The Vomit Comet (YASPC)

[Jovus]

We've all seen the advice to new pilots, especially those using FAR - "take it slow and don't slam the plane around." But sometimes, you need to change direction in a hurry, at least if you don't want to end up as a new char-spot on K2's slopes.

I give you the Vomit Comet challenge, AKA the high-G piloting challenge.

Objective:

It's simple. Pull the highest-G maneuver possible without losing pieces of your craft (but see below). You must include a screenshot of the F3 report showing the Most Gs endured. Extra Kudos if you actually catch a screenshot at or near the time to show us what you were trying to do.

If, however, you lose parts in the midst of your attempt, do not despair! Simply bring your airframe in for a successful parachuteless landing on the KSC runway and your entry will still be valid.

Rules:

1. All craft must be planes. They needn't go to space, though you can if you like. (I suspect one strategy will involve a steep Minimus return or the like.) What exactly counts as a plane is ultimately up to my discretion. VTOLs are allowed so long as they also have horizontal landing capability. (Harrier jets are planes.) I'll probably be fairly lax - if you come up with some crazy lifting-body design, that's awesome. Just to be clear, helicopters and their ilk aren't planes.

2. All craft must carry at least one Kerbal. It's a piloting challenge, not a computing challenge.

3. There will be separate leaderboards for FAR and stock. FAR must have aerodynamic failures on, and anyone who scores on the stock leaderboard who doesn't at least try with FAR runs the risk of being gently mocked.

4. Firespitter, B9, SP+, and Karbonite are allowed for parts. Any other parts mod is subject to approval and may get added to this list. I may have forgotten something.

5. No debug menu. No mods that artificially increase structural integrity, like KJR or Quantum Struts. No parts from mods that increase structural integrity, like stronger struts from KW rocketry.

6. Informational mods of all sorts are allowed, as are any other mods that would not materially affect the challenge (like EVE).

Extra Rewards:

These extra tags are for people who go above and beyond the call of duty.

Playing with the Big Boys - do this in RSS

Out of the frying pan, into the fire - do this with Deadly Re-entry and a trajectory where that matters

I packed a sandwich - do this with TAC-LS and have your Kerbal survive

Any landing you walk away from... - Have an entertaining aerodynamic failure and land nevertheless. Must document said failure for the enjoyment of the forum.

Look ma, no wings! - the same as the above, only land without a parachute

Ace - and make that landing on the runway

Bring a friend - do this challenge with two Kerbals

Three's company - with three

Four's a crowd - with four or more. More makes you cooler.

Credible Sport - do this with a cargo plane. In order to qualify as a cargo plane, you must show us that your plane is carrying at least 20t of non-integral cargo and is capable of circumnavigating Kerbin or reaching LKO. I'm inclined to be generous with this: if you can carry 10t to Minimus, you'll qualify.

My own attempt should come soon.

Leaderboard:

Stock:

Darren9 - 29.1 Gs

FAR:

Wanderfound - 15.2 Gs

Edited September 12, 2014 by Jovus

[Wanderfound]

You may want to put an altitude ceiling on this, BTW. It's a lot easier to get away with high-G daftness in the almost-vacuum on the edge of space.

What's your view on vectored thrust? Vernors make it easier to slam things around, especially in thin air, but somebody is sure to try sticking an SRB on the nose or something if allowed. It'll be fun either way, but vectoring gives more emphasis to design over piloting.

Might also be worth sticking up a simple "control" plane for a pure piloting version.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Jovus]

Is it actually easier to get high Gs with almost no air? I was under the impression that, while it was difficult to rip your craft apart, it was also difficult to get extra force from the atmosphere, meaning you'd be relying solely on your engines for acceleration - which is likely to be less than if you build a plane capable of dropping out of orbit to 10k and then doing a hard bank without falling apart.

As for a control craft, I thought part of the fun'd be the engineering bit. I'm looking forward to the various different solutions.

[Wanderfound]

Yup.

Able to create G forces: easier when lower. Able to survive them: easier when higher.

I suspect that thrust-enhanced high altitude G's might be able to beat aerodynamically-generated lower altitude G. Still, should be interesting to find out. Challenge on!

[Wanderfound]

Ooh, also: howzabout a speed related bonus prize? 10G at 100m/s is a bit different from 10G at Mach 5...

[Kasuha]

I don't think the actual Vomit Comet would score high in this challenge. Its aim is doing quite the opposite to the objectives.

[Wanderfound]

I don't think the actual Vomit Comet would score high in this challenge. Its aim is doing quite the opposite to the objectives.

I used to work with some guys who ran experiments on the comet (neuroscience, looking at the effects of microgravity on the vestibular system and ocular reflexes).

Apparently it's an absolute nightmare work situation, and not just because of the nausea factor; it costs a fortune, there's a long waiting list, and when you do finally get on you have to get your experiment running exactly on time and be prepared to hit the floor when necessary. Ain't no time for double-checking or "whoops, one last thing..." once the parabola starts.

[Jovus]

True, but it sounds better than "The Ames 20-G centrifuge that I can't find the nickname for Challenge."

[Wanderfound]

I had a good one nearly done (dive from 80km, 12G pull-out), but then did something stupid on the landing approach and trashed it. It isn't wing breakage that's doing me in most of the time, it's shattering the entire airframe when I hit the lower atmosphere at Mach 4.

I should have a proper entry for you tonight, but in the meantime...

The Kerbodyne Evangelist TJ.

Love those RPM cameras.

They do have some issues, though.

Let's try sideways.

Going okay.

Oops.

Try again.

Nope.

Maybe a dive would be better.

Hmmn.

Once more.

Drat.

Again?

Going okay.

Sod.

Try, try again.

And again.

Ouch.

Kerbodyne: built to last.

[Wanderfound]

BTW, a possible rules addendum: make sure that the F3 screenshot is stationary on the landing strip after getting back down. Quickloading wipes the F3 report, so a screenshot after touchdown proves that there wasn't any quickload between the G's and the landing.

It's too easy to just pull a suicide manoeuvre and screenshot immediately before airframe failure otherwise.

[Kasuha]

True, but it sounds better than "The Ames 20-G centrifuge that I can't find the nickname for Challenge."

To me it is like if I have found a block of soap in a box labeled "butter". I actually did some experiments on zero-g flying previously and here I thought hey, maybe it's time to pull this design out again? ... (reading the rules) ... Oh right, someone has no clue what Vomit Comet is.

I can understand that finding a good name might be the greatest challenge sometimes but in such case, calling it after the objective might be probably the best thing to do. Of course there's no problem with getting creative about the name as long as it is not misleading.

What about "Maximum stress challenge"?

[Wanderfound]

Tonight's project took a little longer than expected, and I've gotta crash out now, but stay tuned for an update tomorrow.

Got something special in the works. Y'all should enjoy it.

[Voculus]

To me it is like if I have found a block of soap in a box labeled "butter". I actually did some experiments on zero-g flying previously and here I thought hey, maybe it's time to pull this design out again? ... (reading the rules) ... Oh right, someone has no clue what Vomit Comet is.

I can understand that finding a good name might be the greatest challenge sometimes but in such case, calling it after the objective might be probably the best thing to do. Of course there's no problem with getting creative about the name as long as it is not misleading.

What about "Maximum stress challenge"?

Don't you have anything better to do?

[Jovus]

I'm actually myself having serious problems with this; even with all the struts my plane wants to lose all its bits. Don't think I've given up! I just don't have anything interesting to post yet.

[Wanderfound]

Last night's project...

Meet the Kerbodyne ThunderLOL:

Away we go.

This looks like a good starting altitude.

Only 9G, but...wheee!

Dangit, retro-thrust G's aren't registering for some reason.

Quite tricky getting it back under control, too.

Dropping quite fast.

Oh, sod it, time to bail out.

Just deploy the EVA parachute...

Oh, hang on, I removed that mod the last time I cleaned up my Gamedata folder, didn't I?

Oops.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Darren9]

^ I'm wondering how you can launch from the surface (where it's 1g) and not have at least 1g in a flight result, have you got something that resets it? I got up to 31g in stock, and reverse thrust (from a FireSpitter reversing propeller) was registering. Maybe time to load up FAR again.

[Wanderfound]

^ I'm wondering how you can launch from the surface (where it's 1g) and not have at least 1g in a flight result, have you got something that resets it? I got up to 31g in stock, and reverse thrust (from a FireSpitter reversing propeller) was registering. Maybe time to load up FAR again.

A plane can take off with a lot less than 1G thrust, and it looks like the game discounts static gravity effects.

Getting it to clock 12G+ from aerobatics ain't too hard, though.

[Darren9]

A plane can take off with a lot less than 1G thrust, and it looks like the game discounts static gravity effects.

Getting it to clock 12G+ from aerobatics ain't too hard, though.

It's just that my game doesn't seem to discount static gravity, if I launch just a pod with landing legs that can't move and take a flight result it's 1g. I don't think I recall seeing a flight result that left the surface and didn't at least experience surface gravity which is probably why I found that one strange. A mod affecting it?

[Wanderfound]

It's just that my game doesn't seem to discount static gravity, if I launch just a pod with landing legs that can't move and take a flight result it's 1g. I don't think I recall seeing a flight result that left the surface and didn't at least experience surface gravity which is probably why I found that one strange. A mod affecting it?

FAR and Deadly Reentry were both in play.

I'd also loaded from quicksave shortly before lighting the rockets, which zeroes out everything on the F3 screen. Still should've got something from the nose rockets, though; I deliberately threw it into a spin while they were lit, and you can see the effect of them on the navball G meter.

[Darren9]

^ The navball g meter seems somehow disconnected from the F3 one, I've slammed it up to the top at 15 and it should kept going and then in the flight result had a pitiful 9 or 10. I've never flown around with the stock accelerometer open, maybe that one will be different again I can screenshot that with a few more.

Edit, you get twice as much or more in the accelerometer than the final F3, it's just a bit harder to catch it at it's peak.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited September 11, 2014 by Darren9

[Jovus]

Wow. That's quite the impressive G-load, either way.

The seismic accelerometer part and the gravioli detector don't discount Kerbin's gravity, but (or at least I should like to think) the navball and the F3 report do.

[tetryds]

Here is E36:

http://i.imgur.com/r5dZG41.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ca0wlki2vu48oew/E36%20rev1.craft

It was not even made for this challenge, haha.

It can pull a lot more, but I don't have access to my joystick right now.

I remember pulling up to 26 or smth, will do that as soon as I can, then update it.

Btw, navball doesn't discount Kerbin's gravity, but what is the point in discounting it?

Because that 1g is on your wings anyway.

Edited September 11, 2014 by tetryds

[Wanderfound]

Here is E36:

http://i.imgur.com/r5dZG41.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ca0wlki2vu48oew/E36%20rev1.craft

It was not even made for this challenge, haha.

It can pull a lot more, but I don't have access to my joystick right now.

I remember pulling up to 26 or smth, will do that as soon as I can, then update it.

Btw, navball doesn't discount Kerbin's gravity, but what is the point in discounting it?

Because that 1g is on your wings anyway.

F3 shot after landing if you can, though. We've established that gravioli/seismic readouts are a lot higher than the F3 figure, and the scoreboard needs a consistent measure.

[tetryds]

F3 shot after landing if you can, though. We've established that gravioli/seismic readouts are a lot higher than the F3 figure, and the scoreboard needs a consistent measure.

Ok, will update the post very soon.

*the F3 readings were actually higher, weird.

Edit: here it is

Just saw that breaking stuff can gain points, I didn't document it but here are the results:

How long is this challenge going to last? I need mah joystix.

Edit: btw, you can add a section to NEAR too, if you want.

Edited September 11, 2014 by tetryds

[Wanderfound]

Cool.

I'm gonna hafta step it up; looks like low-altitude subsonic aerobatics are the way to go.

It's not my challenge, but I intend to keep pushing this until I get bored with it. Given how much I enjoy doing stupid and suicidal things with planes, that's unlikely to be any time soon.

Any chance I can tempt you into having a go at one or more of the things linked in my .sig? You'd probably get a kick out of Speed Challenge II...