Laythe Capitalism!

[Thunderous Echo]

???

great now i gotta find time to dig through 15 pages to see what you are talking about.

No, I'll just tell you.

Using seats instead of crew capsules on the Kerbin and Laythe landers, as you suggested.

[hoioh]

Yeah, there's been some previous entries that did just that. The rule was enforced as: No seats allowed on the interplanetary flight. That's it, nothing about going into space flying by the seat of you pants in that rule. Good luck loading 64 kerbals in command seats twice

[hoioh]

yay! made it onto the scoreboard!

[mr_yogurt]

I've updated the leaderboard. I wish I could have done it sooner but I've been having some trouble and haven't been able to check as often as I used to.

Congrats to hoioh on the new modded record!

[Sigma88]

I have a question, If I understand it correctly using MJ is allowed for the "stock" leaderbord

Is Kerbal Attachment System allowed too? (I don't plan to use parts from KAS, just it's funcionality)

And what about RealChutes?

Other than that, is there a need for a pilot? or a requirement for some special antenna and com sistem?

One last thing, does the "no seat rule" mean I can use grabbers?

(tip: one of the questions is not really a serious one)

Edited February 5, 2015 by Sigma88

[hoioh]

herer's what mr. yogurt wrote in the rules: "

1. Missions with mods will compete for a separate leaderboard than the missions without mods. However, mods that do not affect how rockets fly or add parts can be used in the stock leaderboard. (unless I deem the mod OP)"
   

So basically, to be listed stock requires any mod does not influence how the rocket flies, info mods, mechjeb, etc.

Any other mods are fine for the mod leader board so long as they're not rediculopusly overpowered or some such.

imho this means realchutes, deadly reentry etc are fine for the mod leader board and even KAS would be fine is used responsibly and not glitch your way over to layth with a rediculous slingshot or something.

[Sigma88]

herer's what mr. yogurt wrote in the rules: "

1. Missions with mods will compete for a separate leaderboard than the missions without mods. However, mods that do not affect how rockets fly or add parts can be used in the stock leaderboard. (unless I deem the mod OP)"
   

So basically, to be listed stock requires any mod does not influence how the rocket flies, info mods, mechjeb, etc.

Any other mods are fine for the mod leader board so long as they're not rediculopusly overpowered or some such.

imho this means realchutes, deadly reentry etc are fine for the mod leader board and even KAS would be fine is used responsibly and not glitch your way over to layth with a rediculous slingshot or something.

I have something in mind, If I pull it off I'll post it then

Oh wait, I didn't realize bringing kerbals back was a requirement :S

This ruins my idea, I'll see what I can do

Edited February 6, 2015 by Sigma88

[hoioh]

The point is to, as cheaply as possible, bring kerbals on a round trip. So you divide your total cost by the number of kerbals you brought to and from Laythe to get a ticket price. Would be an interesting challenge if returning Kerbals was NOT a requirement

But you're always free to bring some extra to fill up a base (but I'd make it a crew-swap mission, because that way you can return with the same number of Kerbals as you went with).

[Right]

Whew... Long and taxing trip, but managed $53 Funds/Ticket! So I determined that utilizing a direct capture to Laythe, and a direct burn to Kerbin from LLO, the trip would use less than 3000 dV! However, I failed the calculate for docking rendezvous and some other minor burns, which forced a very complicated return burn since I was short of fuel. I painfully did a powered gravity assist off of Tylo managing a return from LLO for only 700 dV. Never again. (So many quick saves )

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Vessel cost is 48,640 and recovery was 47,789 for 16 kerbals. (Man did they lag on Laythe for some reason) The interplanetary shuttle had non-command seat accommodations for the kerbals, and included a little bit of fuel for the initial docking rendezvous (which was replenished by the SSTO before deorbiting kerbin).

[hoioh]

Nicely done, Right! It looks stock except for Mechjeb, Right?

Also good to see that the general tacktic hasn't changed yet. For the moment this appears to be the way to do it. Direct ascent could make for a slightly more efficient system, but it doesn't make a mayor lot of difference.

[Kulebron]

Yes, external seats for ascent and nuclear vessel. Someone had to do it earlier or later. Great job.

[hoioh]

I ditched the external seats, because I'll be damned if I'm going to transfer 60 kerbals by hand 5 times over the span of one mission. That would be a little too much to ask really. I even used crewmanifest to transfer them more easily from the one vessel ot the other, but yeah, it would likely be cheaper to put them on external seats.

[Right]

Nicely done, Right! It looks stock except for Mechjeb, Right?

Also good to see that the general tacktic hasn't changed yet. For the moment this appears to be the way to do it. Direct ascent could make for a slightly more efficient system, but it doesn't make a mayor lot of difference.

Thanks! Yes Mechjeb and Trajectories for planning. I wonder if bringing the pod and nuke engine for a direct ascent is more efficient than leaving them in LKO/LLO without a direct ascent.

[hoioh]

That would result in a system whereby you make a direct ascent and then decouple just out of the atmosphere from the atmospheric engines and fly them back into circular orbit on a tiny engine. They would use a little bit of fuel to circularize, but because of the reduced weight that might be less as the savings that come with the direct ascent. Using the gravity boosts, as you did, can then further reduce the cost of the trip, but that only works on the way back. On the way to all you can do is a little mun flyby and perhaps also Minmus, though that would create only the most minute of differences for the trouble it would take to perform.

So far the best way I've found is to maximise the number of Kerbals you're bringing to the point of rediculous amounts so as to spread the cost thin across a large crowd and minimize the kerbal/engine weight ratio.

[Laie]

That would result in a system whereby you make a direct ascent and then decouple just out of the atmosphere from the atmospheric engines and fly them back into circular orbit

Come again?

So far the best way I've found is to maximise the number of Kerbals you're bringing to the point of rediculous amounts so as to spread the cost thin across a large crowd and minimize the kerbal/engine weight ratio.

Tried that a long time ago and still can't understand where the money went. Alright, I brought a command pod with three pilots that didn't count as passengers, had the passengers board cabins on Kerbin, and returned almost a quarter of my fuel. Back then we considered this best practice, while these days people bring no safety margin and no crew. But still, 600 funds? Between jets and nukes and economies of scale, it should have been 200, tops. I think I'll have to try that again someday.

[hoioh]

Come again?

What Right said made me think of a ship made out of 2 parts: atmospheric engines and maybe some wing construction and a single nuke to prepel the intergalactic trip. The ship would look a LOT like what I used before, just a big ball of MK2 passenger compartments on their sides to reduce drag. Hang one set of atmospheric engines in orbit around Laythe. Make a direct ascent from Kerbin using the atmospheric engines as long as possible. Once out of the atmosphere undock the atmospheric engines and use an 48-7S on the atmospheric engine cluster to bring that set of engines into orbit around Kerbin so you don't have to drag all that mass along on your interstellar trip. On the laythe side dock with the set you left in orbit and descend to the surface. Then from there do the same thing you did on Kerbin and direct ascend back home, undock the engine cluster that lifted you into orbit and circularize it around laythe. Upon return dock with the set you left in Kerbin orbit and land it precisely on the KSP runway.

Clearer this way?

Tried that a long time ago and still can't understand where the money went. Alright, I brought a command pod with three pilots that didn't count as passengers, had the passengers board cabins on Kerbin, and returned almost a quarter of my fuel. Back then we considered this best practice, while these days people bring no safety margin and no crew. But still, 600 funds? Between jets and nukes and economies of scale, it should have been 200, tops. I think I'll have to try that again someday.

I found landing just next to the runway increased my cost per kerbal by about 100% to 200% I don't remember the exact figures, but I found it completely unacceptable, so I F9'ed a LOT to get it on that runway and collect the reward. (The recovery value was 97.something% for landing just next to the runway at the KSP center, that added such a significant amount of kost that it wasn't even interesting anymore.)

Also, Pilots are inefficient, use a tiny probe core instead. that way you can carry more kerbals as passengers. Makes all the difference.

You've made one monstrous contraption there though! (Just had a peak at it.) Using the hitchhiker containers is a problem, the weight per kerbal is too high. At 0.5t per Kerbal the MK2 pod is the most efficient. Another problem is that mass of Nukes, they lob on a massive amount of weight, making you use more fuel, adding even more weight, etc. Using a single nuke is all you need to get the transfer job done.

But your largest problem is that you appear to have made 2 landings at KSC, both NOT on the runway.

144 kerbals is definitely the most anyone ever tried for this challenge, that's a prize in itself I'd say!

I've looked at your calculation here, but I'm missing something because it really looks like you made 2 recoveries. Which is odd, because 1 is plenty.

return vessel: 518249 launch - 680958 recovery

passenger launch: 667585 launch - 404382 recovery

cost 100494 / 144 passengers = 698/passenger

Not to mention the fuel you left in both the Laythe lander as well as the transfer vehicle that you should've subtracted from your cost total.

- - - Updated - - -

Since version 0.90.0 the MK3 is the most efficient at 0.40625t per kerbal. But at the time of your post that wasn't around yet.

[Laie]

Once out of the atmosphere undock the atmospheric engines and use an 48-7S on the atmospheric engine cluster to bring that set of engines into orbit around Kerbin so you don't have to drag all that mass along on your interstellar trip.

Of course, the Kerbin jets have to stay at Kerbin. But I'd suggest to skip the 48-7s: Circularizing the whole package with nukes will be cheaper than splitting off the jets and circularizing them with any other engine. Less trouble, too.

I found landing just next to the runway increased my cost per kerbal by about 100%

Just next to the runway should be "at KSC" and 98% recovery value. Considering that one uses little fuel and expensive hardware, those 2% difference really matter. Did I really land off the runway? That explains a lot. Hint: if you can come close to the runway, hitting it is easy: just watch your shadow and thrust sideways. When the shadow lines up with the runway, deploy chutes to quickly kill the horizontal speed.

Using Mechjeb's landing prediction is highly recommended. Aim for 0°3' south.

I've looked at your calculation here, but I'm missing something because it really looks like you made 2 recoveries. Which is odd, because 1 is plenty.

Looking at that old stuff myself, that was because the lifter couldn't take up everything in one go. One launch would take up the passengers and return empty; the other launch would take up fuel for the next trip and retrieve the passengers. But there's no extra points for re-using hardware, so write that up as roleplaying, just like the use of pilots.

Another problem is that mass of Nukes, they lob on a massive amount of weight, making you use more fuel, adding even more weight, etc. Using a single nuke is all you need to get the transfer job done.

It's not quite as easy. Even with periapsis-kicking, you eventually have to do ~1000m/s in a single burn. A low TWR means losing some of the precious Oberth Effect. I've never calculated it, but from experience this is barely noticable at a Kerbin-TWR of 0.2, while at 0.1 (that is, 1m/s² acceleration) you already need about 15% more delta-V than it says on the node. It becomes progressively worse as TWR decreases.

Now, that only hurts you on that one burn to Jool. Later burns are shorter and/or have less oberth, while your vessel's TWR will have improved. So a TWR on the order of 0.1 might still work out, but going much below that will make things more expensive in the end.

I've just pieced together a similar vessel to my previous entry, but from Mk3 Passenger Modules (I don't know if Mk2 ones even were available back then). Taking the passenger section from Kerbin to Laythe requires a lot of additional gear, but something on the order of 100 funds should be doable nonetheless. Too bad that this challenge gives no style points. With three dedicated vessels, it's more like 80 funds, but still without any command chairs at all.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Laie

[Laie]

I really think that hardware cost should somehow factor into this. The launch window I currently have open (the first, about Y1D190) will let me go to Jool in under two years, or up to five. The difference is ~150m/s. As it stands, it really makes sense to take it slow and conserve every last drop of fuel. Spending two years in timewarp waiting for the perfect gravity assist is worthwhile.

If this really was a capitalist challenge, one would try to utilize the hardware better and aim for a short round-trip time, so the same bus can go again with new passengers for new revenue as soon as possible.

Now, I know that changing the rules of a challenge is a BAD IDEA , but still. Just my two cents.

[hoioh]

I don't know about your oberth effect Laie, I'm just stating that dragging more mass means you need more fuel, which in turn means you will be more expensive in the end. 1 or 2 nukes should do it, otherwise you're lugging mass around you really don't need. Then again, having a really low TWR is also not much fun to fly, so the trick is to find the right balance and get as many kerbals as possible on a single nuke and a single orange tank. It should produce the lowest cost.

Kulebron did it by optimizing weight on each craft individualy and so did I, start with the interstellar trip and work backwards from there.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and Kulebron worked with fuel value, instead of recovered <> launched cost. This is an important detail in case you feel lazy or miss the runway with bingo fuel.

[Kulebron]

@Laie, good idea, but it changes the task completely.

First, if we factor in the hardware amortization, then we need to settle how many cycles it can sustain. How many times can a ship reenter, an engine fire, etc. But then, it still won't really matter how fast you fly: just send another ship, and although slower, it will pay off at the same rate.

I think, what should be added to the equasion is time and interest rate. If one space bus travels 250 days, and another one does so in 125 days, you need twice less of funds mortified in this bus hardware. Means less loans, etc.

Here's an example of a 125-days transfer. I guess, nuclear engine uses about 4 tonnes more fuel, or $92 * 4 = $368. In my case it adds 368/16 = $23 to the ticket price.

Now we need to calculate the interest rates and the cost of hardware.

But from this point we need more arbitrary assumptions: if it's free market, then we need utility and demand functions. Or it may be a contract system (like Curitiba Integrated Transport Network) where you are a commercial bus line, but you don't touch the passengers' money, instead you're paid per bus trip and are free to optimize your costs, if you follow the service rules. This is a bit simpler to play as a challenge. I had an idea of such challenge, but have no time to play KSP or maintain it right now. If you're interested, I can send you some details.

One thing we'd need in such a case is a good web-based calculator for such a challenge.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Kulebron

[Laie]

First off, I'm against changing the rules of a challenge that has already been going for months.

That said, I thought about writeoff / interest / amortization. Just increase the price by (say) 5% of the hardware cost every year. But given the relative price of fuel vs. hardware, that would probably mean the fastest route is the best no matter what. I don't think the challenge would be better for it.

What I'm really trying to get at: this are supposed to be regular travels. Ticket prices shouldn't be based on once-in-a-decade launch windows and rare gravity assists. A requirement to leave Kerbin in year 1 and return no later than year 5 would probably suffice.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Laie

[mr_yogurt]

Whew... Long and taxing trip, but managed $53 Funds/Ticket!

-snip-

That is awesome. I apologize for not having updated the leaderboard earlier; I didn't expect someone to come back and submit another entry. But now that it's back on the front page, maybe we can expect some more entries from people who haven't seen the challenge yet! Also, I've updated the leaderboard.

First off, I'm against changing the rules of a challenge that has already been going for months.

That said, I thought about writeoff / interest / amortization. Just increase the price by (say) 5% of the hardware cost every year. But given the relative price of fuel vs. hardware, that would probably mean the fastest route is the best no matter what. I don't think the challenge would be better for it.

What I'm really trying to get at: this are supposed to be regular travels. Ticket prices shouldn't be based on once-in-a-decade launch windows and rare gravity assists. A requirement to leave Kerbin in year 1 and return no later than year 5 would probably suffice.

True. Too bad I didn't think of that when I first posted the challenge :/. I'm definitely not going to change the rules--watching people exploit rule deficiencies is definitely fun, and it has been too long for a rule change to be a good idea. But I think it would be a good idea for someone to make a modified challenge for travel to say, Duna, with proper capitalism in place.

[Samniss Arandeen]

Here is a sneak peek of the in-development Laythe Capitalism craft from the Ships of Samniss Arandeen, the Curly Brace! This ship is going to lag, lag, glitch, and lag some more. It may even crash my computer a couple of times. Should be fun regardless.

[Kulebron]

@Laie, mr_yogurt: Nowhere I suggested changing the rules post factum, I wonder why you attribute this to me. You're arguing with something imaginary. All I meant was what if I were designing the rules for a new challenge. (And, yes, one is free to say "do or shut up" in response.)

Edited February 21, 2015 by Kulebron

[mr_yogurt]

@Laie, mr_yogurt: Nowhere I suggested changing the rules post factum, I wonder why you attribute this to me. You're arguing with something imaginary. All I meant was what if I were designing the rules for a new challenge. (And, yes, one is free to say "do or shut up" in response.)

No argument was intended

Also, you might want to change your signature. You have been bested