BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[regex]

Hitching your motivation for these competitions to the vote result risks frustration and denies you the simple joy of merely participating.

You misread the tone of my post. Had I known this was less about the original craft and more about making a pretty spaceplane I would have spent more time having fun. I built a very boring craft and have no illusions about winning against some of the artists around here.

"Build a better Aeries-4a" is genuinely what I think most if not all entrants have done.

I missed a few craft in there over the weekend but I don't feel like it's an overwhelming majority as you imply. Why? The lack of craft that are susceptible to asymmetric flameout. IMO that's a key learning opportunity that the Aeris should provide and (by my admittedly lazy before-work) count there are six that fit the bill. That certainly does narrow my voting choices, though. Which brings up a good point, I suppose, that criteria are subjective. Perhaps I was wrong in posting my thoughts.

[barrenwaste]

Yes, that's been this way for a while already. There are certain rules how the craft should be built but judges are free to impose their own rules on top of it or just judge according to their own rules which they may make up on the fly.

This is a problem. There are rules for a reason. They define the challenge and keep the competition fair. Judges are there to decide who has best completed the challenge within the rules, not to make up their own rules for the challenge. The contestants are free to extol the benefits of their builds but the judges have to make their decisions on which build best fits the challenge as stated in the rules, not on anything else. As a judge you need to set those rules firmly and foremost in your mind.

Edited March 3, 2014 by barrenwaste

[Silverchain]

Nobody shares my opinion on what is "newbie-friendly" and my results so far correspond to that.

You can say that again... crawling around the world at 35km building up speed before flipping the whole craft on end and switching control location ain't simple!

Good dv, though.

[mhoram]

There are rules for a reason. They define the challenge and keep the competition fair. Judges are there to decide who has best completed the challenge within the rules, not to make up their own rules for the challenge.

The goal of this challenge (besides that the contestants learn new tricks and designs) is to create a craft that fits the requirements of a majority of beginners.

Allowing a great variety in the judges opinions reflects this goal.

Each judge will come up with his preferences about a "craft [that] should be easy to use, simple and safe - stock craft are mostly for new players, they should not be overwhelmed by 10 action groups that must be used at the right time." (cited from Xeldraks BSC: Challenge Guidelines Mk.II) and hopefully the majority of the judges come up with a jusgement that reflects the needs of the majority of the beginners.

Edited March 3, 2014 by mhoram
added link

[Rune]

The goal of this challenge (besides that the contestants learn new tricks and designs) is to create a craft that fits the requirements of a majority of beginners.

Allowing a great variety in the judges opinions reflects this goal.

Each judge will come up with his preferences about a "craft [that] should be easy to use, simple and safe - stock craft are mostly for new players, they should not be overwhelmed by 10 action groups that must be used at the right time." (cited from Xeldraks BSC: Challenge Guidelines Mk.II) and hopefully the majority of the judges come up with a jusgement that reflects the needs of the majority of the beginners.

Yup, if it is a craft for the masses, it's the masses that should decide IMHO. So you know, guys, we need lots of judges! BTW, what's the stance on the people that submit being also voters? I imagine it's rather frowned upon, but as mhoram says, this challenge will come up with a better answer the more people vote for it.

Rune. And I could try to be impartial.

[briansun1]

usually the only people that vote are the ones that build

[Xeldrak]

Well, I like to think that it is more than just a popularity contest. However, the rules are vague and they are on purpose. The basic idea is that you guys get to be creative, have fun an learn by taking part in the challenge. You can learn from the discussion in the thread or by testing other crafts. Also you have to admit it is allways a nice feeling if some fellow KSP player test your creation and comments on it in a critical way. This is the place where you can have this.

However, the basic premise of the challenge is impossible to "solve". One examle in this challenge would be: Is it a better craft if you use a single jetengine, so a new player can see how to build a plane that does not suffer from asymetic flameout. Or do you build a plane that will start a flatspin once you get a flameout. This way the problem is pointed out - maybe a new player can even learn how to rescue a plane that is spinning out of control. Both are valid approaches.

It allways rubs a bit the wrong way if some people just pick a craft they have allready built from their library and post is here because it fits best (wich does not mean it fits good by the way) or if people just post something they like without considering the design goals. The "hidden agenda" of this challenge is to get you thinking and be creative. The "craft for newbies" perspective is a valid one most of you probably did not consider before, I think this is also why this challenge has become so popular.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Xeldrak

[MiniMatt]

Re entrants also being voters I don't have a problem. The value in these threads comes from people's thoughts more than their votes - many people (and I try to include myself in this category) spend an awful lot of time testing all entrants, writing up their thoughts on each entry, and cast their vote only after considered, reasoned thought.

The introduction of concordant voting has introduced considerable finesse to finalist selection (and introduced considerable extra work for Xeldrak - work for which he is to be commended). Those who posted their voting thoughts and reasons in the last comp (and quite likely previous ones too, but I missed a couple) were, as memory serves, all very honourable in voting their own entries in last position. That said, more registered voters in this stage would always be a good thing so go ahead and drop Xeldrak a PM with your email address - it adds to his workload but also adds much value to the competition.

Re asymmetric flameout v. single central jet I'm quite relaxed. My criteria when voting won't view asymmetric flameout as a negative unless it's introduction brings nothing new to the table. I don't see asymmetric flameout as a positive virtue to teach new players, but neither do I see it as an inherent negative - rather I see it as a means to an end. Asymmetric flameout is the penalty for multiple jets but multiple jets allow you to carry more into space or get there quicker. So, if your design does functionally nothing more than a competing design without asymmetric flameout then yes I'll view your design more negatively than the one without this penalty. But if your asymmetric design allows for bringing more into space in a similar time, or the same load in a much faster time then these are advantages a single jet design won't have.

Perhaps I was wrong in posting my thoughts.

Never. Thinking out loud is something I value highly in these comps. I'm more than a little jaded and pessimistic in life, in leisure (ie KSP) I try to be more optimistic and ... possibly naïve.

[Kasuha]

Since submissions are not closed yet I made a few non-substantial changes on my plane - added docking lights, added intake toggle action group, add one RCS nozzle, and moved NUKs below wings. I have also put jet engine to first stage so when launching, you only start jet engine and not all of them

I have tested it didn't have any noticeable influence on flight characteristics.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Kasuha

[Silverchain]

I've also added an updated version of my Ceremonial class to my original post, featuring increased performance and easier docking.

[DisarmingBaton5]

I was going to enter my Aeris 4R, but that seems unrealistic now as I have not had the time to test and refine it.

Best of luck to all those entering!

[Lego8_bit]

I have seen the RAIPIER engine work it is more fuel consumptive once it swiches over im goting classic so I wont deal with this fuel issue and I might just use something more efficient anyway oh another question do I still have time to enter or is this challenge over?

[Giggleplex777]

I think the deadline should be extended since this thread is stickied. Don't want to have nothing to during the last two weeks.

[Rune]

I have seen the RAIPIER engine work it is more fuel consumptive once it swiches over im goting classic so I wont deal with this fuel issue and I might just use something more efficient anyway oh another question do I still have time to enter or is this challenge over?

That is a common misconception, RAPIER engines are only very slightly less efficient than LV-T45s and T30s, and in fact have higher isp than most rocket engines, it's just that they have so much thrust in rocket mode, you burn through all your delta-v quite fast. While you can go slightly more efficient with 909s or considerably more with nukes, that awesome T/W is nothing to be sneered at, and certainly not a downside. In fact, I suspect when paired with additional airbreathers to increase atmospheric thrust, or perhaps just enough wings and fuel to climb slow enough, you can do very efficient designs by saving on engine weight (think on how much a standard turbojet and T45 weight together, and consider a RAPIER is pretty much just that, only one whole mT lighter and with only 25kN and 10s less isp in rocket mode).

Well, I like to think that it is more than just a popularity contest. However, the rules are vague and they are on purpose. The basic idea is that you guys get to be creative, have fun an learn by taking part in the challenge. You can learn from the discussion in the thread or by testing other crafts. Also you have to admit it is allways a nice feeling if some fellow KSP player test your creation and comments on it in a critical way. This is the place where you can have this.

However, the basic premise of the challenge is impossible to "solve". One examle in this challenge would be: Is it a better craft if you use a single jetengine, so a new player can see how to build a plane that does not suffer from asymetic flameout. Or do you build a plane that will start a flatspin once you get a flameout. This way the problem is pointed out - maybe a new player can even learn how to rescue a plane that is spinning out of control. Both are valid approaches.

It allways rubs a bit the wrong way if some people just pick a craft they have allready built from their library and post is here because it fits best (wich does not mean it fits good by the way) or if people just post something they like without considering the design goals. The "hidden agenda" of this challenge is to get you thinking and be creative. The "craft for newbies" perspective is a valid one most of you probably did not consider before, I think this is also why this challenge has become so popular.

Ok, now that I have been told the general practice, I have started critically examining my competitors crafts and taking notes, and I plan to test the ropes of every one of them. So I'm in! You have my email in your inbox already. Basically, I am going to ask of the other ships the same stuff I asked of the White Dart in its own development time, basically because that SSTO is the last of a long, looong line of general purpose single-seaters, and the one where all the lessons learned in those early and not so early designs converged. It is just downright impossible that I can do a SSTO that is better in any way to some version of that one, basically because I spent a horrendous amount of time on all of them, then rebuilt it from the ground up to make it just what this challenge asked for when a new version came up. Seriously, the 0.23 version was built during a time where I couldn't make old files work on my comp (still can't with some), so it is a fresh file rebuilt from memory and further improved upon and simplified. I know that I just "pick a craft they have allready built from their library and post is here because it fits best" doing so... but to do any other thing, in my opinion, would be to intentionally submit a worse Aeris 4A replacement in the challenge than I can. At least the way I see the Aeris 4A, as a single seater all-purpose SSTO that looks moderately good and has a lot of design flaws... I went for the best multipurpose single seater I could think of, the short of craft you would pick when you just want to fly to somewhere and enjoy the trip without worrying about the craft.

Rune. So you know... I may not be in this for the win, but I want to make a true effort nonetheless.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Rune

[briansun1]

So all 3 of my designs are utter faillers . Both of the ones that used ions fail to get to orbit and the slipstream drive one fail to get off the run way...

[Cruzan]

Alright, I present...

The BSC Bolt

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Now I want to preface everything by saying this design is very different from what I usually create. I typically focus a lot on making the most efficient designs I can while still appealing to my own aesthetic preferences, but for this competition I really wanted to make something that was very simple and had built-in inefficiencies.

My design goals were:

• Equal or lower part count than the Aeris 4A
  
• No clipping
  
• No air-hogging
  
• Easy to assemble/disassemble
  
• Versatility
  
• Room for upgrading to increase efficiency
  

With those goals in mind I spent a fair amount of time going through various designs. I chose to go with this though based off of its simplicity and versatility.

Features and Design Reasoning

• The Bolt clocks in at 36 parts so it is lightweight and CPU friendly.
  
  
• No clipping was used which makes this very beginner-friendly for understanding what is going on with the design.
  
• Two radial intakes mean that this design is inherently inefficient as Ram-Air intakes are by far the better choice. It also makes the ascent profile a little more challenging as they won't be able to reach full orbital speeds in the atmosphere without a little rocket assistance.
  
• The radial 24-77's were chose for the rocket engines due to how easy they are to mount and use. They are also not the most efficient choice for a rocket, again leaving room for the player to upgrade and increase the design's performance.
  
• Single TurboJet engine. Any first-time SSTO builder/flier shouldn't be using anything more than a single engine in my opinion. If the design warrants anything more it likely means they've overdesigned their SSTO, or they have set their initial goals too high for a first run.
  
• Versatility. The craft file provides an SSTO that is only half full of fuel using the tweakables system. This limits the initial flight to a LKO mission which maxes out at around a 350-400km orbit. When fully fueled however, the design is capable of doing a fly-by of the Mun and returning to dry land on Kerbin!
  

Operation

Action groups:

1 - Toggle 24-77 Rocket Engines

2 - Toggle TurboJet Engine

3 - Toggle between engine types (useful for quick switching, but more of a luxury button than a necessary one )

Flight Profile:

I won't bog down my post with a full ascent profile as it is fairly typical.

You can reach 1750-1900m/s on the single jet alone and using the rockets in conjunction with the turbojet while you milk the last bits of thrust out of it during it's flameout range works very well.

A typical time to orbit on the half-fueled version is around 15 minutes (in-game time) and if you top off the tanks you're in for about a 19 minute ascent to circularize.

Copy of what the Nameplate Dropdown Text says:

The Bolt is designed with the tanks half empty! This is enough fuel to reach orbit without much trouble.Right-clicking on the tank and adding more fuel will increase the range of the Bolt and when fully fueled it is capable of a fly-by of the Mun!

Action Groups:

1 - Toggle 24-77 Rocket Engines

2 - Toggle TurboJet Engine

3 - Toggle between engine types

Craft File!

http://www./view/7f1ibey1d7yupwc/BSC_Bolt.craft

And now...it's time to download all the other designs and test them out since I'm also registered to vote!

Good luck everyone!

[Giggleplex777]

Another hour wasted, and another subpar design.

[likke_A_boss]

Another hour wasted, and another subpar design.

http://i.imgur.com/25epFLh.png

By FAR my favorite one yet. No idea what your talking about.

[FallingIntoBlack]

It may not be the best, nor the fastest, but I'd like to present the X-1 Gremlin.

Now, mind you, I don't have any pictures of it getting to space, but I've gotten it there twice out of three attempts (the first time, one engine flamed-out less than a second before the other and it got into a flat spin).

Here it is, the X-1 Gremlin.

Edited March 4, 2014 by FallingIntoBlack

[Andrew Hansen]

So all 3 of my designs are utter faillers . Both of the ones that used ions fail to get to orbit and the slipstream drive one fail to get off the run way...

Keep trying! If you're looking for an ion-powered SSTO, let me assure you it's possible. Macey Dean shows off one in

.

[Sirine]

I present...

Leisure

With greater margin for error, 'most' of the player can fly it to LKO (~70km) and still have plenty of fuel left.

Please refer to craft file description for example ascend profile. You may fly it the way you like. I would say many will "unlikely-can't-make-it" to Kerbin orbit.

It can fly to space, and land back to Kerbin surface, please don't expect too much from it. This craft is design for 'more fuel' in mind, that makes space-plane-proof-people enjoy flying space-plane the way they like. Main goal are carry 1 Kerbal to space and back. It does not optimize for atmospheric air-control, so, don't expect it to be very aerodynamic.

Fly it and hope you discover the potential of this craft.

Craft File : Leisure

[KissSh0t]

Is it too late to submit?

[MiniMatt]

Is it too late to submit?

Going by the OP, it looks like you have till Thursday evening

edit: Thursday evening in the lands of tea & crumpets / bratwurst / garlic / paella / insert European national stereotype. In Anzac lands I'm guessing that's Friday morning.

Edited March 4, 2014 by MiniMatt

[KissSh0t]

I quickly put this together in about half an hour, and did two test flights, first flight I forgot to put a battery on it, but it had a successful orbit and de-orbit, and second flight is what I have taken screenshots of here.

It is a small, light, low part SSTO capable of a 100x100 orbit and de-orbit.

I hope it meets the criteria, I didn't do any part clipping and tried to keep it as simple and easy to understand as possible *__*

SSTO Type Rapid Mk1

Craft File >> http://www./download/1wgv8jmontend98/SSTO_Type_Rapid_Mk1.rar

Action Groups.

1 Toggle Air Intakes + Turbo Jet Engines.

2 Toggles Rocket.

Edited March 4, 2014 by KissSh0t

[Prophecy]

I´d like to submit an entry, too.

The Icarus I is a very simple to use SSTO, its easy to fly (no stalling etc.) independent form the fuel which is left in the tanks.

Also it uses only one Turbojet which makes it way easier to fly, since there are no problems with assymetric thrust when the air gets thin.

A nose-docking Port is better suited for beginners.

The .craft File:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5byuw9sm5r141gk/Icarus%20I.craft