Smallest Craft to Various Milestones

[HoY]

That's why I chose that one specifically. I'm also using it for my Vall lander in 8.5t on the pad, tried 4 times yesterday but I need a good window to aerocapture around Jool and end up at Vall, otherwise I waste too much extra fuel and won't be able to land safely.

[1096bimu]

Starting with 0.7 tone orbiter, this is just using KSPX and KW parts, not modified in anyway.

[HoY]

You managed to get a stable orbit with 4100m/s of dV? Do you have a screenshot with your periapsis? I don't have KW installed what are the stats on that engine?

[1096bimu]

You managed to get a stable orbit with 4100m/s of dV? Do you have a screenshot with your periapsis? I don't have KW installed what are the stats on that engine?

Actually it's not KW, it's just the KSPX small stack engine. I have FAR installed so I think that's making things easier. But on the flip side, I can't do the intake spam strategy either.

I didn't even use 4100, i still had about 600 m/s left when I got into orbit.

Edited June 29, 2013 by 1096bimu

[HoY]

Okay that is where the difference is from. Your not losing 900m/s to drag that you would without FAR installed.

[koshelenkovv]

Hey, why nobody try Eve?

[1096bimu]

1.7 tone Mun landing:

This one has vertical asparagus staging.

[koshelenkovv]

So, I've sent a Minirover to Eve.

2,768 tons at launchpad. All stock + kerbal engineer.

Vessel had about 700 m/s left and this means that you can do it smaller or do not fiddle with placing 27-77 engine on tank bottom and then sticking it into octostruts.

At start

Accelerating

Time to drop engine and start rocket

It will be in orbit with over 1850 m/s dV left (Eve requires only 1200)

Got intercept

Still violent descent even after 3 aerobraking passes

Very interesting place here, so I've decided to land despite the lack of any batteries on craft

Very gently descended on parachute at speed about with 2 m/s and waiting for the sun now

Minirover.. erm.. miniroving.

Edited June 29, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[tavert]

That's why I chose that one specifically. I'm also using it for my Vall lander in 8.5t on the pad

My point was that balance is a bit subjective (where do you draw the line between "better than stock" and "overpowered"), and with the stats of the KSPX 48-7S you are clearly more capable than the engines available in stock. I like to keep a flag in mind of "closest stock equivalent to this design (assuming perfect piloting) does not work." Drag losses in FAR, objectively superior stats of certain engines in KSPX, fuel tanks in KW, etc.

blueshark, I think you missed my (stock+MechJeb) 1.63 ton to Mun landing a few pages back: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36419-Smallest-Craft-to-Various-Milestones?p=468433&viewfull=1#post468433 2nd part of the post

Edited June 30, 2013 by tavert

[HoY]

I never said it was the same as stock, and the challenge is open to modded parts as long as they are not deliberately overpowered. I do agree that 'overpowered' is a subjective term, especially such a small change in a couple stats can shave off half a tonne from a ship this small, but it is what it is no reason you can't use it to your advantage too, to show us how small you can take it.

[blueshark15]

Sorry about that, its fixed.

[blueshark15]

I think i may, if not add a separate stock category, simply write it next to entries that are, (guidance mods don't count).

Also, perhaps if all top three were modded, i could put the closest stock entry to show what is possible without said mods.

would this be good?

[HoY]

I think i may, if not add a separate stock category, simply write it next to entries that are, (guidance mods don't count).

Also, perhaps if all top three were modded, i could put the closest stock entry to show what is possible without said mods.

would this be good?

That's how most of the challenges that allow mods usually rank winners, with a mod and stock catagory.

[koshelenkovv]

Today I've tried to send other rover to Eeloo.

When craft arrived to Eeloo SoI I figured out that it lacks only 350 m/s dV for safe landing.

Quick calculation shows that I have extra 150 m/s for suicide burn landing at direct collision course, but activating engine at exact altitude when moving at 2000 m/s seems to be beyond human capacity. Split-second late and vessel ends up lithobraking. Split-second earlier and it ends up stopping too high and having not enough fuel to land..

I'll retry this tomorrow.

Edited July 1, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[HoY]

Got it:

5.723t on the pad, landed on Vall with 300+m/s to spare. Using kspx and stock. No FAR. I do think FAR needs a separate tag as well, since it edits the physics of the game not just parts.

Edited July 2, 2013 by HoY

[blueshark15]

is there FAR on this

[HoY]

he's accepting entries with FAR just make sure you list it when you use it

[HoY]

So I'm doing a manned rover to Tylo with return vehicle for the kerbal.. Has anyone done a return from Tylo? What kind of target should I aim for on the pad? Right now it's coming in at just shy of 70t on the pad, tho I think I'm going to dump the standard asparagus for a hybrid jet system.

[tavert]

Depends whether you lift it off Kerbin using jets or rockets, and how bare-bones you make your Tylo lander. I did a bunch of experiments with single-stage Tylo landers, from just over 4 tons using a seat to 11ish tons with a pod (just counting the lander). I was cheating most of these out to Tylo orbit to save time, so I don't have a lot of experience with the delta-V costs of different mission profiles to get out there and back.

Obviously ~2000 m/s for transfer out to Jool (unless you use gravity assists to get there), but then you have an option of aerobraking either at Jool or at Laythe. If you're really a rockstar you can try to aerobrake at Laythe directly into a Laythe-Tylo Hohmann transfer, that should give you the cheapest Tylo orbit insertion (or maybe even cheaper if you gravity assist off of Vall too?).

As for return, I think going directly from low Tylo orbit into the interplanetary transfer back to Kerbin is cheaper than dropping into a low Jool periapsis and transferring from there, but I'd have to play around with maneuver nodes a bit to verify that.

[HoY]

The lander is very similar to the one I used for minmus, except it has 2 flt-100 tanks on the sides as drop tanks with cubic struts installed on them for roll over prevention.

I'm satisfied with my lander/rover/return crafts, I think my only remaining problem is going to be the launcher. Had an idea about jet engine placement for switching over to hybrid, tho its going to be kinda abusive of part clipping... And I'm not positive it will work like I hope it will, but I have to try

I did the same thing while testing the lander, but it isn't completely accurate because I'll still have about 1km/s of fuel left in my LVN stage to do almost half of the landing with,, possibly more if I work on shaving down the landers extra fuel. If only we had some FLT-50's! Look like 1.5m wide pancakes lol.

Rocket looks like this:

4 cubic struts installed off center on a stack decoupler with a seat and a small nose cone chute. This is all that lands back at KSC.

Under that is the return stage. Probe core with an FLT-100 and Ant engine, with the kerbal on the chair in front of it it has a total of 3600m/s of dv.

Under that is a stack Seperator, and the 0.6t manned rover. Made of an rtg, 3 cubic struts, 2 probe cores, 2 tiny wheels, and a seat.

Under that is another stack Seperator, I'm using seperators so that the extra mass of the part is shed from Both sides.

Another centered seat held in place on 3 cubic struts. A probe core with another FLT-100 tank and stack mount orange engine. On the sides of this I have two cubic struts with two stack decouplers and flt100's mounted on them as drop tanks for this stage. The tanks give the lander 1600m/s, then when they and the rover are shed on the surface the last tank with engine has 2100m/s left in it.

Under that is an FLT-400 with 2 flt200's as drop tanks as the interplanetary drive. Aside from that I just listed all that's missing now is the test of the launcher. Was using aero spikes but in positive I can shave 20t worth of fuel and engines off by using jets.

I actually played with the conic settings for the first time when I was attempting this mission a couple of days ago, and let me tell you, it makes gravity assists Sooo much better, when you add in MechJeb's aero brake calculator. I came in from interplanetary , did a gravity assist (not an intentional but not a harmful one) by tylo, aero captured at Jool, did a gravity assist around laythe and 1 more aero brake at Jool. A 60m/s burn got me a nice slow intercept from that point with Tylo again with a perhaps of 25km. By the time I was there it only cost something like 900m/s to circularize.

The second I got a stable elliptical orbit I dropped the return stage off, saving me 1.5ish t, because the return section at that point was actually an ion ship similarly built but having 2x the dV I needed and 1/4 the twr and no dark side burns so it would be really hard to fix its orbit. This has been fixed with the new version. Like I mentioned it has a lot of extra fuel for just the return trip so ill burn some of it up fixing its tylo orbit once the lander has come back into orbit.

Edit:: on a deltaV calculating note, 4 of the 400unit radially mounted batteries is equal to the mass of 1 kerbal while he's sitting in a chair. So stick 4 of them on the chair to get a more accurate dV reading from engineer or MJ

Edited July 5, 2013 by HoY

[koshelenkovv]

Aerobraking is orerrated.

[HoY]

Lol. I just starred the mission last night, spent 5 hours doing it, but before I actually got off the pad someone snuck a kraken egg onboard every time I reload or tab ships and come back the pilot flys out of the chair. Once I get him back in the ship immediately disassembles itself.

On a kinda cool note, I got a 150m/s kick from Mun on my way by, only using 1760m/s to get my Jool encounter. And Tylo was intercepted immediately after the first aero pass and circularized at 60km for 990m/s.

got this far without having to quick load but then failed a landing and tried again,, so far I'm stuck in a Groundhog Day situation..

[koshelenkovv]

Here is rover Eeloo Ant

7 tons at launchpad.

I feel somewhat guilty for 6 intakes

On low Eeloo orbit with 800 m/s excessive dV left

[blueshark15]

Wow, that is impressive

[Guest]

To Eeloo and back. 16.79 tons in VAB. Wow, this was tough.

Full mission report with videos here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/40158-To-Eeloo-and-back