Jump to content

Microsat Challenge

NotAgain

By NotAgain
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

 Share

Recommended Posts

NotAgain

NotAgain

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hello, everybody!

I've recently been experimenting with making smaller and smaller satellites, regularly getting masses as low as 25kg. I want to see just how low you can go!

The way this challenge works is fairly fool-proof:

You must build and launch a fully functional satellite of the lowest mass possible into Low Kerbin Orbit. Sadly, I'm not offering bonuses for sending these to other celestial bodies, as that's not exactly going to be a challenge. Remember, this is a challenge about payloads, not launchers. There are other challenges for small LVs.

 

My definition of a 'Fully functional satellite' is an uncrewed craft, capable of re-orienting itself (you can use any method you like for this, RCS or reaction wheels), with an antenna and some way to generate power (again, I don't care what it is), and at least 50 units of electric charge storage. The satellite DOES NOT need a propulsion system (though you can add one if you want).

 

The only mods I am outlawing at the moment are NanoKube, as it gives anyone using it an unfair advantage, and tweakscale, as it has become apparent that you can re-scale a probe to rediculously small sizes. If you have any other suggestions for banning, PM me, and I'll consider it.

Procedural Parts is welcome.

 

I'll need pictures of your satellite in the VAB/SPH with either the engineer's readout, or (even better) the KER readout, which accurately shows the mass of a procedural parts ship.

I'll also need a picture of it in orbit. Feel free to throw in a few pictures of ascent.

 

The scoring system works like this:

Your score is the satellite's weight in kg in orbit.

Lowest score wins.

 

I'm also adding categories, after a few requests to do so. The categories are as follows:

Stock (that's fairly self-explanatory) I'D ALSO RECCOMEND THROWING YOUR DESIGN TOWARDS @HalcyonSon'S STOCK THREAD:

Science (which requires at least one science instrument on board, and a way to transmit the data),

Propulsive (any satellite with it's own propulsion system and more than 30m/s of delta V. If you need one, here's a delta V calculator: http://strout.net/info/science/delta-v/intro.html ),

Return Capsules (probes that carry a return vehicle capable of safely landing on Kerbin from where the satellite is launched to). (THESE WILL NEED IMAGES OF THE SEPARATION, DE-ORBIT, RE-ENTRY, LANDING METHOD, (parachute, engines, airbags etc.) AND LANDING.)

Minimalist (a probe designed to just meet the basic requirements of the challenge.

 

If your design impresses me, I'll take 1 or 2kg off your score. This is at my discression.

 

LEADERBOARDS:

STOCK

1. @panzerknoef, a 105kg stock entry.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

SCIENCE

1. @eloquentJane, a 69kg satellite with a DMagic magnetometer and RPWS antenna.

2. @KEngineer, 270kg satellite with stock instruments.

3.

4.

5.

 

PROPULSIVE

1. @Sharpy, an 18kg satellite, fitted with solid fuelled engines.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

RETURN CAPSULE

1. @Sharpy, a 124kg crew rescue ship.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

MINIMALIST

1. @Sharpy, a 15kg satellite. That's pretty damn impressive.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH CATEGORY YOU'RE GOING FOR.

 

If anyone wants to make a badge, they're more than welcome, but I have no idea how.

(If people want my own submission, I'll include it.)

 

Good luck!

Edited by NotAgain
Adding people to leaderboards
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotAgain

NotAgain

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@Anbang11, It's in the paragraph below:

18 hours ago, NotAgain said:

My definition of a 'Fully functional satellite' is an uncrewed craft, capable of re-orienting itself (you can use any method you like for this, RCS or reaction wheels), with an antenna and some way to generate power (again, I don't care what it is), and at least 50 units of electric charge storage. The satellite DOES NOT need a propulsion system (though you can add one if you want).

To clarify it further: You can use any antenna (except the ones from the NanoKube mod), any method of re-orienting (turning) the satellite and any method of powering it.

Edited by NotAgain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzerknoef

panzerknoef

Posted
Posted

as interesting as I do think this challenge is, I don't quite get how you manage to even build a satellite with a mass of 25kg since even the very lightest probe core has a mass of 40kg...
Besides that I'm fairly sure that the lightest satellite, for sure in stock, will consist of only a few parts and that makes it rather easy for everyone to come up with the exact same design.
I would however love to see your design to prove me wrong, cuz I just can't get my head around how you managed to make an operable probe with a mass lower than a probe core mass.
this seems more like a challenge of who can find the best modpack than anything else...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotAgain

NotAgain

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@panzerknoef, this is my design:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B442KKEvDnJ9aWlIQ1BOc1dWbXM?usp=sharing

The satellite weighs 27 kg, and is the smallest that worked, but I'm convinced I could get that lower. As to your concerns about mods, I thought about adding a stock catagory, but I doubted there'd be much creativity. So, It's really looking at how much effort people will go to to build a really efficent satellite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
septemberWaves

septemberWaves

Posted
Posted

h36O8Rj.jpg

kR4FRev.jpg

71kg cubesat for a magnetic survey contract (the huge launch vehicle is because this is a 4x scale Kerbol system). I used the smallest Fuel Tanks Plus cube tank as the body of the probe, and clipped inside it (I drained it of fuel so that's not as cheaty as it sounds) are a MechJeb core, a tiny reaction wheel from RLA Stockalike, and the smallest stock battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HalcyonSon

HalcyonSon

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, NotAgain said:

@HalcyonSon, @panzerknoef had concerns about a lack of creativity in a stock challenge, but by all means, go ahead if you can find a way to ensure creativity.

Obviously, "functional satellite" will need to be revised lol.  Can't have somebody just pop a probe core and a basic solar panel in orbit and call it good.  This will take some thought.  Expect to see something around Wednesday next week.

I didn't realize there were so many mods with small satellite parts out there.  Very cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex_NL

Tex_NL

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, HalcyonSon said:

Obviously, "functional satellite" will need to be revised lol.  Can't have somebody just pop a probe core and a basic solar panel in orbit and call it good.  This will take some thought.  Expect to see something around Wednesday next week.

I didn't realize there were so many mods with small satellite parts out there.  Very cool.

Not just 'functionality' should be revised, TweakScale should be banned.
I have nothing against TweakScale, I love it. But it makes this challenge way too easy. It can reduce any craft to a mere fraction of the original size.

Below is the smallest fully functional (with 3 science experiments and solar panels in all directions) stock satellite possible. (OKTO2 + reaction wheels is lighter than any other probe with build-in reaction wheels) With TweakScale the 125kg can be reduced to about 10%.

screenshot43.png

Edited by Tex_NL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HalcyonSon

HalcyonSon

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Not just 'functionality' should be revised, TweakScale should be banned.
I have nothing against TweakScale, I love it. But it makes this challenge way too easy. It can reduce any craft to a mere fraction of the original size.

Below is the smallest fully functional (with 3 science experiments and solar panels in all directions) stock satellite possible. (OKTO2 + reaction wheels is lighter than any other probe with build-in reaction wheels) With TweakScale the 125kg can be reduced to about 10%.

screenshot43.png

I think the uncovered 1x6 panels would be more efficient and weigh less :wink:

But enough of that here.  I don't have pics of an entry, but I can start the thread and throw mine up when I get back next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex_NL

Tex_NL

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, HalcyonSon said:

I think the uncovered 1x6 panels would be more efficient and weigh less :wink:

An OX-4L or OX-4W (1*6 and 2*3 respectively) weighs 0.0175. An OX-STAT weighs 0.005. Making three OX-STATs still slightly lighter than a single OX-4L/4W.
Source: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Generators

Edited by Tex_NL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
septemberWaves

septemberWaves

Posted
Posted

I would agree with several of the statements posed thus far in this thread that the challenge could benefit from some more detail. There's a couple of things that I would suggest in order to attract both more participants and a greater variety of attempts:

  • Categories. Your definition of a fully functional satellite makes sense, but is limiting. I think there would be room for greater variety of entry as well as increased competitiveness if you were to include separate categories for satellites with (for example) science equipment, communications, propulsion systems, or return capsules, as well as a minimalist category for probes that meet the bare minimum of requirements. The extra categories would give more opportunities for people to compete in ways that suit them.
  • Either ban Tweakscale or restrict tweakscaled probes to a separate leaderboard. I say this because Tweakscale allows for excessive minimization, thus making things like this challenge rather trivial and removing some of the engineering challenges.

With this sort of scoring system, my entry for example would fit into the category of science probes as it has 2 DMagic science parts on it and can transmit the data back to Kerbin. This would be able to be judged against other science probes, rather than being judged against other people's more minimalistic satellites which will certainly have lower mass without the science equipment. It also means that entries like mine that are created without using Tweakscale will not have to compete against tweakscaled satellites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex_NL

Tex_NL

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Alright, this is the design with the lowest mass in stock KSP, weighs in at a rather hefty 105kg and consists of the enormous part count of 5!

in the VAB:
[PicSnip]

In orbit:

[PicSnip]

And the craft info in orbit, seems like KSP rounds its numbers upwards
[PicSnip]

 

You can go even lighter by loosing the battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex_NL

Tex_NL

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

yes but then it would fail in the objective of having more than 50 units of power

You're right. Apparently I missed that part. Yours is indeed the absolute minimum stock design able to meet the all requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spricigo

Spricigo

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Alright, this is the design with the lowest mass in stock KSP, weighs in at a rather hefty 105kg and consists of the enormous part count of 5..

 

Now one just need to make a 'personal-use' mod with the required stats in a single part with the lowest possible mass and we will also have the modded winner.

The idea of the challenge its interesting, but the actual thing looks to me like something more suited for The Spacecraft Exchange.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KEngineer

KEngineer

Posted
Posted

I think smaller and smaller satelites does not make sense and I've built 1 831 kg rocket.

Spoiler

nBKtzGH.jpg

38bvHbG.png

WsEbTfk.png                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Link to comment
Share on other sites
septemberWaves

septemberWaves

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, KEngineer said:

I think smaller and smaller satelites does not make sense

I beg to differ. Perhaps microsatellites aren't always useful in stock KSP, but they're certainly convenient if you need to launch a lot of satellites at once (like for a communications network) or if your destination takes a lot of delta-v to reach, like Moho. They're also useful in scaled-up versions of the stock system, where it becomes increasingly difficult to send higher masses to orbit. My entry for this challenge is by far the least massive functional satellite I've created, and it was designed for fulfilling a contract. The profit probably ended up being more than it would've been with a stock rocket in the stock system, because the satellite I made was just so tiny. I've been using similar ones for other contracts too, and the profits are pretty incredible because it's easy to get such a low mass to orbit even when the delta-v is inflated to 5700m/s.

And plus, since this is a challenge, the only purpose they really need is to fulfill the challenge requirements. It's certainly not the most ridiculous challenge concept floating around the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotAgain

NotAgain

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 hours ago, HalcyonSon said:

Obviously, "functional satellite" will need to be revised lol.

It has been revised:

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 8:27 PM, NotAgain said:

My definition of a 'Fully functional satellite' is an uncrewed craft, capable of re-orienting itself (you can use any method you like for this, RCS or reaction wheels), with an antenna and some way to generate power (again, I don't care what it is), and at least 50 units of electric charge storage. The satellite DOES NOT need a propulsion system (though you can add one if you want).

I've implemented the '50 units of Electric Charge' rule to ensure people can't just slap a solar panel and an antenna on a probe core and call it an entrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...