0.24's Cost-Effective Lifters Challenge

[Camaron]

I agree. That's why I didn't originally make an exclusive group for extraordinarily heavy ships.

As for mine, it was a fuel ship, carrying tons of gas into space for all my re-fueling needs. Somehow I doubt it would score very well, however, on the √-per-ton scale.

That said, maybe seeing who could get a Kiloton into space with the cheapest lifter could be interesting.

[gm537]

So I made some alterations to my ultra-light lifter shown earlier. And here is what I got. I show some images flying so you can get an idea of the ascent path.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This give a lifter cost of 5,006 and a payload of 5.67. aka 882.9 Kr/ton to orbit. There you go sub 1,000 and sub 900 in the same craft.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gm537

[Mesklin]

Camaron, is any problems with my lifters? There are full stock devices, without any modded part (except MechJeb, that implemented in command capsules). And yes, this lifters can not fly without torque in payload, but "Can o' boom" lifter have exactly same behavior (it can not fly without payload's torque). Also I found nothing in challenge rules about totally dumb payload for lifters. If lifter should have possibilities for deliver to orbit totally dumb payload, then each lifter in this challenge should have as minimum command probe on board.

[gm537]

Okay I now have a lifter for thw Heavy category. Nothing too crazy yet. 357666.1 for the lifter and 70066.0 for the launcher (where does that .1 come from???) with a final payload mass of 180.47 tons. Gives a Kr/ton of 1593. Note even though the final stage has engines no resources have been used in getting to orbit.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Tsynique]

What about fully recoverable ships? Does their price upon 100% recovery then deduct from the original sum?

EDIT: Just read previous post and got the answer.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Tsynique

[Tsynique]

Omega Shuttle (Unmanned)

Fully reusable SSTO spacecraft that lands on a runway and has about 150 km. range of atmospheric flight. Uses 4xRAPIER engines. All stock (except MechJeb + Engineering Redux). Can takeoff from a runway if fueled only with jet fuel. I use this to build space stations above Kerbin. Also, have a manned version with lower payload capacity for small orbital operations like saving kerbals from orbit.

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]Max Payload to LKO[/td]

[td]5 tons[/td]

[/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of craft (fully fueled)[/td][td]39968.00 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Refund after this launch[/td][td]38096.36 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Launch cost if all fuel is burned[/td][td]2076.00 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Launch cost of this launch[/td][td]1871.64 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of this launch[/td][td]1871.64 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of 1 ton to orbit[/td][td]374.328 √[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Camaron]

Camaron, is any problems with my lifters? There are full stock devices, without any modded part (except MechJeb, that implemented in command capsules). And yes, this lifters can not fly without torque in payload, but "Can o' boom" lifter have exactly same behavior (it can not fly without payload's torque). Also I found nothing in challenge rules about totally dumb payload for lifters. If lifter should have possibilities for deliver to orbit totally dumb payload, then each lifter in this challenge should have as minimum command probe on board.

Your entry is probably fine. I mentioned earlier that I would be busy Sunday and Monday, and will catch up on all the good new entries on Tuesday.

Im really liking your shuttle, Tsynique.

[MadChris48]

upper middleweight entry: , payload 99452kg = 109.627 tons, lifter costs $315400. 315400/109.627 = $2877.03/ton

build in VAB, w/flight engineer stats

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=292906732

just before lifter separation, w/flight engineer stats

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=292906638

payload in orbit, w/flight engineer stats

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=292906668

Edited July 29, 2014 by MadChris48

[SunJumper]

I would recommend having a standard payload for each category, as a payload with all reaction wheels/power sources/etc would be easier to get into orbit, even with an autopilot.

[Tsynique]

Omega Shuttle (Unmanned)

Fully reusable SSTO spacecraft that lands on a runway and has about 150 km. range of atmospheric flight. Uses 4xRAPIER engines. All stock (except MechJeb + Engineering Redux). Can takeoff from a runway if fueled only with jet fuel. I use this to build space stations above Kerbin. Also, have a manned version with lower payload capacity for small orbital operations like saving kerbals from orbit.

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]Max Payload to LKO[/td]

[td]5 tons[/td]

[/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of craft (fully fueled)[/td][td]39968.00 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Refund after this launch[/td][td]38096.36 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Launch cost if all fuel is burned[/td][td]2076.00 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Launch cost of this launch[/td][td]1871.64 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of this launch[/td][td]1871.64 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of 1 ton to orbit[/td][td]374.328 √[/td][/tr]

[/table]

I'm updating my entry with the Omega Shuttle. Turns out if you switch the two out of four RAPIER engines to rocket mode once air intake is too low, the remaining two can airbreathe a whole lot longer which makes the ascent much more optimized. Should've thought it earlier.

In any case, I managed to achieve these new numbers:

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]Max Payload to LKO[/td]

[td]7 tons[/td]

[/tr]

[tr][td]Cost of craft (fully fueled)[/td][td]39968.00 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Launch cost if all fuel is burned[/td][td]2076.00 √[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Max. cost of 1 ton to orbit[/td][td]296.57 √[/td][/tr]

[/table]

71x71 orbit results with different payloads:

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: left]

[tr][td]Payload (tons)[/td][td]Remaining dV [m/s][/td][td]Remaining dV after payload deployment [m/s][/td][td]Estimated roundtrip destinations[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]0[/td][td]1450[/td][td]1450[/td][td]Low Mun orbit, Low Minmus orbit, Kerbin GSO, Duna flyby(?), Eve flyby(?)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]1[/td][td]1197[/td][td]1295[/td][td]Low Mun orbit, Low Minmus orbit, Kerbin GSO[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]2[/td][td]969[/td][td]1129[/td][td]Low Mun orbit, Minmus slingshot[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]3[/td][td]763[/td][td]954[/td][td]High Kerbin Orbit[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]4[/td][td]567[/td][td]759[/td][td]High Kerbin Orbit[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]5[/td][td]380[/td][td]544[/td][td]High Kerbin Orbit[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]6[/td][td]199[/td][td]304[/td][td]High Kerbin Orbit[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]7[/td][td]11[/td][td]18[/td][td][/td][/tr]

[/table]

After taking up and deploying 7 ton payload all you can do is de-orbit and land but payload would still be in stable 71x71 orbit for only around 2076.00 √

Im really liking your shuttle, Tsynique.

Thanks! It took me many hours/days to perfect it but it's never perfect

Edited July 29, 2014 by Tsynique

[gm537]

I would recommend having a standard payload for each category, as a payload with all reaction wheels/power sources/etc would be easier to get into orbit, even with an autopilot.

I think that would actually limit designs and creativity in this challenge. My rocket for example works with a pretty specific payload size as will most people's especially in the Ultralight category since the score is sensitive to mass change of payload and the engines don't come in scaleable sizes (or costs). So far no one has spammed / abused the whole 'torque in payload' thing so if it stays that way I say leave it open to creative designs, but that's my opinion and obviously I am not the challenge creator so we'll leave it for him to decide.

[gm537]

I'm updating my entry with the Omega Shuttle. Turns out if you switch the two out of four RAPIER engines to rocket mode once air intake is too low, the remaining two can airbreathe a whole lot longer which makes the ascent much more optimized. Should've thought it earlier.

After taking up and deploying 7 ton payload all you can do is de-orbit and land but payload would still be in stable 71x71 orbit for only around 2076.00 √

Thanks! It took me many hours/days to perfect it but it's never perfect

Yeah design optimizing is definitely fun. I feel like this challenge is genuinely teaching me things about KSP that I didn't know before, that in trying to build a cost effective lifter I am really learning / discovering how to do it alongside others. Often challenges seem to end up being: Who already knows how to do thing xyz the best?

[Tsynique]

Yeah design optimizing is definitely fun. I feel like this challenge is genuinely teaching me things about KSP that I didn't know before, that in trying to build a cost effective lifter I am really learning / discovering how to do it alongside others. Often challenges seem to end up being: Who already knows how to do thing xyz the best?

Yeah squeezing out a few extra dV from a seemingly perfect design is always very rewarding and can even be educational

I think this challenge is too diverse to be one of those "Who already knows how to do thing xyz the best" because you can approach the problem in so many different ways!

I think that would actually limit designs and creativity in this challenge. My rocket for example works with a pretty specific payload size as will most people's especially in the Ultralight category since the score is sensitive to mass change of payload and the engines don't come in scaleable sizes (or costs). So far no one has spammed / abused the whole 'torque in payload' thing so if it stays that way I say leave it open to creative designs, but that's my opinion and obviously I am not the challenge creator so we'll leave it for him to decide.

I think that every lifter should have it's maximum payload to LKO tested and I agree that it shouldn't be quantified because it would definitely limit the design possibilities. If the challenge was "Who can get payload alpha into orbit for the lowest price" then of course, it should be a preset payload but this challenge is all about the "√ / ton to orbit"

[Camaron]

Tsynique, your last post (and gm537's opinions as well),spelled out how I feel exactly. It's meant to be a smart challenge with versatility. I actually made the challenge in hopes that it would draw out some unique solutions that had not been explored to death already.

Also, I am now going to add the new submissions to rankings within the next hour.

[Tsynique]

it would draw out some unique solutions that had not been explored to death already.

A recipe for the best challenges! Otherwise it's just a showcase of ridiculous and useless (not necessarily easy however) achievements.

[NikkyD]

I dont share that opinion. It just allows ppl to adjust the payload by 100 kg if they are short on Delta-V. Its more convenient than having an exact payload that doesnt move or blink or flinch.

[Tsynique]

I dont share that opinion. It just allows ppl to adjust the payload by 100 kg if they are short on Delta-V. Its more convenient than having an exact payload that doesnt move or blink or flinch.

But the challenge is not about getting X amount of payload to orbit it's about getting the payload cost-effectively.

[Camaron]

Because decouplers are way overpriced atm it does make a difference (a rather huge one)

I agree. Personally I use a dock for the final detachment. No decoupler needed, they work without a mate, they're cheap and light, and they actually serve a purpose on a payload.

As for bhauth's post much, much earlier - yes, I would need more photos, but it looks like a promising lifter.

Also, zekes lifters. They look incredible, but you didn't include any photos of the numbers. I really don't have enough to verify the performance on those awesome rockets.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Camaron

[Slugy]

Here's an entry for the middleweight category, just.

Keeping the approach of having a useful load, it's a fuel station with all mod cons. Delivered for under 1000Kt/t.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Some pictures of the middle part of the ascent missing because I was too busy firing sepratrons to force the "gravity" turn

It is not a very relaxing rocket to fly.

Needs the right sort of ascent to allow time for the very slow circularisation burn, which has to start almost immediately, and continue past initial apsoapsis.

Lifter cost 39988 (including separator, so 39438 without). Must experiment with just using a docking port, especially as it has one in the right place!

Payload weight 40430.

Launch cost 975.5 Kr/t

Edited July 30, 2014 by Slugy
Clarify category

[Slugy]

Omega Shuttle (Unmanned)

Fully reusable SSTO spacecraft that lands on a runway and has about 150 km. range of atmospheric flight. Uses 4xRAPIER engines. All stock (except MechJeb + Engineering Redux

Nice result, but I believe recoverables need to use FAR.

Otherwise the low weight catgories especially are going to be dominated by jets/Rapiers.

[gchristopher]

FAR should be a separate category for both recovered and non-recovered lifters. You can't combine FAR and non-FAR recovered craft into the same category; they're playing with dramatically different physics.

Do the weight categories matter that much? Higher weight classes should generally just be multiples of the best result from a lower weight class, right?

For stock recovered vehicles, I've been wondering whether a rocket-style launch, normal spaceplane ascent or airhog-style spaceplane would offer the cheapest per ton result. I'm starting to suspect that intake abuse might give the best cost per ton in addition to the highest payload fraction.

[Damaske]

Permission to have Payload be modded content Modded content in mind for "MY" payload is using Phase Two KSOS Station parts and its orbital tug to assemble the mass of station parts once in orbit.

ALL other parts of the Lifter assemble will be made of Stock Squad parts.

[Slugy]

FAR should be a separate category for both recovered and non-recovered lifters. You can't combine FAR and non-FAR recovered craft into the same category; they're playing with dramatically different physics.

Do the weight categories matter that much? Higher weight classes should generally just be multiples of the best result from a lower weight class, right?

For stock recovered vehicles, I've been wondering whether a rocket-style launch, normal spaceplane ascent or airhog-style spaceplane would offer the cheapest per ton result. I'm starting to suspect that intake abuse might give the best cost per ton in addition to the highest payload fraction.

For stock, jets will always win if recovered, at least for smaller payloads. Which is why the addition of FAR for recovered payloads seems sensible to me - but it may be an accident!

Heavier rockets that are mostly solid fuel start to have control issues, and RCS/winglets/reaction wheels are not cheap, unless used on the payload - which feels like cheating, if overused, to me.

[Tsynique]

I've been wondering whether a rocket-style launch, normal spaceplane ascent or airhog-style spaceplane would offer the cheapest per ton result. I'm starting to suspect that intake abuse might give the best cost per ton in addition to the highest payload fraction.

Best I got so far is 296 Kr/t with a reusable spaceplane, so I suspect that should be the cheapest approach. Think of it this way. If the craft is 100% reusable, then only cost is the fuel. Cheapest dV by burning fuel can only achieved by air-breathing engine (1200 Isp!) and beathing for as long as possible during the ascent. Rather low TWR is the issue however, so I failed to produce reliable heavy lifters that takeoff using jets. I suppose someone must have succeeded, so would like to see it.

[Camaron]

Permission to have Payload be modded content Modded content in mind for "MY" payload is using Phase Two KSOS Station parts and its orbital tug to assemble the mass of station parts once in orbit.

ALL other parts of the Lifter assemble will be made of Stock Squad parts.

If you're asking if your Payload can contain mod parts, like Kethane Drills, I'll consider it, but only if they are inactive/non-advantageous to the launch before decoupling in orbit.

I may make a rule change for this. Functional Payloads are always good.