BSC: Kerbal X - We have a winner!

[whistlehead]

As the only rocket with both asparagus staging and the capability to land on the Mün, I choose Xeldrak.

[sgt_flyer]

as i will not vote for myself of course , i will vote for Xeldrak based on what his rocket can learn to newcomers - here, mainly the asparagus systems, engine clustering through the adapters, and how to use side pods to mount engines.

Edited November 20, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Deathsoul097]

I voted for Antbin because his rocket is quite clean. It works well and looks good doing it, and It is pretty much a more efficient version of my own.(No fairings weighing it down)

[antbin]

(Xeldrak's is) the only rocket with both asparagus staging and the capability to land on the Mün.

Hey, that ain't true! Asparagus still counts with only 2 outside boosters...

As a datanerd I made a chart to argue why you should vote for my rocket: Only one both simpler, lighter, and more ISP than stock.

Stock crafts should be simple and extendable - give rookies the fun of improving them with science gear, more fuel, or (of course) boosters. The KSP student eventually learns that in space, less is more.

Edited November 20, 2013 by antbin
nope

[Carl]

Sorry for everyone for missing the end of vote, that power nap got interrupted quite a bit for first few hours so it became rather longer. I'll finish up the reviews though.

@Mecha: Fair enough, like i said i forgot almost everyone's notes anyway unless they've repeated them since testing started.

[sgt_flyer]

nice chart antbin - but those stock craft are not only made to teach piloting techniques to newcomers, but also building techniques they can learn and adapt for their own uses

if i can take your asparagus staging example, i usually classify 2 boosters draining in a core stage as Crossfeeding - asparagus taking the concept one step further than simple crossfeeding, newcomers can see how the fuel lines are placed to turn 'around' the rocket, emptying each set of boosters into the next, and then the final set into the core stage

[SirJodelstein]

Did not submit a craft and didn't have time to check out all the entries, but here is my rundown of the finalists:

- antbin Kerbals XX: Simple, easy to fly, clear staging/dV (3rd goes to the mun, rest for landing+return). Me likes it.

- Deathsoul097 Kerbal Z.Z: Solid build. Loving the fairings. Ascent not full throttle safe, and a little bit low on the TWR side. Lander stage has no energy generation, and no extra batteries. Lots of very nice other extras though!

- Giggleplex77 Kerbal G: Lots of stuff to like. Description, LES (works as advertised), balanced ascent TWR, clear staging with no-debris in LKO thanks to sepratrons. Very impressed.

- GregrorMux Orbiter X: Top-notch description, looked like a a good improvement on the original Kerbal X. But: launching gave me repeated structural failures on physics init or after some seconds on the pad. Aborted test. Sorry.

- sgt_flyer Kerbal Y: Awesome engineering (i absolutely like engine clusters and makeshift fairings), easy ascent with nice TWR curve. Slight staging issue: fairing removal in stage 3 should happen with the actual engine activation one stage earlier (in stage 4).

- Xeldrak CROME: Heaviest of the finalists. Not full-throttle ascent safe. Rolls during the initial vertical ascent. Very good lander, but i think the focus of this challenge was the ascent stage/complete rocket, which is good (solid TWR and control) but not the best of the finalists.

Final verdict: My vote goes to sgt_flyers Kerbal Y, for a craft which brings lots of stuff to imitate/learn from. Giggleplex77's Kerbal G is a very close second.

Edited November 20, 2013 by SirJodelstein

[Xeldrak]

Stock crafts should be simple and extendable - give rookies the fun of improving them with science gear, more fuel, or (of course) boosters. The KSP student eventually learns that in space, less is more.

Exactly, but I they should also teach techniques and have lot's of wiggleroom for mistakes (i.e. exess dV) - what you craft seem to lack ^^

[Death Engineering]

Tossed my vote at Deathsoul097 Kerbal Z.Z. Not only did it meet all my minimum requirements for this challenge, but also because of some quite ingenious design choices. Xeldrak's entry was a very close second.

Still having a problem wrapping my head around the current leader. While I'm sure its a fine craft, science has no place in sandbox.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Death Engineering

[sgt_flyer]

@SirJodelstein - well, those interstage fairings were made to mimick reality a bit most real interstage fairings are dropped only after the upper stage engine ignition - like Saturn's V interstage fairing between the first and second stage, or Soyuz's upper stage (the Block I) engine's fairings, which splits in 3 parts several seconds after the upper stage is ignited

(which is why, in the end, i tied the interstage fairings ejection with the Escape tower's ejection ) anyway, thanks for the vote

Edited November 20, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Carl]

Still having a problem wrapping my head around the current leader. While I'm sure its a fine craft, science has no place in sandbox.

Who said these where going to be used in sandbox, i'd expect most newbies to jump into career.

That said there's not exactly a glut of low tech designs here is there.

[Death Engineering]

Who said these where going to be used in sandbox, i'd expect most newbies to jump into career.

That said there's not exactly a glut of low tech designs here is there.

Exactly my point - anyone who jumps into career isn't going to be able to load these craft until they've unlocked a considerable number of parts. By the time they've unlocked the required tiers, they're not "newbies" anymore and don't need stock craft.

[antbin]

2 boosters draining in a core stage as Crossfeeding - asparagus taking the concept one step further

Ah, fair enough, you're right. My rocket isn't asparagus.

stock craft are ... to teach ... building techniques

Agreed, but my craft does teach building techniques! Not the fancy fairings, I admit, but basic rocket stuff.

• Cross-strutting resists wobble and twist better than straight
  
• Cross-strutting can be used between boosters or to strengthen weak points in vertical stages
  
• Cross-struts can secure powerful engines (mainsails) at the same time as boosters
  
• Weight can be saved by placing asymmetric parts (solo landing light)
  
• Balance can be saved by matching torque of asymmetric parts (battery 1/3 weight of solo light, placed 3x further from center axis)
  
• On the pad, rockets should have TWR > 2 to get up to speed efficiently
  
• In space, Landers can be more efficient without massive TWR
  
• Dropping boosters is a way to change TWR
  

They're subtle lessons, but seeing examples of good strutting can help a noob build monstrous rockets that stay together.

(stock craft) should also teach techniques and have lot's of wiggleroom for mistakes (i.e. exess dV) - what you craft seem to lack

True that the craft as-built has fairly slim margins, but only for a complete Mun direct ascent. For a one-way trip, Mun flyby or Minmus return, it's plenty.

Besides, it leaves something for noobs to do - it only takes one disassembly step - pop off the nosecones, add two more 3200L tanks, and launch. Then it's gone from being a stock rocket to their rocket.

Edited November 20, 2013 by antbin

[Carl]

Exactly my point - anyone who jumps into career isn't going to be able to load these craft until they've unlocked a considerable number of parts. By the time they've unlocked the required tiers, they're not "newbies" anymore and don't need stock craft.

*Points at his own design*

Seriously why do you think i built a 1.25M monster?

In fact it's my Career mode Mun design with mechjeb taken off and a new name slapped on.

Plowing through the remaining ones, not being tired is a huge help to testing speed.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I think much of the ongoing debate is largely due to the fact that Kerbal X is a fine stock craft and therefore difficult to actually improve upon in a practical manner. We are mostly differentiating on philosophy, and personal preference/subjectivity is heavily at play. Couple that with the simplicity of an orbiter/maybe munar lander, and the fact that VAB is where most people's comfort zones are, you get a lot of entries and consequently a lot of opinions on the matter. I bet a SPH BSC as a rule gets fewer submissions

[Death Engineering]

*Points at his own design*

Seriously why do you think i built a 1.25M monster?

In fact it's my Career mode Mun design with mechjeb taken off and a new name slapped on.

Oh.. so that craft of yours is starting-tier parts? NICE.

[NeilC]

I think much of the ongoing debate is largely due to the fact that Kerbal X is a fine stock craft <...> mostly differentiating on philosophy, and personal preference/subjectivity is heavily at play. <...>the simplicity of an orbiter/maybe munar lander<...>

(emphasis mine)

I think the problem is the "maybe". A Munar orbiter is a very different mission than a munar lander. Doing either with 3 Kerbals is a very different mission than doing it with 1 Kerbal. Doing it with direct ascent is very different than doing it with an Apollo-style Lunar orbit rendez-vous. All of the things I just mentioned have representative entries in this challenge, when they're really not the same class of mission.

We're largely debating philosophy and personal preference because there's no objective way to call a 3-man direct ascent Mun lander "better" than a 1-man Munar orbiter. The rockets aren't even comparable on objective terms, so we have to be totally subjective.

And/or just game the voting system and never bother to leave Kerbin orbit.

[Carl]

Oh.. so that craft of yours is starting-tier parts? NICE.

Well it's all as low tech as can be anyway, there are limit's, i think the highest tech parts are the probe core and Solar Panels, the rest is in the first tier after basic. I'll try and grab a tech tee screenshot with necessary bits outlined later.

[Andrew Hansen]

I know that the final vote is now on, and I plan to test out the finalists (I have tested some of them already, but now I plan to evaluate all of the finalists, if possible).

However, as I said earlier, these kinds of competitions are also learning experiences. That's why I want to show a craft I've made incorporating many things I've learned from other people in this competition. I want to keep the post short, so I'll just post the Imgur album and the VAB description.

VAB Description of the Kerbal A

The Kerbal A can take three Kerbals out to either Minmus or the Mun and return them back to Kerbin safely. The Kerbal A uses several advanced building techniques, such as asparagus staging (draining fuel from one tank into the next) and engine clusters for greater efficiency. It also has RCS and a docking port if you want to dock to a space station or something.

Action groups:

Abort - Activates escape system.

1 toggles solar panels.

2 toggles landing lights and ladder.

3 toggles docking port and docking lights. Retracts solar panels for safety.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Click here to download .craft file.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Andrew Hansen

[Death Engineering]

However, as I said earlier, these kinds of competitions are also learning experiences. That's why I want to show a craft I've made incorporating many things I've learned from other people in this competition. I want to keep the post short, so I'll just post the Imgur album and the VAB description.

Now, that's what I'm talkin' about!

The lander has a really good thrust-to-weight ratio.

Two aerospikes? I bet it does!

[sgt_flyer]

nice adaptation of various techniques Andrew Hansen

[Deathsoul097]

@ SirJodelstien

1- Yes, it is full throttle safe. It gets to halfway up the overheat bar then stops.

2- TWR ensures a solid ascent, with a decent acceleration.

3- Lander stage has solar panels.

4- Batteries are not needed as it is intended to straight-drop onto one of Minmus' Ice-beds during the daytime. Plus it is manned so they aren't needed anyway, and any manoeuvring can be done during power outage using the on-board RCS.

@ No-One in particular

I know that my rocket isn't asparagus staged, but I think it is more realistic to just crossfeed than create some asparagus monstrosity.

[XolotlLoki]

In space, Landers can be more efficient without massive TWR

I agree with pretty much everything else you said, but after trying to land on Tylo I no longer think this is true. The most efficient landing seems to be a hard de-orbit burn, followed by a fast descent and hard landing burn.

The general landing algorithm is to keep velocity in m/s at 1% of height in m. This is indeed more efficient with a light, high ISP engine. However, this algorithm will never get you to the surface of Tylo, because you spend too much time descending. I only managed to land on Tylo by keeping velocity around 300 m/s above the 1% target, followed by a perfectly timed hard burn just before landing.

The problem with your lander is that it can't do the necessary hard landing burn, due to its low thrust. So landing will not be overly efficient. I actually crashed the first time I tried to land your ship on the Mun, because I thought I didn't have enough fuel left to get back to Kerbin with a 1% landing.

Of course, I still voted for you in the primaries, and will likely do so for the finals as well. But the already tight fuel margins were made worse by needing to do a slow landing.

[Rhomphaia]

CHROME

Launch - Asparagus with engine clusters on boosters, sepratrons for booster separation.

First stage thrust a little High but OK. Will leave debris, Winglets slow to respond to booster stress roll, resulting in slight oscillation

Without SAS will be 10 degrees off vertical in 45 seconds

Payload - Too functional, with docking and landing capabilities. RCS well balanced.

Kerbal G

Launch - Crossfeed with sepratrons for booster separation.

Very nice LES with good setup, ideally should be rotated 90 degrees so it doesn't pull the capsule over the booster.

Thrust perhaps a little low, but OK, probe core for deorbit

10 degrees off vert 1m16s

Payload - Would have preferred a lander but this is a nice orbiter. RCS could have been a bit better balanced, works fine with translation keys but not so well in docking mode

Kerbal Y

Description a bit dry.

Launch - Asparagus, cluster on core stage, sepratrons for booster separation. Cluster upper stage.

Nice LES, could have used action groups too avoid having to stage all the way to parachutes.

Good thrust, Will leave debris.

10 degrees off vert 59s

Payload - Limited functionality beyond science,

Kerbal Z.Z

Description minimal

Launch - Crossfeed, upper stage to finalize orbit. minor collision potential on booster separation, no serious damage sustained.

Good thrust, With an efficient launch debris could be crashed into Mun, Even slight potential to crash it into Minmus with an impeccably timed launch though not likely.

10 degrees off vert 37s

Payload - more functionality than I wanted too see. Don't like docking port placement. Not sure about landing legs, not particularly sturdy and don't seem too stable. RCS well balanced.

Kerbals XX

Launch - Crossfeed with upper stage to finalize

Thrust a little high on booster stage, OK though. Debris could be crashed into Mun, not Minmus though

10 degrees off vert 40s

Payload - Nice simple lander, would have preferred tracking solar panels, or one more static one at least.

Orbiter X

Pejorative description. Occasional structural failures on load.

Launch Asparagus, Minor collision potential on booster separation, no serious damage sustained

LES is non functional (pod does not decouple),

Thrust good, Probe core to de-orbit debris, although if inefficient launch, potential for LES tower to end up in orbit as debris.

10 degrees off vert 39s

Payload - Orbiter, balanced RCS, far too much mono-propellant though

[I_Killed_Jeb]

High lander TWR also insures against OHHHH SH!TTTTTTT moments that one might have if landing at a spot that's higher in altitude than expected