Kerbal Grasshopper (VTVL) First Contract edition

[Superluminaut]

The Challenge

Build and pilot a rocket that is recoverable via powered descent, launching and landing on the launch pad. Land on or as close as you can to the launch pad for points.

Leadership Boards

Contract Awarded

= 100%

Superluminaut

Reusable Rocket

≥ 98%

Young Grasshopper

≥ 97.9%

Footnote in History

≥ 97.8%

Mech Jeb assisted

Contract Awarded

= 100%

Reusable Rocket

≥ 98%

Young Grasshopper

≥ 97.9%

Footnote in History

≥ 97.8%

Other Cool Stuff Produced

Jean Deaux

SanderB

The Inspiration

The Rules

• Average all recovery percentages per mission for your final score
  
  
• Stock (with the exception of mech jeb and atmospheric trajectories)
  
  
• Flight entries with mech jeb must note the use of mech jeb
  
  
• No parachute/drogue chute use
  
  
• Rockets only, no space planes
  
  
• Every part of the rocket that goes up must be recovered, except for separators, the payload, and fuel
  
  
• You must achieve orbit = (periapsis ≥ 70 km)
  
  
• If your strategy involves multiple vehicles, each vehicle must be able to meet the challenge
  
  
• Quick load all you like
  
  
• No clip construction is ok
  
  
• The rocket may not touch down before its final landing
  
  
• No administrative strategies
  
  
• Share pictures of your flight showing how you did it
  
  

Some notes

The Challenge is deliberately open for interpretation.

Note that a payload is not required for completion.

Because mech jeb is so popular it will be allowed. However mech jeb flights will be scored separately for better comparison in class.

Any ideas for improving the challenge are welcome.

If you are having trouble taking screenshots, try remapping the key.

This is a reincarnation of my previous challenge, find it here for examples.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25204-Kerbal-Grasshopper-(VTVL)

This challenge is for .24 and up.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Superluminaut

[Tweety]

I will try to post later (work sucks when there's a new update!(and the power might be out at home)), 2 nights ago I was working on and successfully launched and achieved a stable orbit with 11.5T payload, just have to redesign it without parachutes, I reckon less payload would work a treat

Tweety

EDIT: Turns our my VTVL is more heavily dependent on chutes that I thought I will keep working on it but not hopeful I will get any sensible size payload in orbit.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Tweety
Bit off more than I can chew

[Superluminaut]

I'm still working on this.

This challenge would be easy if, we had landing legs that stretch past the KR-2L, and I wasn't so aesthetics obsessed.

[Superluminaut]

I added a new rule, atmospheric trajectory mod is ok.

I have also begun work on the flight video for this challenge.

[Jean Deaux]

Here's my entry, 100% rocket recovery with 2 satellite payloads. No mods used for flight, 100% stock. KSP V0.25

Edited October 16, 2014 by Jean Deaux

[vat21s]

Dang it I killed the Launchpad on takeoff?

...

[Captain_Party]

Am I allowed to do this in RealSolarSystem?

[Superluminaut]

Here's my entry, 100% rocket recovery with 2 satellite payloads. No mods used for flight, 100% stock. KSP V0.25

Alright the first contender, however somehow I neglected to state that the idea is to land on the launchpad. I did not realize the runway is also a 100% recovery zone.

If you don't want to do it again I will give you a special mention, sorry about the confusion.

[Superluminaut]

Is that a mod? If so then not for the score board. However you can show off anything you like related to the challenge. I'd love to see it.

[Jean Deaux]

Alright the first contender, however somehow I neglected to state that the idea is to land on the launchpad. I did not realize the runway is also a 100% recovery zone.

If you don't want to do it again I will give you a special mention, sorry about the confusion.

Well, I watched the video of the SpacEx vehicles and noticed those were all landing on a runway, so I mimicked that. Perhaps I'll have yet another go for the new change in rules.

[SanderB]

doesn't it logically follow that rockets don't breathe air, especially because they cant on earth? It seems to make no sense to have air breathing rockets, might as well allow space planes... Airbreathing propulsion has insane isp especially when you consider the low dV requirements of kerbin. I don't think air-breathing engines should be in a grasshopper challenge.

[Jean Deaux]

doesn't it logically follow that rockets don't breathe air, especially because they cant on earth? It seems to make no sense to have air breathing rockets, might as well allow space planes... Airbreathing propulsion has insane isp especially when you consider the low dV requirements of kerbin. I don't think air-breathing engines should be in a grasshopper challenge.

Perhaps I should wait until you guys are done playing with the rules of the challenge before I participate any further.

[Kulebron]

Space X guys are generous regarding the competing designs

[Superluminaut]

Air is 100% allowed. Half of this challenge is flying the thing. If you can do this challenge without mods and air jets you win everything.

[Superluminaut]

Check the previous version of the challenge (link is in the original post). I think it may explain things better. This challenge simply tries to replace distance with recovery percentage.

[Superluminaut]

Here is my rocket and flight.

[SanderB]

I took a go at this too:

http://youtu.be/6UDlz7pNZdU

98% recovery on an SSTO rocket.

I'm finding it extremely difficult to land a rocket on the launchpad without air breathing engines or insanely cracked up modded parts.

Edited October 24, 2014 by SanderB

[Jean Deaux]

Here is my rocket and flight.

http://youtu.be/N3XQHMbY7lU

That's some pretty stretches of your own rules there, and your use of part clipping I would call illegal for your use of a crewed capsule. I like your use of "garbage" on the launchpad to use as targeting for landing, but I call that dirty pool as you don't factor that in on your recovery. You're also claiming 100% recovery while parts where expended and not recoverable, true you created the rules to ignore those parts but I find that to be rather biased based upon how you intended to create your flight. Otherwise, some pretty good use of piloting skills there.

[Superluminaut]

I took a go at this too:

http://youtu.be/6UDlz7pNZdU

98% recovery on an SSTO rocket.

I'm finding it extremely difficult to land a rocket on the launchpad without air breathing engines or insanely cracked up modded parts.

Nice!

Yes to land on the pad without air jets would involve a lot of luck. Part of the spirit of this challenge is repeatability. Essentially a rocket you could play the game with and get the same result every launch. I like the ambition though, doing it without air is 1000x harder.

I'll assume FAR just gave you readouts and does not alter stock aerodynamics.

[Superluminaut]

That's some pretty stretches of your own rules there, and your use of part clipping I would call illegal for your use of a crewed capsule. I like your use of "garbage" on the launchpad to use as targeting for landing, but I call that dirty pool as you don't factor that in on your recovery. You're also claiming 100% recovery while parts where expended and not recoverable, true you created the rules to ignore those parts but I find that to be rather biased based upon how you intended to create your flight. Otherwise, some pretty good use of piloting skills there.

What rule did I stretch?

Part clipping has no affect on mass or fuel or drag, the effect is purely aesthetic, so no clip is allowed. If you don't like the capsule just call it payload and ignore it. What does dirty pool mean? If I factored octagonal struts and launch clamps into cost, my cost savings would be even higher because those parts don't use any fuel. Other than that no parts are expended. The only thing not recovered was fuel. I'm somewhat confused about what exactly you disagree with.

[SanderB]

FAR was completely installed and did alter aerodynamics. The trajectories mod didn't give a precise result as to where my landing would've been. With FAR landing on the pad isn't about luck but skill and mods that do calculations for you. In my case my mod didn't give the results I was hoping for, maybe due to mistake on my side or something else. I'm pretty sure you can use retrothrust to control your landing in Stock Aerodynamics pretty accurately as well (in a suicide landing type of descent), but your descent must overshoot the launchpad precisely so you can retroburn when you get close to it so you don't overshoot.

I made a 2nd & 3rd attempt, they are non entries because they didn't get on the launchpad and lost their engines but I'll post it anyway.

http://youtu.be/B8bKd-9XRYA 3.1km from the centre of the launchpad.

http://youtu.be/k7OQY_yn9Rc 501.6m from the centre of the launchpad.

I think maybe this should be a competition about who can get closest to the launchpad without much more than 4km/s in the vehicle at launch or any airbreathing engines.

Edited October 26, 2014 by SanderB

[kopapaka]

[silks]

Not exactly made for the challenge but perhaps this might inspire someone.

It has only 5 engines and 3 landing legs since the whole craft is smaller in scale.

4 out of 30 landings were successful. I hope the actual falcon's success rate will be greater than 13%.

Craft files: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bfbki4vfhcfyuyr/Ships.zip