Economic Fuel to Oribit

[Volcanix]

Okay; although the scoring is biased to bulk, I figured I'd have a go just so that the spaceplane crew weren't entirely unrepresented. Flying with FAR, of course.

My spaceplane of choice is the Kerbodyne Wedgetail:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot411_zps8e32f4a9.png

(this is my personal model with Mechjeb and TAC-LS bits on, but you can find a version with those parts removed at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1353934&viewfull=1#post1353934)

Off we go:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot412_zps76bba6f7.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot414_zpsf3bee79c.png

Shock heating on the way up:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot417_zpse8686bf9.png

Just after the RAPIERs switch to closed cycle:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot420_zpsbfd85c68.png

Coasting to apoapsis:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot422_zps1ca96cc7.png

Circularisation burn:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot423_zpse464c619.png

And we're in orbit:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot426_zpsdc6b5167.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot424_zpsf052a3cc.png

Plenty of gas in the tanks:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot427_zps902f5c1c.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot428_zps4de86e96.png

Just kept what was in the rear bicoupler to get home:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot409_zpsa302c136.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot408_zps81a2b7cd.png

Reentry was a little on the toasty side:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot432_zps375b28cc.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot434_zpsa0b79394.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot435_zps2fcd0558.png

Skipping over the mountains west of KSC:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot436_zps5df2bf64.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot437_zpsc0a510db.png

Final approach:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot439_zps71024597.png

And back on the runway, just after using the last of the fuel:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot440_zps2bd6cd83.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot441_zps1120a933.png

Unfortunately, I'd been flying in sandbox mode, and hadn't realised that this meant that I got no funds screen on recovery. So, I went into my career save, took the exact same plane out on the runway, and used TAC Fuel Balancer to dump all the fuel. I also emptied the RCS tanks, although I'd actually used barely any of that. The "resources recovered" are the food/water/oxygen and waste products from TAC-LS. Anyway:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot442_zpsbd40a01b.png

Wet cost: √149322

Recovered: √143321.7

LF delivered: 3727.9

O delivered: 4186.4

Cost: √6000.3

Score: 10438.8

Splitting the bill evenly between the LF and O portions:

Price per unit of LF: √0.8

Price per unit of O: √0.7

--

Edited to add: just saw DundraL's effort. Nicely done.

Man, that's cheap! o.o

I haven't looked through the whole thread, but is this the cheapest delivery of all (in this thread)?

[Wanderfound]

Man, that's cheap! o.o

I haven't looked through the whole thread, but is this the cheapest delivery of all (in this thread)?

I suspect so, on a √ per unit of fuel basis, but I haven't done the math for anyone else. Nowhere near the highest score, though. And you could probably shave the price further if you tried; the Wedgetail is carrying a fair bit of luxury kit (abort system, radio, lights and docking port, multiple solar panels, TAC-LS supplies, etc.).

Edited to add: nope, nuked by Vector's giant vertical SSTO and DundraL's monster spaceplane. Economies of scale.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Wanderfound

[MarvinKitFox]

Hmm.

The formula for scoring *must* be changed.

this is NOT an entry to this challenge. I may enter later, with a more elegant entry. This is only to show the weakness of the current scoring system.

My "Broot Forse Mk 28" would score:

Launch cost: 6334748

recovery: 5358224

cost = 976524

Fuel in orbit, ready to offload:

fuel: 144880

oxy:177076

sum = 321956

score = (F+O)/(C/(F+O)) = 106147

And all it is, is 4 orange tanks, on a SLS motor, and 2 parachutes. Multiplied by a depth of 3, and cloned by the Mark-number.

(in the case of the Mk28, that would be 28 * 3 times the above)

If I was willing to triple the part count, I could score 9 times as much. boring. The vessel in indefinitely clonable in the length dimension, the only restriction is CPU melting point.

Here is a Mk7 version undergoing feasibility tests.

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

http://i.imgur.com/wrFp7dJ.png

Even this Mk7 model would score 26536.

Or 4090, without even bothering to recycle after reaching orbit.

[Bothersome]

So you're trying to say what? That a person playing on carrier mode wouldn't want a system that could put huge amounts of fuel in space in one shot? That they wouldn't care about the cost?

That's the point of it. What's the best way that's still cheap to get it to space?

And what score system would you propose that would reflect that?

[Kasuha]

So you're trying to say what? That a person playing on carrier mode wouldn't want a system that could put huge amounts of fuel in space in one shot? That they wouldn't care about the cost?

That's the point of it. What's the best way that's still cheap to get it to space?

And what score system would you propose that would reflect that?

You know, economical means least funds per delivered unit of fuel. That's it. Your scoring system does not make sense because to get payload to orbit economically you need to use jets and these require relatively high part count. At certain point you hit part count wall. After that, you can still continue to improve your score in this challenge using ineffective rockets because they are big enough to score high regardless of their ineffectiveness.

[Wanderfound]

That's the point of it. What's the best way that's still cheap to get it to space?

And what score system would you propose that would reflect that?

Firstly: I'm not particularly bothered. It's your challenge, score it however you like.

But the scoring system currently in play does seem set to reward Whackjob-style bulk over efficiency. Sure, a more cost-efficient Whackjob will beat a less cost-efficient Whackjob, but if you restrict your design to something sensible then you're not even in the running. At the moment, it's less "economic fuel to orbit" and more "most economic way to lift completely absurd amounts of fuel to orbit".

If it was me (and, again, not insisting that you change anything) I'd probably run the scoring on a √ per unit of fuel basis, with either a minimum payload or separate payload-size-based leaderboards in order to avoid the problem of highly efficient but uselessly small launches dominating.

Multiple categories is probably best, IMO, otherwise it's still going to go to absurdly gigantic things taking advantage of the economies of scale. Vector and DundraL have my entry beat on both the current scoring system and a √ per unit basis, but whereas I use the Wedgetail regularly in my career game, I don't expect that either of their (very cool) designs will be seeing a lot of use in many career saves. At most, you'd use them once and then never need to fly them again.

Either that or do it by budget: "how much fuel can you lift for less than √10,000?" sort of thing. That would also work well with multiple categories, and probably separate boards for planes vs rockets.

Yeah, there's a value in avoiding multiple launches, but after a certain point it's more for giggles than for practical use. There's just no need for hundreds of thousands of fuel units in orbit, unless you're planning on landing a city-sized base on Eve and then lifting it up again.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Bothersome]

I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I'll give you the reason for the thinking behind the score system.

1. If you say, fuel + ox / cost, then someone will post an infinite glider that can take a five gallon can of gas to orbit.

2. I wanted more usable fuel in space for when you play carrier mode. You need some gas in space to help with far missions. Taking up tiny amounts means more work to get enough there. Most newbies don't like to have to dock 10 times just to get a planetary craft enough fuel for the missions.

3. A school bus is more efficient at taking kids to school than a Volkswagen Beatle. Even though the Beatle is way more efficient on gas, you can get more work done with the bus. The same should apply here.

4. The purpose of the challenge is to get the best craft posted that gets the most work done for least cost.

It seems to me, you guys are having a problem with the title of the challenge.

[Wanderfound]

I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I'll give you the reason for the thinking behind the score system.

1. If you say, fuel + ox / cost, then someone will post an infinite glider that can take a five gallon can of gas to orbit.

2. I wanted more usable fuel in space for when you play carrier mode. You need some gas in space to help with far missions. Taking up tiny amounts means more work to get enough there. Most newbies don't like to have to dock 10 times just to get a planetary craft enough fuel for the missions.

3. A school bus is more efficient at taking kids to school than a Volkswagen Beatle. Even though the Beatle is way more efficient on gas, you can get more work done with the bus. The same should apply here.

4. The purpose of the challenge is to get the best craft posted that gets the most work done for least cost.

It seems to me, you guys are having a problem with the title of the challenge.

That is a large part of it, yes.

However, most of the alternate scoring schemes proposed do provide simple ways of excluding the tiny-payload strategy. Standardised payload, minimum payload, separate categories based on payload size, max payload for a given budget, etc.

With the current scoring system, the limitation isn't "how efficiently can you lift a useful quantity of fuel to orbit?". It's "how high a part count can your PC tolerate?".

[DundraL]

I'm back!

so after seeing vectors win, I asked myself; What would wackjob do?

Heres the result, a 1,148 ton (in this configuration) spaceplane =)

http://imgur.com/a/MN5yj

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Initial cost: 927640

Recovered: 871132

Mission cost: 56508

O2 into orbit:78745

LF into orbit: 12761

LF/O in orbit: 91506

Score: 148179

As for the people complaining about the scoring system, yes, it favors getting large amounts of things done in one mission. This I think is a good thing because you should also consider the opportunity cost. Is it better economically to launch two fuel missions, or a single large fuel mission and rescue a kerbal in orbit for money? Even on this scale, its economically better to do it in just one mission.

Edited August 27, 2014 by DundraL

[Bothersome]

DundraL, that is an impressive craft you made there. I can see some REAL work went into engineering that thing. Kudos man.

[gchristopher]

The more I thought about it, the more dissatisfied I became with the scoring system. Basically this is a CPU challenge, not an efficiency challenge, since your score doubles if you slap twice the parts on your vehicle.

So, how about if we look at the entries with a scoring that weights efficiency higher? What if we count USABLE fuel (9:11 LF:oxy ratio) instead of just total fuel? The results are interesting.

[table=width: 700]

[tr]

[td]Name[/td][td]LF[/td][td]Oxy[/td][td]Total[/td][td]Usable Fuel[/td][td]Launch Cost[/td][td]Recovered[/td][td]Net Cost[/td][td]Bulky Score[/td][td]Cost/Fuel[/td][td]Cost/Ton[/td][td]LOG10 Score[/td][td]Usable LOG10 Score[/td]

[/tr]

[tr][td]Vector 2[/td][td]0[/td][td]37,932[/td][td]37,932[/td][td]0[/td][td]517,374[/td][td]506,026[/td][td]11,348[/td][td]126,792[/td][td]0.3[/td][td]59.83[/td][td]15.31[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]DundraL (FAR)[/td][td]12,761[/td][td]78,745[/td][td]91,506[/td][td]28,358[/td][td]927,640[/td][td]871,132[/td][td]56,508[/td][td]148,180[/td][td]0.62[/td][td]123.51[/td][td]8.03[/td][td]2.23[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Wanderfound (FAR)[/td][td]3,728[/td][td]4,186[/td][td]7,914[/td][td]7,612[/td][td]149,322[/td][td]143,322[/td][td]6,000[/td][td]10,439[/td][td]0.76[/td][td]151.63[/td][td]5.14[/td][td]4.92[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Pecan[/td][td]2,880[/td][td]3,520[/td][td]6,400[/td][td]6,400[/td][td]159,458[/td][td]132,189[/td][td]27,269[/td][td]1,502[/td][td]4.26[/td][td]852.16[/td][td]0.89[/td][td]0.89[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Vector 1[/td][td]218,435[/td][td]266,976[/td][td]485,411[/td][td]485,411[/td][td]8,029,533[/td][td]0[/td][td]8,029,533[/td][td]29,345[/td][td]16.54[/td][td]3308.34[/td][td]0.34[/td][td]0.34[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Bothersome[/td][td]10,354[/td][td]12,654[/td][td]23,008[/td][td]23,007[/td][td]355,906[/td][td]0[/td][td]355,906[/td][td]1,487[/td][td]15.47[/td][td]3093.76[/td][td]0.28[/td][td]0.28[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]s1l3nt_c0y0t3[/td][td]2,880[/td][td]3,520[/td][td]6,400[/td][td]6,400[/td][td]365,306[/td][td]277,469[/td][td]87,838[/td][td]466[/td][td]13.72[/td][td]2744.93[/td][td]0.28[/td][td]0.28[/td][/tr]

[/table]

I refer to the current score as "bulky score."

I favor LOG10(payload) / (cost / payload) as a way to reward larger payloads while still giving greater weight to efficiency. Also, fuel or oxidizer in excess of the 9:11 ratio either way is generally unusable in space. (especially oxidizer) Disregarding unbalanced fuel amounts is another good idea for a measure of the usefulness of an efficient lifter.

Vector's first entry is the most egregious example of how scoring so heavily on payload mass is bad. It would be the third highest bulky score despite having the worst cost efficiency of anything posted so far!

Vector's second entry is twice as cost-efficient as the nearest competitor and delivers a massive amount of fuel, so a challenge with "Economic" in the title really should rate it first. But interestingly, Wanderfound's entry does the best job of delivering a useful fuel balance efficiently, so you could make an argument that it's the most practical "economic" entry so far!

Edited August 27, 2014 by gchristopher

[Laie]

DundraL, that is an impressive craft you made there. I can see some REAL work went into engineering that thing. Kudos man.

Yeah, right. Now all you need is an engine that takes fuel:oxidizer in a 1:7 ratio.

[DundraL]

Didnt know I would offend you with it. Only reason it didnt take off with a regular LF:O ratio on that flight is for scoring purposes and the additional time it would take, as stated in the description of the craft. 10+ min is a long time to orbit.

[Laie]

DrundaL, no offense meant: you just tried to do well according to the scoring system. Your design decisions were sound; it's the incentives that are all wrong.

[Bothersome]

@ gchristopher, that's some interesting thinking you've done there.

In hindsight, I would have used TONS as a payload but defined as detachable or unloadable only. You cannot count the craft that brought it. Only what you can leave up there. This would do away with weird fuel mixtures and it would be more understandable for those of us who play Real Fuels mod.

I'll admit that your method is more rewarding towards efficiency than payload. But economy can include the definition of "amount of work done for given price."

Personally, I think, twice the payload should have a bit more reward than what Log10 is giving. It's not rewarding enough for my liking. Perhaps the original formula is a bit too weighted for payload. Can you come up with something a little more rewarding for payload?

[Laie]

Oh what the hell.

Short explainer of the vessel here.

many pictures from ascent here, numbers 46ff.

recovery and landing, here, numbers 116ff.

Delivers 2.25 Kerbodyne tanks (162 tons, 32400 units) of fuel and oxidizer in matching proportions.

cost: 399563
recv: 380901
--------------
      18662 funds for 32400 units --> 56251 points 

log10_score: 7.83

[KandoKris]

Ok Scoring system might be wack in this challenge so I'm entering and not caring

Cost=224 126

Mass to/from 150km Orbit is 45+ tonnes ( Highest tested )

[Norcalplanner]

Here's my entry - the Robo-tanker. All stock except for MechJeb. 1.5 OTEs (orange tank equivalents) delivered to a station in a 100 km orbit for a cost of 5,514.54. Using the formula, my score is 16,713. I don't know how to do the log math for gchristopher's alternate scoring system, but I suspect it will do pretty well.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Bothersome]

Ok Scoring system might be wack in this challenge so I'm entering and not caring

Cost=224 126

Mass to/from 150km Orbit is 45+ tonnes ( Highest tested )

I haven't added you to the score board yet because I'm a bit confused on what you want scored. How much fuel are you taking to orbit to leave there and how much are you getting in return for your craft? It looks as though you brought the storage tank back home and therefore leave nothing in space for later use.

[KandoKris]

I could have left it in space if I wanted 2 but the flight above was a testing flight for the MULLET cargo Mk 1.

I needed to know not only if it could get all 45 tn to orbit but also if it could handle landing with it as this craft will be used not only for cargo delivery but also retrieval of spent 2nd & 3rd Stage rockets.

For the score I assumed, wrongly it appears, that the challenge was getting cargo to orbit only with the last pic just to show it can also land really easily

Also its now been superseeded by Mk2 with a lift capacity of 60tn but I'll stick with the 1 above for the challenge.

Edit; It was a full untouched orange tank ( was also part of test to see if it could go up and back without using said orange tank or RCS)

Edited October 3, 2014 by KandoKris