Orbit Boot Camp

[TheFlyingKerman]

14 minutes ago, mabdi36 said:

Well i mean @Pro100kerbonaut’s design already uses the seat, so it is too late for that now.

But his design is not the board leader. The EAS-1 is by far the lightest, so massive saving in fuel and engine and everything, and you can even skip the parachute by using the Kerbal's chute. Now we are talking about a few hundred funds per launch, if the requirement is made easier we would very soon be splitting hair.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by TheFlyingKerman

[mystifeid]

Check this out - congratulations, you have landed at the SPH - 98% recovery. Arrrrggghhh!!!!

[Regor]

9 minutes ago, mystifeid said:

Check this out - congratulations, you have landed at the SPH - 98% recovery. Arrrrggghhh!!!!

That sucks!!!

[Regor]

I have decided to have another go with this challenge, this time with the sequel to the Upsilon. I present to you, the Phi:

This vessel originally costs 6,345, but 2861 were recovered, leaving a total of 3484 and has a total dv of 3315 m/s in atmo (but around 7000 in vaccum). It also houses a thermometer and has only 10 parts. The battery and solar panel exploded during entry but I think that is fine, as the rest of the vessel survived (this means that the descent angle and the survival of my kerbal was incredibly hard, as there was no SAS control left). 

What I believe distingushes this mission from others is the fact that I have managed to land the craft on the Mun and then return the Kerbal and (some) of the craft back to Kerbin. Attached below is the gallery for the entire launch and the mission report. 

https://imgur.com/a/Om4DiOI

I would also like to thank @Chequers for the awesome challenge that he has put forward. This is the first time I have had fun in one.

Edited April 10, 2020 by mabdi36
Forum was being weird.

[Chequers]

2 hours ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

Are you sure. That would be too easy by opening a can of exploits. You can expect every experienced player coming up with essentially the same design. Not fun.

I'm not experienced enough to know how it would be easy to exploit. If, as you say, it defeats the spirit of the challenge - which isn't to find loopholes around some of the rules and requirements - then I'll definitely have a rethink. There was always going to be a period of developing the rules to be fair and fun for all.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Chequers

[Space Nerd]

I'm playing KSP right now, I'll sent an entry (likely) an hour later.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Space Nerd
Oops, triple post

[mystifeid]

19 minutes ago, mabdi36 said:

What I believe distingushes this mission from others is the fact that I have managed to land the craft on the Mun and then return the Kerbal and (some) of the craft back to Kerbin.

Very good but you clipped poor Raymy inside a fuel tank!

I think he'll be having words with you later.

[Chequers]

@mabdi36  - congratulations on thinking outside the box (or inside the fuel tank in this case) to create your vessel, Phi. I think, however, I see what @TheFlyingKerman was suggesting with the exploitability of the command chair.

As your mission doesn't remove anybody from the leaderboard, I will enter your new craft - and the adornments it has earned - to the Honour Roll. But I think in the interest of fairness, a rule around part clipping will be added moving forwards.

[Regor]

5 minutes ago, Chequers said:

@mabdi36  - congratulations on thinking outside the box (or inside the fuel tank in this case) to create your vessel, Phi. I think, however, I see what @TheFlyingKerman was suggesting with the exploitability of the command chair.

As your mission doesn't remove anybody from the leaderboard, I will enter your new craft - and the adornments it has earned - to the Honour Roll. But I think in the interest of fairness, a rule around part clipping will be added moving forwards.

It wouldnt have been too hard to do it without clipping honestly, but I did it in the interest of not roasting Raymy on a spit. The SAS wheel was actually strong enough to stop it from flipping. Also I believe you have linked the entry for Phi to the wrong forum post in this thread; it leads to @mystifeid rather than mine!

Edited April 10, 2020 by mabdi36

[Chequers]

5 minutes ago, mabdi36 said:

It wouldnt have been too hard to do it without clipping honestly, but I did it in the interest of not roasting Raymy on a spit. The SAS wheel was actually strong enough to stop it from flipping. Also I believe you have linked the entry for Phi to the wrong forum post in this thread; it leads to @mystifeid rather than mine!

My apologies - a lot of posts in a short amount of time. I've fixed the link.

Also, I'm glad you've enjoyed the challenge. It was born from trying to create a very simple, low tech, orbiter to give a new player a tutorial over in the Gameplay Questions board. Realised I actually had a lot of fun keeping the cost as low as possible - and thought the Kerbal Community would be able to do it far more efficiently... hence the challenge! 

23 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

I'm playing KSP right now, I'll sent an entry (likely) an hour later.

 

Looking forward to it! Welcome to Orbit Boot Camp! 

[Regor]

Just now, Chequers said:

My apologies - a lot of posts in a short amount of time. I've fixed the link.

Also, I'm glad you've enjoyed the challenge. It was born from trying to create a very simple, low tech, orbiter to give a new player a tutorial over in the Gameplay Questions board. Realised I actually had a lot of fun keeping the cost as low as possible - and thought the Kerbal Community would be able to do it far more efficiently... hence the challenge! 

I have also nominated  this thread for the TOTM. I think it really deserves it.

[Chequers]

1 minute ago, mabdi36 said:

I have also nominated  this thread for the TOTM. I think it really deserves it.

That's very kind, thank you. I'm glad you've enjoyed getting involved! I've really enjoyed seeing the creativity and new ways of getting Kerbals into orbit! 

[mystifeid]

42 minutes ago, Chequers said:

I'm not experienced enough to know how it would be easy to exploit. If, as you say, it defeats the spirit of the challenge - which isn't to find loopholes around some of the rules and requirements - then I'll definitely have a rethink. There was always going to be a period of developing the rules to be fair and fun for all.

I think @TheFlyingKermanis probably right. A command seat and either a fairing or a Type A Advanced Nose Cone on top of a 1.25m tank weighs more than 600kg less than a Mk1 pod and costs maybe bit less too. Often you can notice a 5kg difference. Generally I try to stay away from them because they are probably in a class of their own and if anything like to go heavier because Kerbals really have no truck with this idea that less is more - they believe that more is more.

(I've never tried to launch a command seat under a nose cone but the Kerbal fits)

Maybe you can decide when the time comes but possibly having their own class is the answer.

Do I care about being replaced on the leaderboard? Certainly not ... and hurry up about it !

 

 

[Space Nerd]

Ok, it's here.

KSS "Bootcamper"

Built with 10 parts lower than T5, and carries 3 experiments.

I did several runs, the photos are probably from the same run, but I'm not 100% sure.

I'm sure the rocket works.

https://imgur.com/a/WXYGSeN

Edited April 10, 2020 by Space Nerd

[mystifeid]

5 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

I'm sure the rocket works.

Looks sort of ... familiar. Never mind. Good job.

[Space Nerd]

9 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

I did several runs, the photos are probably from the same run, but I'm not 100% sure.

After more thinking, I'm sure now.

[Regor]

37 minutes ago, mystifeid said:

I think @TheFlyingKermanis probably right. A command seat and either a fairing or a Type A Advanced Nose Cone on top of a 1.25m tank weighs more than 600kg less than a Mk1 pod and costs maybe bit less too. Often you can notice a 5kg difference. Generally I try to stay away from them because they are probably in a class of their own and if anything like to go heavier because Kerbals really have no truck with this idea that less is more - they believe that more is more.

(I've never tried to launch a command seat under a nose cone but the Kerbal fits)

Maybe you can decide when the time comes but possibly having their own class is the answer.

Do I care about being replaced on the leaderboard? Certainly not ... and hurry up about it !

 

 

“Comfort? What the heck is that?!” Wernher exclaims as a vengeful Raymy glares across the VAB.

[C1arl]

So I now have my own craft to submit. Though I would not advise trying to replicate it. In order to slow the decent fast enough that the parachutes don't break I had to "fly" the rocket until it is at an acceptable speed. In this case I ended up "flying" from over the deserts to the west of KSC. This design property was not intended and was found when the ship became unstable in decent when I was testing it on reentry. And for those who will question the fund that I have on this save it is due to me editing a career save so I could figure out how much I earned back from recovery. The name is due to the sound I thought of during the reentry. I don't think it would have been quite considering the speeds.  The getting close to KSC was not originally planned. I really didn't think I would be able to keep altitude that long. Though I now know I could have probably flown to the Island run way with the altitude and speed I had left before I started to dive. Cost of fuel would have been 900. Making it a 97.9721% recovery on the parts used. A previous attempted that landed in the desert had a recovery refund of 4078. I don't have screenshots for that attempt though. This ship shouldn't get any Adornments though.

 

Screecher

Cost:	5,782
Recovery Refund:	4,783
Cost after refund:	999
∆v On Pad:	3348 m/s
∆v On In VAB:	3351 m/s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshots (Sorry about the lighting)

Spoiler

Ready For Launch

 

Gravity Turn Begins

 

Target Apoapsis Reached

 

Node For Circulation Targeted

 

Burn Circulation Node

 

Half Way Done

 

Orbit Archived

 

Reentry Node Targeted

 

Burning Reentry Node

 

Entering Atmosphere

 

Burning Off Extra Fuel

 

Flip Beginning

 

Flip Complete

 

Starting to Fly Up Again

 

Descending

 

KSC in-sight

 

Over KSC

 

Parachutes Deployed

 

Falling towards target

 

Parachutes Open

 

Landed

 

Not on KSC

 

Refund Screen

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by C1arl

[Klapaucius]

12 hours ago, mystifeid said:

Doesn't matter if you are going to land it - anything you land anywhere near KSC will mean the majority of the cost is recovered. I looked at a landing 30.3km from KSC and I still recovered 96.6% of the cost of the landed parts.

The original challenge (as I read it) before all the stuff about recovery was that you had 5000 to work with, and that is it. So I am challenging myself to accomplish as much as I can with 5000. No one is giving me a loan on the hopes of recovered items. So in the last case, since the science gear was so expensive, I had to cut costs on the engine and initial fuel to keep it all under 5K.  It took me a few tries to get into orbit as the margins were quite thin. The problem was I did not have enough fuel left to slow myself down enough for reentry. I was going too fast to open the chute. But I now have a new idea...

 

I think there should be a leaderboard for cheapest initial cost. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Klapaucius

[mystifeid]

49 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I think there should be a leaderboard for cheapest initial cost

Maybe. But then there would be no incentive to land close to or at KSC.

[Klapaucius]

1 minute ago, mystifeid said:

Maybe. But then there would be no incentive to land close to or at KSC.

It is a multifaceted challenge.  And you can still land close to the KSC if you are a very, very good (which I am not).

[C1arl]

55 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

No one is giving me a loan on the hopes of recovered items.

Well you kind of can get a loan. Even in the base game by taking a contract you don't think you'll complete but gives money in advance. You just have to either A) Complete the contract or B) use the funds gained to complete other contracts until the incomplete contract charge is paid off. Which while it is more that you get won't be that much different than paying off a loan with interest.

I had tried to build a craft that was different from the ones I had seen already so that it didn't look like I just copied someones work. But there comes a point in which due to budget constants there are only so many usable designs. Which is why I ended up going a little over 5000. And with the lowest recovery refund being around 10% the lowest my craft would have refunded me is 504. Meaning that if I landed within the same side of Kerbin due to the refund being at least 54.16% of the craft. And only getting larger as I get closer. Making so that if you build something that is capable of a single stage to orbit. You could in theory have a budget of a little less than 7708 if you land on the same side of the planet as the KSC. Or a little less than 5516 if you just land on Kerbin in one piece. If your not accounting for fuel of course.

That is if my math is correct.

KSP recovery rates

Data on Kerbin's Circumference

 

[Klapaucius]

4 minutes ago, C1arl said:

Well you kind of can get a loan. Even in the base game by taking a contract you don't think you'll complete but gives money in advance. You just have to either A) Complete the contract or B) use the funds gained to complete other contracts until the incomplete contract charge is paid off. Which while it is more that you get won't be that much different than paying off a loan with interest.

 

I think you really missed the point of my post.  The loan comment was said tongue planted firmly in cheek.  I'm not in career and never play it.  I just set myself my own challenge of doing this as cheaply as possible on the initial cost.  That's all. Others may do as they wish.

[C1arl]

Ah. Alright my bad.

[Chequers]

Update

Thank you to everyone who has taken part in this challenge so far. It’s been great to see your creative solutions and designs to maximise efficiency and cost.

The original spirit of Orbit Boot Camp was to build an orbit capable rocket for less than 5k. I realised that seriously limited options - and we’d soon saturate the number of original entries. 

So it was expanded to include recovery of parts up to 5k, so long as the entire mission cost no more than 5k after recovery - which has resulted in some really clever designs, from SSTOs to totally recoverable rockets.

But for those keen to stick to the original requirements, I’ve added a new leaderboard entry - ‘Lowest launch cost’. This will be recorded from the next entry submitted after this update, for fairness.

Furthermore, there is as another adornment, the Diamond Chevron, for ‘Launch cost below 5k’. This will be applied retroactively to those that have accomplished this. Congratulations @Smokey the Bear, @Pro100kerbonaut and @Klapaucius.

There were also some queries around achievements for landing on the mun, or flybys of another body. On reflection, this widens the scope of this challenge too much. Keeping the premise of this challenge simple - ‘Orbit Kerbin’ - it keeps entries focussed on doing that.

Finally, I’ve made a slight change to the rules to ensure fairness - specifically no clipping, and the Command Chair not counting as a recoverable pod, as it is open to exploit.

Thanks all for taking part, and please keep giving your thoughts on improving this challenge.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Chequers