BSC: Kerbal X - We have a winner!

[XolotlLoki]

My review spreadsheet.

Thanks for the review. I noticed you said that my booster stuts were not optimal; what would you consider to be the optimal strutting for this design? And what are the general principles which you use to choose optimal strutting? I usually just add struts when things break without any real design framework.

[Rhomphaia]

Ah, they're ungimbaled T30s on the outside boosters? Cause if they're gimbaled T45s, a properly strutted booster should be able to exert roll.

I did actually intend to change them for T30's but apparently forgot. Either way, although they should be able to, gimbals don't exert roll yet, for the same reason they reverse if above the CoM. they all want to turn the same way.

[Nao]

@Nao i'm not 'Flaying' anyone ^^ but thanks for the point

But looks like you are on your way to flay the competition off points and fly away with the win!

(fixed the typo , sorry)

[sploden]

As testing takes a long time to complete, I went through the crafts and loaded them in the VAB in order to select a few to actually fly. I selected these based on aesthetics, Delta-V, simplicity, and part count. Sorry if I skipped yours on purpose or accidentally; my time is limited...

One of the most important features (in my opinion) that several people missed was the need for a consistent thrust-weight ratio during the entire Münar insertion burn, the lack of which causes a waste of Delta-V due to inaccurate calculations of burn time. Also, I found that I wanted more Delta-V in most cases; I'd like to be able to circularize around Kerbin a second time in order to do a precision landing at KSC. Just a shameless plug... My craft suffers no such issues.

	Giggleplex
		Good conservative design.
		Takes off slowly.
		Would like more lifter power.
		Capable of landing on the Mün, but would like some legs.
		Would like to be able to return to Kerbin after landing on the Mün.
		Would like a consistent TWR during Münar Insertion burn.

	I_Killed_Jeb
		Would like a 3-man capsule.
		Good liftoff.
		Good amount of power.
		Would prefer final booster position to be front and back.
		Would prefer a consistent TWR during Münar Insertion burn.
		Too much fuel on Münar transfer/circularization stage.
		Was able to land on the Mün before running out of fuel in the transfer/circularization stage. Touch and go, then went on to transfer to Minmus, landed there, and then returned to Kerbin and soft-landed with engine assistance without decoupling, 350m/s to spare.

	Kasuha
		Good booster placement.
		Good conservative design.
		Would like to be able to take off immediately; don’t want to have to push the spacebar twice.
		Good takeoff.
		Booster burnout is perfectly timed.
		Would prefer a wider margin for error.

	Psycix
		Good takeoff.
		Good design.
		Would prefer a capsule decoupler.
		Would prefer a dedicated Münar transfer stage.
		Would prefer a consistent TWR during Münar insertion burn.
		Would prefer more power during entire Münar insertion burn.
		Would prefer a wider margin for error.

	Romphaia
		Good takeoff.
		Good design.
		Final booster placement is good.
		Would prefer a consistent TWR during entire Münar insertion burn.
		Would like more Delta-V.

	Xeldrak
		Design could use some aesthetic improvement.
		Good takeoff.
		Messed up the gravity turn a little because I didn't notice the craft started out rotated 90 degrees from the norm.
		Would prefer a consistent TWR during Münar insertion burn.
		Plenty of margin for error.

Votes:

Kasuha: 3

Romphaia: 3

Xeldrak: 2

[Kasuha]

Thanks to all who liked my ship enough to give it a vote.

To anyone wondering why my craft is called "Light", I didn't think it's quite as strong as Delta IV Heavy. So there.

As I don't have time to test all the crafts I read through some of reviews already done (thanks guys!) and went through all the craft presentations and voted based on which I liked the most (assuming the intended purpose of the ship). Not quite an objective vote, I know, but it's the best I can give it.

My votes went to (in no particular order):

Giggleplex777

Rhomphalia

sploden

ÃÂ_Killed_Jeb

ethan829

Death Engineering

breakthrough

Bobnova

Edited November 18, 2013 by Kasuha

[ttnarg]

kasuha 5 votes

bobnova 3 votes

[Psycix]

Yes, I missed the legs.

You missed the legs of my craft as well

(It even carries eight of them...)

[Pulsar]

Updated craft file. There shouldn't have error now.

[antbin]

Thanks for the review. I noticed you said that my booster stuts were not optimal; what would you consider to be the optimal strutting for this design? And what are the general principles which you use to choose optimal strutting?

Maybe 'optimal' is too strong a word. Struts are mass-less, so there's not much harm in spamming them besides dropping your framerate.

But for teaching newbies, I'd want to show examples of minimal, effective strutting that creates structural 'triangles' to stop unwanted flexing. Triangles don't change shape under stress, which is why you see them everywhere in engineered stuff (bridges etc.). Struts should spread the force from as close as possible to the source (engine, landing leg), or reinforce the weakest links in a rocket (fairings, inline docking clamps).

On the asparagus boosters, my guess is that you want to resist 1: The huge upward thrust from the mainsails and 2: booster side-to-side flexing from the thrust gimbaling on the mainsails. The Delta X uses 7 struts per asparagus booster, which I think could be tweaked:

• The 3 booster-to-booster struts around the outside make squares, and the radial triangles they make will lose an edge when the neighboring asparagus booster drops. When boosters are strutted on one side but flapping in the breeze on the other, booster flex and roll can happen.
  
• The 4 booster-to-core struts on the top and bottom make (narrow) squares, which might be enough to resist roll, but maybe overbuilt.
  
• The mainsails themselves are un-strutted - they can wobble a lot, especially the one used as the in-line stage!
  

I had a go, here. Each booster is now strutted with 2 "X"s from the core mainsail to the booster mainsail, plus one tiny strut at the bottom. The inline mainsail has 3 struts reinforcing its fairing. The part count is now 90 (from 101). I admit my struts are a bit uglier, though.

Edited November 18, 2013 by antbin

[antbin]

although they should be able to, gimbals don't exert roll yet, for the same reason they reverse if above the CoM. they all want to turn the same way.

So it is! The engines don't even turn the same way, they just won't respond to roll commands. What an annoying bug. Hope it's fixed in 0.23.

[ethan829]

To those who voted for me, thanks a lot! I know my craft isn't the flashiest or most impressive thing around, but I think it has a nice simplicity to it that would be good for new players. With so many other great designs in this contest, it means a lot to me that I got any votes at all!

[Xeldrak]

Doh - forgot to turn the craft back to the default-position while testing several designs :/

Still - thanks for all the votes

[antbin]

I just wanted to post something and explain why I voted for the people I voted for.... Antbin, two votes. I really liked the super-low part count and the simplicity of his design. It didn't leave a lot of error margins for a newbie, but the extendability and simplicity of the design made up for that.

Thanks for the feedback (and the votes). Anyone who didn't like my rocket have any criticism or suggestions?

Edited November 18, 2013 by antbin

[Andrew Hansen]

Just wanted to show everybody something that I'd been inspired to make after creating probably one of the largest rockets in this competition. For a change, I decided to think small. As small as I could. I'm sure you could make something smaller, but this craft here is pretty microscopic!

Tiny Mun Lander

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[sploden]

Thanks for the feedback (and the votes). Anyone who didn't like my rocket have any criticism or suggestions?

I decided I'd give it a test over lunch... I felt bad about not testing it since it looked nice. If I remember, I was being hypercritical at the start of the list, and became more gracious as I went down... I'm guessing I passed over yours due to low Delta-V. So here's my lunchtime test notes:

Good looking craft; well designed.
Would prefer not to have to push the space bar twice to launch.
Good launch, but would prefer a bit more power.
Would prefer more fuel on the boosters.
Good booster placement.
Like the Skipper engine stage; wish that less of it could be used on Kerbin circularization and more on Munar insertion burn/Munar circularization.
Would like a higher TWR on the Munar decent stage.
Would like more Delta-V.
Like the low part count.
Like the simplicity.

I understand that part of your goal was to inspire the novice to innovate and learn, and in that sense it's successful in my opinion.

[sgt_flyer]

Something is becoming weird with the voting (unless several people gave me and gregorxmun all their 8 points ? (If that was wanted thanks a lot - but that's becoming a bit confusing regarding on how the voting went through until the last few hours - before those few hours most people splitted their votes)

Edited November 19, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[breakthrough]

@Andrew: Did I do something wrong when I uploaded to Mediafire? It was my first time using it.

Edited November 19, 2013 by breakthrough
need to remember to use reply with quote next time

[Andrew Hansen]

@Andrew: Did I do something wrong when I uploaded to Mediafire? It was my first time using it.

I don't think so. Before Xeldrak posted his all-in-one zip file, I had downloaded your .craft and didn't have any issues. Sometimes problems occur with computers, though, and I think something must have happened when Xeldrak downloaded your .craft. Anyway, now all is good and it's fixed.

[Deathsoul097]

removed due to idiocy

Edited November 19, 2013 by Deathsoul097

[Carl]

Content deleted and Moved here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58037-BSC-Kerbal-X-Final-vote%21-VOTE-NOW%21?p=793350&viewfull=1#post793350

Edited November 21, 2013 by Carl

[Xeldrak]

Hurry, Carl - your reviews are arewesome, but the vote will close in ~2 hours!

Anyways, I realize, that two day voting is rather short with so many entries - next time I'll give you more time when we have so many participants.

[briansun1]

or you can split the voting up into 2 primary rounds.

[antbin]

Basic procedure was to slap mechjeb onto the existing design, set it to ... use transfer feature to ... set her to burn for ... Then enter landing coordinates ... check lander stability. Then set her to return ... then return her to kerbin on a 30KM perephasis burn ... then set her down on Kerbin wherever the re-entry plops her.

You're going to do this for every entry !?! Wow, ambitious and very generous of you! Glad I'm early in alphabetical order. Thanks for the feedback. Agreed that the low TWR of my lander stage makes for a bit of work. The tradeoff is in the throttle response on final landing - it hovers at about 1/4 - 1/3 throttle so you can fine tune the touchdown easily (unlike that guy on Reddit who put a Mainsail on his mun lander).

[Andrew Hansen]

Andrew Hansen - Kerbal X Revised

Asparagus initial stage

Solid velocity, acceleration, and final pre-circulation burnout altitude

5166 Dv upon achieving Kerbin Orbit

3965 Dv upon achieving Munar Orbit

Lack of Solar Panels obvious but not insurmountable given the battery capacity

Lander tipped on landing, just barely however (mission failure at this point), Landing otherwise felt very solid in terms of braking lead time required. Jeb, Bill, and Bob all enjoyed the long downslope tumble however, so you did something right .

Thanks for taking the time to do your reviews! Why was there a "mission failure" upon landing? I think that you should have been able to easily flip the lander upright by tucking in the landing gear and releasing them again. Anyway, I know it's a lot of work doing those kind of thorough tests, so I really appreciate the feedback!

[Rhomphaia]

Made it in time I hope,

Not too sure about this voting system, the ability to pile 8 votes onto one entry is a bit excessive

3 Votes each for Sploden and Psycix

2 for giggleplex777, Could have used some landing legs