Farthest Distance Traveled in 10 minutes

[numerobis]

Ladies and Gentlekerbals, it is time to unveil the INSANATRON 15k !!!

With a tavert-inspired upper stage delivering 15 km/s and a ridiculous pair of jet stages, the Insanatron 15k can tear through 7241 km in just 10 minutes.

We use custom-moulded tanks, custom-built jet engines, and custom air intakes to provide this performance with a mere 1559 parts on liftoff (including 64 launch clamps).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 16, 2013 by numerobis

[Nao]

I like the usage of basic engines for first stage every bit of edge helps.

Using my ship from 4minute challenge and switching boosters for more fuel (somewhere around 48000-49000 total) I've beat my previous record by 10%. 48-7S is so much better than other engines its not funny anymore

7241 is no small feat thou gj!

[numerobis]

The basic jet has high thrust on start, which compensates for the turbojet's low thrust on start. It also has high Isp at low altitude, as opposed to the turbojet's. However, it spins up *sooo sloowwwwwllllyyyy* -- literally 45 seconds to full throttle. So you want to light them up, get coffee, then start the turbojets, drink the coffee, and finally launch.

I could get a bit better by just sitting on the pad burning fuel a few seconds more, particularly the basic jets. Also I screwed up the flight plan, never got below 45 degrees. And I screwed up the transition from ascent computer to prograde, which turns off the throttle, which cost me probably 100 m/s from the jets. The same design, better flown, could get probably 7500. A sneaky other trick: shift-click to move the entire spacecraft up to start at 148m rather than 117m (which saves you a half-second, and thus adds 8 km to your total). But I get about a frame per second, and it's not stock, so forget optimizing any further.

Whackjob gets the credit for learning me about trusses, which is how I could keep the saucer solid even at max-Q. Previously I'd eschewed them as being useless mass.

[Traches]

This guy would have won:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39947-From-the-launchpad-to-the-Mun-in-13-seconds

He didn't even use a glitch.

[AlamoVampire]

This guy would have won:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39947-From-the-launchpad-to-the-Mun-in-13-seconds

He didn't even use a glitch.

that is a glitch that is NOT a glitch. that is physics raising its hands up and saying: I quit. lol

[tavert]

48-7S is so much better than other engines its not funny anymore

Aaand in 0.22 it now has 30 kN thrust, same mass and Isp as before. Used to be the best engine for small stuff, now it's the best engine for almost everything.

[numerobis]

Holy carp! I'm surprised they anti-nerfed it.

[Nao]

WHAAAAAAAAATT? This game is work in progress but still ... some semblance of balance would be nice as we go along.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Nao

[numerobis]

I decided to go nuts and code up an autopilot that goes straight up with the basic jets, then pitches down to maintain TWR 4 vertically in the turbojet stage, and finally goes prograde for the rockets. I also waited a little bit longer on the pad, but not much -- the spacecraft can't handle launching at full throttle.

Result (still in 0.21.1, no changes to the spacecraft): 7321 km in 10 minutes. I expect that it shouldn't be hard to break 8000 km in 0.22 with infinite part count.

Notice the last panel. That was totally fortuitous

Javascript is disabled. View full album

.

[tavert]

Good aim. I've had some MINLP's chugging along for a 0.22 design, they unfortunately take a few days when you've got lots of stages. All of your constraints from your other challenge are now active, so I've got a glitchy-as-hell trick up my sleeve for how to get away with far fewer struts.

[numerobis]

No aim, just sheer luck. There was a challenge a while back about getting to the Mun as fast as possible; this would be a quite respectable entry for that challenge.

Some attachment tricks with fewer parts:

The half-tonne tank can't attach radially to a decoupler for some reason, so attach it inline by tilting the tank. The engine needs a strut to attach it, but if you were attaching two engines you needed struts anyway.

The bigger tanks do attach radially to a decoupler, which saves you a strut compared to what I was seeing you do.

[tavert]

I was actually talking about the other kind of strut, and the trick I've got in mind is much more dramatic than that. If I'm looking at your picture properly, is the rightmost T100 tank the base part there? Does the radial attachment of tanks to horizontal inline decouplers require rotating the tank first? I've been meaning to try that.

[numerobis]

I was actually talking about the other kind of strut, and the trick I've got in mind is much more dramatic than that. If I'm looking at your picture properly, is the rightmost T100 tank the base part there? Does the radial attachment of tanks to horizontal inline decouplers require rotating the tank first? I've been meaning to try that.

Indeed, the rightmost tank is the root (well, the probe above it is the root, but details).

You needn't rotate anything to get a T200 to radially attach. A T100 radially attaches also, but for some reason it attaches to the cube rather than to the decoupler. No such problem with the T200, or any other tank up to the Jumbo 64: they will all radially attach to the bottom node of a probe decoupler.