TurboJet Engine Height Challenge

[Alshain]

The creation of NEAR may make things a bit easier than using FAR but the elimination of pressure dis-assembly makes for some... opportunities.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to create a craft with a single TurboJet Engine and make your Apoapsis as high as you can using NEAR.

Rules:

1. You must use ferram4's NEAR plugin

2. Your craft itself must be stock, but can have any parts other than those that are mentioned in Rule #3.

3. Your craft must have 1 TurboJet Engine and no other means of propulsion including Engines, RCS, or EVA Pushing.

4. You must get suborbital to qualify.

5. Addendum: No alt F12, you can part clip as far as the editor will allow natively.

No other mods that would affect your craft's performance are permitted.

You will be judged on Apoapsis height while your craft is at 70km+. Screenshots are ideal but this is an honor system, I'm not calling anyone a liar here. Play fair.

Leaderboard:

StaticWake - 278,201m

zarakon - 265,345m

impyre - 242,828m

Bobnova - 211,666m

Alshain - 147,255m

Edited July 29, 2014 by Alshain

[Commander Jebidiah]

Only allowed one turbojet?

Edit: ignore me misread the rules

[Rakaydos]

Can you post a link to the required mod?

[Alshain]

Can you post a link to the required mod?

Good idea, I've edited the first post. Though in hindsight I suppose you could use Stock, NEAR, or FAR and just tell me which one your using and we can keep separate leaderboards for each.

[Pecan]

Rule 4 - there is no rule 4?

Or is that rule 5, which is a bit pointless. If you have an apoapsis in space you must have got sub-orbital.

Bleh! I've been to the pub - will be playing later ...

[Alshain]

Rule 4 - there is no rule 4?

Or is that rule 5, which is a bit pointless. If you have an apoapsis in space you must have got sub-orbital.

Bleh! I've been to the pub - will be playing later ...

Lol, I guess I misnumbered but to answer the question, you can get an apoapsis below space. I fixed the numbering

[gchristopher]

How about judging by semi-major axis ( (apoapsis + periapsis)/2 ) instead of just apoapsis?

On the plus side, that'd be a lot more useful for a space program than just a really big apoapsis.

On the down side, it might be dominated by airhog designs.

[impyre]

I managed to get a little over 150km. I actually got closer to 151km, but I didn't remove the 4x timewarp until well after i left the atmosphere when i noticed my apoapsis continuing to drop even though I'd already passed 70km. I can't figure out how to upload screenshots here, it beaks every time I try to paste it. They do exist though, and can be seen on my steam profile.

[Hodo]

I managed to get a little over 150km. I actually got closer to 151km, but I didn't remove the 4x timewarp until well after i left the atmosphere when i noticed my apoapsis continuing to drop even though I'd already passed 70km. I can't figure out how to upload screenshots here, it beaks every time I try to paste it. They do exist though, and can be seen on my steam profile.

Use Imgur, or some other picture sharing site. They are easy to use and free.

[impyre]

I managed to get a little over 150km. I actually got closer to 151km, but I didn't remove the 4x timewarp until well after i left the atmosphere when i noticed my apoapsis continuing to drop even though I'd already passed 70km. I can't figure out how to upload screenshots here, it beaks every time I try to paste it. They do exist though, and can be seen on my steam profile.

pre-flight:

Near apoapsis:

Map view:

[zarakon]

Edited July 24, 2014 by zarakon

[Bobnova]

No clipping, stock parts.

Am using FAR rather than NEAR, if that disqualifies me I understand.

211,665 meters.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Alshain]

I would think FAR would put you at a disadvantage anyway because you have to be more careful your ship doesn't rip itself apart. I'm not being too picky, I'll take it. Over analyzing is just going to sap the fun out of it anyway.

[Bobnova]

That was my take on it, otherwise I wouldn't have entered.

I'd be using NEAR but I like the mach related aero changes and the occluded areas calculations.

I'm pretty psyched to see NEAR in existence though, I'm hoping it makes it into stock eventually.

[KotDemopan]

That was my take on it, otherwise I wouldn't have entered.

I'd be using NEAR but I like the mach related aero changes and the occluded areas calculations.

I'm pretty psyched to see NEAR in existence though, I'm hoping it makes it into stock eventually.

Hey, i like infinigliding! and by that i mean making a stock biplane that makes use of infinigliding.

[impyre]

[Bobnova]

I'm surprised that stayed stable. All my attempts without fins slammed sideways. Nicely done.

[impyre]

I'm surprised that stayed stable. All my attempts without fins slammed sideways. Nicely done.

Yeah, the catch is to reduce the moment of inertia to as small a value as possible by keeping the whole thing as compact as possible. With small moment of inertia it takes less torque to maintain the proper heading. That said, it's perfectly stable at high speeds as long as you don't touch the controls and head straight up.

[StaticWake]

Here is my attempt : 278201m Using a Inline Reaction Wheel maintain heading.

[Alshain]

Nice job everyone, leaderboards are up to date.

[Hodo]

I would think FAR would put you at a disadvantage anyway because you have to be more careful your ship doesn't rip itself apart. I'm not being too picky, I'll take it. Over analyzing is just going to sap the fun out of it anyway.

That and FAR nerfs air breathing engines so they are half as powerful as the stock engines.