foamyesque Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Alrighty, this is pretty simple: What is the maximum deltaV you can get out of a ship with the following constraints:1. At all times (except during staging, when engines might be temporarily off) it maintains a Kerbin-surface TWR of at least 1.2. The ship is required to have a parachute, mk1 pod, and the 1.25m decoupler as its payload.3. It can fit in the vanilla VAB (<78.5m tall, <50m long/wide)4. Stock engines and tanks only.5. Any engine can be no more than one fuel line away from the tank that's feeding it. In other words, drop tanks, stage and a half, and onion stage layouts are acceptable. Asparagus spirals are not.DeltaV is here measured as the burnout velocity in a straight up launch from KSC.Screenshot the monster in VAB with dimensions and a deltaV/TWR readout (KER or MechJeb will do) visible, on liftoff, after you're in space, and at burnout. Highest orbital speed at burnout wins. FAR and stock aero entries will be separated.So, since we're supposed to attempt our own challenges....End result: 19,535.9 m/s, stock aero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smartech Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) There was a similar challenge before, but I cant find the link. I think the winners managed upwards of 33km/s.Edit: here it is http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59823-0-22-0-23-0-Delta-V-Maximization-Challenge Edited January 15, 2015 by smartech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarvinKitFox Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 "5. Any engine can be no more than one fuel line away from the tank that's feeding it. In other words, drop tanks, stage and a half, and onion stage layouts are acceptable. Asparagus spirals are not."So, built the most efficient rocket you can, but don't build the most efficient rocket you can.no thanx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 There was a similar challenge before, but I cant find the link. I think the winners managed upwards of 33km/s.Edit: here it is http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59823-0-22-0-23-0-Delta-V-Maximization-ChallengeThere's some differences; that one had a lighter payload and didn't require as large a TWR throughout, but did impose a stage count limit. S'a different beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak80MC Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'd love to try this challenge, but I don't know if my computer could handle a rocket with more than 22000 m/s dV. (is it supposed to be dv or dV or does it matter? xD) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'd love to try this challenge, but I don't know if my computer could handle a rocket with more than 22000 m/s dV. (is it supposed to be dv or dV or does it matter? xD)It's generally written with an uppercase V, but people'll probably understand what you mean if you use the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Several posts removed. If the challenge doesn't appeal to you, just skip to the next one. No need to complain about it. Also, please folks, do not reply to trolls. Just hit the report button and let us moderators deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Well, have I got a show for you. Your overall was 19,535.9 m/s? I bet you I can do better. 1 hour later.Wow. This is harder than I thought. Sure, getting the Delta-V isn't too bad, but the craft stability? I usually build my vessels to do things like gravity turns and insertions, but burning straight up, full speed ahead? It just messes me up.Here's a song that perfectly describes what I'm doing: 30 minutes later.Finally! I've got something that works, and works good! Here's the whole story:Javascript is disabled. View full albumEnd result: Way too many m/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Nice. I'd thought the TWR requirement would make chemical engines trump nukes, but apparently not. Unfortunately your payload is underweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Nice. I'd thought the TWR requirement would make chemical engines trump nukes, but apparently not. Unfortunately your payload is underweight. You saying it needs a Cheeseburger? I can do that if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 You saying it needs a Cheeseburger? I can do that if you want.I'd appreciate it, just so's I can score you correctly. You've obviously clobbered me :v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) I'd appreciate it, just so's I can score you correctly. You've obviously clobbered me :vAlrighty. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by underweight, but I was assuming that it was because the Ion engine doesn't provide sufficient thrust to weight (even though I didn't actually use it). As such, I have replaced the tanks and engine with 2 liquid tanks and tiny radial engines, as you will see here:EDIT: Nevermind. Imgur just doesn't like me right now. Besides, look above for the actual entry that worked since this one wouldn't either. Edited January 18, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 No, no, you misunderstand: I specified a payload: Pod, Mk1 capsule, 1.25m decoupler. The payload from your last attempt was under the weight of that payload, you see. Also, your 2nd imgur gallery is a broken link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) No, no, you misunderstand: I specified a payload: Pod, Mk1 capsule, 1.25m decoupler. The payload from your last attempt was under the weight of that payload, you see. Also, your 2nd imgur gallery is a broken link. OOHHH. ...oh. You now have full rights and reasons to call me a huge moron. I actually didn't see that there was a payload requirement. Looks like I'll have to do that now.7 minutes later.Got it! Here's the image after all that experimenting:EDIT: Still broken... You know what? I'll just give you the damn ship because imgur is being retarded. Anything to prove myself (Or redeem at this point.) http://www./download/1p1o2s001wi751e/Absurdly+ridiculous+spaceship.craft(insert Yakety Sax)Anyway, Delta-V. I'll just go ahead and tell you since this would take forever to do again.Taking the overall Delta-V reading from this time and last time, accounting for gravity losses and the inverse square law, as well as the decoupler boosts, and other various super boring math stuff, this puts the overall velocity at 38016.9 m/s.I hope I haven't screwed anything else up. This is embarrassing enough.By the way, have you ever considered a badge? I mean, sure, the challenge isn't too hard, but how about a limit? Say, whoever can break a certain velocity gets it? For example, say the limit was 20 Km/s, whoever could go faster got the badge. Sound interesting? Or perhaps you get a different badge for breaking certain limits, say 10 Km/s, 20, 30, 40, and so on? Of course, it should probably be more specific then x10s...I mean, if you want, I could get something together. Of course, this means looking at images now because I have no idea what to do, but I could think of something if you'd like. Edited January 18, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Hrm. You've got modded engines on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Hrm. You've got modded engines on there. Oh right I forgot about that. It's an unofficial mod to. +5 stupid points for me. Total so far: 4,294,967,295. Hmm. What can I do here... Well, I could try imgur again. EDIT: Didn't work. Okay, more options... Mediafire? http://www./view/waloji1744h3wvz/IOAirGL%5B1%5D.pngIt works! BTW, Flight engineer has my stage 3 diagram marked as TWR = .99. While this is true, it is up to 1 as soon as I burn .26 units of fuel, which takes less then a second. I hope that's okay? I mean, the effect is minuscule....Oh wait, I just realized. Something actually worked. Edited January 18, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahlzun Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Perhaps just drain a tiny amount of fuel from the stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Himynameisjake Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Do the stages that are beyond the orbital stages also require a kerbin twr of >1? any reason I couldn't put a whole bunch of ion thrust if I really hated myself on there?- - - Updated - - -Used the wrong command pod, this was harder than I thought it would be, might make another attempt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Do the stages that are beyond the orbital stages also require a kerbin twr of >1? any reason I couldn't put a whole bunch of ion thrust if I really hated myself on there?Yes, every stage requires a kerbin TWR > 1. - - - Updated - - -http://i.imgur.com/fqEB7Bz.jpgUsed the wrong command pod, this was harder than I thought it would be, might make another attempt(Don't forget to remove the monoprop from the capsules :v) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoMars Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 OP, rip off all nosecones and give it another try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now