BSC: Kerbal X - We have a winner!

[bombo1]

i vote for deathsoul

[sploden]

Is everyone blind!? MY LANDER HAS SOLAR PANELS!!! WTF!

They are not bound to an action group, and I expected people to use the OX-STAT's instead (most did).

The panels around the mainsail prevent it from overheating.

Latest version addresses overheating.

The docking port is there because that was a functional place to put it, without it taking up more space than it needed to, or increase the partcount by adding radial parachutes. (1 Radial is equal to 1/2 of a big 'chute)

I think the benefit of putting the docking port on top (if the craft has to have one at all) outweighs the detriment of the part count being incremented by one.

Docking port is on there for docking to stations, you know those things you dock to.

Not necessary for this challenge.

What would you classify as "Optimal booster placement"?

North-south rather than east-west. If the noob (God forbid) starts the gravity turn early, this might cause issues. And more importantly, I like north-south better.

The lander legs are more stable than placing them normally (At least, as far as I am aware, as I have landed that lander in places other things would tip, including the original Kerbal X)

How does decreasing the spread cause it to be more stable? It is a clever idea, but I don't like it as much.

Most noobs wouldn't think to try to crash their transfer stage into the mun, and don't really care about debris. (in my experience)

Granted. I'm being picky, and a little sullen because my craft didn't make it to the finals. :-)

Also, the solar panels are on the sides of the lander stage.

Again, they need an action group. It would be easier to use the OX-STAT's. If you had bound them to an action group, doing so would have needed to be noted in the VAB Description text. Edited November 21, 2013 by sploden

[Andrew Hansen]

OK, my review is done. You can access my review at this link.

One thing I tested in my review was how the different finalists's velocities changed up to 9000 m. Did they demonstrate a good ascent profile? You can see diagrams in the link above comparing the craft's velocities to terminal velocity.

[Xeldrak]

Hah, didn't think that I would have a good ascent profile ^^

[Spartwo]

BSC - Spartwo - CSM

Nice Huge Booster with the tail cone system in use again

Fold Out Solar's and RCS

Docking Port on top, not unexpected

No sign of the Lander from the picture?

Cosmetic Paneling hiding construction again

Some Fixed Solars too in case their needed

Ere we go, Ere we go, Ere we go...

Minor wobbling on the pad

Not sure you needed to use LTV 45's, Fins would have been lighter and given you better TWR

Acceleration still good though you don’t hit terminal till just before turn, then lose it again

Cute upper stage, though again I don't think an LTV 45 is needed, in fact I’m sure the 909's are gimbaled anyway for you

Burnout altitude was poor with noticeable down pointing required

1926 Dv remaining upon reaching Kerbin orbit, I'm impressed given how small this is now...

Cute Final stage, Lander still MIA

729 Dv remaining upon reaching Munar orbit, landing doubtful

Fuel ran out during de-orbit burn, Lander destroyed on impact, (Mission Failure at this point)

-Thank you it ended up being a merlin9(ish)

-Of course

-It doesn't land the brief says:

So, what I want you to build is a fully fledged rocket - with the ability reach mun-orbit and return to Kerbin

And for a craft intended to be a LKO-MKO transfer craft it did it pretty well.

-It's a good technique to learn.

-Wait...what?

-Fins,pfffft they won't do much good at 20km.and besides the TWR is spot on if you go full throttle(which I expect NEWBs to)

-Hitting terminal will just use up more fuel building it to just fall short stops needless burning.

-909s are gimbaled but the TWR is high enough as it is,A choice between <1 or >1 I would choose going too high.

-I don't understand that part:P

-Tiny I know:D

-No landing!(for now)

-At this point you should return to kerbin.

-Told you.

[Andrew Hansen]

Carl, since you were so kind to do all those reviews for everybody, I did what you wanted me to and flew your craft.

It has lots of struts and is really sturdy on ascent. All stages separated fine. The lander is amazing.

I had trouble controlling it during the gravity turn since it doesn't have any gimballed engines on the ascent stages. Therefore, I ended up with a really steep ascent profile. Also, the launch vehicle has too much delta-V and ends up as space debris. It also doesn't have enough for the transfer burn for the Mun (though it does give a kick).

Nevertheless, the transfer stage has a nice thrust-to-weight ratio and the lander is really nice.

It truly is an astounding creation. Getting to the Mun already that early on in the tech tree is quite an astounding thing. However, most newbies won't be trying to go the Mun with such primitive parts, and I don't think that encouraging them to build monstrosities like that is very good. I can't really see it becoming the stock craft replacement. Also, it doesn't demonstrate asparagus staging or other things that the original Kerbal X did. It doesn't hold much resemblance to the original Kerbal X in any way.

Don't get me wrong! It's am amazing craft, but I can't see it as a Kerbal X replacement.

[Andrew Hansen]

Hmm... the votes between the Kerbal XX, Kerbal G, Kerbal Y, and the CROME are very close.

Maybe it's time I explain why I voted for the Kerbal XX so that some more people will vote for it and it will win! (Well, in reality, all the finalists crafts are of excellent quality and whoever wins will definitely have deserved it. )

• Lowest part count of all entries. At 52 parts, the next closest to it is Kasuha's entry at 58 parts. It seems like most voters aren't concerned with part count, but I believe it's important for stock crafts to be very simple and have a small amount of parts. I mean, just look at the already-existing stock crafts. I believe the two ones with the highest part count are the Kerbal X and the Z-MAP Satellite Launch Kit, both at 78 parts.
  What's so important about low part count? Well, for one thing, it allows you to more easily re-create that design. For example, the rover and skycrane is easily able to be reproduced by players and put on their own crafts. Usually you're not going to do a lot of modifications to the original stock craft - you'll adapt some techniques it uses to your own designs. For that, low part count is excellent.
  
• Capable of a Mun landing and return. I think that the way the current Kerbal X is designed isn't very good for newbies. In the description, all it says is that it has an "optimistic set of landing legs on its upper stage." The first place a newbie would want to go is the Mun. And please - no jokes about being a Munar orbiter. You're either going to land or you're not. What's the fun in orbiting around the Mun?
  
• Demonstrates good building techniques. The Kerbal XX demonstrates one thing that none of the others do - that it's best to build small rather than large. You can have more fuel and more engines and achieve the same delta-V. That's true. But you can also have less fuel and less engines - and the same delta-V. That's a very important lesson for a newbie to learn. Aside from that, the Kerbal XX demonstrates fuel-crossfeeding and efficient placement of struts, among other things.
  

Those are my main three reasons for choosing Antbin's Kerbal XX. Of course, the other finalists fulfill many of these points, but not all of them like the Kerbal XX does.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Andrew Hansen

[Kerolyov]

I voted for antbin in the end as fot me his was the best overall design of both lifter and orbiter

Here are the finalists ranked in order after my test flying:-

6) Orbiter X - Gregroxmun

For me the wasteful extra mass in form of big RCS tank and Poodle meant I felt the orbiter was drastically overweight. Smaller RCS tanks and using either LV909 or 487S engines would have brought this much higher ranking. Nice looking design with real world rocket feel.

5) Kerbal G - Giggleplex

Lifter waaay too underpowered needs much higher TWR, but despite that it does make it into orbit ok. Could use better engine than poodle. If had better lifter TWR and saved weight by switching poodle for LV909 or 487S would be much better ranked. Looks nice and really does have the Delta Heavy feel about it, like the escape tower.

4) CROME - Xeldrak

I absolutely love the lander design (great performer and easy to land) on this but the lifter seems pretty inefficient if needs 5 orange tanks which is way more than anyone else.

3) sft_flyer - Kerbal Y

Very nice tidy efficient design, not ranked higher though as the last lifter stage with only 1.14 TWR is a bit low and means you need quite a bit of orbiter fuel to get into orbit leaving only just enough to get to Mun and back, beginner might find the lifter design and lack of delta-v a bit frustrating, like the escape tower. Also I prefer stock craft not to have science parts as for use in sandbox too.

2) Deathsoul - Kerbal Z_Z

Really like this design and it was very close to getting my vote. Love the real rocket feel to the lifter and takes off well, like the novel landing leg placement. Loses some credit for Poodle and not a big fan of the oddly placed docking port.

1) Antbin - KerbalXX

Again another nice looking lifter and with great TWR. Slightly drifts even with SAS on but can be easily brought back, better control once boosters gone. Very smart and efficient lander design that does same as Kerbal X for less. Biggest issue is the last stage burns out too late to be returned to Kerbin but too early to dump into Mun or Minmus. Finally as Andrew says uses so few parts and great strut work.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Kerolyov

[Andrew Hansen]

I voted for antbin in the end as his was the best overall design of both lifter and orbiter [...] Biggest issue is the last stage burns out too late to be returned to Kerbin but too early to dump into Mun or Minmus.

I flew his rocket twice and was successfully able to crash the last stage into the Mun. You're right about not being able to crash it into Minmus, though. That would be nice....

To cancel out human error, you can always put an Engineer chip or Mechjeb thingo (not familiar with Mechjeb) for their delta-V readouts, then look at a delta-V map like this one to see if it can make it to the Mun or Minmus.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Andrew Hansen

[Deathsoul097]

WOO! I actually got another vote! That makes 3!

Poodle is actually really efficient: Vac ISP - 390s (One poodle is exactly equal to five LV-909s, but with 30 less thrust, and an LV-909 wouldn't have had as good of a TWR, and would have looked odd.)

Yeah, I know the docking port was in an unusual place, but I'll just say that it's there for originality.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Deathsoul097

[Kerolyov]

I flew his rocket twice and was successfully able to crash the last stage into the Mun. You're right about not being able to crash it into Minmus, though. That would be nice....

To cancel out human error, you can always put an Engineer chip or Mechjeb thingo (not familiar with Mechjeb) for their delta-V readouts, then look at a delta-V map like this one to see if it can make it to the Mun or Minmus.

I only had time to fly each of the 6 once and flew manually so I might have not managed the most efficiently piloted ascent which maybe why last stage burned out before I had munar intercept. Time for me is short to test even these 6 as thoroughly as I'd like but felt 1 quick trip would replicate a newbie better than more careful less rushed testing and/or using mech jeb.

WOO! I actually got another vote! That makes 3!

Poodle is actually really efficient: Vac ISP - 390s

Yeah, I know the docking port was in an unusual place, but I'll just say that it's there for originality.

Yeah has good ISP but its real heavy for its thrust meaning you use more fuel/dv just to shift the weight of the engine. Take a look at taverts thread on this http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/45155-Mass-optimal-engine-type-vs-delta-V-payload-and-min-TWR

Your design uses Poodle in its best role (upper stage), as a lander engine it sucks as you add a lot of mass to the lander, so it didn't count against you much at all., in the end the Antbin's low part usage was the key decider for my vote.

Anyway I'm surprised you didn't get more votes Deathsoul, great design

Anyway great work to everyone I've gained so many new ideas from you all!

Edited November 21, 2013 by Kerolyov

[Deathsoul097]

The way I see it, the stock craft are deliberately designed to be flawed, so that the player can find ways to improve them. My craft could easily be brought down by about 30 parts if you remove the fairings.

[Xeldrak]

Well, I've done some testing...

Antbin:

Preflight:

+looks good, very simple design, clear strutting

+description text with some fluff

-2xspace to launch

Flight:

+Liftoff went well

-no RCS?

-lander you use a bit more thrust

-was able leave Mün SOI, but not to land again

*jeb,Bill and bob will starve in space*

Deathsoul097

Preflight:

-description text barely existant

-no action groups

+looks great, SLS-looks

-fairings around the engine seems like a little too much (although it does look good)

~docking port, but on a very strange position

Flight:

+toggleable pannels ( I prefer them)

-two seperatrons could make the booster seperation much less risky

+RCS

~had to use Poodle to circularize, wich is rather tiresome

+clever trick how you stored the landing gear

-no landing light or ladder

+merbus aproves

Giggleplex:

Preflight:

+looks good, LES

++a good description text, that explaines what the rocket can and cannot do.

~I'd go with toggled solar panel or static panels, not both

Flight:

-very slow on liftoff (TWR 1.18 at launch)

+booster sepration works very well with the seperatrons

-low TWR made getting into orbit a bit of a chore

+RCS

~Fredhat would have liked to land

+everybody survived

GregroxMun:

Preflight

+look similar to to Kerbal X

+LES

-but it's nonfunctional

-2xSpace to liftoff

-rocket exploded during liftoff?!...twice

...well, at least everyone survived

sgt_flyer

Preflight:

+Fairings looks nice

~docking clamps?!

+I like toggleable solarpanels

~description text is there but its very brief

Flight:

+LES works very good

+clustered engines

+seperatrons

-Fins would have been nice

-no rcs

+I like the orbiter very no-frills

Now, with all this, my vote goes to Giggle - it's very simple design, the seperatrons work extremely well and while landing is allways more fun, it the perfect apollo-8-style rocket it my mind. Love the description text that is funny and informative, tells you what you can and cannot do with the rocket.

[sgt_flyer]

well, xeldrak, concerning the launch clamps, i don't like the new 0.22 clamps i find them too unstable since the patch (they 'shake' on physics initialization, which can damage a rocket - maybe it's what happened to gregroxmun rocket) plus, it allows me to see if my boosters are sturdy enough - if they don't wobble while sitting on the launch pad, they should remain stable during ascent

besides, real life rockets are not suspended by the sides before liftoff (even soyuz is held by the underside of it's boosters in it's launch pad)

Edited November 22, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Xeldrak]

Well, if it has a ~ in front, it neither positive nor negative - I just found it strange. Well, I don't think real life rockets rest on their engine nozzles

Gregrox rocket exploded after the first stage was shed - no docking clamps there at that point.

[Nao]

5) Kerbal G - Giggleplex

Lifter waaay too underpowered needs much higher TWR, but despite that it does make it into orbit ok. Could use better engine than poodle. If had better lifter TWR and saved weight by switching poodle for LV909 or 487S would be much better ranked. Looks nice and really does have the Delta Heavy feel about it, like the escape tower.

Been keeping an eye on the discussion but didn't respond until now.

Almost everybody seems to have this Jeremy Clarkson like approach to rockets where POWER = good, but in reality the most efficient rockets operate at lower TWR's. Right now the most mass efficient way to go to orbit is with median TWR of 1,7-1,8 that means short stages of 1,6 at launch to 2 TWR at burnout and longer stages of 1,3 or even 1,2 TWR to ~2,5 at burnout. And Giggleplex77 craft design not only does that but its even better as it hits the altitude where TWR requirement increases rapidly with (>8km) with the end of first stage burn where TWR above 2 is put to good work.

I invite the non believers of low TWR to the "Payload Fraction Challenge" thread, to look on some of the crafts (particularly mine 3stage no asparagus 18,76% payload one here)

And when the update with currency hits you all will wonder why does this kind of low TWR craft are the cheapest way to orbit.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Nao
making it more redable

[NeilC]

I voted for sgt_flyer's craft. Almost all the finalists were very good craft, but to me sgt_flyer's is the best improvement on the Kerbal X because it remains true to the basic style: large central core booster with small asparagus boosters and a stacked 3rd stage. Delta-IV designs are cool, but that's not the motif the Kerbal X was using. I'm a bit disappointed that sgt_flyer's craft isn't Mun-landing capable - if any of the Kerbal-X-alike Mun landing entrie had made it to the finals, they would have my vote.

In my opinion, calling something an improvement on a stock craft means it should do one of two things: take the basic size and building style used by the stock craft and extend it to accomplish a broader mission, or take the basic mission accomplished by the stock craft and do the same thing more efficiently. Either is good, but if you change both the style and the mission you're out of the "improvement" zone and into "build a new craft to do... stuff!" territory. Since this challenge was pretty vague, I picked option A for both my submission and my voting.

[Kerolyov]

Been keeping an eye on the discussion but didn't respond until now.

Almost everybody seems to have this Jeremy Clarkson like approach to rockets where POWER = good, but in reality the most efficient rockets operate at lower TWR's. Right now the most mass efficient way to go to orbit is with median TWR of 1,7-1,8 that means short stages of 1,6 at launch to 2 TWR at burnout and longer stages of 1,3 or even 1,2 TWR to ~2,5 at burnout. And Giggleplex77 craft design not only does that but its even better as it hits the altitude where TWR requirement increases rapidly with (>8km) with the end of first stage burn where TWR above 2 is put to good work.

I invite the non believers of low TWR to the "Payload Fraction Challenge" thread, to look on some of the crafts (particularly mine 3stage no asparagus 18,76% payload one here)

And when the update with currency hits you all will wonder why does this kind of low TWR craft are the cheapest way to orbit.

Interesting I'd always got the impression from reading various threads on here that just under TWR of 2 for Kerbin launch was best balance of minimising gravitional vs aerodynamics losses with TWR dropping lower for each successive stage. As long as you stay below terminal velocity I always went by the principle of getting through thick part of atmosphere quickly and with Kerbal G having initial TWR of 1.1-1.2 (if I remember correctly) I assumed it was losing too much to grav losses.

Certainly be interesting to read the payload fraction thread to see why low TWR stages can be efficient. Of top of my head I'm wondering if high TWR saves delta-V but if high TWR translates into more engine mass maybe that means less delta-v (vs grav) but more actual fuel or is losses to grav at low altitude balanced by gains higher up? Maybe totally wrong as just thinking aloud with getting calculator out....

Low TWR means a different ascent profile and big changes in TWR from one stage to the next can be an issue as I found flying sgt_flyers rocket when I hit the last stage the sudden drop in TWR to 1.14 meant I had to pitch up to avoid overtaking the apoapsis.

My only issue with your post is I now can't stop trying to imagine a Kerbal Jeremy Clarkson actually you can also hear Jeremy Kerkson asking for moar horsepower/boosters!

Edited November 22, 2013 by Kerolyov

[antbin]

Welp, voting looks to be closing up soon - just want to congratulate everyone who entered this BSC - despite the stock craft being not really all that bad, the entries were pretty excellent!

[breakthrough]

Glad to help. KSC Mission Control has now finished with rubber duckies and is about to start Secondary testing, probably not going to get any further than Nitro's before KSC Mission Control needs to get their heads down for the night, they have an appointment with the big Doctor Man that lives far, far, away in the morning.

Also since i did all this for you, has anyone actually flown my design and got any feedback for me, (bearing in mind i designed it thinking low tech was going to be key, had i known the reality i'd have used 2.5M a lot more).

I interpreted the challenge as implementing the apparent mission of the stock craft better than the stock one. The VAB description of the Kerbal X specifically points out the landing legs, so in my mind that means it must be capable of a landing somewhere. The description does not have the word 'Minmus' anywhere within it, so I figure a person whose knowledge of space travel is limited to that cool SpaceX video on Youtube is going to assume (incorrectly) that the Mun is the first and easiest landing target. As the only stock craft with asparagus staging, that building technique needs to be showcased as well. Debris-free launches is more a advanced technique than is necessary for a stock craft, so I didn't consider it a factor either way.

...and none of those image descriptions I typed in appeared in the preview post.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Pros:

structurally sound

Soviet-style crasher stage makes it easy to choose landing location

very low and broad lander

Cons:

unacceptably high part count

no asparagus staging

I wouldn't beat you up over the part count if I couldn't prove it could be done better, so here is a craft with the same delta-v and tech level.

craft file

also, it appears mediafire loses the file extension, or I'm doing it wrong

[Nao]

@KerolyovHaha, boosteeeers! and away he goes in cloud of smoke.

The TWR=2 thread was quite big and important but after that the discussion on the matter was more buried many other threads on Kerbin launches in general, so these things are less known.

In short (talking about median TWR, not launch one). TWR of 2 and resulting flight at terminal velocity was concluded as the most fuel efficient method of vertical atmospheric ascent on unlimited power (actually it was close to 2,1 due to acceleration). To make the craft more fuel efficient, we started taking away engines, so that the deltaV to orbit increases but at the same time deltaV of the particular craft increases even more. At around 1.85 the net deltaV is the largest, resulting in biggest fuel savings.

If we reduce the TWR further, by exchanging some of the engine mass to fuel, up to 1,7 TWR the net deltaV change is also positive reducing the total takeoff mass of a rocket with the same payload to a minimum, while burning a little more fuel.

At this point we could further reduce TWR in pursuit of minimal cost as engines are (and probably will be in next patches) more expensive than fuel.

Giggleplex77's rocket has TWR of 1,18 which is indeed low, and actual payload to orbit isn't that great but it does fly similarly to how real rockets go (a plus) and will probably be one of the most cost efficient launch platforms of the entries here, when we get actual cost balance sorted out.

Also can you guess who i voted for

Welp, voting looks to be closing up soon - just want to congratulate everyone who entered this BSC - despite the stock craft being not really all that bad, the entries were pretty excellent!

Indeed . Thanks for the good work guys! And especially OP for organizing it!

[Xeldrak]

@Nao:

Well, but you also have to consider, that is not purely about efficiency in this challenge. By the way, giggles initial TWR is 1.1 if I'm not mistaken. Even below your numbers

[Nao]

@Nao:

Well, but you also have to consider, that is not purely about efficiency in this challenge. By the way, giggles initial TWR is 1.1 if I'm not mistaken. Even below your numbers

But, but, you have to vote for the best rocket! Efficiency is all in current eco-green world, and we all know that kerbals are so efficient they are actually green! Also it's not 1,1 but 1,18 TWR that's almost twice more acceleration off the pad!

[Psycix]

I think a higher TWR will allow for some more exotic (bad) gravity turns. So for this challenge, noob-friendly rockets with a higher TWR are more desirable than fuel efficient ones.

[Xeldrak]

Congratulations, we have a winner!

sgt_flyer wins the 8th BSC contest with his Kerbal Y.

On close second and third position are Giggleplex777 and antbin!

Edited November 23, 2013 by Xeldrak