The Kerbal 1-Shot Pogo Stick Challenge

[ihtoit]

No, this is nothing to do with Infernal Robotics and jumping monopeds.

The Challenge:

Build, launch and retrieve a missile capable of launching one Kerbal to the maximum possible altitude.

RULES:

- MUST use an LFO rocket/aerospike*. No nukes. No jets. No ions, plasmas or any other than LFO known or unknown method of propulsion.

- NO "Infiniglide". Using control surfaces to gain altitude advantage or that extra bit of upward velocity is what I also call "infiniglide" for the purposes of this challenge. If you're going to use winglets to stabilise your missile, use static ones.

- MUST use ONE (1) FL-T100 fuel tank (45LF/55O). NO OTHER FUEL SOURCE PERMITTED. NO INFINITE FUEL.

- No Gravity hacks.

- MUST use an enclosed crew pod. No command chairs.

- NO MECHJEB. PERIOD.

- Procedural Fairings allowed. Please indicate use.

- Vessel MUST land intact: no jettisoning of parts.

- NO clamps.

- Vessel MUST launch VERTICALLY and remain in at the minimum a 70-degree ascent profile throughout the boost phase (be honest, it took me several tries before my dumb missile actually achieved this - see example below). THERE IS NO RULE against using static airfoils to help stabilise, however active control surfaces of any kind will be frowned upon.

*Aerospikes MUST employ some sort of leg support attached to the missile. Be realistic, you're not going to stand a 3 ton missile on a pinhead.

Mission enders:

Vessel breaks on impact or at any other stage during flight

Kerbal dies

Scoring: Screenshots - missile on pad, missile landed, F3 EOM screen. Resources tab must be shown at launch and at landing.

Maximum altitude in m.

Leaderboard:

1. Kasuha in the Kerbal Monowing, 11867m

1. Rhomphaia in Unnamed, no chutes, intake brakes yet still hit at >95m/s and nothing fell off! (might I suggest the "KMS Chuck Norris"?) 10894m

2. Rhomphaia in Unnamed, 10605m

3. Kasuha in Unnamed, tail takeoff and wing landing (nice!), 10440m

4. Justy in Unnamed, 10430m

5. ihtoit in the Pogo (see below), 3629m

Presenting, the "Pogo": an unbelievably light and unimaginative craft, weighing in at 2.41t dry - yes, that is a stock Aerospike rocket, and yes that's the lightest cockpit I can find in my toolbox (from the Firespitter Fighter series, the FS10C that likes to pull a LOT to the pilot's "up" on a vertical start):

Edited February 15, 2014 by ihtoit

[astropapi1]

That cockpit is not from B9. It's from firespitter, IIRC.

[ihtoit]

That cockpit is not from B9. It's from firespitter, IIRC.

my bad. Fixed

(shoulda realised that from the part code!)

[Justy]

1.41t wet, 0.91t dry, all stock. 7 parts total (Mk1 spamcan, the requisite fuel tank, Rockomax 48-7S LFO engine, Mk16 chute, 3x LT-5 micro landing legs).

First run was 10,246m. Second was 10,430m with improved throttle technique.

A comparison run using Mechjeb's throttle limiter hits 10,450m, so falling just 20m short under my own control, I'm pretty proud of that!!

To be clear, I did my two competition runs without Mechjeb, then did a non-competing run with it to see how much more room there was to improve.

In between runs I tried with an aerospike (and the legs on some tiny struts so they'd reach past the spike), 4,266m. That's the wrong engine for the job, it's just too heavy.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited February 15, 2014 by Justy
New personal best

[Rhomphaia]

All stock, Mk1 lander can with the monopropellant removed mk16 'chute, FL-T100, 48-7S limited to 69% and landing gear instead of legs

[Justy]

Does KSP not count the weight of the landing gear? From the specs, three Small Gear Bays *should* weigh more than your whole craft. But it seems to weigh the same as mine. And yours clearly performs better; using computer-controlled throttle, yours can do better than 11,300m, 900m better than mine. KSP physics is the best physics!

[ihtoit]

leaderboard updated. Great hint about the Aerospikes, I'd forgotten why I stopped using them...

[Rhomphaia]

Does KSP not count the weight of the landing gear? From the specs, three Small Gear Bays *should* weigh more than your whole craft. But it seems to weigh the same as mine. And yours clearly performs better; using computer-controlled throttle, yours can do better than 11,300m, 900m better than mine. KSP physics is the best physics!

Indeed not, the small gear bays are massless and dragless in flight.

Not in the VAB/SPH though.

Pretty tough too. So i attempted to loose the parachute

Hits the ground going at >95m/s and survived intact, though the landing gear were clipped into the terrain hard enough that raising and lowering them didn't pop it free.

on a mechjeb controlled throttle it can break 11,700m

Edited February 15, 2014 by Rhomphaia

[Kasuha]

Slight improvement using wings instead of parachute. Same mass, less drag. 10440 m

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[ihtoit]

10894m and no chutes! Loving it! That's "Kerbal" insane!

[ihtoit]

1.41t wet, 0.91t dry, all stock. 7 parts total (Mk1 spamcan, the requisite fuel tank, Rockomax 48-7S LFO engine, Mk16 chute, 3x LT-5 micro landing legs).

First run was 10,246m. Second was 10,430m with improved throttle technique.

A comparison run using Mechjeb's throttle limiter hits 10,450m, so falling just 20m short under my own control, I'm pretty proud of that!!

To be clear, I did my two competition runs without Mechjeb, then did a non-competing run with it to see how much more room there was to improve.

MechJeb is pretty consistent, I just had a few runs with a similar design to yours, and hit the same altitude (within 2-3m of 10400m) EVERY SINGLE TIME.

MechJeb takes 50% of the skill out of the challenge (the other 50% is in the design of your missile). Hence why it's banned >:]

[Kasuha]

11336 m

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Kasuha]

Improved design: Kerbal Monowing. 11867 m

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[ihtoit]

11336 m

I'm sorry, I'll have to disallow this one! No proof of launch profile!