The Eve Rocks Challenge (v0.90 only)

[Ziv]

And it's not just the height of the Atmosphere, but it is five time denser than Kerbin's atmosphere. It is literally like a dense soup. So on Kerbin you are the most fuel efficient when you don't go faster than 200 m/s until 8000 m, on Eve it's the best not to go faster than 80 m/s until 5000 m, then not going faster than 237 m/s until 20000 m, because if you go faster then you are wasting fuel on fighting the atmospheric drag. You should reach 1000 m/s only at 40km, and it's still a long way from there too, so you will need a high Eve-TWR up there too.

Oh, and Eve's gravity is 1.7 times stronger than of Kerbin's...

[EdFred]

I build my rockets for an Eve TWR of about 1.5-1.7 at the (sea level) surface, and slowly reducing to about 0.9 for the final stage - which doesn't usually happen until around 60,000m. Doing it that way, I never have to worry about terminal velocity, and am getting best efficiency.

[2001kraft]

i'll go crazy.

i didn't see "no spaceplanes allowed" anywhere in the rules,

so i'm gonna do the following:

1. launch the mainsail stage into orbit

2. launch the spaceplane and dock it IN orbit

3. burn for eve, not using fuel from space plane

4. discard the mainsail, leave only spaceplane in orbit of Eve

5. spaceplane features small-but-powerful, 3 person lander with parachutes, small rocket engines, separatrons, etc.

6. land on eve

7. walk to the shore for a few years (if i even land on land) xD

8. using terrible piloting skills, lift up from eve and dock with spaceplane cargo bay.

9. use spaceplane to get back to kerbin

10. spaceplane features parachutes

11. spaceplane lands on kerbin using parachutes, not fuel

12. mission accomplished.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's steps 5 and 8 that are the challenge here. Using a spaceplane for transfer doesn't really gain or lose you anything.

I'd love to see an Eve ascent vehicle that could fit into a Mk2 bay. Even better with 3 kerbals.

[2001kraft]

It's steps 5 and 8 that are the challenge here. Using a spaceplane for transfer doesn't really gain or lose you anything.

yeah i know, it's difficult.

most importantly is that i'll have to make an extremely long cargo bay to fit my lander in it.

severe testing beforehand should precede.

[Laie]

yeah i know, it's difficult.

most importantly is that i'll have to make an extremely long cargo bay to fit my lander in it.

severe testing beforehand should precede.

I'm looking forward to seeing a tall rocket, but am afraid that this won't ever happen: Eve launchers tend to be pancake-shaped because you need as many mountpoints for engines as possible.

[Ziv]

I don't think spaceplanes are viable on Eve. Jets don't work there and normal rockets will glow out very quickly before reaching any escape height.

But I'll give it a test try myself too.

[Vaporo]

Stock aerodynamics... ugh. Well, I did it with a probe, no reason I can't do it with a Kerbal. Though maybe you could make a FAR/NEAR aerodynamics subchallenge, as they actually make many aspects of EVE landing (not ascent, landing) quite difficult.

[Stratzenblitz75]

Stock aerodynamics... ugh. Well, I did it with a probe, no reason I can't do it with a Kerbal. Though maybe you could make a FAR/NEAR aerodynamics subchallenge

I second this notion, there should be a FAR/mods or perhaps a "mixed solutions" section for those of us who can't stand the "soupmosphere". Heck, if you think FAR makes the ascent too easy, just require KIDS with the "FAR to stock KSP, atmosphere only setting". That applies a nasty 0.38 ISP multiplier to engines in >1 Atmo and makes the ascent pretty difficult since your engines only get about 100 ISP for the first 10 Km.

Also...

they actually make many aspects of EVE landing quite difficult.

I can confirm this...

I can't count the amount of times I've crashed this thing.

[LABHOUSE]

I will start working on the level one I have made a probe and it is on its way it helped me learn a lot and know I just need to try a command chair landing then I might do the real thing.

[Gravaar]

May I slightly bend your rule about not bigger than the circle in the VAB ?

I HATE doing multiple launches and docking in space when I don't have to

Built this way should be able to do everything off of one launch

This is the kerbin launcher with the lander on top, the Eve lander is smaller

Edited October 24, 2014 by Gravaar

[technion]

Stock aerodynamics... ugh. Well, I did it with a probe, no reason I can't do it with a Kerbal. Though maybe you could make a FAR/NEAR aerodynamics subchallenge, as they actually make many aspects of EVE landing (not ascent, landing) quite difficult.

My recent completion of this won't quite qualify because I used FAR.. but man.. if anyone here is playing with DRE, I sincerely wish you the best of luck. Landing anything big enough to reorbit, without having it explode, is a very serious challenge.

[Laie]

May I slightly bend your rule about not bigger than the circle in the VAB ?

(Looks)

(Sighs)

By all means, go ahead.

[Ziv]

Little update on my Expedition: I was tweaking my EVE Escape rocket for three Kerbals and I came to a conclusion that I can do it under 200 tons. But that needed so much asparagus that the part count became too high. I want to bring a surface base, a big rover and a plane too and I don't want multiple deep-space journeys so I have to watch the part counts.

So I simplified the escape rocket and it became twice the weight, 400 tons.

This is really fun how you can't easily make it having more dV just with adding huge rockets. I love this challenge!

[Laie]

Little update on my Expedition: I was tweaking my EVE Escape rocket for three Kerbals and I came to a conclusion that I can do it under 200 tons. But that needed so much asparagus that the part count became too high.

sounds familiar.

BTW, I don't recognize the parts on your lander probes. What are they? (No problem, challenge-wise -- I'm just curious.)

[Ziv]

sounds familiar.

BTW, I don't recognize the parts on your lander probes. What are they? (No problem, challenge-wise -- I'm just curious.)

The top white box is a scientific instrument from DMagic's Orbital Science pack. It can be activated and then a nice little radar will scan the enviroment. If you have KAS installed then a Kerbal can bring it around and attach to an other ship too, this is how I would like to collect them and bring home at the end.

Under it there's an upside-down stock little parachute (0.1 tons), heavily clipped.

Then the big body part is a Ground Pylon from KAS. There's a stock solar panel and a MechJeb module attached onto it.

The circle-shaped bottom is a general stock probe core (0.1 tons).

The legs are also stock. That's all.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ziv

[gm537]

May I slightly bend your rule about not bigger than the circle in the VAB ?

I HATE doing multiple launches and docking in space when I don't have to

Built this way should be able to do everything off of one launch

Thanks for the reminder about this rule. I was definitely going to break it (cause I had missed it... pays to read). Well I guess I will need to make a compact launcher. How heavy is your lander btw? That is a heck of a rocket that is needed to lift it.

[Laie]

@gm537: Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that everything goes. I won't care about an inch or ten, but at some point I'll just refer to the circle rule and that's that.

Eve itself can hardly be done without asparagus (1); but asparagus-ad-infinitum is the easy way out -- single launch, no worries, no finesse required. As long as rocket+tank+decoupler have a TWR > 1, you can move anything to everywhere if you just repeat the same pattern often enough. I don't think there's any point in trying to prevent it from the outset, and besides, it wouldn't be fair: I made a lot of fuss about letting people play the way they like, and if theirs is the way of the Huge Asparagus Single Launch, then by all means.... The circle rule is supposed to at least put a limit to it and/or force some sort of compromise.

(1) a serial-staged Eve lifter is technically possible, but I don't think you have many design choices. And good luck devising a landing gear.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Laie

[Laie]

Stock aerodynamics... ugh. Well, I did it with a probe, no reason I can't do it with a Kerbal. Though maybe you could make a FAR/NEAR aerodynamics subchallenge,

I second this notion, there should be a FAR/mods or perhaps a "mixed solutions" section

From what I gather, doing it with FAR is an entirely different kind of challenge. I'm too clueless about FAR to host that challenge.

[Vaporo]

From what I gather, doing it with FAR is an entirely different kind of challenge. I'm too clueless about FAR to host that challenge.

Well, the challenge with FAR is that you have to build a lander that is aerodynamically stable going down as well as up. It requires way less delta-v for the ascent (I think I did it with around 9000 or so from sea level), but making a lander that doesn't try to nosedive while going down, spin out of control going up, and get torn apart when parachutes deploy is quite a challenge.

[Gravaar]

Thanks for the reminder about this rule. I was definitely going to break it (cause I had missed it... pays to read). Well I guess I will need to make a compact launcher. How heavy is your lander btw? That is a heck of a rocket that is needed to lift it.

The lander and transfer stage are about 1500 tons, the Lander by itself is about 900 tons,I Like to build BIG , Small is to annoying for me, shaving off weight to improve your delta-v

and I always build with plenty of safety margins, the lander is capable of landing on rockets only (no chutes or wings etc ) and return to orbit from sea level. At least that's the plan

*SMILE* ask Ziv my JOOL 5 challenge was about 26000 tons on the launch pad and got to 80000 meters on the first stage, second stage circularised the orbit

Edited October 29, 2014 by Gravaar

[gm537]

@gm537: Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that everything goes. I won't care about an inch or ten, but at some point I'll just refer to the circle rule and that's that.

Yep that's exactly how I understood your comment. I was saying that I had forgotten the circle thing was a rule would have inadvertently violated it; which would have stunk to enter what I believed was a fully compliant rocket only to get caught out by I rule I missed, completely my fault for sure, but frustrating all the same. So I was just glad for the reminder before it got to that.

[Norcalplanner]

Woohoo! New challenge! Starting mission planning now...

[JedTech]

This looks fun! I've been looking for a good excuse to finally attempt an Eve return. Is there any limit to the number of launches from Kerbin I can do?

I am thinking of 3-4 launches:

1 launch with the Eve Lander

1 launch with the Kerbin-Eve transfer stage.

1 launch with the Eve-Kerbin transfer stage.

1 launch with extra fuel.

I would dock these all in orbit before leaving for Eve.

[Laie]

Is there any limit to the number of launches from Kerbin I can do?

Not at all. You can make as many launches as you like, and don't need to send everything to Eve in one piece, either.