSonar

[Spricigo]

Fine (Your challenge,  your rules)  I think is a fun one now.  Good job.  

I'll try to find time for a proper entry. 

[qzgy]

I gave it another go, given how @sevenperforce is trying to one up me. So I one upped myself.

Same idea as last time. But bigger. And more brick like.

300 kerbals (in theory, I only had 100 loaded), nothing lost, on Island with runway, 9 wing surfaces

500+3000+50-315=3235.

Edited June 29, 2017 by qzgy
muahahahaha