KD Anti-Manley Suborbital Hop

[ihtoit]

OK, I've seen the Manley video where he lays down the challenge for a stock-only suborbital jump for the shortest mission duration (3 minutes 30 to 70km* and back for a safe landing), my challenge is slightly different:

Shortest mission duration between launch to 70km and landing, just like Manley's challenge, but using ANY PART.

THE RULES:

Attempt is ONLY valid on proof of altitude>70km.

Any part or propulsion mod goes, even OP rockets.

No infinite fuel, unbreakable joints or part welding.

Vehicle MUST carry a Kerbal within a capsule, from launch to landing.

Kerbal MUST survive.

Mission time is the MET clock display when the vehicle comes to a complete stop (will be visible at F3).

Here is your kicker: YOU MUST USE THE STOCK AERODYNAMIC MODEL!

LEADERBOARD:

1.

2:27

2.

3.

4.

5.

EDIT: it's great when the person to whom you directly refer in the challenge title is the FP responder to the challenge! Hello, Scott!

Edited September 8, 2014 by ihtoit

[illectro]

So ummm what's to stop me creating a mid with a monoprop engine that has ISP of 1000000?

[ihtoit]

absolutely nothing, as long as it burns fuel, the trick is bringing it to a safe stop - or did you miss that bit?

[Eddie Rod]

OK, I've seen the Manley video where he lays down the challenge for a stock-only suborbital jump for the shortest mission duration (3 minutes 30 to 70km* and back for a safe landing), my challenge is slightly different:

Shortest mission duration between launch to 70km and landing, just like Manley's challenge, but using ANY PART.

THE RULES:

Attempt is ONLY valid on proof of altitude>70km.

Any part or propulsion mod goes, even OP rockets.

No infinite fuel, unbreakable joints or part welding.

Vehicle MUST carry a Kerbal within a capsule, from launch to landing.

Kerbal MUST survive.

Mission time is the MET clock display when the vehicle comes to a complete stop (will be visible at F3).

Here is your kicker: YOU MUST USE THE STOCK AERODYNAMIC MODEL!

LEADERBOARD:

1.

2:27

2.

3.

4.

5.

EDIT: it's great when the person to whom you directly refer in the challenge title is the FP responder to the challenge! Hello, Scott!

I would fix that leaderboard! So far Another guy is in first with 1:58 seconds and then comes me at 2 min 11 seconds then comes Scott!!

[ihtoit]

linkies please, I only posted Scott's entry because I'm following his attempts from his original challenge on the 'Tube, I might point out also that he's using stock parts, which might be a disadvantage to him but I did just post a poser to him regarding using a prograde ballistic track to do the up and over without slowing down.

[illectro]

I'm just saying that allowing mods essentially lets me add a part that consumes practically no fuel, so it's pointless to allow mods unless you just want to see how heavily you can break the game engine.

[Ummaaron]

Hello there! here is my attempt. No mods, Stock parts only. just over 2 mins. Here's the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GzhVeuNGxk

[Nudles]

The link for the 1:58 time mentioned above.

[Yakky]

I did the stock Scott Manley challenge in 1:42, but only with a probe core. (I didn't see in his video that the rules required an actual Kerbal to be aboard, although it's possible I missed something.) Pics here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29533-What-did-you-do-in-KSP-today?p=1400758&viewfull=1#post1400758

BTW if you are trying this challenge and at any time during your flight you are coasting, you might consider trying a flight plan that has no coast stage. In my run, I accelerate until I stage at 37km, at which point I immediately start decelerating at 15+ G's (not sure of exact G-load because I didn't have Kerbal Engineer on). My forward momentum carries me all the way up to 70km despite applying maximum reverse thrust. In general the optimal strategy will be to always be applying power one way or the other.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Yakky

[Tsevion]

Here's another pure stock entry... I bring a full capsule for a time of 2:02:

[Superfluous J]

absolutely nothing, as long as it burns fuel, the trick is bringing it to a safe stop - or did you miss that bit?

That's why all my cheaty modded parts have 10,000 m/s crash tolerance.

[Eddie Rod]

linkies please, I only posted Scott's entry because I'm following his attempts from his original challenge on the 'Tube, I might point out also that he's using stock parts, which might be a disadvantage to him but I did just post a poser to him regarding using a prograde ballistic track to do the up and over without slowing down.

Oh I guess I didn't put it big enough in my description! It's the most recent video I've uploaded but here you go anyways:

[BagelRabbit]

Do we get points for low mass or low fuel consumption? I only completed the challenge in about 3:25, but I did it on a single LV-T45 engine, which I think should count for something. 100% stock, no debug menu, no editing parts.

(This thrust is approximately a hundred times less than the current high scorers', and much less than any of Scott Manley's attempts.)

I'll post the video, if anyone wants to see it. It utilizes some clever strategies that would probably further improve the winning times.

[BagelRabbit]

Video is here for my mission, despite nobody asking for it. Infinigliders make the thing accelerate tremendously when it's really supposed to be slowing down, both on the way up and on the way down. Unfortunately, the thing shreds at a "scant" 2500 m/s in the lower atmosphere, but fortunately, everyone seems to love explosions. So it's all right.

This is probably the most novel and low-thrust way that this challenge has been accomplished, despite it being rather slow. At the very least, I want an honorable mention

[Archgeek]

Stock-only with a probe and none of that cheaty FAR-nosecones-actually-work tomfoolery, just raw violence. (alarm clock, engineer, and hot rockets aren't actually doing anything)

I'll have to improve it a bit to beat the current best. Was it actually made clear if we have to include a kerbal? It's not mentioned in Manley's original video.

[Seohn]

I like that. Maybe a little tweaking and it could go a lot faster back down perhaps.

[Seohn]

It took a while but I was able to get one down to 1:46 using all stock parts and timing things just right. Lets just say I was slow to open my chute quite a lot. A bunch of explosions though.

http://youtu.be/mMiquq1oA8w

[Zipmafia]

Well here is my entry, I don't think I can go any faster without blowing up my computer. 1:50.

http://imgur.com/a/7E4kg

[Kulebron]

It took a while but I was able to get one down to 1:46 using all stock parts and timing things just right. Lets just say I was slow to open my chute quite a lot. A bunch of explosions though.

http://youtu.be/mMiquq1oA8w

I was shocked how parachutes worked. Just "click".

[Kulebron]

My entry. 2:02, and ran out of patience. My ultrabook runs this at 1/4 speed.

http://imgur.com/a/XbgYR#0

Several images are from another run, they're tagged [test run].

[edit] There's a last-but-one stage, poorly visible there, with 2 big RCS fuel tanks and 72 O-10 engines. It accelerated the ship downwards up to 4Km/s.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Kulebron