Jump to content

Low Fuel to Mun or "The Ultimate Nerd Challenge"

Recommended Posts

Low Fuel to Mun



Kerbal 1: "Oh, everyone can get to the Mun. It's easy!" -Takes a swig of beer-

Kerbal 2: "Oh yeah? I'm still a better pilot that you! You give me how much fuel it took you, I'll do it in half, by the Kraken."

Kerbal 1" "Go ahead, the figures are back in my quarters. But if you fail you give me that orange suit."


The general principle of this challenge is simple: Get to the mun and back using as little fuel as possible. This will hopefully push engineering and piloting toward new levels for everyone. Optimize every one of those stages, the accent profile, Mun landing burn Mun takeoff.

General rules:

Provide screenshot on launchpad, on the surface of Mun and back on Kerbin showing fuel levels.

Your score is ( units Fuel used + units Oxidizer used + units Monoprop used + units Solid fuel used);  Lowest score best.
Provide .craft file

No modded parts/aerodynamics; Visual mods are ok
No debug shenanigans, Kraken drives or other circumventing basic physics
No getting out and pushing; No xenon
No autopilots; for readout mods see below

No mining or resource processing


Normal mode:

Crew: 1 kerbal to surface
Readout mods allowed

Hard mode:

3 kerbals to surface
Readout allowed

Upstart Mode:

Take someone else's craft and beat their record with it. No modifying allowed

Ultimate Nerd Mode:

2 kerbals to surface
NO readouts

Must show all calculations showing theoretical lowest fuel consumption for the craft and calculate how bad your piloting is.



If I missed anything, feel free to ask questions, this being my first challenge. I figured since we all can get to the Mun I wouldn't need to provide something proving this is possible.

Edited by CastleKSide
Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal Mode:

At launch: 253 Oxidizer, 279 Liquid Fuel.



Landed at Mun:



At landing on Kerbin: 4.06 Oxidizer, 3.32 Liquid Fuel



Total Fuel used: 248.94 Oxidizer, 275.68 Liquid Fuel, Total Used: 524.62. It is possible to get that well under 500 with a pilot that cares. No autopilot was used, but given that it's stupid keyboard input, that's more an act of masochism than an achievement to be proud of. 

Craft File

Edited by gchristopher
Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? That's not abuse. It's shielded on reentry by the rest of the craft. No exploits at all and only stock parts.

"Smallest" or "minimum" challenges tend to have the problem of fewer entries because once someone hits on the minimal part combination, there isn't room for improvement, and KSP generally has one best answer to questions like that. I doubt that what I did is minimal, though, especially the ascent stage. 


Edited by gchristopher
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats @gchristopher you have successfully completed the challenge on normal mode. I'll put you on the leaderboard once I have access to a computer again (currently moving)


I realized when I made this we were going to end up with alot of lawn chairs landing on the Mun, but figured if we were trying to find the theoretical lower limit for KSP moonshots, ruling out the obivously best method just because its the best was counter productive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Castlekside, sorry for the newby question but what do you mean by theoretical lowest fuel calculations. I assume the mission has the same delta v requirements for everyone given the most optimal trajectories however the fuel consumption varies based on weight? How do you calculate this? 

Thanks in advance.

Edited by Crispynaut
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Crispynaut said:

theoretical lowest fuel calculations


46 minutes ago, Crispynaut said:

How do you calculate this? 


You can calculate the ∆v of your rocket with this formula, or you can use a readout mod (easier)

Then you can subtract the ∆v requirement (5140 m/s2), take your final stage, and find with amount of fuel do you need to get the amount of ∆v you have calculate. Subtract the fuel from the total and here you go


I hope you can understand, my english is not the best

Link to post
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.

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.

  • Create New...