Mün challenge - lightest vessel - combined and rocket powered classifications

[RussaX]

Simple and short challenge for competition.

Challenge:

Create rocket which can carry 1 kerbal, fly in Mün's orbit and detach lander from orbit module and land with kerbal, go eva and set flag on surface. launch lander module with seperating landing gear and dock again with orbital module and return to Kerbin.

Rules:

orbital module has to contain mk1 pod

lander has to contain mk1 lander can

Lander need to have landing gear (legs) and has to land on them.

On Mün takeoff make seperation and leave landing legs (leaving fuel tanks or other things are your choice).

use mechjeb or ship info to measure vessel mass before flight

unlimited fuel is not allowed

Mk1 pod and kerbal has to survive Kerbin return landing

You are allowed to use any custom parts from kerbal port

Make some pics or video, present us your flight a little bit

Scoring:

Scoring is based on vessel mass. Try to make it as light as possible.

1 t = 100 mass points. Doing special things you can earn mission points. (mass points - mission points = overall score) After you take mission points from mass points this will be your overall scoring, as lower it is you are better.

Use only stock parts and gain 150 mission points.

Do not use any guidance or autopilot and gain 100 mission points.

Do not use SAS and gain 80 mission points. ( this one is not counting if you are using autopilot)

Land in range of 1km to the easter egg on Mün and gain 50 mission points. (not counting if using autopilot)

On return back land on launch ramp and gain 60 mission points. (not counting if using autopilot)

Use rcs for docking and gain 40 points.

All challengers will be final rated so make nice looking moduls and good aerodinamicly looking rocket and gain up to 80 points

Classification:

In this challenge exist 2 type of classifications in design, main one from where did this challenge started is combined classification and later added rocket powered classification.

Combined classification contain using all kinds of engines and propellants including the jet, electric ion or rcs.

Rocket powered classification contain using only rocket engines which are using liquid fuel and oxidizer. Jet engines and boosters are not allowed. All non stock mod engines will be reviewed.

Challenge edit log:

11/11/2014 - added classifications on challenge

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mün returners scoring list

-Classification: Combined

Honorable mention to the Pecan for design invention that is proven to be the best one.

1. kookoo_gr

4,192 t

419 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

40 mission points for using RCS

50 mission points for landing in range of 1km to the easter egg

70 mission points for rocket design

=410 mission points

overall score = 9

2. Bill Zarr

4.371 t

437 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

40 mission points for using RCS

50 mission points for landing in range of 1km to the easter egg

70 mission points for rocket design

=410 mission points

overall score = 27

3. Pecan

4.673 t

467 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

40 mission points for using RCS

60 mission points for rocket design

=350 mission points

overall score = 117

_____

4. 5thHorseman , 752 mass points , 150+100+50+50= 350 mission points , overall score = 402

______________________________________

-Classification: Rocket powered

1. a10t2

23.049 t

2305 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

40 mission points for using RCS

60 mission points for rocket design

= 350 mission points

overall score = 1955

2. antbin

24.97t t

22497 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

40 mission points for using RCS

50 mission points for landing in range of 1km to the easter egg

60 60 mission points for landing on the launch ramp

45 mission points for rocket design

= 445 mission points

overall score = 2052

3. purpleivan

26.009 t

2600 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

40 mission points for using RCS

50 mission points for landing in range of 1km to the Easter egg

55 mission points for rocket design

= 445 mission points

overall score = 2205

______

4. Jasonden , 2690 mass points , 150+100+40+60+50= 400 mission points , overall score = 2290

______________________________________

If you have any suggestion for a change tell me.

Edited November 24, 2014 by RussaX

[Pecan]

So the heavier my ship and the less I do with it the more points I get?

[The_Rocketeer]

This started out as a serious attempt at the challenge, and all went really well until I arrived at the Mun. Then the Orbiter made fatal interface with another (ahem) satellite, and Bill was left in the Lander to work out how to get home. At this point, having given up, I stopped taking screenshots. Then reentry happened, and... well, I'll let you see for yourselves.

So, can I get an honourable mention at least??

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 6, 2014 by The_Rocketeer

[Xannari Ferrows]

Sounds easy enough. Before I post my entry, though, I would like to suggest a new way to score people (Amazing word choice).

Instead of MaP - MiP = Score, how about 1/MaP X ((Leftover resources/number of resources)XMip)? Or for short, 1/MaP+((Rl/Rn)xMip)

The reason I say this is because your current formula suggests that you get more points per ton your rocket weighs, and mission points take from that instead of providing, which contrasts with your apparent request. My formula fixes this problem by putting 1 over their mass points, which punishes the bigger rockets. It also grades based on the amount of resources you bring back to the number of resources you have, then multiplying by the mission points. All in all, I personally think it's pretty solid.

Anyway, now for the entry. Enjoy!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Anyway, now for the grading.

1/142.6 X (((182 + 223 + 156) / 3) X 310)

Overall score = 406.5 (Rounded, of course)

Edited November 6, 2014 by Xannari Ferrows

[Superfluous J]

So the heavier my ship and the less I do with it the more points I get?

Seems that is true. I assume this is like golf scoring and the lower your score the better.

use mechjeb to measure vessel mass before flight

Safe to assume I can use KER or even the ship info in map mode for vessel mass before flight? I'm not installing MechJeb just for this challenge

Land in range of 1km to the easter egg on Mün and gain 50 mission points.

There are several easter eggs (anomalies) on Mun. I can pinpoint 2 of them on a map and a third is close to one of the two I can pinpoint. Is there a specific one you're looking for or can I pick?

Use rcs for docking (only) and gain 40 points

No bonus points for not using RCS at all?

I think I may give this one a try on a totally stock install. Probably not bother nailing the landing on the pad because that's just endless trial and error but maybe I'll try it Other than that I think I can do everything stock, maybe with KER just to make sure I've got the dV right, then uninstall it for the flight.

[RussaX]

So the heavier my ship and the less I do with it the more points I get?

read again. as heavier your ship is you will have more mass points, as much things you do you earn mission points. take mission points from mass points and this is your overall score, as less it is you are better.

[Tex_NL]

...

There are several easter eggs (anomalies) on Mun. I can pinpoint 2 of them on a map and a third is close to one of the two I can pinpoint. Is there a specific one you're looking for or can I pick?

...

Since this challenge asks for an Apollo style landing the memorial would be ideal.

[RussaX]

Seems that is true. I assume this is like golf scoring and the lower your score the better.

Safe to assume I can use KER or even the ship info in map mode for vessel mass before flight? I'm not installing MechJeb just for this challenge

There are several easter eggs (anomalies) on Mun. I can pinpoint 2 of them on a map and a third is close to one of the two I can pinpoint. Is there a specific one you're looking for or can I pick?

No bonus points for not using RCS at all?

I think I may give this one a try on a totally stock install. Probably not bother nailing the landing on the pad because that's just endless trial and error but maybe I'll try it Other than that I think I can do everything stock, maybe with KER just to make sure I've got the dV right, then uninstall it for the flight.

1. yes as lower your overall score is you are better. I fixed scoring to make it more clear.

2. you can usemechjeb or vessel info anything that is correct and in tonage.

3. You won't land 3 times, you are landing once, choose any.

4. no bonus for not using rcs because it is not very complicated to dock without it and here is point to make vessel as light as possible so you can decide will you use rcs or not.

[Superfluous J]

1. yes as lower your overall score is you are better. I fixed scoring to make it more clear.

2. you can usemechjeb or vessel info anything that is correct and in tonage.

3. You won't land 3 times, you are landing once, choose any.

4. no bonus for not using rcs because it is not very complicated to dock without it and here is point to make vessel as light as possible so you can decide will you use rcs or not.

All fair. As Tex said it's in the theme to land at the memorial. I made a quick test ship that I believe hits all the criteria however may not exactly be what you were expecting. I think it's in the 20s in tonnage on the launchpad and in a quick test the only things that survived the landing were the Mk1 pod and the Kerbal. And a docking port but who's counting?

I'm hoping to record video of it today and post it tomorrow (as it takes some editing)

[RussaX]

This started out as a serious attempt at the challenge, and all went really well until I arrived at the Mun. Then the Orbiter made fatal interface with another (ahem) satellite, and Bill was left in the Lander to work out how to get home. At this point, having given up, I stopped taking screenshots. Then reentry happened, and... well, I'll let you see for yourselves.

So, can I get an honourable mention at least??

http://imgur.com/a/wwV2g

Your rocket design looks amazing. Great work, try to dock with mk1 and comeback.

[RussaX]

empty post message

Edited November 6, 2014 by RussaX

[Roflcopterkklol]

Can we simplify the process and have the lander fly straight back to kerbin? because i already have a rocket for that or nah.

cost 87,000 per mun mission.

[RussaX]

Sounds easy enough. Before I post my entry, though, I would like to suggest a new way to score people (Amazing word choice).

Instead of MaP - MiP = Score, how about 1/MaP X ((Leftover resources/number of resources)XMip)? Or for short, 1/MaP+((Rl/Rn)xMip)

The reason I say this is because your current formula suggests that you get more points per ton your rocket weighs, and mission points take from that instead of providing, which contrasts with your apparent request. My formula fixes this problem by putting 1 over their mass points, which punishes the bigger rockets. It also grades based on the amount of resources you bring back to the number of resources you have, then multiplying by the mission points. All in all, I personally think it's pretty solid.

Anyway, now for the entry. Enjoy!

http://imgur.com/a/foUez

Anyway, now for the grading.

1/142.6 X (((182 + 223 + 156) / 3) X 310)

Overall score = 406.5 (Rounded, of course)

129,380 mass

12.938 mass points

150 using stock parts

60 landed on launch pad

40 used rcs

30 design rating

overall score = 12658 points

You should have dropped legs from your lander as it is said in rules to drop legs or even fuel tanks.

[RussaX]

Can we simplify the process and have the lander fly straight back to kerbin? because i already have a rocket for that or nah.

cost 87,000 per mun mission.

no, challenge is to dock with command module and come back and land with mk1 pod.

[The_Rocketeer]

Does it have to be a single Kerb on the mission? I actually have a full Apollo-style rig parked in a corner of the VAB collecting dust, but it's 'harder' than the challenge (puts 2 Kerbs on the surface, leaves one in the CM). It also works in the same way as my first attempt was intended to...

[RussaX]

Does it have to be a single Kerb on the mission? I actually have a full Apollo-style rig parked in a corner of the VAB collecting dust, but it's 'harder' than the challenge (puts 2 Kerbs on the surface, leaves one in the CM). It also works in the same way as my first attempt was intended to...

I was thinking about sending 2 or 3 kerbals but then I would need very big pod and challenge is about to make it as light and as small as possible so there would be 1 big pod and then everything very small around. For now challenge is like that but if you have good idea you can do it, just tell me how do you plan to transport kerbals? if idea is good enough I will put as choice for extra scoring

[The_Rocketeer]

Honestly, this particular rocket was just an effort to build a Saturn V look-a-like, which I did a little before we got the NASA pack. It's hardly what I would call efficient, but it is very pretty and works just like Apollo. Used the Mk1-2 Command Pod and the Mk2 Lander-can, so breaks the rules there.

I think your challenge makes sense as it is. Small rocket, single passenger... you can launch a Mk 1 Lander-Can to Mun orbit with a single Toroidal tank (which is how I did it) so there's not really an efficiency argument to make. The only slight objection I have is that this build requires the LM to target and dock with the CM (which is really inefficient), unless you add a probe core to your CM design. Of course, Apollo left someone up there...

[Xannari Ferrows]

129,380 mass

12.938 mass points

150 using stock parts

60 landed on launch pad

40 used rcs

30 design rating

overall score = 12658 points

You should have dropped legs from your lander as it is said in rules to drop legs or even fuel tanks.

Alright, I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by dropping the legs. I assume you meant Jettison them? If that's the case, I'm willing to take any losses it may bring.

[Pecan]

LightMun - as the description says, the launch vehicle is much more than it should be. It also doesn't have any landing legs, so doesn't leave them behind.

[RussaX]

LightMun - as the description says, the launch vehicle is much more than it should be. It also doesn't have any landing legs, so doesn't leave them behind.

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

Nice strategy, try and leave your flag. Edited rules, so now it is clear that lander must have landing gear (legs).

[Superfluous J]

I got my attempt recorded. One thing, though: I built the ship to leave the landing legs on Mun but forgot to do so until I was in orbit. I'll redo the mission if need be but not record it. I'll just take a pic of the Mun launch where I ditch the legs. Is that cool? Otherwise I completed all the parts of the mission except no SAS (that's for crazy people) and I didn't bother landing back at KSC (I didn't want to quicksave and quickload 50 times, iterating slowly where I aimed my return)

[Pecan]

Just for the exercise, here's LightMun B landing in all the wrong places.

So - 40t = 4,000 points?

Stock parts = -150

Used MJ so nothing

No SAS parts but doesn't count since I use MJ

Nowhere near Armstrong memorial so nothing there either

Missed pad too so still no more points

RCS docking = -40 (although I don't get that, is it because the monopropellant masses more?)

4,000 - 150 - 40 = 3,810 points score.

Incidentally - the landing legs are carried on top of the lander, which still lands on the engine. That's so only a single decoupler is needed without them getting in the way of the engine.

[Superfluous J]

although I don't get that, is it because the monopropellant masses more?

Yeah I misread that as "don't use monoprop anywhere but for docking for 40 points."

When I redo this I'll bring a single RCS jet and 0.01 units of monoprop and fire a jet off during docking to qualify for those 40 points.

[Pecan]

Hmmm, although that Skipper launch vehicle is lighter and simpler than my previous illustration the CM/LM together (which are the same as in that pic) are only 5t, I really ought to use a JATO launch vehicle. 10t anyone?

Nahhhh, 10t is just not trying ...

Launching with Mk1 Fuselage, turbojet and 8x octagonal struts and ram-intakes (who doesn't love the smell of spam in the morning?) brings the total VAB mass down to 7.64t and gets the thing into a 75km orbit with an insignificant 35m/s circularisation burn from the CM rocket. Everything else (CM/LM) is the same.

764 - 190 = 574 points.

(If I could be bothered to land in the right places that'd come down to 464 and there's a few hundred m/s excess in the CM and at least 40-units of fuel spare in that initial jet stage that could be tweaked out, if anyone wants to nick this design and try to do better).

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pecan

[Superfluous J]

Okay I retooled my ship, and decided to not do the monoprop trick because it's dumb. I also decided to not use monoprop at all because I still believe that using monoprop to dock makes it easier, and you should be rewarded for leaving it at home. I also figured out a way to only have 2 engines, the jet engine to get it mostly into orbit and then a single rocket engine to get into orbit, transfer, land, and return while still keeping in the challenge.

My ship was 7.516 tons on the pad (Take THAT Pecan ) so that's 752 points rounding up.

Stock parts only, -150

No autopilot, -100

I used SAS. I'm not crazy.

I landed about 200 meters away from the Armstrong monument. -50

No way am I going to reload from a quicksave 100 times to hit the launch pad.

I didn't use RCS at all so no points here.

No clue on aesthetics but I think my ship looks pretty cool

So that's 752-150-100-50=552.

Here's the Imgur album with far too many pictures...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 7, 2014 by 5thHorseman