[Stock Only] Single Launch Eve Landing/Return Mission

[Excalibur]

The Single Launch Eve Landing and Return Mission

If you are the kind of kerbal whom enjoys pain, anguish and multiple failures then this sir/madam is the challenge for you!

Background

This begins with a sad, sad tale of loss. Jeb, Bill and Bob were orbiting closely to Eve, waiting for the transfer window home. After a few weeks they were beginning to get rather bored and Jeb decided to liven things up a little. He took Bill outside along with his favourite pie dish. They then proceeded to enjoy a game of orbital frisbee. Now frisbee in a zero-g vacuum ain't easy, and it wasn't long before a devilishly fast right-hander from Jeb sent his beloved dish hurtling away from Bob in just such a manner that it de-orbited, eventually landing unscathed on the purple plains below.

Mission & Rules

YOU have been tasked by Jeb to get down to the surface of Eve and bring his pie dish back home, to Kerbin. His pies just haven't been the same since; he's lost that famous grin. Bring back the dish!

Only stock parts.

Use of MechJeb is fine, though extra kudos for it's non-use.

Only a SINGLE launch allowed. No EVA rendezvous, the risk of losing the pie dish again is too great.

To make this already hard-as-nails challenge a little easier, you may land anywhere on Eve. We'll just say you were rather fortunate on landing right next to Jeb's dish.

GOOD LUCK!

Edited September 28, 2012 by Excalibur

[TheDarkStar]

I'm working on this and will have an entry soon.

[Apotheosist]

I have been working on this, it's one of my main goals. So far I've managed to land on Eve with a rocket capable of reaching 95km vertically, almost out of the atmosphere. However to give it the extra delta-v needed to reach orbit makes the lander significantly larger, and makes the whole launch vehicle much much larger. I've never been good at handling very large rockets, and neither is my laptop I considered setting up a similar challenge to this, but only to reach Eve orbit. Another ship would then rendevous to pick up the crew and go home. That would be enough of a challenge on it's own.

Maybe the challenge should be "highest eve ascent" or "closest to eve orbit from surface". This will gradually come to meet the original challenge of the complete mission, but will allow more collaboration and sharing (or stealing, whatever you want to call it) of ideas along the way. Having more collaboration can be a great help with difficult challenges, and with more people working together, we might see an Eve-return rocket sooner than if we all worked independently.

Anyway, despite what I just said about working together on this, I'm still gonna go work on my rocket to try to beat everyone to it. Muahahaha!

[TheDarkStar]

Anyway, despite what I just said about working together on this, I'm still gonna go work on my rocket to try to beat everyone to it. Muahahaha!

Good luck beating my rocket that's in flight. If it goes well, I'll have pictures of it.

[Excalibur]

I have been working on this, it's one of my main goals. So far I've managed to land on Eve with a rocket capable of reaching 95km vertically, almost out of the atmosphere. However to give it the extra delta-v needed to reach orbit makes the lander significantly larger, and makes the whole launch vehicle much much larger. I've never been good at handling very large rockets, and neither is my laptop I considered setting up a similar challenge to this, but only to reach Eve orbit. Another ship would then rendevous to pick up the crew and go home. That would be enough of a challenge on it's own.

Maybe the challenge should be "highest eve ascent" or "closest to eve orbit from surface". This will gradually come to meet the original challenge of the complete mission, but will allow more collaboration and sharing (or stealing, whatever you want to call it) of ideas along the way. Having more collaboration can be a great help with difficult challenges, and with more people working together, we might see an Eve-return rocket sooner than if we all worked independently.

Anyway, despite what I just said about working together on this, I'm still gonna go work on my rocket to try to beat everyone to it. Muahahaha!

95km is quite a bit better than the 30km I've managed, hats off to you!

I'm going to keep the challenge name as it is, as this mission is the ultimate goal and probably the hardest thing you can do in KSP right now. However, I'll keep records of whom gets the highest altitude, and what kinds of orbits anyone manages to enter. That way we can keep track of how close kerbalkind is coming to achieving the goal.

Also I'd like to actively encourage people to share ideas and details of their failures (or successes) so we can all learn a bit more about efficient rocket design, because really this is all about efficiency. I never calculate delta-v budgets (only use the Engineer plugin for guidance) so my rockets probably aren't as efficient as they can be.

I've thought about using a large cluster of SRBs in the first stage of the lander to 'punch' through the atmosphere as soon as possible, though the weight penalties are huge. I'm actually thinking about making a modded 'stock' KSP where all parts have 1.7x the mass and 5x the drag so we can more accurately test designs in Kerbin's atmosphere. Obviously it won't be completely accurate due to Eve's atmosphere being deeper.

Looking forward to seeing pictures of your designs!

EDIT: In fact I'm creating the Eve parts right now. If anyone is interested I'll post the dropbox link. Just to clarify, those figures are correct yes? (1.7G & 5atm).

Edited September 23, 2012 by Excalibur

[TheDarkStar]

95km is quite a bit better than the 30km I've managed, hats off to you!

I'm going to keep the challenge name as it is, as this mission is the ultimate goal and probably the hardest thing you can do in KSP right now. However, I'll keep records of whom gets the highest altitude, and what kinds of orbits anyone manages to enter. That way we can keep track of how close kerbalkind is coming to achieving the goal.

Also I'd like to actively encourage people to share ideas and details of their failures (or successes) so we can all learn a bit more about efficient rocket design, because really this is all about efficiency. I never calculate delta-v budgets (only use the Engineer plugin for guidance) so my rockets probably aren't as efficient as they can be.

I've thought about using a large cluster of SRBs in the first stage of the lander to 'punch' through the atmosphere as soon as possible, though the weight penalties are huge. I'm actually thinking about making a modded 'stock' KSP where all parts have 1.7x the mass and 5x the drag so we can more accurately test designs in Kerbin's atmosphere. Obviously it won't be completely accurate due to Eve's atmosphere being deeper.

Looking forward to seeing pictures of your designs!

EDIT: In fact I'm creating the Eve parts right now. If anyone is interested I'll post the dropbox link. Just to clarify, those figures are correct yes? (1.7G & 5atm).

My current lander has a stage to get out of the thick atmosphere, and then it uses SRBs to get fast enough.

[Excalibur]

I may be on to something here. I've gone through all the rocket parts and increased their masses and drag values by factors of 1.7x and 5x respectively. In a simple test, the ship with normal parts reached just under 10km before MECO. With 'Eve-sim' parts the same ship only reached 2.4km in altitude before it's engine burned out.

The only problem with this method for testing lander designs is that Kerbin's atmosphere is only 70% of the thickness of Eve's, so you'll still have to add at least another 30% margin-of-error into your designs. If anyone's interested I'll zip and dropbox the parts.

[TheDarkStar]

I ran into trouble, since my first lander had no landing legs and blew up. It's ascent stage also doesn't have enough thrust to get out of the thick part of the atmosphere, so I need to change some things.

[Apotheosist]

I managed to get into orbit from the surface of Eve, But I forgot to mention it here. Here it is: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/21748-First-ever-ascent-to-orbit-from-Eve-using-stock-parts

[Excalibur]

I applaud your attempt, but you edited the persistence file to get there, so in my mind it doesn't count. Now if you can show me a detailed log of launching that lander from Kerbin, interplanetary flight to Eve and subsequent ascent to Eve orbit, then my friend would you deserve proper recognition.

[untitled]

The great Kerbal Space Race of 2012!

My rocket (in signature) is pretty close as of now. I just need to add an interplanetary stage to it which will HOPEFULLY bring me home to Kerbin.

But then again, by laptop is starting to lag with 630 parts, and I expect that I will need to add even more boosters in order to offset the interplanetary stage.

I applaud your attempt, but you edited the persistence file to get there, so in my mind it doesn't count. Now if you can show me a detailed log of launching that lander from Kerbin, interplanetary flight to Eve and subsequent ascent to Eve orbit, then my friend would you deserve proper recognition.

Do you only need to get back into orbit, or get back to Kerbin?

Edited September 27, 2012 by untitled

[LambdaCactus]

I applaud your attempt, but you edited the persistence file to get there, so in my mind it doesn't count. Now if you can show me a detailed log of launching that lander from Kerbin, interplanetary flight to Eve and subsequent ascent to Eve orbit, then my friend would you deserve proper recognition.

Cut some slack, it's part of a process to eventually do the full thing... You yourself edited parts to simulate the same thing from Kerbin, so what's the difference?

[untitled]

Cut some slack, it's part of a process to eventually do the full thing... You yourself edited parts to simulate the same thing from Kerbin, so what's the difference?

Anyone can simply edit the persistence file to place a huge rocket on Eve, making the challenge worthless.

[nhnifong]

Anyone can simply edit the persistence file to place a huge rocket on Eve, making the challenge worthless.

You miss the point.

[The Procrastinaut]

got to eve (missing half my fuel tanks due to deep space time warp kraken), but when I took off again only got to 14,502m, so near yet to far...

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/20900-Land-on-Stuff?p=280010&viewfull=1#post280010

[Gryphius]

Cut some slack, it's part of a process to eventually do the full thing... You yourself edited parts to simulate the same thing from Kerbin, so what's the difference?

The difference is that the edited parts act as a design aid. Part of the problem is taking off from Eve and getting back to Kerbin. The OTHER (and significant) part of the problem is getting that lander to Eve. To simply cut that half of the mission out the equation by editing the persistence file makes the problem much less of a challenge.

[Excalibur]

Cut some slack, it's part of a process to eventually do the full thing... You yourself edited parts to simulate the same thing from Kerbin, so what's the difference?

True, but I never claimed any firsts. As stated by Gryphius half of the challenge is lifting an immense lander all the way to Eve from Kerbin's surface.

Do you only need to get back into orbit, or get back to Kerbin?

The original idea was (and still is) to return to Kerbin. Considering the difficulty of the challenge however, if you can reach even Eve orbit after the full mission profile you'll make me very happy!

Edited September 28, 2012 by Excalibur

[Apotheosist]

@Excalibur, Thank you and I totally agree, it doesen't count. Just wanted to post it here to show people how a small part of the challenge could be achieved. Now that we have something that can get into eve orbit, we can concentrate on getting it to Eve. In my mind, it would be such a waste of time to build a big rocket to get to Eve...when you can not even get into orbit from Eve. I build rockets from the top down

@LambdaCactus, I'm sure Excalibur appreciates my effort, and he was only being encouraging, by giving me a greater challenge. I thrive on tough challenges, so It's all cool

@untitled, the point of my mission was to try to make as small a lander as possible that could take off from Eve. This will be easier to then take to Eve.

[boolybooly]

Good challenge, I am using the stats of Apotheosist's craft to try and design a lander that can actually make it off the surface so I would say it had been worthwhile. So far I have made two attempts, both failed and the first got to 6,000m and the second to 20,000m so I have got a long way to go. Will be interested to read other people's attempts.

I can tell you that this thing failed.

[bsalis]

Tempted to try this. However i'm concerned about mixing a near-impossible task with my obsessives tendencies.

Also, the "NO MechJeb". Personally I think that needs to change. The lag will be so bad for these vessels that launching it will practically require it.

[trbinsc]

This is really more of an engineering challenge than a piloting challenge, so I'd have to agree about removing the "No MechJeb" rule.

[iamaphazael]

Also, the "NO MechJeb". Personally I think that needs to change. The lag will be so bad for these vessels that launching it will practically require it.

You can launch with plain old asas, you know.

I for one am happy no see the no mechjeb stipulation. Although I must admit, I have been using it lately as it makes interplanetary transfers are so exacting, mechjeb does make it a bit more reliable. However, it's perfectly possible to do it with only manual control, and imo that's what makes it a CHALLENGE.

[Thobewill10]

This has mechjeb, but this guy on Reddit made it.

[r_rolo1]

The guy just irradiated his KSC by smashing a nuke engine in it

I think that did it basically because of the choice of landing site. Besides having less 10 km to get up he also avoided the worst of the Eve atmosphere by landing high. I'm not sure if he could do that from sea level

[Excalibur]

@Excalibur, Thank you and I totally agree, it doesen't count. Just wanted to post it here to show people how a small part of the challenge could be achieved. Now that we have something that can get into eve orbit, we can concentrate on getting it to Eve. In my mind, it would be such a waste of time to build a big rocket to get to Eve...when you can not even get into orbit from Eve. I build rockets from the top down

@LambdaCactus, I'm sure Excalibur appreciates my effort, and he was only being encouraging, by giving me a greater challenge. I thrive on tough challenges, so It's all cool

@untitled, the point of my mission was to try to make as small a lander as possible that could take off from Eve. This will be easier to then take to Eve.

I admit I should have been a bit more supportive of your attempt (my posts were made late at night/early in the morning!); I've yet to achieve orbit from Eve's surface so kudos to you Apotheosist. I'd not really even considered editing the .sfs file as a testing tool, obvious but a good idea!

This is really more of an engineering challenge than a piloting challenge, so I'd have to agree about removing the "No MechJeb" rule.

I think you are right, I personally use MechJeb quite a lot when testing designs as it helps remove uncertainty from inconsistent piloting (I've argued this point as support of using MJ in other challenges). Also this challenge is probably hard enough as it is. Updated the OP to reflect this.

I think that did it basically because of the choice of landing site. Besides having less 10 km to get up he also avoided the worst of the Eve atmosphere by landing high. I'm not sure if he could do that from sea level

Launch from sea-level would be the most impressive, but as stated above the challenge is hard enough as-is; using a high-altitude launch site is more than acceptable if you ask me. Plus it takes more skill to find and land at such a site.