Today I build a Rocket

[Cupcake...]

6/2/14 - Heh all, Capt Sierra's asked me to take over the running of this challenge. Hope you don't mind! Anyway, this is what you have to do:

The challenge:

Build and launch a modular rocket assembled in pieces transported to the launchpad and docked together.

Rules:

• [*]Your rocket must be at least 2 stages, not including the payload and any attached kicker stages

Your rocket must be comprised of at least two sections, not incuding the payload section

Your rocket must start in at least three pieces, including payload section, at the back door of the SPH

Your rocket must finish on the launch pad ready to be launched

Your rocket must be cabable of establishing a stable orbit (69.1x69.1km minimum)

Any and all kerbals used in assembly vehicles and rocket must be able to be safely recovered (recover vessel button is usable)

All non parts mods and balanced* mods are allowed with the exception of KAS winches

part clipping (with the exception of fuel tank clipping**) is allowed; all other debug cheats are not

Now, there are three main difficulty levels; Easy, Medium, and Hard. Rules for each one:

Easy

multiple vehicles may be used for construction (making rover assembly possible)

Sections may start unfueled, in which case the complete rocket may be refueled on the launchpad via hyperedit

Medium

Single vehicle must be used for construction

Sections may start unfueled, in which case the complete rocket may be refueled on the launchpad via hyperedit

Hard

Single vehicle must be used for construction

Sections must start fully fueled at the SPH back door, hyperedit fueling is disallowed.

Scoring:

Scoring is in terms of the payload placed in orbit unless otherwise noted. Landing points are gained only be re-establishing orbit from the landed body except on Duna and Lathe. Landing and re-orbiting here grants double landing points. If re-orbit from Eve, +500 pts. If re-orbit from Tylo, landing pts x5

5 pts per ton of payload placed in orbit (does not count weight of fuel unless completing under Hard ruleset)

10 pts per additional section above the requirement

10 pts per additional stage*** above the requirement; limited to launch vehicle only, does not include stages on the payload

20 pts for Munar flyby; +5 pts for circularized orbit

25 pts for Munar landing

25 pts for Minmus flyby; +5 pts for circularized orbit

15 pts for Minmus landing

50 pts for excaping Kerbin's SoI

25 pts for Duna/Eve flyby; +10 pts for circularized orbit

10 pts for Duna/Eve landing

40 pts for Dres flyby; +10 pts for circularized orbit

25 pts for Dres landing

50 pts for Jool flyby; +5 pts for circularized orbit

20 pts for Lathe/Vall flyby; +5 pts for circularized orbit

10 pts for Lathe/Vall landing; x2 landing pts if re-orbiting from Lathe

15 pts for Tylo flyby; +10 pts for circularized orbit

100 pts for Tylo landing

20 pts for Bop/Pol flyby; +5 pts for circularized orbit

10 pts for Bop/Pol landing

75 pts for Eeloo flyby; +5 pts for circularized orbit

10 pts for Eeloo landing

100 pts for Moho flyby; +20 pts for circularized orbit

15 pts for Moho landing

25 Pts Landing At KSC On Return

*Balanced mods is a subjective item. I am allowing people to use their better judgement. I reserve the right to prohibit the use of specific mods without prior notice.

**Clipped fuel tanks will be defined as two fuel tanks containing the same fuel type occupying at least 25% of the same space.

***Stages must make a measurable contribution to achieving orbit. Having random decouplers stage at different times will not count. I reserve the right to alter scores should the associated entry attempt to abuse this rule.

The scoring is a work in progress. I am considering adding time based scores and/ore multipliers to encourage faster assembly. Please leave both your thoughts, comments, concerns, and questions about the challenge below, as well as your tips for others and awesome entries!

Leaderboards:

Easy

80.45 - mpink http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66293-Today-I-build-a-Rocket/page2

Medium

382.7 - ttnarg http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66293-Today-I-build-a-Rocket/page7

299.85 - mpinkhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66293-Today-I-build-a-Rocket?p=1049537&viewfull=1#post1049537

171.5 - Cupcake http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66293-Today-I-build-a-Rocket/page4

Hard

306.35! - mpink http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66293-Today-I-build-a-Rocket/page6

Edited March 29, 2014 by Cupcake...

[fluffysnowcap]

bludy insane when i have some time about half a day i will give this a go

[The Destroyer]

Shame this hardly got any response.

[Galane]

That is some amazing flying.

[Captain Sierra]

That is some amazing flying.

Cupcake uses analog control setup. I personally would have to fight with KSP some to make it work. I'm definitely looking at doing it as I build my entry. I'll probably be submitting a medium difficulty one.

[RocketTurtle]

can't you just write down what's it about instead of posting a pointless video?

Can't you just say something nice instead of complaining about the fact he posted a video? And anyways, it isn't his video, the challenge was inspired from that video.

Oh, wait, you're banned. Good.

[Raven.]

Challenge accepted.

Although I have a question. Would the VTOL engines from B9 aerospace be allowed in this challenge? I have a lifter craft already made that uses the VTOL engines, as it would cut down on the amount of time.

[Captain Sierra]

Challenge accepted.

Although I have a question. Would the VTOL engines from B9 aerospace be allowed in this challenge? I have a lifter craft already made that uses the VTOL engines, as it would cut down on the amount of time.

No objections to that. Heck, I'm still working. It's proving to be quite difficult without crashing. Then again, I don't have much experience with VTOLs.

[MaverickSawyer]

Hrm... can you use the fuel pipes from KAS to fuel the rocket on the pad from a "fuel tanker" rover?

[Raven.]

Hrm... can you use the fuel pipes from KAS to fuel the rocket on the pad from a "fuel tanker" rover?

I'd be curious as to Sierra's answer to this. This is not a bad idea for fueling. It also would be a good option for refueling the VTOLs if they have a small fuel reserve.

[Pecan]

I have just tested a prototype which works, but I not sure if the plan is eligible under the 'hard' rules. The identical (at the moment) sections are assembled by a, single, rover into a line and align and dock themselves by rising on landing legs (releasing the under-docked rover). Launch with engines on outer pair, stage to inner pair (undock/jettison outer pair), stage to circularisation/payload section (undock/jettison inner pair).

While I think that follows the letter of the rules I think it's against the spirit, since I don't need to fly to assemble it and it isn't a single stack. Thanks for inspiring me to practice rover base-building and I've had a couple of hours fun anyway. What's the ruling?

[mpink]

To Day I Build A Small Rocket

Lets Get the ball Rolling hear with my originally named Small Rocket.

Hummmm so how do we score this.

The rocket was built using stock only and constructed fully fulled but used 3 transporters 4 if you consider that the main section has 2 separate transporters after decoupling.

Payload

Skipper 4

Dry t800 0.5 X 4 = 2

MK1 Pod 0.84

Rockomax Adapter 0.1

MK16 Chute 0.1

Stack Decoupler 0.05

Gives a Total of 7.09 or 35.45 points

25 pts for Minmus flyby = 60.45

20 pts for Munar flyby = 80.45

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Mr.Rocket]

Wow, that is really cool, mpink, did you use docking ports on the sides of decouplers? I'm curious as to how you did this.

[Captain Sierra]

Hrm... can you use the fuel pipes from KAS to fuel the rocket on the pad from a "fuel tanker" rover?

If you wish to do that instead of hyperediting fuel into your craft, you are welcome to. This is a mod friendly challenge.

[Captain Sierra]

I'd be curious as to Sierra's answer to this. This is not a bad idea for fueling. It also would be a good option for refueling the VTOLs if they have a small fuel reserve.

I'd be curious to see someone actually do that. It would absolutely be a legitimate entry.

Also, your score is being added to the leaderboards now.

[Cupcake...]

To Day I Build A Small Rocket

Lets Get the ball Rolling hear with my originally named Small Rocket.

Hummmm so how do we score this.

The rocket was built using stock only and constructed fully fulled but used 3 transporters 4 if you consider that the main section has 2 separate transporters after decoupling.

Payload

Skipper 4

Dry t800 0.5 X 4 = 2

MK1 Pod 0.84

Rockomax Adapter 0.1

MK16 Chute 0.1

Stack Decoupler 0.05

Gives a Total of 7.09 or 35.45 points

25 pts for Minmus flyby = 60.45

20 pts for Munar flyby = 80.45

http://imgur.com/a//X6z4U

Nicely done Mpink, I'm impressed!

Cupcake...

[mpink]

Wow, that is really cool, mpink, did you use docking ports on the sides of decouplers? I'm curious as to how you did this.

Thanks I thought it was cool too

curious as to what ?

Yes there are two sets of decouplers with jr docking ports and 2X fuel pipes per booster.

The images are a bit low resolution even for the originals + i have the textures so low you can never spot what way a fuel pipe is connected.

A pipe goes from the booster into the port that is a part of it and another pipe gose from the port on the main rocket over a decoupler and into the upper tank.

There is some funny transfer hear as the skipper finds the bottom tank of the boosters to be the most distant while the booster engines use the top tank of the booster (funny but expected).

The bigger problem is if you connect with the lower of the docking ports 1st. I had this happen on testing and it results in failure to cross feed. This seams a bit odd to me and could well be considered a bug if i could repeat it but im well aware of the strange results of primary and secondary docking ports.

As for alignment, well this is where the T800's come in handy. Both the main tank and the boosters have lot of good markings to do alignment with and both the ports are aligned with a horizontal mark.

The other thing about this rocket is it was easy to build in one part and test before trying to do any ground docking.

Im not sure if its just me and my low terrain detail levels but .23 seams to have some very nasty invisible bumps on the pad now, so docking there isnt easy.

Saying that it still seams easier than any of my attempts to recreate Cupcake's awesomeness.

[Raven.]

Also, your score is being added to the leaderboards now.

Sierra, I have not made an entry yet. I believe mpink should be the one on the leaderboard, not myself.

[Captain Sierra]

Sierra, I have not made an entry yet. I believe mpink should be the one on the leaderboard, not myself.

Wow. I'm clearly out of it today. I'd best put down the coffee. It's doing bad things to my head.

[Raven.]

Wow. I'm clearly out of it today. I'd best put down the coffee. It's doing bad things to my head.

No worries, it happens. Better than looking at log files for two hours straight.

I'd be curious to see someone actually do that. It would absolutely be a legitimate entry.

I'm doing it then. Mine is going to have at least two vehicles then: a VTOL (or crane if that doesn't work) and a big ole' fuel tanker.

[Captain Sierra]

No worries, it happens. Better than looking at log files for two hours straight.

I'm doing it then. Mine is going to have at least two vehicles then: a VTOL (or crane if that doesn't work) and a big ole' fuel tanker.

I'll need to amend the rules then. As the fuel tanker serves no role in assembly, it shall not be counted, making your entry qualify for Medium.

[Pecan]

Plan B; since plan A seems to be done better already ;-0

(Plan B is much more cupcake style - it flies - but nothing like as clever)

[mpink]

Is anyone else prepared to share some testing experience ?

Iv been testing a cupcake style lifter too.

I think im suffering from some bad physics. Im sure tilting the engines out like that should result in a stable hover that dose not need SAS to keep it pointed at the sky but it dose not seem to work.

Its very odd and confusing as tilted wings on a plane dose result in a self stabilizing craft. It might just have been that i had the gimbals enabled on the 1st few flights. There seams to be a problem with gimballed engines above the center of balance (they gimbal the wrong way). Anyways iv yet to manage to safely land an orange tank anywhere let alone dock it so im not sure i have enough skill to do it this way.

My Supper Roller seams to be showing a lot more promise.

A warning to anyone trying to follow this line. The craft is aligned to the top of the pad so it fell 5M when physics kicked in !

Im taking its ability to withstand this as a very good sign

It can just clear the pad and drive away (avoiding the silly bumps) safely carrying an orange tank (including the drop at the start).

This as yet unusable transporter already ways 27T.

Iv still got a long way to go before i have a working version for Hard but im sure il get there soon.

[FormulaRedline]

Its very odd and confusing as tilted wings on a plane dose result in a self stabilizing craft.

mpink, if you draw a diagram with the thrust vectors from those engines you'll see why you get no self stabilizing effect. The "horizontal" components of the thrust all just cancel each other out and "vertical" component of the thrust provides the lift as per a normal engine. If you draw similar lift vectors on a dihedral wing, you'll find much the same thing. The difference comes in the airflow. Since an aircraft is also traveling forward, the lift vector of the rolled aircraft pushes the aircraft sideways (versus the rocket's direction of travel being generally aligned with the thrust vector). This is true for any type of wing, dihedral or not, but the dihedral makes the lowered wing of the side-slipping craft present a higher angle of attack than the raised wing, creating a wings level restoring roll moment.

So the short version is that for either rocket engines or lifting surfaces the force vectors cancel (no rolling moment) and it's an effect cause by the geometry of the airflow over the wings.

Here's the wikipedia article on the dihedral effect if you want some more detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aircraft)#How_dihedral_angle_creates_dihedral_effect_and_stabilizes_the_spiral_mode

[mpink]

Humm yeah

if you draw a diagram......

LoL the whole problem is due to a stupid diagram a wood work teacher drew about 20 years ago when he was trying to get the class to build some planes.

The silly diagram showed how the lift from each wing was canceled out by gravity but when it was in a roll the flatter wing was meant to have a stronger effect against gravity and thus level the plane out.

Oh how i laugh now.

KSP is very clear in the VAB about where the center of mass is and the center of lift/thrust so i should have been able to forget this stupid lesson by now and move on.

The plane thing is very simple. Triangles like to point at the direction the wind comes from. Enough said.

On the construction side. I can now shift 4 large orange tanks from the end of the runway on to the pad in under 2 mins. So i should be ready to present my hard entry by the end of the weekend.