BSC: Kerbal X - We have a winner!

[metaphor]

Didn't get to vote on this thread but I have to agree with Nao that a rocket with low TWR at the start is better. A rocket that maintains a constant TWR of 1.7-2 during the entire flight is more efficient, but you have to constantly throttle down to keep that TWR the same during the entire flight. For someone relatively new to the game, it's much easier to just throttle to max and keep it there the entire flight (kinda what happens during real-world rockets too), which means rockets with lower TWR at launch are the right combination of efficient and noob-friendly. Plus the launch looks a lot more like a real rocket and it looks more.. epic. I think the Delta-IV lookalike is a very elegant design and I might actually start using it.

[Nao]

Congratulations to the winner: sgt_flayer!

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.

True that, but Giggleplex rocket were quite lively around the gravity turn with good TWR. It wasn't that friendly for the late ascent but in a good way. It was hard not getting into orbit at that point but when flown badly (too shallow or too steep) it was easy to feel that something is not right and that there is some kind of middle ground that gets us into orbit nicely, allowing the new player to learn (see the differences) over several flights.

[Spartwo]

Ask and you shall receive.I addressed any problems which weren't intentional or suggestions which I liked,These included.

-Increasing D/v(Enough to send orbital insertion stage onto Mun impact)

-Apparently the wobbly launch was due to the struts breaking in the VAB.

-Probe control for Lander/CTV.

-Underside light.

-Lower part count.

Due to a lighting bug landing was at <30m/s.Had I decided to return home.

[sgt_flyer]

thanks to all the people who voted for me

and congratulations to Giggleplex and Antbin too

your crafts can also help newcomers to learn other useful basics of the game (it would be hard anyway to design a rocket which could cover in one go all the basics the various rockets presented here showed - not without risking to 'Clutter' too much one aspect in detriment to another one

Edited November 22, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Kerolyov]

Congratulations sgt_flyer! Also to the 2 runners up! Thanks to everyone took part and Xeldrak for taking time to run this thread and the voting process. So many good designs and in a way we're all winners for having so many design ideas to look at, and the chance to endlessly debate what Kerbal X was meant to be

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.

Any chance you have some good threads to recommend ? I'd be interested in reading more on this.

[Andrew Hansen]

Congratulations stg_flyer and everyone else who participated! This was my first time making an entry into a BSC challenge, and I had a lot of fun.

By the way, about this discussion about TWR at launch and stuff, you might be interested in seeing a review with some charts of the finalists's velocities compared to terminal velocity up to 9000 meters.

Just so you know, Xeldrak's terminal velocity was the best. And he had a TWR of around 2 at launch.

Link to review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vfVCabx8L6ZE6n1dvj4ogYp7zhOmK7Y5PulkxyNaH1M/edit?usp=drive_web

[kzauner]

Thank you very much for your incredible work. I just managed to fly around 1/3 of the crafts - but I have one question:

All Primary Testing Complete

Note to self, remember RCS at liftoff

Massive Yaw and pitch and Roll off Pad, Mechjeb kept her flying via heavy RCS usage but ultimately refused to stabilize till Boosters nearly empty

Boosters jettisoned at 3.5K up, velocity and acceleration anemic

[...]

2843 Dv remaining upon reaching Kerbin orbit

Forced use of Lander stage for much of Munar SOI insertion Burn and Munar Orbit burns made for painfully slow process due to terrible TWR

1645 Dv remaining upon achieving Munar Orbit

If you really do secondary tests, please try to turn *OFF* RCS during Launch. Gimbal & Capsule-torque should be more than enough. I ditched MJ months ago, just after a few tryouts (and i haven't considered MJ in design here) as i found out that MJ often chockes on too much control-authority. I personally therefore find it unusable. One needs about 3 times the struts when using MJ than when flying by hand (same goes for SAS,

even not that bad).

I included RCS primarily to make things a little bit easier to control for a human, beginner pilot (I don't use it during ascent mostly, just a quick on - roll maneauver - off during launch). I think MJ does something very bad here to the craft. I usually had Booster ECO > 10k - even as I'm starting to turn more-or-less immediately after clearing the pad. MJ must have messed up somehow all the dv of the craft - stage 6 (transfer) should have enough juice left for MOR-burn (>400 d/v after Transfer burn).

Ah - and BTW congratulations to the places 1-3. I personally have completely forgotten to vote for the finalist. Great job of you three! And also a thank you to all craft-providers. It was entertaining and informative to testfly the different designs.

[Giggleplex777]

How am I third if I have more votes than antbin?

BTW, the Saturn V has a liftoff TWR of about 1.1.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Giggleplex777

[mhoram]

Gratulaton to the winner and finalists and thanks Xeldrak for this challenge and all contestants for sharing their innovative designs!

Also since i did all this for you, has anyone actually flown my design and got any feedback for me

Here are some testresults about your ship:

No capability for transporting Kerbals

With 320 parts, lag is noticeable

During gravity turn, the ship's rotation is a bit low

Any reason for using FL-T400 and not FL-T800?

Science Equipment available

Strong danger of wobbling

No asparagus staging

Extreme high TWR - would not need that much

Lots of batteries

No landing lights

Difficult to keep orbit debrisfree

Wide lander is good for stability

Strong torque on lander

1889 dV left after landing on Mun

[Xeldrak]

How am I third if I have more votes than antbin?

BTW, the Saturn V has a liftoff TWR of about 1.1.

Cause I'm an idiot - I'll correct it in the next 24 hours.....

[Xeldrak]

Now second and third place should be in the right order

[XolotlLoki]

After agonizing over whether to vote for Xeldrak or antbin, I finally decided to vote for Xeldrak. The low TWR of antbin's lander combined with the low fuel margins was just too much in the end. Plus when I went to rescue all those brave Kerbonauts stranded in Mun orbit by my testing, I was able to refuel CROME with minimal hassle; antbin's Kerbonauts are still sitting on the surface, dreading the termination order.

But of course by then voting had closed. Fortunately, my vote would not have changed the results.

As a post-mortem, I took antbin's re-strutting of my ship, and added fins for roll control (which this challenge taught me could not be provided via gimbal, thanks whoever pointed that out). Craft file is here if anyone wants to take it for a spin.

[AmpsterMan]

Well... it seems like I am late to this party once again xD

For the record, this is what I would have posted

It is a simple 3 stage to Mun vehicle with more than enough fuel to put you into any Orbit you desire and return from it. The Radial Engines are there to show players how to use these underappreciated engines. It has a high TWR of 1.8 and about 10% delta-v of margin of error for each stage in the flight path. Also, it is based on the R7 so it looks really cool.