Heavy Launch Rocket Finesse Challenge

[xrayfishx]

Basically, just use an appropriate-sized docking port for the size of the payload (now that I see how heavy some of the payload here are, maybe I should have given rules for 3.75 and 5-meter payloads as well- I guess I'll just tell you guys to practice common sense and build something that won't wobble like a wet noodle when docked at this point...), keep the payload separate from the stages used to ascend and circularize the orbit, and don't use things that are only of utility in-atmosphere as part of the payload (such as air intakes or wings).

I don't get why I have to use a docking port. Docking port connections seem to wobble more. And it's not like every payload has to be dockable (or rather, why the hell does it have to be).

Secondly, the antimatter/fusion reactors don't work like that. You need to gather and deliver external resources to them to make them work (antimatter for antimatter reactor and I think it was tritium that the fusion reactor required). As a payload they will be a nice way to add some compact weight, but they don't help with powering anything.

Third, what's the harm in aerodynamic parts? Any wings on the payload would just make it harder to fly and air intakes just increase drag.

Finally, what's with the weight limit? I could build a launcher that would launch that 1.2 kilotons into orbit so this essentially makes it a challenge about who can put most of that 1.2 kilotons into the payload.

It would have been beneficial for you to make the payload rules so that it would be compatible with NRAP.

You can deny it all I want, but in the end I think the cause for the challenge's unpopularity (now that time's almost over) was the payload rules. Sorry for being such a PITA about it, but I'd have loved to try the challenge if it was just about building a huge, powerful and preferably efficient lifter.

[Northstar1989]

I don't get why I have to use a docking port. Docking port connections seem to wobble more. And it's not like every payload has to be dockable (or rather, why the hell does it have to be).

The heavy lift rocket is supposed to be highly flexible. If it can lift a payload with a docking port, then it can life a payload without one. But not necessarily vice-versa. The payload doesn't actually have to do anything, so it should be easier than a real mission...

Secondly, the antimatter/fusion reactors don't work like that. You need to gather and deliver external resources to them to make them work (antimatter for antimatter reactor and I think it was tritium that the fusion reactor required). As a payload they will be a nice way to add some compact weight, but they don't help with powering anything.

Not at all. KSP-Interstellar fusion and antimatter reactors can easily be filled with TAC Fuel Balancer (which is on the list of allowed mods) while on the launchpad... And fusion reactors come with an initial load of Deuterium/Tritium, Helium 3, etc. for free. It's only if you need to provide them with additional nuclear fuel on another planet that you might find yourself gathering these resources in-situ... (and the only places you can gather Deuterium and Lithium for Tritium-breeding are those with oceans- Laythe, Kerbin, and Eve)

The antimatter reactors may require some infrastructure (which is silly anyways- realistically you can produce the electricity needed to run a vacuum-laser for antimatter collection much more cost-effectively in ground-based research/industrial facilities than in small rocket-deployed labs built by a space program...), but you can also easily circumnavigate this with TAC Fuel Balancer. And besides, there are no rules against filling rockets/spaceplanes with resources on the launchpad or runway (or any alternative launch facility you built on Kerbin for that matter)- if you wanted to fly a spaceplane with Kethane jets for the atmospheric stage (as stupid as that sounds- they get terrible fuel-efficiency), and fill it on the runway, you could do that...

Third, what's the harm in aerodynamic parts? Any wings on the payload would just make it harder to fly and air intakes just increase drag.

Aerodynamic parts, when properly used, help you get the rocket/payload to orbit. You can use them on the rocket, but it would be unfair and make no sense to allow them on the payload- otherwise people could just launch a payload composed entirely of giant wings... Air intakes are banned on payload for the same reason- they help you get an air-breathing rocket into orbit.

Finally, what's with the weight limit? I could build a launcher that would launch that 1.2 kilotons into orbit so this essentially makes it a challenge about who can put most of that 1.2 kilotons into the payload.

The weight limit it about [1] making sure people don't win the challenge (if you play for points) just by building behemoth rockets that weaker CPU's couldn't possibly handle (the part-count penalties are in place for the same reason, as well as to encourage simplicity and elegance of design), and [2] Encouraging players to maximize the efficiency of their rockets, rather than just adding "Moar Boosters!"

What you said about "who can put the most of that 1.2 kilotons into payload" is precisely what it's being sought after. It's called "payload fraction", and is one of the most important factors sought after in real-life (as well as many KSP player-made) rocket designs...

It would have been beneficial for you to make the payload rules so that it would be compatible with NRAP.

I've actually never heard of that mod before. It sounds interesting, and I might have considered allowing it on the mods list if I had seen it suggested earlier. However, as I understand it, that mod places no limits on the mass:volume ratio of the test payload- so you could easily make a tiny payload many times denser than lead, or an enormous payload less dense than a balloon. I'm not sure I like the implications of that, and it would certainly give players submitting entries after it were allowed an unfair advantage...

You can deny it all I want, but in the end I think the cause for the challenge's unpopularity (now that time's almost over) was the payload rules. Sorry for being such a PITA about it, but I'd have loved to try the challenge if it was just about building a huge, powerful and preferably efficient lifter.

It *IS* just about building a huge, powerful, and efficient lifter. There are size and part-count limits on the rocket as a whole, but when you get down to it, that doesn't change the basic nature of the challenge. And you keep mentioning "payload rules" as if there were several- but really there are only two:

[1] Don't use parts in the payload that exploit aerodynamics to help get the rocket to orbit (like wings or air intakes) or otherwise help get the rocket to orbit (such as engines used during the flight)

[2] Include at least one docking port of appropriate size on the bottom of the payload.

Those rules aren't very complex, and other than some obvious clarifications to prevent players from doing things like transferring all their leftover fuel into an empty tank and then calling it payload (the point of this challenge, obviously, is that the lifter could be used for things other than just giant fuel tanks), there aren't really any other restrictions that apply to the payload...

So, why don't you *stop* being a PITA about things, and go build a rocket already? I've decided to extend the challenge by an additional week like I mentioned before. This decision was actually prompted mainly by my attempts to build my own entry, which were met with KSP totally bugging out and causing my rockets to halfway disappear on the launchpad- but I'd also be more than happy to see what you have to submit to the challenge yourself.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 5, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

A stock + Mechjeb entry.

http://imgur.com/a/Jl9QM

Score:

4140 Pride & Profit

10 Size Matters

10 Kerbals in Space!

-295 Fuel Isn't Free

-390 Money Counts

3475 Total

Great job! Cool-looking and elegant design too! Too bad there wasn't a bonus-point category for just looking totally badass...

I'll add you to the Scoreboard.

By the way, I've decided to add another week to the Challenge, so keep swinging by if you want to see the newer entries (or even try and snatch up that first-place spot for yourself).

Regards,

Northstar

[Red Iron Crown]

Great job! Cool-looking and elegant design too!

Thanks! I usually don't worry too much about aesthetics, but I was a few hundred kg short of the mass limit so I put the Kerbodyne adapter on the payload between the 3.75m and 2.5m sections and it made it look a whole lot better. Nosecones on the boosters would make it look even better, but I didn't have the mass to spare.

[xrayfishx]

Alright, did the challenge.

Points I ask for:

Flying Needle: -240

Money Talks: 110*(-5)=-550

Fuel Isn't Free: 1200/20*(-5)=-300

Size Matters: +10

Fuel To Spare: +70

Pride and Profit: 300*2*10=6000

Total: -240-550-300+10+70+6000=4990

Proof (click for larger images):

I have a ton of more screenshots so just ask if you need any more, I just uploaded the essentials for now, nothing that doesn't prove qualification for any points. Also, I hope you don't mind I used KW's 3.75m docking port.

P.S. You may notice I have lots of mods on my toolbar that you haven't allowed. In fact, I use almost 70 mods. However, lots of them are graphics/sound mods and I took care to make sure that whatever does interfere with the rocket in any way is allowed. There are three that interfered, but aren't on the list, probably only because they're not something you'll just bump into, therefore not many use them. FloorIt just maxes the throttle when you press Z. I think that isn't such an advantage that it should be forbidden. Time Warp Rotation Fix stops me from exploiting time warp to stop rotation, therefore should also be allowed. Tweakable Everything allowed me to disable the decoupler staging so I wouldn't accidentally fail the challenge because of that. This one has some cheaty options, too (increasing thrust vectoring range and decoupler force, for examples), but I didn't use them. I will upload the craft file for proof if necessary.

It *IS* just about building a huge, powerful, and efficient lifter.

Fixed. Either that or our standards are very different.

EDIT: Uploaded more pics. Let's see if I can get the Imgur album to show correctly this time.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 6, 2014 by xrayfishx

[Red Iron Crown]

Incredible entry

That's really impressive, well done. Glad you decided to enter after all.

Also, I think we use the same navball texture, I can never go back now.

[xrayfishx]

That's really impressive, well done. Glad you decided to enter after all.

Also, I think we use the same navball texture, I can never go back now.

That's my own edit of one of the navball textures. I made the white a bit darker, because the prograde vector kept hiding itself in the reflection during takeoff.

Also, that entry isn't yet confirmed. As I said, I used mods that aren't yet approved and considering how annoying I am, I wouldn't take it for granted that they get the green light.

[Red Iron Crown]

Whether you qualify or not, a 25% payload fraction is commendable.

You should share your navball texture in the thread, it looks great and there's a dearth of dark bottomed ones, my personal preference.

[Northstar1989]

Alright, did the challenge.

Points I ask for:

Flying Needle: -240

Money Talks: 110*(-5)=-550

Fuel Isn't Free: 1200/20*(-5)=-300

Size Matters: +10

Fuel To Spare: +70

Pride and Profit: 300*2*10=6000

Total: -240-550-300+10+70+6000=4990

Proof (click for larger images):

http://i.imgur.com/LerRNe8l.png

http://i.imgur.com/InBbEnpl.png

http://i.imgur.com/FeSeeYzl.png

http://i.imgur.com/e3UR3DUl.png

http://i.imgur.com/VJqI2mfl.png

http://i.imgur.com/vqLWtYsl.png

I have a ton of more screenshots so just ask if you need any more, I just uploaded the essentials for now, nothing that doesn't prove qualification for any points. Also, I hope you don't mind I used KW's 3.75m docking port.

P.S. You may notice I have lots of mods on my toolbar that you haven't allowed. In fact, I use almost 70 mods. However, lots of them are graphics/sound mods and I took care to make sure that whatever does interfere with the rocket in any way is allowed. There are three that interfered, but aren't on the list, probably only because they're not something you'll just bump into, therefore not many use them. FloorIt just maxes the throttle when you press Z. I think that isn't such an advantage that it should be forbidden. Time Warp Rotation Fix stops me from exploiting time warp to stop rotation, therefore should also be allowed. Tweakable Everything allowed me to disable the decoupler staging so I wouldn't accidentally fail the challenge because of that. This one has some cheaty options, too (increasing thrust vectoring range and decoupler force, for examples), but I didn't use them. I will upload the craft file for proof if necessary.

Fixed. Either that or our standards are very different.

Great job!

And the KW 3.75m Docking Port is fine. Note that I said: "the docking port must be a Clamp-O-Tron Senior or larger". So a 3.75 meter port is definitely OK.

Congratulations on setting the high score for the Challenge!

And, a 1.2 kiloton rocket is what I consider a huge rocket. I don't know about you, but I rarely launch anything bigger than that- in fact I've only launched 3-4 rockets larger than that (all silly-enormous SSTO's) to date...

25% is a great payload fraction too- if you could design a rocket like that in real life, I'm sure NASA (or any contractor) would be happy to have you.

Regards,

Northstar

[xrayfishx]

Updated my post with more pics. Also I'm thinking of doing a manned entry to improve my score. Is Taurus HCV allowed? From my experience it's not OP in any way.

[Damaske]

Would lifting a Space craft made from Lack Luster labs be ok? I've been thinking of lifting a interplanetary craft into orbit, then slowly building a resupply base on or around Mun or Minmus using the large ship as the hauler back and forth. The Lifting craft will contain Stock or allowed mods.

[Pds314]

Whawhawhawait! FAR gives the most severe PENALTY of anything besides blowing KSC to smithereens?

Maybe there should be too categories. Planes and Rockets. Planes definitely suffer quite a bit from FAR in terms of getting to the necessary speeds. I would suggest something like a 50-point bonus for using FAR on something that is predominately a plane.

[xrayfishx]

FAR is a controversial subject. It decreases the dV requirements (1300m/s on a well built rocket), but your rocket has to be aerodynamic. Spaceplanes, if anything are made easier, however. The problem, as Ferram4 put it, is that people have to start learning all over again, therefore they think it's more difficult. Also, it's not that hard to do a nice gravity turn if you have any experience with it. Therefore I agree with OP's decision here.

Edited May 6, 2014 by xrayfishx

[Redshift OTF]

Sorry if this has been stated before but does the part count and weight limit include the payload or is it just for the launcher?

[Aghanim]

I do agree with the KSPI ban, as 3.75m fusion reactor could bring huge amount of payload into space, in RSS + Realism Overhaul (Are we allowed to use all of that mods here, in this challenge? Or at least RealFuels?)

BUT, if it's banned, why do you allow us to use Orion drive? It's way overpowered than fusion drive

And most of your part mods that is allowed are much more memory intensive than pure addons such as FAR

[xrayfishx]

BUT, if it's banned, why do you allow us to use Orion drive? It's way overpowered than fusion drive

*Cough* Look at scoring *cough*

[Truesilver]

I didn't see it in the mod list, but I thought I'd ask. There is a mod that I use for testing rockets and lifting capacity: The Kerbal NRAP Adjustable Test Weight. It's here.

All it does is give me an adjustable weight for my payload. The weight itself works like a normal part otherwise, so it is possible to attach docking ports and other such bits and bobs to meet the payload requirements.

Would this mod be permitted as part of the payload, or would I have to build it completely from scratch? This just seems like it would streamline my efforts.

[xrayfishx]

I didn't see it in the mod list, but I thought I'd ask. There is a mod that I use for testing rockets and lifting capacity: The Kerbal NRAP Adjustable Test Weight. It's here.

All it does is give me an adjustable weight for my payload. The weight itself works like a normal part otherwise, so it is possible to attach docking ports and other such bits and bobs to meet the payload requirements.

Would this mod be permitted as part of the payload, or would I have to build it completely from scratch? This just seems like it would streamline my efforts.

I brought this up already.

I've actually never heard of that mod before. It sounds interesting, and I might have considered allowing it on the mods list if I had seen it suggested earlier. However, as I understand it, that mod places no limits on the mass:volume ratio of the test payload- so you could easily make a tiny payload many times denser than lead, or an enormous payload less dense than a balloon. I'm not sure I like the implications of that, and it would certainly give players submitting entries after it were allowed an unfair advantage...

[Truesilver]

Well, phooey. Darn and phooey.

I just figured that since the idea is the lifter, the payload weight is all that really matters.

But it's your challenge, and I'll not argue it.

[Red Iron Crown]

You could use the NRAP for refining your design, then when you settle on a payload mass make it out of other parts.

[SSSPutnik]

Can we use LLL mod please? Mod

[Northstar1989]

Can we use LLL mod please? Mod

The challenge is already closed, but if it were still open, the answer would have been "No", as I don't consider it to be a well-balanced mod. Sorry for not getting back to you about it while the challenge was still open (real life and stuff...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 26, 2014 by Northstar1989