SSTO to the Mun and back

[ThePsuedoMonkey]

Getting back on track, here's my entry: the SkyHawk

http://imgur.com/a/dwtVu

Hanrod ended up making it home by the skin of his teeth, but if I could get a better orbital insertion we wouldn't have to run on fumes so often I'm not sure what happened on the Mun there, but reloading the game seemed to have fixed it.

Craft: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoeEQtcHBWNG1oMWc/edit?usp=sharing

I need to move those radial boosters though, since that tank kinda breaks their center of thrust ASAS freaks out during the ride home and I'm not sure why, so that landing was pretty interesting for a while.

[bsalis]

Good work ThePsuedoMonkey, another entry, finally.

Also, Plur303... can I get an honorary listing or some such. I did complete this challenge, but just did not comply with all the pics requirements since I actually did my mission for the K-prize before this thread.

If anyone is interested, my intake:engine ratio was 12:5

[Plur303]

Getting back on track, here's my entry: the SkyHawk

http://imgur.com/a/dwtVu

Hanrod ended up making it home by the skin of his teeth, but if I could get a better orbital insertion we wouldn't have to run on fumes so often I'm not sure what happened on the Mun there, but reloading the game seemed to have fixed it.

Craft: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoeEQtcHBWNG1oMWc/edit?usp=sharing

I need to move those radial boosters though, since that tank kinda breaks their center of thrust ASAS freaks out during the ride home and I'm not sure why, so that landing was pretty interesting for a while.

Nice Job. I calculate your score as 787 points.

You might be able to improve your score if you time your launch so that you don't have to go into a Kerbin orbit before burning to the Mun. That's what I did. My ascent burn and injection burn to the Mun were all one continuous burn. You save a little bit of fuel that way by not spending energy raising your periapsis on Kerbin. The burn is also more fuel efficient that way because you are doing your Mun injection burn at a lower altitude and exploiting the Oberth effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

And bsalis I'm also giving you an honorable mention.

[Rosarium]

here my entry:

let's do some math: (782+790)/(133+106)

1572/239

6.577 *1000

6577

[Plur303]

let's do some math: (782+790)/(133+106)

1572/239

6.577 *1000

6577

You did the equation backwards. It is remaining/starting so 279/1572 which = 0.1520

x1000 = 152

+250 for no damage

and no runway landing bonus

= 402

You would be the score leader if you could land on the runway. But it does appear that you use clipping to place some of your parts, which violates rule #3, no use of the debug menu. This is going to have to fall into the honorable mentions category. I also think I see a stacked intake just in front of your jet engines, behind the outermost bicoupler. That is not allowed.

Thanks for participating!

Edited May 8, 2013 by Plur303

[tavert]

I think we're having a semantic disagreement about the word stacking. As far as game mechanics go, having multiple intakes per engine works basically the same way regardless of how or where you attach them (as long as they're all pointed forward). The only thing that really matters is the number (and type) of intakes per engine. Anyone using multiple intakes per engine is therefore "blatantly exploiting a broken game mechanic and clearly cheating," whether those intakes are attached in a compact way using cubic struts or otherwise. Everyone in this challenge so far has stacked intakes with multiple per engine, even if we have to go out of our way to make our planes a little heavier or oddly-shaped to do so. "Stacking" is not a true/false binary thing, it's a scale defined by a ratio.

There are plenty of "tweak one or two numbers" quick fixes that could be made to nerf the jets to varying degrees, without modifying the underlying game mechanics at all - increasing intake mass, reducing jet thrust at high speeds, etc. These would be quick changes to make, but wouldn't the devs' time be more productively spent completely replacing screwy mechanics like the aerodynamic/drag model or the way intakes and jets work? From the sound of things, game balance in terms of part performance isn't really a priority at the moment anyway.

Here's my plane, still need to fly the whole mission manually (I'll take MechJeb off, it's just here for weight and delta-V stats and preliminary test flights) and add some Mun-landing gear on the tail: http://i.imgur.com/VgNkMUs.jpg

It gets to orbit with about 3800 m/s delta-V left, should need about 3/4 of that to get to and from the Mun. The nuclear engine is clipped inside the jet without using the debug menu. I place a cubic struts radially on the bottom of the capsule as centered as I can get it. Then mount the nuclear engine on the cubic strut. Place the jet fuel tank on the back of the engine, then move it to the inline attach point on the capsule.

[hoojiwana]

Pretty sure by stack Plur meant a stack. One on top of another, on top of another, using the cubic struts. Doing this means you can fit a great number of intakes in a small space for a low mass cost, compared with putting them on couplers or tail sections or whatever. Calling engines placed on Bi-/tri-couplers "stacked" is blatantly incorrect.

[tavert]

Mechanically the same, aesthetically different. If you need a bi-coupler you're paying a penalty, but if you lay out your tanks differently you're not. Or for that matter you can use cubic struts to put as many as you want in a large space, no clipping required and not much of a stack there. The jets are just plain overpowered unless you say maximum N intakes per engine, for your choice of small N.

Edited May 9, 2013 by tavert

[hoojiwana]

But you could lay-out your tanks differently and potentially use intake stacking at the same time. If you're just inventive about placing tanks so maximise connection points for intakes then that would be fine. If you do that and then slap on 6 extra intakes per tank using cubic struts that would not be fine.

[tavert]

Difference of opinion then. There is some practical design limit of laying out tanks and such (which you could circumvent while remaining within the letter of the rule here by making some spindly strut-structure thing where all tanks are round-8's and all intakes are attached to those round-8's), but how they're attached seems completely arbitrary to me with respect to the mechanics of how the intakes work.

Anyway, for everyone's sake I'll try to shut up about it and just fly the plane.

Edited May 9, 2013 by tavert

[hoojiwana]

It's not a difference of opinion in regards to the challenge, the rules clearly state that using cubic struts to place intakes in odd places isn't allowed.

[Plur303]

I think we're having a semantic disagreement about the word stacking. As far as game mechanics go, having multiple intakes per engine works basically the same way regardless of how or where you attach them (as long as they're all pointed forward). The only thing that really matters is the number (and type) of intakes per engine. Anyone using multiple intakes per engine is therefore "blatantly exploiting a broken game mechanic and clearly cheating," whether those intakes are attached in a compact way using cubic struts or otherwise. Everyone in this challenge so far has stacked intakes with multiple per engine, even if we have to go out of our way to make our planes a little heavier or oddly-shaped to do so. "Stacking" is not a true/false binary thing, it's a scale defined by a ratio.

I completely disagree on every level. "Stacking" does not require any design ingenuity and one can simply spam as many intakes as they want with no effort given to incorporate those intakes into the design. It's ridiculous. Putting multiple intakes one behind the other doesn't even make sense. As I stated in a previous comment I honestly wish the game forced us to have the intakes in a realistic position in relation to the jet with a clear flow path for the air to travel between the two. I personally like to make planes that are as realistic as posible. This one is a personal favorite of mine but since it only has 1 Ram and 2 scoops per engine it is very "low performace" compared to the spam fest SSTOs on this forum.

I posted a "CHALLENGE". In this challenge I made the rules to be somewhat challenging. Shocking concept, I know...

Here's my plane, still need to fly the whole mission manually (I'll take MechJeb off, it's just here for weight and delta-V stats and preliminary test flights) and add some Mun-landing gear on the tail: http://i.imgur.com/VgNkMUs.jpg

It gets to orbit with about 3800 m/s delta-V left, should need about 3/4 of that to get to and from the Mun. The nuclear engine is clipped inside the jet without using the debug menu. I place a cubic struts radially on the bottom of the capsule as centered as I can get it. Then mount the nuclear engine on the cubic strut. Place the jet fuel tank on the back of the engine, then move it to the inline attach point on the capsule.

I do not like that you have a Nerva clipped inside a fuel tank and a jet. Even if you did it without using the debug menu it goes without saying this is an exploit and unfair. I'm not going to score that splaceplane in that configuration.

Also, Mechjeb...

[tavert]

Yeah, I predicted you wouldn't like it in my post a couple days ago - "I don't think the OP will like it much, since I resolved my engine difficulties by using cubic struts to clip an LV-N into the jet." Also, Mechjeb... "I'll take MechJeb off, it's just here for weight and delta-V stats and preliminary test flights."

[Plur303]

FYI I am going out of town until Sunday and will probably not be checking this thread. So do no be offended if you submit your mission to the thread and I don't respond for a couple days.

But you could lay-out your tanks differently and potentially use intake stacking at the same time. If you're just inventive about placing tanks so maximise connection points for intakes then that would be fine. If you do that and then slap on 6 extra intakes per tank using cubic struts that would not be fine.

I have been exploring this concept and although it works great I don't like it just because it is so ridiculous... The sad thing is that this plane flys amazing. With ASAS on it is silky smooth, no shaking at all. I have a feeling this plane can beat my original submission.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Plur303

[tavert]

Guess you'll be out of town so might not answer for a while, but I'm hoping you consider this design more acceptable: http://imgur.com/a/gfq3M#0

Some cubic struts used for central structure and to mount the nose gear (both horizontal and vertical), no real clipping. I could move the rear landing gear and front winglets if you're super strict about the slightest bit of overlap on any parts.

I'm going out of my way to try this with only one jet engine, to the point of having no real fuselage here, only side tanks.

[bsalis]

I have been exploring this concept and although it works great I don't like it just because it is so ridiculous... The sad thing is that this plane flys amazing. With ASAS on it is silky smooth, no shaking at all. I have a feeling this plane can beat my original submission. -snip-

You can also fit air intakes onto the back of the tanks, facing forward, as well. Assuming there is no engine there, obviously.

[Kuris]

Hello everyone! Now, after countless of hours and many prototypes, my SSTO Mk 8 finally did it. But because I am not a very good pilot, I spent nearly all of my fuel on this trip and I did not even try to land back on the runway. Some professional pilot propably would do nice score with this one. Huh! I also recorded all of my attempts to accomplish the mission, so I have quite a lot of footage to compile some nice video...

So here is my entry.

Takeoff

On the Mun

Mission accomplished

Moar pictures: Pictures from the mission

Edited May 11, 2013 by Kuris

[Plur303]

Guess you'll be out of town so might not answer for a while, but I'm hoping you consider this design more acceptable: http://imgur.com/a/gfq3M#0

Some cubic struts used for central structure and to mount the nose gear (both horizontal and vertical), no real clipping. I could move the rear landing gear and front winglets if you're super strict about the slightest bit of overlap on any parts.

I'm going out of my way to try this with only one jet engine, to the point of having no real fuselage here, only side tanks.

Now that is an interesting ship. I will allow it because it appears to follow the rules. I'm also curious how you plan to flip it around and use the rocket while still in the atmosphere.

You can also fit air intakes onto the back of the tanks, facing forward, as well. Assuming there is no engine there, obviously.

I consider that stacking. Placing an intake so that there is a part mounted to the front of it is stacking.

[tavert]

Now that is an interesting ship. I will allow it because it appears to follow the rules. I'm also curious how you plan to flip it around and use the rocket while still in the atmosphere.

Turn off jet, pitch down about 135 degrees as quickly as possible, turn on rocket, profit? I plan to do this maneuver at about 40 km altitude, after getting as high a speed as I can by nursing the one jet just below flameout. Shouldn't be too much drag during the flip at that altitude, and if all goes well I won't need much more speed from the rocket to get into orbit. It's a bit too heavy and too few intakes to get all the way to orbital speed on one jet, so I'll have to practice a few times until I get into orbit with a good amount of fuel left. MechJeb tests were able to get to orbit using just 160 fuel and 50 oxidizer, so that's the target I'm going to try to get close to. Manual flying's just so unreliable, not repeatable enough for my liking, but maybe more practice will reduce my variability in piloting. Then I'll have to try a few times to get the right altitude for suicide burn landing, and again for aerobraking and runway landing. I'll give it a shot tonight, see how much of the mission I can get done.

[Innuce]

I'd like to see someone accomplish this with only a 1 intake per jet engine limit. This would resolve any clipping/stacking issues, plus make it more challenging.

[CakeNinjaProductions]

Is this contest still going? Can I enter?

[Overfloater]

Ahhh, I KNEW this plane will come in handy one day... }:^]

Mantacruiser:

55 parts, 15.5 tons at start.

4 intakes, 1 jet, 1 medium sized brown motor...

Fuel: capacity - 3 t800 tanks

100% fuel, 66.6% oxidizer

Sorry I didn't take proper screenies, but if you don't believe me I could shoot a video of it.

...Or you could try it! (note: Kerbin ascent is a bit hard - because of essential modifications to ensure it gets to space)

Edit: WAIT A MINUTE... this contest is a bit old isn't it???

Edited May 30, 2014 by Overfloater

[Kasuha]

Guys, this challenge is more than a year old.

If nothing else, SSTOs are now way easier to make thanks to change in resource utilization in 0.23.