EXTREME ION'ing - because it's not covalent, or very punny.

[Monty_Droppings]

Mixed Ion/Liquid vehicles have low delta v because you calculate the delta v for the time the ants and the ions both fire. The rest of the time, you have the ants and fuel tanks as deadweight and only the ions firing, which of course kills your delta v further.

I was thinking of a mixed lander, but the ants would have to fire at the end of the descent, which of course would be the same as a suicide burn - and therefore extremely difficult to execute.

My lander design that used for the challenge involved having a revere asparagus ants that dropped off as I descend. Obviously, TW changes as I dropped the stages, i found the key to doing this was to use the MJ suicide burn countdown, and just getting a feel for when you wanted to burn.

[mythic_fci]

Permission to use a Kraken Drive instead of ions.

Jk, Lol.

Seriously, I have a 59 part ship which can literally fly anywhere in the kerbal solar system.

[DailyFrankPeter]

Sorry for a noobish question but (referring to the first screenshot of this entire thread, the one with loads of PV panels): which Ion drive takes advantage of increased electric power? Surely not the stock one?

[donfede]

Sorry for a noobish question but (referring to the first screenshot of this entire thread, the one with loads of PV panels): which Ion drive takes advantage of increased electric power? Surely not the stock one?

[table=width: 500", class: grid]

[tr]

[td]part[/td]

[td]mass[/td]

[td]thrust[/td]

[td]isp[/td]

[td]twr[/td]

[td]ellect/s[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]PB-ION2[/td]

[td]1[/td]

[td]2.5[/td]

[td]4200[/td]

[td]2.5[/td]

[td]72.7379[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]PB-ION[stock][/td]

[td]0.25[/td]

[td]0.5[/td]

[td]4200[/td]

[td]2[/td]

[td]14.5476[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td] [/td]

[td] [/td]

[td] [/td]

[td] [/td]

[td]x4[/td]

[td]58.1904[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td][/td]

[td] [/td]

[td][/td]

[td][/td]

[td]x5[/td]

[td]72.738[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

[table=width: 500, class: grid]

[tr]

[td]part [/td]

[td]mass[/td]

[td]xenon [/td]

[td]xenon mass[/td]

[td]x/m[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]PB-X300[/td]

[td] 0.42 [/td]

[td]3000.00 [/td]

[td]0.30 [/td]

[td]0.7143[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]PB-X150[stock][/td]

[td] 0.12[/td]

[td] 700.00[/td]

[td] 0.07 [/td]

[td]0.5833[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]PB-X50R[stock][/td]

[td]0.07[/td]

[td]400.00[/td]

[td] 0.04[/td]

[td] 0.5714[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Edited March 4, 2014 by donfede
sorted lists consistently

[donfede]

...

Currently exploring potential flight plans and designs... ...

I was really hoping to complete a Laythe visit; but, using a different approach. Unfortunately my space-plane tests are not looking successful, so I've shelved that portion of a mission.

For any interested in some mis-adventures, below is an album of my Laythe ant flyer attempts:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

craft - stock - v0.23.0.395

- k08ia-KMk3Jx wide wing glider, with Eve launcher

- k08ia-KMk3Px kfokker triplane, with Eve launcher (no flaps/control surfaces)

Edited March 29, 2014 by donfede
imgur link cleanup; added some craft files

[Mike the Mechanic]

Technically, you could exploit the infiniglide bug to land on laythe (or any body with an atmosphere for that matter), the rules don't seem to forbid that A Laythe plane is a cool idea to save fuel, maybe you'd need more wings to get more lift?

[donfede]

Technically, you could exploit the infiniglide bug to land on laythe (or any body with an atmosphere for that matter), the rules don't seem to forbid that A Laythe plane is a cool idea to save fuel, maybe you'd need more wings to get more lift?

The last version I tried, only had control surfaces on the tail (partially because I forgot them on a rebuild, and partially to avoid infiniglide concerns). With careful timing, the plane was able to land fine without the use of any fuel. Would infiniglide help with ascent to orbit? Regardless, exploring that exploit interests me little. I was not able to find any good math equations to "convert lift into delta-v", so my attempts were mostly trial and error. The fokker tri-plane was able to takeoff with a TWR of only 0.48 . However it was ~1k ms short of the required orbital speed (~1888 based on this post). It was a fun exercise for a bit.

Edited March 17, 2014 by donfede
grammer

[donfede]

Some KSP 'ion' related news from earlier today:

Looks like the new KSP release (0.23.~5 ; aka Asteroid Redirect Mission - ARM) will 'buff' the ion engines, from 0.5 kn to 2.0 kn. A bit too much for my personal taste - if anything the ion/xenon fuel tanks need improvement in their mass ratios (just think a jumbo64 with xenon ), or bring in the KSPX engines. Still, it's nice to see the progress in ion land.

source for the hearsay - http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/217p4f/nasapack_reveal_live_right_now/cgafeg8

kdonfede

[Monty_Droppings]

That Laythe glider just may be the neatest thing I have seen in a long time. May I have the craft file?

I think you could get alot more DV out of those ANT's if you made it so the wings were jettisoned with decouplers.

Neat research you got going on there donfede!

I am planning to post pictures of my darkside lander shortly.

[Mike the Mechanic]

Ugh, I was just testing some designs, and the new ion engines are extremely powerful compared to the old ones - Are you sure you don't want to make a new leaderboard/scoring? I'm saying that because with the new engines, Vall and Eeloo are within the range to land on ...

[Jasonden]

Ugh, I was just testing some designs, and the new ion engines are extremely powerful compared to the old ones - Are you sure you don't want to make a new leaderboard/scoring? I'm saying that because with the new engines, Vall and Eeloo are within the range to land on ...

Separate leaderboards for 0.23 and 0.23.5 would seem to be a good solution here. And maybe we need new scoring to account for the now-possibility of landing on those larger bodies!

[Monty_Droppings]

I will create a new thread for the ION Challenge, with a revised scoring system and a few surprises. Just give me a few days to refine the scoring system.

From now on, this thread is relegated to sharing neat ION designs and sharing research.

[Monty_Droppings]

Oh, however I will continue to update this leaderboard is people would like to continue submitting designs, as long as the craft was designed with the ION engine edited to the old stats.

[donfede]

wow - the new v0.23.5 ARM ion engines are 'mighty powered now'… OP???

- reddit thread with a Moho ion *lander*

- eve ion flyer (so much for my attempts at an laythe ant flyer)

Testing large craft (~6kt), they are clearly more stable in v0.23.5; they can get into LKO now, where before they would disintegrate on the launch pad or lower atmosphere. I've yet to test small ion craft in v0.23.5, and don't know if the space kraken that had been destroying small craft is still present in the new release.

Sadly squad did Not improve the fuel tanks situation for ion/xenon - so stock ion craft are still relegated to horrible fuel/mass ratios . The limiting factor with ion craft is part count, and larger thanks that are more mass efficient are key to that improving.

kdonfede

Edited April 5, 2014 by donfede
orbital body name correction; part count mention

[Monty_Droppings]

Sorry for the delay guys, my schedules been a bit tight. I should have some free time this weekend, I'd like to make some nicer point pictures.