CLOSED -- Flying Duna AGAIN (Thanks for Participating)

[Kaa253]

VERY nicely done! That is a very nice-looking ship on top of being quite functional.<br>

I have this thread set to nag me whenever somebody posts in it, so I'm always watching

Thank you, and thanks also for your quick response.

My only question is on the cargo. I've been counting Kethane itself and drills, etc., as cargo if the plane can function without them, on the theory that the plane could be used to deliver Kethane to bases. So there are several questions here actually. First, can the plane meet the challenge requirements on electric power alone, without burning Kethane?

Yes

Can it achieve 9000m without burning kethane?

Apparently not! This was an excellent question to which I did not know the answer for certain so I have flown some additional test flights (in kethane cargo delivery mode) to get the answers. It turns out that without burning kethane I can only achieve a stable cruise altitude of about 6750 m. It makes no difference if the kethane tanks are full or empty, I get the same 6750 m maximum cruising altitude. It seems that it is a limit imposed by the electric engines not providing enough power to produce a positive climb rate above 6750 m altitude. The firespitter engines may be able to hold at a slightly higher altitude but they are unable to climb there unassisted. I did not set any action groups to toggle the firespitter engines into the alternate modes (one is called "cargo"). Something else to try but not for this challenge entry (Tesla III is on the drawing board, ).

Can it circumnavigate (landing at night is OK) without burning Kethane? If so, not only the drill but all the Kethane itself counts as cargo.

Yes. No problem. My latest test flights confirm that it can do this fully loaded with kethane and without running the kethane turbine. The kethane drill has mass = 1 (tonne?). The kethane tanks are in total 0.65 dry mass and 3.85 wet mass. (I was unaware that I was lifting 3.2 tonne of kethane on full tanks!).

As it stands right now, you've got + 3 for 5 Kerbals, +1 for all Kerbals inside, +4 for 9000m (assuming you didn't need Kethane to get there, +3 for 8000m otherwise), + 1 circumnavigation assuming Kethane wasn't required, + 1 for FAR, and + whatever for cargo.

You need to deduct 2 or 3 points for only 6750 m (not 9000 m) achieved without burning kethane

I believe you're the 1st to do this challenge with life support. That is something I hadn't considered before so I'll have to amend the rules. Life support really doesn't fit in as cargo because if you're using it, you can't leave home without it, so it's more like structural weight that has to be overcome by ingenious aerospace engineering. As such, I believe using life support should be an additional bonus for carrying the extra dead weight. And the more Kerbals you have aboard, the more dead weight you have to carry to keep them alive. So I'm thinking that using life support should be a bonus of +1 by default for 2 Kerbals, with an additional +1 for each ton of life support supplies, to keep it in line with the cargo points. This would give you an extra +1 in addition to the points above.

Of course, that's fine with me . The Tesla II has only a medium size (1.25 m) light weight life support container and so can support the full compliment 5 kerbal crew for only 17 days. In my design the main life support for the overall mission (Kerbin->Duna) is provided by the Duna Base Alpha (512 days) . I note however that custume has what looks like it might be 2 large life support containers on the prototype he has shown a few posts back. That would amount to around 3.5 tonnes of life support supplies when full!

[Geschosskopf]

It turns out that without burning kethane I can only achieve a stable cruise altitude of about 6750 m. It makes no difference if the kethane tanks are full or empty, I get the same 6750 m maximum cruising altitude. It seems that it is a limit imposed by the electric engines not providing enough power to produce a positive climb rate above 6750 m altitude.

That's what I was wondering. I don't think anybody else has reached even 7000m on just those electric props so I was wondering how you were getting 8000m .

Yes. No problem. My latest test flights confirm that it can do this fully loaded with kethane and without running the kethane turbine. The kethane drill has mass = 1 (tonne?). The kethane tanks are in total 0.65 dry mass and 3.85 wet mass. (I was unaware that I was lifting 3.2 tonne of kethane on full tanks!).

Yeah, that stuff isn't quite as heavy as LFO but it's still a load.

You need to deduct 2 or 3 points for only 6750 m (not 9000 m) achieved without burning kethane

Well, you make that up with the cargo and then some.

Pending final ruling on the new life support rule, your score is:

+3 for 5 Kerbals

+1 for all Kerbals inside

+4 for cargo (1 ton drill + 3.2 tons Kethane)

+1 for 6750m altitude

+1 for circumnavigation

+1 for FAR

+1 for life support

------------------------

+12 total (pending until next Friday, +11 for sure until then).

Bravo!

And if anybody else has done this with life support without me noticing, speak up now so I can adjust your score.

[Northstar1989]

I believe you're the 1st to do this challenge with life support. That is something I hadn't considered before so I'll have to amend the rules. Life support really doesn't fit in as cargo because if you're using it, you can't leave home without it, so it's more like structural weight that has to be overcome by ingenious aerospace engineering. As such, I believe using life support should be an additional bonus for carrying the extra dead weight. And the more Kerbals you have aboard, the more dead weight you have to carry to keep them alive. So I'm thinking that using life support should be a bonus of +1 by default for 2 Kerbals, with an additional +1 for each ton of life support supplies, to keep it in line with the cargo points. This would give you an extra +1 in addition to the points above.

I'm putting this new rule for a life support bonus up for public discussion, starting now and going until next Friday, 11 July. Then I'll make a final ruling on it.

I'm going to have to argue STRONGLY against extra points for simply having life support (and the points for extra life support supplies fit perfectly well under the existing "Cargo" rule).

As it currently stands with mods like TAC Life Support, most crewed command modules (and even utility modules like the Hitchiker) have built-in life support systems. Enough for up to 3 days, actually- which is more than enough time to circumnavigate Duna, even with a slow electric-propeller aircraft (the only aircraft that could conceivably take longer than 3 days is a helicopter- like my Hornet Helicraft currently en-route to Duna).

So, life-support doesn't actually add any weight in itself, as no new parts are required- only for the actual life-support supplies themselves: which can count as Cargo-mass in the same manner as Kethane (except counting even life-support that IS consumed during the flight).

Lfe-support recyclers, and the mass of the supplies themselves which can be held in a command module or extra tanks (or removed to same weight- Kerbals can survive something like 6 hours on the life-support built into their EVA suits with TAC Life Support: which is massless, and enough for a fast cricumnavigation in vessels like the TESLA II) can be counted as Cargo weight: in the same manner as unburned Kethane, and Kethane drills.

In short, Geschosskopf, stick with your own values- keep the rule constant. Arguments that life-support adds weight which is somehow different from cargo-weight hold little water: the supplies Kerbals need are carried in their EVA suits when in command chairs (for no extra mass, and flights up to 6 hours) or in the command/utility modules themselves (extra mass, but can easily be counted as cargo by measuring mass with/without the extra supplies, and can be removed for flights less than 6 hours), and so in no way necessarily weigh down a Duna plane for the short flights needed to meet this challenge.

Rewarding players for using life-support mods simply rewards them for having extra RAM on their computer to run them: as I've clearly outlined, TAC Life Support doesn't necessarily have to add any mass or parts at all to a Duna plane for flights lasting less than 6 hours (and the extra supplies can count as cargo for longer flights).

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

That's what I was wondering. I don't think anybody else has reached even 7000m on just those electric props so I was wondering how you were getting 8000m .

Altitude ceiling in excess of 7000 meters on Duna are easily achievable using Firespitter propellers on Cargo Throttle and either a 0.625m KSP-Interstellar fission reactor (which is relatively lightweight) or stock OX-STAT solar panels (which are massless and dragless with their current Physics Significance setting, as are the radial batteries).

The key is using multiple (generally more than 4) propellers, low wing-load, and "Cargo Throttle" which increases propeller thrust by 50% when you trigger the appropriate Action Group. At high-altitude on Duna, the corresponding 50% greater energy-consumption (ISP remains the same) on Cargo Throttle is laughable, as thrust still remains extremely low (and energy-consumption is proportional to actual, realized thrust: not thrust at Kerbin Sea-Level).

Regards,

Northstar

Edited July 6, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Kaa253]

I'm going to have to argue STRONGLY against extra points for simply having life support (and the points for extra life support supplies fit perfectly well under the existing "Cargo" rule).

Hi Northstar, after reading through your well thought out argument I must admit that I agree with you, even if it means I am doing myself out of a point. Adding TAC life support for the short duration of the Duna flight does not add significant amounts of mass (or difficulty). If someone wants to fly around with 2 years supply of food, water and oxygen for a small army of Kerbals then fine; let it count the same as any other type of cargo.

Altitude ceiling in excess of 7000 meters on Duna are easily achievable using Firespitter propellers on Cargo Throttle

Again Northstar I am sure you are correct. I am not seeking to increase my score for this challenge, the Tesla II performed as it did when it was flown on Duna for this challenge and so (having considered TACLS) my score is final. I am plenty happy with 11 bonus points and I am proud to be in the select group of players who can wear the patch and have demonstrated the practicality of aircraft on Duna (despite some claims to the contrary). In fact, as far as the KSP universe is concerned, aircraft far outperform airships on Duna (and the airship mod was very "cheaty" besides) . But I have done some tests back on on Kerbin and I am convinced that I could have climbed and cruised at higher altitudes on Firespitter power alone if I had set up an action group to toggle the cargo throttle mode. Yes, I hear there is a mod to do this retrospectively, its fine, I am not going to try it yet, it can wait for the possible Tesla III in my next career save (0.24?).

It would seem that the only way someone can earn enough bonus points to top the leader board in this challenge now would be to build some kind of massive Duna Airbus ... hmm... maybe ???

Cheers, Kaa

[custume]

Hi all,

I got it now,

Max Thrust :

On atmospheric (Kerbin) = 4361 kN

On Vac (Kerbin) = 4051 kN

On atmospheric (Duna) = 2165 kN

On Vac (Duna) = 4051 kN

TWR :

On atmospheric (Kerbin) = 6.42

On Vac (Kerbin) = 6.15

On atmospheric (Duna) = 11.16

On Vac (Duna) = 20.70

Mass 69.238t

Delta V = (atmo, Vac) 8223 / 20556 m/s

Life support for 200 plus days.

Takes 3 people.

Mods use :

Interstellar

Mech Jeb

TAC Life support

Stock Squad parts

UbioZur Welding

Total time : 3 Days 2H 10 min. (Kerbin Time)

PS, I use warp drive to get there faster but the plane don't really need it, it have delta V to go to Duna and back like 4 times.

Here is the images of the plane

IMAGE 1

IMAGE 2

IMAGE 3

Regards to all

Edited July 16, 2014 by custume

[Northstar1989]

Hi all,

I got it now,

Max Thrust :

On atmospheric (Kerbin) = 4361 kN

On Vac (Kerbin) = 4051 kN

On atmospheric (Duna) = 2165 kN

On Vac (Duna) = 4051 kN

TWR :

On atmospheric (Kerbin) = 6.42

On Vac (Kerbin) = 6.15

On atmospheric (Duna) = 11.16

On Vac (Duna) = 20.70

Mass 69.238t

Delta V = (atmo, Vac) 8223 / 20556 m/s

Life support for 200 plus days.

Takes 3 people.

Mods use :

Interstellar

Mech Jeb

TAC Life support

Stock Squad parts

UbioZur Welding

Total time : 3 Days 2H 10 min. (Kerbin Time)

PS, I use warp drive to get there faster but the plane don't really need it, it have delta V to go to Duna and back like 4 times.

Here is the images of the plane

IMAGE 1

IMAGE 2

IMAGE 3

Regards to all

Thoughts after watching the first few minutes of the video:

(1) What's the power source on that spaceplane? It looks like you're using the UPGRADED KSP-Interstellar fusion or even antimatter reactors, based on the ISP and thrust of those thermal turbojets (fission reactors wouldn't be nearly capable of that kind of performance- especially the Molten Salt Reactors that form the first tier of KSP-Interstellar reactors, and are the only technology that is even reasonably close to becoming a reality in the next 20-30 years...)

(2) That's some serious intake-spam. Personally, I'd call it exploitative- and I'm surprised FAR didn't cause the forward air intakes to shield the intakes further back, making them much less effective (then again, maybe it did- you never right-click on them to show their performance while the atmospheric pressures are high enough for and easy comparison

(3) If you had used intake pre-coolers (either the stock or B9 ones work with KSP-Interstellar) you wouldn't have had the problems you did with engine overheating, forcing you to switch over to internal propellant quite so soon (based on the fact that you throttled down, you didn't seem to be aware that this was the source of the excess heat- as intake compression-heating is completely unaffected by engine throttle in KSP Interstellar, like in real-life...)

(4) You had 3 engines, but you switched them all over to internal propellant at the same time. Generally, that's a bad idea. When you have a 1-in-2-out engine setup like that, you're better off switching the engines in sets (the inner engine vs. outer pair, respectively), starting first with just one engine to internal propellant, then two, and then all three, as you climb higher and run out of intake air for the turbojets.

The hybrid turbojets (which I haven't utilized for this challenge as they are unlocked by the same tech node that upgrades the fission reactors to gas/plasma-core reactors, which are far beyond the realm of current fission technology; unlike MSR's which we have had working prototypes of such the 1960's, when the US developed a working prototype of a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor at Oak Ridge National labs, and then largely abandoned the idea as it couldn't produce large quantities of plutonium for nuclear warheads like Uranium Light Water Reactors could...) work a lot like a RAPIER, in that they are a dual-mode engine that is most efficient in air-breathing mode- and you should make use of atmospheric propellant for working/reaction mass as long as possible... Perhaps if you hadn't made use of so much intake-spam, and a few precoolers, you would have actually felt some pressure to utilize a more efficient ascent path instead of just brute-forcing your way to orbit...

(5) The wing-load on that spaceplane is far too high. Put another way, the wings are far too short/thin (thicker wings generate more lift, at the cost of lift/drag ratio, both in KSP mods like B9 Aerospace and Procedural Dynamics, and in real life) for the mass of the spaceplane. A spaceplane design with lower wing-load could get by with much less thrust (say if you made use of greater realism: less intake spam and less futuristic nuclear reactors) and would have a lower (and therefore safer) liftoff/touchdown speed on Duna.

(6) Where are the vertical stabilizers? I don't see them anywhere. Even *my* plane designs, which almost always make use of inclined winglets with multi-purpose control surfaces (an inclined control surface can provide control over pitch, roll, AND yaw- for less total mass/drag than three separate control surfaces of smaller size) due to my early intuition and recent large amount of background reading into real-world plane designs (I opted for the highest-performance option, despite the stability/design problems it engenders, which I've struggled against in my experimental designs) rather than dedicated aerlions, flaps, and rudders; ALWAYS make use of at least some form of lift surface and control surface with yaw-stabilization capabilities... I can only assume you have some seriously-exploitative reaction wheel spam built into that thing, otherwise you would most certainly lose control to sideslip that would develop into a flat spin when trying to turn, especially with FAR installed...

In short, a not very realistic design relying heavily on of some of the most OP'd and unrealistic elements in KSP (heavily OP'd reaction wheels) and KSP-Interstellar. I can't say I approve.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited July 16, 2014 by Northstar1989

[custume]

Hello Northstar .

Is true I use the antimatter reactors, I have made before a ship that use the lower reactors, but I needed to add more rockets ( like 2 or 4 lv-N ) or another, but don't forget (this thing have a TWR of 6 and is a solid construction so its a question of some changes.

That's some serious intake-spam.

True , but that type of reactor need that much intake, try using less and the engine power drops ( a lot).

If I use less powerful reactor I don't need that many.

"If you had used intake pre-coolers"

Try that before ( did not work so well )and besides I don't really need them if I change from intake to liquid fuel, and that adds more weigh.

But I will try to use them ( I did not know that the heat on the engines is to mush intake (thz for the info ).

"You had 3 engines, but you switched them all over to internal propellant at the same time"

True , very true , but if you see better you will see that I was going a lot faster that needed ( I was like at 50 to 60 Mps of acceleration ) so I had time to make the switch .

All nuclear fission reactors (that exist today) are valid reactors, is true that we do not master the fusion reactors and we are far (really far ) from having any type of plasma reactors or even antimatter reactors ( or how to store antimatter ) so you are right about the reactors.

(5) The wing-load on that spaceplane is far too high.

True but bigger wings = more weigh and more dragg, so I made the bigger and not thicker, but that is a idea to consider.

"less intake spam and less futuristic nuclear reactors) and would have a lower (and therefore safer) liftoff/touchdown speed on Duna."

True, I had to land like the harrier fighter jet in duna, the approach speed is to low, and the plane need to stall at 20 or 30 Mps and that is a to low speed for that plane, that thing will stall at 110 to 120Mps.

Where are the vertical stabilizers?

I think I add them, 3 of them (or I do not know what you are talking about), I did not add flaps ( don't know here to add them for them to even work), it have elevators, ailerons and rudders , I did not add the horizontal stabilizer (I was thinking that, that plane don't really need it ) side that have all the control surfaces (+ or - ).

"have some seriously-exploitative reaction wheel spam built into that thing"

True very true, I think it have ;

2 reaction wells for each engine (between the reactors and the main body) + 2 adv sas , and more on the front (like 3 I think ).

So in sort, this plane is way to futuristic to be valid, ( Okay ) and you probably right.

But the plane body is still valid and I will change a couple of things and try again, im still thinking on using the warp drive to get there faster but the plane it self (is construction) will be able of doing that without the use the warp drive.

So thank you Northstar for the tips and don't worried I will be back

Regards to all

Custume

PS, I have some (a lot) of hours in flight simulator, but this is not the same, the planes respect the same laws but they don't have the same controls or even here to add them, so trying to make a very realistic plane is impossible but we can try

Edited July 17, 2014 by custume

[Northstar1989]

Is true I use the antimatter reactors

I KNEW IT! But seriously, I'm just not a fan of antimatter reactors. I'll tend to criticize anybody I see using them on a challenge, it's just my opinion of the technology (since it's so futuristic). Keep in mind, though, that I'm not the challenge author- ultimately it's just my opinion, and Geschosskopf is the one determinnig what is and is not valid...

I'll have a lot less of a problem with antimatter once KSP Interstellar updates to 0.24 (out now!) and if the cost for the part and science for the node (currently too low) are both raised DRASTICALLY.

That's some serious intake-spam.

True , but that type of reactor need that much intake, try using less and the engine power drops ( a lot).

If I use less powerful reactor I don't need that many.

An antimatter reactor powered thermal turbojet gets a much higher ISP (due to higher reactor core temperature) than a fission or fusion-powered thermal turbojet. And it doesn't weigh more. So actually, you need LESS intake-spam on an antimatter spaceplane: you just won't be utilizing the full potential thrust of the turbojet.

For a slightly more realistic (but difficult to design around) solution, try using a smaller number of the 2.5 meter SABRE intakes from B9 Aerospace. They are by far the most powerful intakes in B9, KSP Interstellar, or the stock game (due to their size), and the SABRE class of intakes are also slightly more efficient (like in real life, but should be made significantly more expensive with 0.24) than standard Ram intakes.

"If you had used intake pre-coolers"

Try that before ( did not work so well )and besides I don't really need them if I change from intake to liquid fuel, and that adds more weigh.

But I will try to use them ( I did not know that the heat on the engines is to mush intake (thz for the info ).

It's the intake compressors that are overheating technically (from a realism/engineering perspective), and that heat spreads down to the engines as well, but KSP doesn't currently have a good way to create excess heat on air intakes with compression ratio, so FractalUK (the author of KSP Interstellar) limited the heat issues to just affecting the engines instead of the air intakes as well...

"You had 3 engines, but you switched them all over to internal propellant at the same time"

True , very true , but if you see better you will see that I was going a lot faster that needed ( I was like at 50 to 60 Mps of acceleration ) so I had time to make the switch

It never hurts to build a leaner, more efficient vessel, and fly it better. If you had kept the thermal turbojets running longer, and switched over to internal fuel later, you wouldn't have needed as much weight in fuel tanks- which would have improved the TWR. This would have helped compensate for the reduced TWR from using less intake-spam (by the way, "the reactors are so powerful" isn't a good excuse- ANY air breathing engine will run out of atmosphere at a high enough altitude, the only difference is that to provide an antimatter thermal turbojet with all the atmosphere it needs for maximum TWR without intake spam would require an atmospheric pressure of something like the lower atmosphere of Jool...)

All nuclear fission reactors (that exist today) are valid reactors, is true that we do not master the fusion reactors and we are far (really far ) from having any type of plasma reactors or even antimatter reactors ( or how to store antimatter ) so you are right about the reactors.

The Molten Salt Reactors and Solid Bed Reactors are the two reactors that are reasonably close to mass-production to be valid. Plasma Core Fission Reactors and Antimatter-Initiated Fission are the other technologies that are not so far away as to be absurd, and I wouldn't criticize somebody who used those if they are properly cost-balanced in 0.24 and the player made up for using them with fastidious attention to realism elsewhere in their plane design. Anything beyond that (including all classes of Fusion and Antimatter Reactor) are so futuristic as that they really don't have a place in a KSP challenge in my honest opinion...

(5) The wing-load on that spaceplane is far too high.

True but bigger wings = more weigh and more dragg, so I made the bigger and not thicker, but that is a idea to consider.

Wing mass, you must remember, makes up for itself in lift. So you rarely have to worry about it, except when you're at extremes of low wing-load or TWR... The main reason NOT to use larger wings is because craft with larger wings fly slower at low altitudes/ high atmospheric pressures (even if they can fly to a higher altitude ceiling, or with a heavier payload) past a certain point, due to declining TWR (more mass to push with the engines). At high altitudes, or in thin atmosphere like Duna's, the lower Angle of Attack you get with larger wings can actually help you fly faster though- that is, until you start flying so fast as to start going ballistic (at which point wings are just a burden on your TWR).

"less intake spam and less futuristic nuclear reactors) and would have a lower (and therefore safer) liftoff/touchdown speed on Duna."

True, I had to land like the harrier fighter jet in duna, the approach speed is to low, and the plane need to stall at 20 or 30 Mps and that is a to low speed for that plane, that thing will stall at 110 to 120Mps.

I'm uber-cautious, so I would generally consider even 20-30 m/s to be a high touchdown speed. On hilly terrain like Duna's, I would ideally aim for 15-20 m/s (which requires a VERY low wing-load). To achieve this, propeller planes and bi/triplanes have an obvious advantage though, as a thermal turbojet with a wingload that low starts running into problems with having such large wingspan as to have difficulty finding a sufficiently-large flat landing spot...

Where are the vertical stabilizers?

I think I add them, 3 of them (or I do not know what you are talking about), I did not add flaps ( don't know here to add them for them to even work), it have elevators, ailerons and rudders , I did not add the horizontal stabilizer (I was thinking that, that plane don't really need it ) side that have all the control surfaces (+ or - ).

Vertical stabilizers, as I used the term (a bit loosely, as any aerospace engineer will point out) are any lifting surface that is at least partially vertical, rather than being oriented purely level to the horizon. Look up images of the F-16 for an example of a jet fighter with very prominent vertical stabilizers (or the F-22 Raptor for an example of a craft with inclined stabilizers- which as I said are more mass-efficient)

"have some seriously-exploitative reaction wheel spam built into that thing"

True very true, I think it have ;

2 reaction wells for each engine (between the reactors and the main body) + 2 adv sas , and more on the front (like 3 I think ).

So that's 12 reaction wheels (6 on the engines, 2 ASAS units in the body, 3 on the nose, and the one built into all cockpits) if I'm counting correctly? Yeah, that's pretty bad/exploitative.

So in sort, this plane is way to futuristic to be valid, ( Okay ) and you probably right.

But the plane body is still valid and I will change a couple of things and try again, im still thinking on using the warp drive to get there faster but the plane it self (is construction) will be able of doing that without the use the warp drive.

So thank you Northstar for the tips and don't worried I will be back

I caution you against using the term "valid". Remember it's not me who decides what is and is not allowed for this challenge. I'm sure that Geschosskopf will accept your entry- though expect it to pop up in the KSP Interstellar subcategory instead of with all the other entries.

PS, I have some (a lot) of hours in flight simulator, but this is not the same, the planes respect the same laws but they don't have the same controls or even here to add them, so trying to make a very realistic plane is impossible but we can try

It should be perfectly possible to fly a plane the same in KSP as in a flight simulator, assuming you're using FAR for realistic aerodynamics and the flgiht simulator's aerodynamics are also accurate. All the same components found on a real-life plane can be created in KSP, using either stock or mod parts.

It's just a matter of figuring out the game's control interface- for obvious reasons every single game, flight simulator or KSP, will have its own set of controls by which the user directs the plane. What's changing is what buttons you press to do what- not what flaps/rudders/aerlions etc. you might be directing with those controls. And it's even possible to re-map the controls in KSP if you want something you're more familiar with...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

Geschosskopf,

I regret that I am going to have to respectfully tender the resignation of my current in-progress entries on this challenge.

The reason is that, basically, by running Career save became too outdated (it's been ported across too many updates) and too bloated with a huge number of simultaneous missions/efforts (no one of them in itself overwhelming, but in combination...) as to become no longer FUN, and feel more like a job (where I can't finish any one mission without having to swap to 8 other vessels in the middle of it so as to avoid another mission ending in failure...)

I've decided to delete my current install of KSP, and re-install with nothing but MechJeb (and perhaps some no-parts mods such as FAR, Chatterer, and maybe even RemoteTech).

This will also give me the chance to learn FAR (which I predict shouldn't actually be too difficult for me, as I already have a robust understanding of aerodynamics compared to most KSP players, and have even played flight simulators in the past) and to force myself to build "leaner" missions due to the new constraint of budget and the lack of available 5 meter (and larger) parts...

Don't worry, eventually I'll be diving back into parts mods (once they're appropriately balanced for 0.24, which I predict will take a lot longer due to the new element of budgets, and the mod authors needing to become fully familiar with the new stock balance before attempting to modify it...) In the meantime, I'll probably continue following this thread, and might even submit an all-stock entry (a rocket-plane with long glide periods) sooner or later.

Best luck with your efforts to adapt to 0.24 (whenever you switch over), and thank you for hosting this great thread!

Regards,

Northstar

[kepicness]

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!! Let's see if my old stock SSTDABTK plane can meet all the criterias. It should, considering that it got back to kerbin on a single fuel load

[Geschosskopf]

Hi Northstar, after reading through your well thought out argument I must admit that I agree with you, even if it means I am doing myself out of a point. Adding TAC life support for the short duration of the Duna flight does not add significant amounts of mass (or difficulty). If someone wants to fly around with 2 years supply of food, water and oxygen for a small army of Kerbals then fine; let it count the same as any other type of cargo.

"All rise for the judge."

Sorry to have delayed the final ruling on this. All kinds of real life stuff happened.

Anyway, public debate on the proposed rules changes is over and the ruling is that nothing changes. Only life support got any feedback and all parties were against adding a point for that. Nobody mentioned quicksaving in flight which I was somewhat opposed to anyway.

THEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the rules remain in their present form without any extra points for life support or saving in flight.

Given under my hand this 19th Day of July in the Age of 0.24,

Judge Geschosskopf.

[Geschosskopf]

Hi all,

I got it now,

Howdy Custume-

I can't score this attempt (or even know if it actually worked or not) because I simply lack the bandwidth and real life time to watch a video with a duration of over 1 hour(!) and none of your still pics show the challenge attempt in progress. If you could trim the video down to just the bits where the plane is doing the required items in the challenge, or post screenshots showing them, then I'd know what was going on here.

I see you and Northstar have gotten into a discussion on the technicalities of KSP Interstellar. Personally, I have nothing against using Interstellar, but I put all entries using that mod into a separate category because those parts are in a totally different league from anything stock and mods intended to work with stock.

Anyway, I look forward to you posting a shortened (10-15 minutes max) video and/or screenshots as others have done, so I can see what you've actually done here. Thanks.

[Geschosskopf]

I regret that I am going to have to respectfully tender the resignation of my current in-progress entries on this challenge.

Sorry to hear that, but I have been expecting this for some time. Your insistence on doing this as part of your ongoing game with everything else in it was definitely courting game-breaking updates, as I know myself all too well.

I'm glad to hear you haven't given up, though, and I look forward to seeing your new attempts. I suggest, however, that you do them in a sandbox game where nothing else is going on, so you can just run the challenge and be done with it. At least, copy designs developed in your actual ongoing universe over to a stand-alone sandbox game for the challenge.

- - - Updated - - -

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!! Let's see if my old stock SSTDABTK plane can meet all the criterias. It should, considering that it got back to kerbin on a single fuel load

Welcome aboard! I look forward to your entry. Best of luck.

[Northstar1989]

Sorry to hear that, but I have been expecting this for some time. Your insistence on doing this as part of your ongoing game with everything else in it was definitely courting game-breaking updates, as I know myself all too well.

Yeah- I should have known...

I'm glad to hear you haven't given up, though, and I look forward to seeing your new attempts. I suggest, however, that you do them in a sandbox game where nothing else is going on, so you can just run the challenge and be done with it. At least, copy designs developed in your actual ongoing universe over to a stand-alone sandbox game for the challenge.

Actually, I'm planning on attempting again in my Career save- but doing it all in one sitting (i.e. time warp with no other missions going on at the same time). What really got me before was that the missions dragged out over a longer period in real life, than actually would have elapsed in-game...

Regards,

Northstar

[Geschosskopf]

Actually, I'm planning on attempting again in my Career save- but doing it all in one sitting (i.e. time warp with no other missions going on at the same time). What really got me before was that the missions dragged out over a longer period in real life, than actually would have elapsed in-game...

Well, good luck. Kicking the habit of never letting a transfer window go by without sending SOMETHING there is harder than quitting... well, not tobacco or booze as I'm still into them, but... I guess maybe conjugal visits before time makes it a moot point? I dunno, but it's a hard habit to break. Attempting everything results in nothing getting done, but for a host of reasons you're constitutionally incapable of letting opportunities pass you by no matter how many times updates have broken your heart.

Geez, how did this turn into a 12-step program? Sorry

[StevenRS11]

I have heard it calling me from across the void, its tenuous atmosphere singing its siren song. Duna calls to me once more, and I will answer.

Edited August 11, 2014 by StevenRS11

[Kaa253]

Hi to all brother and sister Duna flying elite !!

I have this week installed and investigated the Karbonite mod and of course it is channelling whispers of flying Duna into my ear too (@StevenRS11).

Having tried the aircraft engines on Kerbin already I would have to say they are OP.

I respectfully suggest that the court of Judge Geschosskopf should invite argument on whether Karbonite ships belong in the Interstellar category. I humbly propose that they probably do indeed belong in the Interstellar league but as always I am open to debate.

Cheers,

Kaa

[StevenRS11]

Considering that my jet is karbonite fueled, I may be a bit biased.

That said, there is a world of difference between karbonite and interstellar. Karbonite is very heavy, the jets get only 950 ISP, and you can't run them at full thrust. Are they more powerful than say, firespitter? Yes, for sure, but they come with a whole set of challenges to deal with first. With the fuel, tanks, drills, and intakes, they probably provide a twr similar to using a crapton of props, honestly.

Interstellar, on the other hand, provides orders of magnitude greater twrs at higher tech levels, mainly because it is balanced differently.

[Kaa253]

Only 950 ISP!

OK now that is a really important fact about karbonite that I have so far failed to discover. As I said, I am an absolute karbonite beginner.

Edit: I just checked my karbonite install and it does have some very strange ranges of ISP's listed for the various engines. The KAE-150S Inline Turbo jet however says 1550(ASL)-1750(Vac). Probably near enough to Vac at Duna. Maybe something is wrong with my karbonite mod? It is version 0.2.2.

I am willing to hold on the discussion until I have actually flown at Duna under karbonite power.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Kaa253

[StevenRS11]

Huh. My propfan reads 1400, radial jet 1100, and inline jet engine 950. Maybe a versioning thing? Karbonite does update quickly. And how would a turbojet function in a vac anyway?

[Northstar1989]

And how would a turbojet function in a vac anyway?

It wouldn't. A turbojet attains much higher effective ISP values than a rocket by using the atmosphere as working mass (the actual, measured exhaust velocity is much LOWER than that of a comparable rocket).

The Karbonite turobjet engines work without atmosphere and air intakes? That's something I'll have to remember NOT to use in the future- as I'm installing Karbonite (I *really* don't like the fact that Kethane resources are so easily exhausted, but KSP-Interstellar isn't yet up-to-date for 0.24.x except for a "Experimental" version created by a different author- which is completely unbalanced in terms of cost, with a simple thermal rocket nozzle costing more than entire Mun rockets...)

But yes, Karbonite engines deserve a ruling from judge Geschosskopf...

You know what else deserves a ruling? 6.4x Real Solar System mod.

Personally, I would like to attempt this challenge in the Duna of the 6.4x scale RSS config:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90088-6-4x-Kerbol-System-RSS-Config-8-25-14

A ruling for this mod wouldn't just affect me, though- it would be useful for any player thinking about this challenge...

The surface gravity values remain the same as with stock (planetary densities are accordingly adjusted), but the terrain is scaled to 2x stock height, the planetary sizes to 6.4x stock sizes, and the atmosphere height and scale height is increased by 32%. However, since the scale is only increased by 6.4x (to approximately 64% real world scale- the same as the % scale of the stock rocket parts compared to their real world analogs) no re-scaling of the parts is necessary to make them work correctly, meaning one can play a perfectly realistic/balanced game using parts-mods built for the stock KSP universe...

I would like to see a separate set of scoring rules for entries using this config. Since no re-scaling of the parts is necessary like with the 10x rescale, and the gravity parameters are the same, I think the following three simple rules for these entries should suffice:

(1) All altitude scoring is divided by 1320 meters instead of 1000 meters, and the minimum flying altitude is increased by 50% (due to 32% higher atmosphere, and 2x taller terrain)

(2) The minimum landing height is left unchanged even though this allows landing across a greater portion of the terrain: 6.4x RSS is already so much harder that I think this is fair.

(3) Entries receive a moderate number (4-5 sounds reasonable) of bonus points for the greatly increased difficulty (and Delta-V requirement) of launching to LKO, nevertheless getting anything sizable to Duna; as well as the increased orbital velocity of Duna due to its increased scale (making for more dangerous re-entries)

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I'm also planning on using RealFuels, KW Rocketry, Stockalike RF Engine Configs, Deadly Re-entry, MechJeb2, Chatterer, FAR (which already has a rule), Active texture Management, and TAC Life Support mods, but I don't expect any rule changes should be necessary to use these mods...

Edited August 27, 2014 by Northstar1989

[StevenRS11]

The question about turbojet engines running in a vacuum was a joke, because of how KSP reports isp values. I understand at-least the basic principles behind turbojet/turbofan operation.

And the turbojets from karbonite do require air to work, don't worry. I think they are pretty balanced, maybe masses need to be tweaked a bit, but good.

[Geschosskopf]

Hmm, my subscription to this thread seems to have lapsed. Sorry for the lag.

Anyway, questions and decisions.

KARBONITE:

I knew this day would come.....

First off, understand that Karbonite didn't exist when this challenge was created. Thus, the rules didn't contemplate it or even KSPI, which was brand new and not fully fleshed out at the time. That would be OK in itself provided Karbonite didn't stray too far from "conventional" technology available at the time the challenge was issued. Unfortunately, it does. I love Karbonite and use it extensively in all my ongoing games because it's fun and avoids all the bummers of Kethane, but it's totally OP. Maybe not quite as OP as the higher levels of KSPI, but still OP. For example, you can, with some effort, make an Eve SSTO of useful size with Karbonite, unless things have changed very recently. IOW, using Karbonite makes flying on Duna a doddle, not a challenge. Don't be fooled by the apparent low Isp of Karbonite atmospheric engines. Karbonite has such a high energy density that you don't need much of it to go a long way. And now there's Karborundum which is even more OP, too.

Thus, I'm tempted to just veto Karbonite entirely because it's such a game-changer. However, I like it too much for that, so instead I'm going to lump it with KSPI in the separate scoring section for OP mods. So go ahead and fly your Karbonite birds in this challenge. Just understand that you've got a significant advantage over people who don't use it.

RSS

Doing anything at all in RSS is of course a real challenge in itself, so flying on RSS Duna is OK with me. However, because RSS changes essentially everything about the game, there is no way RSS attempts can be scored on the same system as without it. RSS will thus have its own scoreboard.

[Northstar1989]

KARBONITE:

I knew this day would come.....

First off, understand that Karbonite didn't exist when this challenge was created. Thus, the rules didn't contemplate it or even KSPI, which was brand new and not fully fleshed out at the time. That would be OK in itself provided Karbonite didn't stray too far from "conventional" technology available at the time the challenge was issued. Unfortunately, it does. I love Karbonite and use it extensively in all my ongoing games because it's fun and avoids all the bummers of Kethane, but it's totally OP. Maybe not quite as OP as the higher levels of KSPI, but still OP. For example, you can, with some effort, make an Eve SSTO of useful size with Karbonite, unless things have changed very recently. IOW, using Karbonite makes flying on Duna a doddle, not a challenge. Don't be fooled by the apparent low Isp of Karbonite atmospheric engines. Karbonite has such a high energy density that you don't need much of it to go a long way. And now there's Karborundum which is even more OP, too.

Thus, I'm tempted to just veto Karbonite entirely because it's such a game-changer. However, I like it too much for that, so instead I'm going to lump it with KSPI in the separate scoring section for OP mods. So go ahead and fly your Karbonite birds in this challenge. Just understand that you've got a significant advantage over people who don't use it.

What about just using Karbonite for the ISRU capabilities? (to make other fuels through mining/converters) Would that allow it in the same category as normal entries (just counting any drills/mining units and converters as "cargo") What if we left the Karbonite equipment in ground bases, and didn't actually include any of the parts in our Duna flier?

Personally I'm thinking about installing Karbonite but deleting the engine parts for precisely the reasons you described about the engines being OP'd...

RSS

Doing anything at all in RSS is of course a real challenge in itself, so flying on RSS Duna is OK with me. However, because RSS changes essentially everything about the game, there is no way RSS attempts can be scored on the same system as without it. RSS will thus have its own scoreboard.

The only thing RSS really changes is the *size* of things. Which is why I suggested some guidelines about hoe to merge it into the same scoreboard. Having too many scoreboards will make things too confusing, and on top of that, there isn't really as much of the glory of doing something even more impressive than what's already been done so far if it can't compete directly with the other entries...

Also, one more question: what about RealFuels mod with the Stockalike configs? Would that mod be allowed (not necessarily in a separate category or for bonus points, just allowed).

Basically, it adjusts the stock engines so they have the same thrusts, but realistic TWR and ISP values. This actually makes most of the engines lighter and have better TWR, but this is balanced by realistic ISP's and energy-densities (Hypergolics are very dense, but have significantly lower ISP than stock; LOX/Kerosene is slightly lower density *and* ISP than stock until the later tech-nodes improve the ISP- but the tanks and engines are lighter; LOX/LH2 has *much* better ISP than stock, but *very* low energy-density and relatively heavy tanks for the fuel mass they hold... On top of all that, LOX and LH2 suffer from significant boil-off, so only Hypergolics and the Kerosene component of LOX/Kerosene can be stored indefinitely...)

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Your screenshots in the OP are all broken/missing.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Northstar1989