How many times can you use one craft.

[Evilchicken]

Using only one spacecraft how many times can you reach orbit and land safely. The more times you do it the better.

Rules:

1) To get one point you must launch from kerbal into orbit, orbit around the planet at least once and land safely, if you plan to launch again you will need to launch upright.

2) The spacecraft must use the default parts.

3) If you fail to land back on kerbal safely that orbit does not count (safe means that no crew memders died).

4) Your final score is the total number of completed launchs and lands.

5) Get proof of your launchs and landings.

Post your scores and evidence.

[Spacecats!]

Stock parts only? Ridiculously hard for two reasons.

1) You\'re gonna need a GIGANTIC ship to land, take off, land, take off...

2) The launchpad would be too small for ^, making the ship highly unstable.

BONUS REASON

3) Even though they made the game a lot smoother (Thanks for that, Harv!), you\'ll still be dealing with an insane amount of lag from a GIGANTIC STOCK SHIP.

[Tim_Barrett]

You can only launch, land, launch, and land.

It\'s just not possible with our best computers here.

That would be HUGE...

[Technical Ben]

Well. I just 'launched' 'orbited' 'landed' and 'launched' again. Almost, if you count dropping to 300m, then going back up 'landing'. But that\'s only on my test craft, as it had no landing legs. I just added more stages to my special heavy lift as it\'s an 'expandable' design.

I\'ll have a look at streamlining it so I can 1) orbit twice and 2) land properly!

Oh, and as it was top heavy, it was the most dangerous landing manoeuvre possible. I had to fly towards the ground, pick up speed to get lift from my wings, then flip the rocket, then burn to slow down. ???

[Evilchicken]

Am I mistaking this \'challenge\' section for the \'I\'ll have a go as long as I dont need to think too hard or put to much effort in\' section?

I know its hard thats why I put it here, its a challenge.

This is to test poeples abillity to build and fly efficeintly. The lazy opinion is to build bigger. So build more efficiently and try flying better.

You can launch a rocket into orbit with only 3 fuel tanks and get it back again safely. I\'ve think that most spacecraft that can travel to and from the Mun can do this challange.

[Tim_Barrett]

You would be surprised though, adding more weight you do not burn in the meantime means alot more fuel is required...

[The_Duck]

A few months ago this was my project for myself in KSP. I managed to go up and down twice with a stock parts ship (though that must have been a significantly different version of KSP): http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=1599.0

[Guest Flixxbeatz]

Allow SE and NP then I\'ll give it a try.

[Spacecats!]

Am I mistaking this \'challenge\' section for the \'I\'ll have a go as long as I dont need to think too hard or put to much effort in\' section?

I know its hard thats why I put it here, its a challenge.

This is to test poeples abillity to build and fly efficeintly. The lazy opinion is to build bigger. So build more efficiently and try flying better.

You can launch a rocket into orbit with only 3 fuel tanks and get it back again safely. I\'ve think that most spacecraft that can travel to and from the Mun can do this challange.

The 4th reason is with landing. When landing, and you use parachutes, those are a 1-time-only thing. When using rockets, you use up too much fuel. Just sayin.

Also, today is my birthday. ;D 8)

[foamyesque]

The real issue here is the landing. You could orbit, land once and orbit again and land again, but on the first landing you\'d have to be very careful to avoid smashing your engines. I don\'t think three orbits and landings is doable without a ridiculously gigantic ship; that\'s upwards of 15km/s dV.

[Guest Flixxbeatz]

No one will definitely give this a try.

Unless he/she\'s a determined purist.

[Ydoow]

Guys...He never said Launch, land, then relaunch off of Kerbin =P

[Tim_Barrett]

Guys...He never said Launch, land, then relaunch off of Kerbin =P

No, he did.

[Jack wooster]

A while ago I launched, orbited a satellite, landed and orbited again then landed on Kerbin. That used some Sunday punch and lots or radial parachutes.

[boolybooly]

Well I did this already scoring 2 with stock and made a post with screenies in the challenge to reach the other hemisphere.

So here is the link to that post.

I managed to orbit, land on Kerbal, relaunch, orbit and land again on KSC terrain. But if location was not an issue it would be easier and three might just be doable... but tricky and I can\'t see how to do four just yet. I will give it a go this afternoon.

[Iskierka]

Simple maths:

The smallest known launch vehicle to be able to launch and return vertically achieves ~4.5 km/s of dv.

Therefore, three launches requires 13.5 km/s dv.

Achieving more than 12 km/s, even with three stock stages, is difficult when you completely ignore the craft\'s ability to takeoff, and focus purely on optimising dv.

The designs able to perform are also incredibly ungainly even in these minimalist instances. The only stock craft made which are capable of such dv and takeoff are the ones entered for highest speed contests in a completely vertical ascent - because the majority can\'t fly any other trajectory, and will be particularly unable to land.

To look at it another way, that minimum-requirement-for-orbit craft is pod, 3 tanks, engine.

3 tanks + engine can lift 1 ton payload and return it then. Alright, scale it up:

That craft has a mass of 1 + 3x2.5 + 2 = 10.5, plus decoupler, 11.3

So, next stage: 33 tanks, 11 engines.

11.3 + 33x2.5 + 11x2 = 115.8. Assume it\'s possible to add the next stage with a -single- decoupler, and no struts, and that\'s a mass for the first two stages of 116.6.

Now you have to lift that. With at least 345 tanks, and 115 engines.

Your part total is now 511. Add struts. Enjoy the lag, and good luck flying!

[UmbralRaptor]

Simple maths:

The smallest known launch vehicle to be able to launch and return vertically achieves ~4.5 km/s of dv.

Therefore, three launches requires 13.5 km/s dv.

Achieving more than 12 km/s, even with three stock stages, is difficult when you completely ignore the craft\'s ability to takeoff, and focus purely on optimising dv.

The designs able to perform are also incredibly ungainly even in these minimalist instances. The only stock craft made which are capable of such dv and takeoff are the ones entered for highest speed contests in a completely vertical ascent - because the majority can\'t fly any other trajectory, and will be particularly unable to land.

To look at it another way, that minimum-requirement-for-orbit craft is pod, 3 tanks, engine.

3 tanks + engine can lift 1 ton payload and return it then. Alright, scale it up:

That craft has a mass of 1 + 3x2.5 + 2 = 10.5, plus decoupler, 11.3

So, next stage: 33 tanks, 11 engines.

11.3 + 33x2.5 + 11x2 = 115.8. Assume it\'s possible to add the next stage with a -single- decoupler, and no struts, and that\'s a mass for the first two stages of 116.6.

Now you have to lift that. With at least 345 tanks, and 115 engines.

Your part total is now 511. Add struts. Enjoy the lag, and good luck flying!

I think this is a case where you want more tankage and fewer engines in the lower stages. eg: 7 engines (6 LV-T30, 1 LV-T45), 28 tanks, 6 struts, 1 decoupler, and 1 ASAS should give you ~5.8 km/s of dV when lofting the 10.5 mass minimal SSTO. Granted, it has almost as many parts as your initial scaling, might get stuck needing RCS to maneuver when the engines are off, and isn\'t much lighter (96.4 for the two stages, not including any decoupler to attach it to a third stage)...

[Iskierka]

True enough, I agree that my estimate was a quick one done without using dv tables or such to try find optimals, but it\'s difficult regardless to achieve what would be necessary for this challenge; that was to demonstrate just how quickly the scaling happens. That set-up would be slightly more efficient and easier to fly, but still near-impossible to manage with a third stage.

[UmbralRaptor]

I guess another question (besides the difficulties in landing purely stock ships without blowing things up) is what\'s the largest ship that performs decently on a high end system? The biggest rocket I\'ve flown with a usefull framerate on my P4 had 98 parts (85 after the boosters). Can an i7 handle 4-500? (and if not now, with .13.1?)

[Technical Ben]

Simple maths:

The smallest known launch vehicle to be able to launch and return vertically achieves ~4.5 km/s of dv.

Therefore, three launches requires 13.5 km/s dv.

Achieving more than 12 km/s, even with three stock stages, is difficult when you completely ignore the craft\'s ability to takeoff, and focus purely on optimising dv.

The designs able to perform are also incredibly ungainly even in these minimalist instances. The only stock craft made which are capable of such dv and takeoff are the ones entered for highest speed contests in a completely vertical ascent - because the majority can\'t fly any other trajectory, and will be particularly unable to land.

To look at it another way, that minimum-requirement-for-orbit craft is pod, 3 tanks, engine.

3 tanks + engine can lift 1 ton payload and return it then. Alright, scale it up:

That craft has a mass of 1 + 3x2.5 + 2 = 10.5, plus decoupler, 11.3

So, next stage: 33 tanks, 11 engines.

11.3 + 33x2.5 + 11x2 = 115.8. Assume it\'s possible to add the next stage with a -single- decoupler, and no struts, and that\'s a mass for the first two stages of 116.6.

Now you have to lift that. With at least 345 tanks, and 115 engines.

Your part total is now 511. Add struts. Enjoy the lag, and good luck flying!

Ok, Stage 1 some tanks, an engine (I\'m adding ASAS and RCS cos I\'m crazy!). Stage 2, 33 tanks, 11 engines. Got ya. Stage 3, 345 tanks, 115 engines. Ok. My cap is about 100 tanks and 32 engines on this system, so near to 400+ tanks and 150+ engines + struts is gonna be a problem...

... but I\'ll try it tonight!!! ???

[JellyCubes]

Might as well build the complete rocket on paper using only using delta-v:

Third Stage

[table]

[tr][td]

Part[/td][td]Amount[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]FL-T500 Fuel Tank[/td][td]

5[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine[/td][td]

1[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Command Pod Mk1[/td][td]

1[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Delta-v: 7,027 m/s

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.32

Second Stage

[table]

[tr][td]

Part[/td][td]Amount[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]FL-T500 Fuel Tank[/td][td]

28[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine[/td][td]

7[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]TR-18A Stack Decoupler[/td][td]

1[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]EAS-4 Strut Connector[/td][td]

6[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Delta-v: 5,384 m/s

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.24

First Stage

[table]

[tr][td]

Part[/td][td]Amount[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]FL-T500 Fuel Tank[/td][td]

38[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine[/td][td]

19[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]TR-18A Stack Decoupler[/td][td]

1[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]EAS-4 Strut Connector[/td][td]

18[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Delta-v: 2,494 m/s

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.44

Total

Delta-v: 14,905 m/s

Weight: 235.3 kerbalgrams

Parts: 125

It is a large rocket, but most modern computers should be able to handle it. Landing would be the major problem and that is an exercise left for the reader.

[UmbralRaptor]

I wonder if a 2 stage approach would be better? Safely landing would be 'fun.'

Upper Stage:

1 Mk1 Pod

4 FL-T500

1 LV-T30

DV: 6419 m/s

TWR: 1.57

Parts: 6

Lower Stage:

1 TR-18A

1 ASAS

95 FL-T500

13 LV-T30

6 LV-T45

18 EAS-4

DV: 7195 m/s

TWR: 1.25

Parts: 134

Total:

DV: 13614 m/s

Parts: 140

Probably not enough delta-v. And the TWR for the lower stage is iffy.

[Technical Ben]

I wonder if a 2 stage approach would be better? Safely landing would be 'fun.'

Upper Stage:

1 Mk1 Pod

4 FL-T500

1 LV-T30

DV: 6419 m/s

TWR: 1.57

Parts: 6

Lower Stage:

1 TR-18A

1 ASAS

95 FL-T500

13 LV-T30

6 LV-T45

18 EAS-4

DV: 7195 m/s

TWR: 1.25

Parts: 134

Total:

DV: 13614 m/s

Parts: 140

Probably not enough delta-v. And the TWR for the lower stage is iffy.

Operation 'Big John' has made it\'s first test flight and floated to success. Now for the real thing!

[boolybooly]

Experimenting, I reckon the smallest final orbiter is a three tank with no frills so you have to crash land that one.

I built a smaller double take off craft 52 tanks and 14 engines with 13 firing on first take off and then a decoupler inside to release the three tank ship once landed, I have successfully used this though I fluffed the landing it was doable if I had not tried to burn for KSC terrain! See craft file 'Triple 03'.

I built a ship which could lift and land that ship, with total of 238 tanks and 49+1 engines, but the game engine on my PC * goes nuts and the altitude blanks out and the landing is nearly impossible due to heavy lag so you can be doing 100 m/s either way from your readout and that is enough to kill the ship. So I am going to retire on this one until the engine is better able to handle the ship needed or the stock parts provide more viable solutions.

*(Yorkfield quad with 8Gb RAM in Win7 x64 with a HD5870)

[Iskierka]

I wonder if a 2 stage approach would be better? Safely landing would be 'fun.'

Upper Stage:

1 Mk1 Pod

4 FL-T500

1 LV-T30

DV: 6419 m/s

TWR: 1.57

Parts: 6

Lower Stage:

1 TR-18A

1 ASAS

95 FL-T500

13 LV-T30

6 LV-T45

18 EAS-4

DV: 7195 m/s

TWR: 1.25

Parts: 134

Total:

DV: 13614 m/s

Parts: 140

Probably not enough delta-v. And the TWR for the lower stage is iffy.

Decent optimisation, but I think JellyCube\'s probably has the best chance. Good luck to anyone who tries to fly it, and to anyone who goes for four; you crazy.