Kerbin Circumnavigation 1.0.2 - Aviator Challenge

[Fengist]

Kerbin Circumnavigation 1.02

With all of the atmospheric changes in 1.0, the influx of new Kerbals looking for their first aviation challenge and since I'm already hosting the ground based circumnavigation challenge I thought perhaps it was time to revive and revise the aviation circumnavigation challenge. Good luck and godspeed.

Temperature Gauge Bug - For those of you attempting this, there is an unconfirmed bug in 1.02 whereby temperature gauges cause a memory leak. Several people have reported it and the workaround appears to be, turn the gauges off by hitting F10. If your game is crashing while attempting a circumnavigation, try turning the gauges off and see if that alleviates the problem.

The Challenge - Circumnavigate Kerbin non-stop with an aircraft.

The Rules -

• Stock parts only.
  
• Mods that do not change game physics (Jeb, KEnginner, Kerbal Alamr Clock) are allowed.
  
• Air breathing engines only. (Jets, TurboJets and R.A.P.I.E.R)
  
• If using R.A.P.I.E.R engines, a screenshot at takeoff showing 0 oxidizer will be required. No switching modes on R.A.P.I.E.Rs
  
• No cheating. (gravity hacks, infiglide, etc.)
  
• All debug settings that modify the game should be at default. You may turn on settings that provide information only.
  
• You must not exceed 30km. 30,001 meters and you're disqualified.
  
• You must take off from the KSC runway. (VTOL's and STOL's are acceptable.)
  
• You must land back at KSC (runway landing not required but you must be close).
  
• You must show at least one clear screenshot of your aircraft. (Phoenix screenshots do not qualify.)
  
• You must show an F3 screenshot at the end of your flight.
  
• You may not lose any parts (i.e. you burn a part off, you're disqualified).
  
• No drop tanks.
  
• Your aircraft must be Kerballed.
  
• You must list your flight time and the number of complete circumnavigations in the body of your post.
  
• You must either follow the equator (heading of 90 or 270 degrees) or you may do a polar circumnavigation.
  
• Any other rule I haven't thought of that breaks the spirit of this challenge.
  

Rule Changes

1. Due to the fact that F3 screenshots are no longer showing accurate distances, you must have at least one map-view screenshot showing your craft on the opposite side of Kerbin from KSC. Either the continent with KSC and your relative position or the continent you're flying over must be on the 'light side' and visible. The F3 is still required.
   

Re-attempts -

You are free to attempt this challenge as many times as you like. However, in order to preserve the uniqueness of the 'advanced' challenges, you will only be listed under one class. Thus, if you have both multiple circumnavigations and a speed that qualifies you for the 'velocity' badge, in either one or multiple attempts, you'll need to let me know which you desire to keep.

Additional Challenges -

• The fastest completion times will be listed under Velocity Circumnavigators.
  
• The most non-stop circumnavigations will be listed under Expedition Circumnavigators.
  

Badges -

• Those completing this challenge will be entitled to display the Circumnavigator badge in their signature.
  
• Those completing 2+ circumnavigations will be entitled to display the Grand Circumnavigator badge in their signature.
  
• If at any time, anyone is listed for the number of circumnavigations under Expedition Circumnavigators they will be entitled to display that badge in their signature. Only the top circumnavigators will remain on the list.
  
• If at any time anyone is listed for their completion speed under Velocity Circumnavigator they will be entitled to display that badge in their signature. Only the top circumnavigators will remain on the list.
  

How to update your signature -

1. Click on your login name at the top of the page beside 'Welcome'
   
2. Click on 'Forum Actions' and select 'Edit Profile'
   
3. On the left, click on 'Edit Signature'
   
4. Copy and paste the appropriate HTML Code at the bottom of this post into your signature and save.
   

Expedition Circumnavigators

3+ Circumnavigations

juzeris - FOUR circumnavigations using RAPIER's!

imthebait - Finally proving that 3 circumnavigations can be done.

Pandemic - Three circumnavigations.

t3hJimmer - Three circumnavigations.

---

Velocity Circumnavigators

Speed Circumnavigations

juzeris - 0:41:44 - And no part clipping. Well, not much. RAPIERS!

imthebait - 0:54:20 - Proving turbojets still have what it takes.

MunGazer - 0:55:17 Valentina piloting

Triop - 0:55:53 - Single Turbojet

ExaltedDuck - 0:56:43 - And looking to go around twice

---

Grand Circumnavigators

2 Circumnavigations

imthebait - 1:54:43 - Using twin angled turbojets.

Phearlock - 2:34:27 - A flawless mission while packing 4,000+ units of fuel.

---

Circumnavigators

Aghanim - 1:04:20 - Single TurboJet

ExaltedDuck - 1:07:46 - Stellar performance for a first challenge.

GDJ - 1:08:26 - Polar circumnavigation with rapiers!

Kelderek - 1:17:58 - The old fashioned way, with turbo jets.

redsh - 1:18:21 - Our first polar circumnavigation.

Styles2304 - 1:28:04 - More turbojets. And I thot RAPIERS would dominate this.

Xeldrak - 1:28:11 - And had plenty of fuel to spare

Deutherius - 1:28:43 - With an F4 Phantom no less.

Vasiman - 1:37:34 - Night takeoff and landing.

sj176 - 1:40:30 - Twin Turbos.

p=1892248&viewfull=1#post1892248"]Fengist - 5:18:34 (and 4 cups of coffee)

Heimdall5008 - 1 day 2:02:12 - The scenic route.

---

Flixxbeatz pre 1.0 circumnavigators.

You can find the old challenge and some inspiration here.

---

Signature Codes

Expedition Code:

[URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118390-Kerbin-Circumnavigation-1-0-Aviator-Challenge"][IMG]http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/circumnavigator resized expedition.png[/IMG][/URL]

Velocity Code:

[URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118390-Kerbin-Circumnavigation-1-0-Aviator-Challenge"][IMG]http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/circumnavigator resized velocity.png[/IMG][/URL]

Grand Code:

[URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118390-Kerbin-Circumnavigation-1-0-Aviator-Challenge"][IMG]http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/circumnavigator resized grand.png[/IMG][/URL]

Circumnavigator Code:

[URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118390-Kerbin-Circumnavigation-1-0-Aviator-Challenge"][IMG]http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/circumnavigator resized.png[/IMG][/URL]

Edited June 23, 2015 by Fengist

[andruszkow]

Nice challenge, especially now that the thermodynamics present challenges as well. You might want to include what level the challenge should be done at. I did this at normal (100% re-entry heating).

Anyway, decided to head due west, taking advantage of Kerbin's rotation.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

- - - Updated - - -

I might go for it again later

Edited May 1, 2015 by andruszkow

[Andy81le]

Realtime or in-game time?

[Fengist]

Realtime or in-game time?

If you mean the speed run... whatever the met shows on your F3 screenshot.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice challenge, especially now that the thermodynamics present challenges as well. You might want to include what level the challenge should be done at. I did this at normal (100% re-entry heating).

I might go for it again later

You've got some really strange graphics going on there. And added a rule about debug settings, thanks for pointing that out.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Fengist

[Fengist]

Ok, because the OP has to do their own challenge, and because I wanted to be certain that multiple circumnavigations are possible without the old soup/atmosphere I'm accustomed to, I took the slow boat to China.

Official time: 5:18:34 (Yep, I set a pretty low benchmark to get this started.)

Circumnavigations - 1

Basically, I wanted to test the fuel efficiency of the 'new and improved' (*cough*) J-33. And it's definitely efficient enough to do multiple laps. Mostly, I kept between 10 and 11km and my speeds were 180-220 ish most of the way. I intentionally went East from KSC knowing full well I'd be chasing it around the globe which is evident by the fact that I went almost 4,500km to do a circumnavigation. However, if you check my fuel on the F3 screenshot, you'll see I had more than half left. So, if you have the patience, the J-33 has the efficiency.

You'll note I'm also facing the wrong way on the runway for an East-West run. I came in a bit too hot on my first pass. And then (this is my first landing with the new gear) discovered the gear doesn't turn all that well, which is why I'm sitting half way off the runway... grrrrr.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Fengist

[MunGazer]

Hello! Nice to meet you. I was just perusing the forums some more and noticed your challenge; I've had my nose in another challenge for a while. I just finished a circumnavigation flight today coincidentally in the process of setting airspeed and altitude marks in GoSlash27's 1.0 Kollier Trophy challenge. So, I've already got an image gallery for it. Note that this was done in version 1.0, and the flight was finished at about (real time) 1 pm central standard time in north america. It was approximately a 50 minute flight; the reason I circumnavigated instead of staying close to KSC for my altitude and speed runs was to simplify the whole process and also test performance across all fuel levels in the craft, as well as its circumnavigation capability.

The name of the craft is "Sojourn Prototype 1". It is all stock, and was created with a totally stock client. All runs done at normal, 100% Re-Entry Heating setting in difficulty options. It has an approximate cruising altitude of 27.3 kilometers and a cruising speed of approximately 1,485 m/s. I'm pretty sure the stock resource menu I have open shows that I don't have any oxidizer on board - after all, that'd be dead weight for what I'm trying to do. And, if I did have oxidizer, I'm sure I could cheese out a much higher altitude with it. Anyway, again, this was done in 1.0 - I will soon be doing a circumnavigation run in 1.0.2 in order to update the performance data/records for this craft. Someone said 1.0.2 has more drag and more lift, so it will be interesting to see how this affects performance for everyone's crafts, especially in these circles. Without further ado, here is the slideshow:

http://imgur.com/a/4nfC0?gallery#0

- - - Updated - - -

Nice challenge, especially now that the thermodynamics present challenges as well. You might want to include what level the challenge should be done at. I did this at normal (100% re-entry heating).

Anyway, decided to head due west, taking advantage of Kerbin's rotation.

http://imgur.com/a/cguP7

- - - Updated - - -

I might go for it again later

Hey friend, decent looking ship you have there. I looked at your photos, and I really feel bad that your game crashed right in the middle of that effort. Also, I was thinking I might be able to provide you with some helpful advice for your next run and how to perhaps avoid this problem.

1. I see that you chose to fly west, which would be a heading of 270 degrees. However, the rules of the challenge say:

• You must either follow the 90 degree latitude line or you may do a polar circumnavigation.
  

So, next time you can save yourself some time/trouble by flying either a 90 heading, or doing one of the polar routes at 0 or 180, but not 270. However, that was clever, and of course I realize you probably overlooked that rule accidentally.

2. About your game crashing, I honestly don't know what might have caused that, but you might try backing up your mods into a folder somewhere, then clean up your game client or do a reinstall of Kerbal Space Program and actually do your record run completely stock. You may just have to rely on knowledge of safe air speeds at certain altitudes to avoid issues with overheating.

[Fengist]

Umm, I worded the rule wrong on that latitude. Changed.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello! Nice to meet you. I was just perusing the forums some more and noticed your challenge; I've had my nose in another challenge for a while. I just finished a circumnavigation flight today coincidentally in the process of setting airspeed and altitude marks in GoSlash27's 1.0 Kollier Trophy challenge.

Yep, I noted on Slashy's challenge you had done so. Minor problem though. For this challenge I need a screenshot of your F3 upon landing. What you have a screenshot of shows 29 seconds flight time. I saw your MET saying 55 minutes when you landed and that looks great but no corresponding F3.

Ah, I see, you went EVA and the timer changed. Ummm... Ok. I'll accept it.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Fengist

[Serassa]

Hello! Nice to meet you. I was just perusing the forums some more and noticed your challenge; I've had my nose in another challenge for a while. I just finished a circumnavigation flight today coincidentally in the process of setting airspeed and altitude marks in GoSlash27's 1.0 Kollier Trophy challenge. So, I've already got an image gallery for it. Note that this was done in version 1.0, and the flight was finished at about (real time) 1 pm central standard time in north america. It was approximately a 50 minute flight; the reason I circumnavigated instead of staying close to KSC for my altitude and speed runs was to simplify the whole process and also test performance across all fuel levels in the craft, as well as its circumnavigation capability.

The name of the craft is "Sojourn Prototype 1". It is all stock, and was created with a totally stock client. All runs done at normal, 100% Re-Entry Heating setting in difficulty options. It has an approximate cruising altitude of 27.3 kilometers and a cruising speed of approximately 1,485 m/s. I'm pretty sure the stock resource menu I have open shows that I don't have any oxidizer on board - after all, that'd be dead weight for what I'm trying to do. And, if I did have oxidizer, I'm sure I could cheese out a much higher altitude with it. Anyway, again, this was done in 1.0 - I will soon be doing a circumnavigation run in 1.0.2 in order to update the performance data/records for this craft. Someone said 1.0.2 has more drag and more lift, so it will be interesting to see how this affects performance for everyone's crafts, especially in these circles. Without further ado, here is the slideshow:

http://imgur.com/a/4nfC0?gallery#0

- - - Updated - - -

Hey friend, decent looking ship you have there. I looked at your photos, and I really feel bad that your game crashed right in the middle of that effort. Also, I was thinking I might be able to provide you with some helpful advice for your next run and how to perhaps avoid this problem.

1. I see that you chose to fly west, which would be a heading of 270 degrees. However, the rules of the challenge say:

• You must either follow the 90 degree latitude line or you may do a polar circumnavigation.
  

So, next time you can save yourself some time/trouble by flying either a 90 heading, or doing one of the polar routes at 0 or 180, but not 270. However, that was clever, and of course I realize you probably overlooked that rule accidentally.

2. About your game crashing, I honestly don't know what might have caused that, but you might try backing up your mods into a folder somewhere, then clean up your game client or do a reinstall of Kerbal Space Program and actually do your record run completely stock. You may just have to rely on knowledge of safe air speeds at certain altitudes to avoid issues with overheating.

You obviously have no reentry heating enabled. At that speed it's impossible to have all your parts completely cool.

[Fengist]

You obviously have no reentry heating enabled. At that speed it's impossible to have all your parts completely cool.

http://i.imgur.com/85rHacI.jpg

Thanks for pointing this out Serassa. I'm currently of two minds on this. First, I personally have hit speeds well in excess of what he's showing without losing parts. However, I haven't hit those speeds for any length of time without control surfaces burning off. My concern was less of the heating issue and more of, how the hell did he go that fast at that altitude. My rapiers are only producing a minuscule amount of thrust at those altitudes, not nearly enough to reach those speeds. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I haven't figured it out yet.

Until he gets a chance to reply and until I get some more of my own research done, I'll let it stand. Nice to hear I wasn't the only one scratching my head though.

[MunGazer]

You obviously have no reentry heating enabled. At that speed it's impossible to have all your parts completely cool.

http://i.imgur.com/85rHacI.jpg

That run was in 1.0 just before the 1.0.2 update, within a few hours or less. And I had 100% re-entry heating set. I have an updated run now for 1.0.2, and it is legit just like the first one was - also has 100% re-entry heating set. That's one of the reasons the design is effective. I wouldn't go through all this trouble if I couldn't back it up with proof. I can even post the craft file so you can fly the same exact numbers that I did if you'd like. I'll post my 1.0.2 entry here in just a sec.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for pointing this out Serassa. I'm currently of two minds on this. First, I personally have hit speeds well in excess of what he's showing without losing parts. However, I haven't hit those speeds for any length of time without control surfaces burning off. My concern was less of the heating issue and more of, how the hell did he go that fast at that altitude. My rapiers are only producing a minuscule amount of thrust at those altitudes, not nearly enough to reach those speeds. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I haven't figured it out yet.

Until he gets a chance to reply and until I get some more of my own research done, I'll let it stand. Nice to hear I wasn't the only one scratching my head though.

No worries man, I am going to figure out how I can post my craft file and you can fly it yourself if you want to

- - - Updated - - -

I submit: Sojourn Prototype 2

In a circumnavigation run of Kerbin!

http://imgur.com/a/ltSbO

Airspeed: 1,427 m/s

- This can be verified by "sample shot" 1 through 3, you can see that airspeed either was the same or increased for those three photos, and that the altitude was +/- 5 meters.

Altitude: 27,250 meters

- This can be verified by "sample shot" 7 though 9, again, you can see that airspeed either was the same or increased for those three photos, and that the altitude was +/- 5 meters.

This aircraft meets the requirements of having only stock parts, and also was created with a totally stock client. Also, re-entry heat is at the default 100% for the runs.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, here is the craft file for the Sojourn Prototype 2 (Which was made with and for ksp 1.0.2, whereas Sojourn Prototype 1 was made with and for ksp 1.0):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cguzsksfkv10r5f/Sojourn%20Prototype%202.craft?dl=0

Just let me know if it doesn't work. I don't often use drop box and I'm relatively new to the forums. I don't mind you questioning my submission, anything I can do to provide proof or whatever, just let me know.

[Fengist]

Just let me know if it doesn't work. I don't often use drop box and I'm relatively new to the forums. I don't mind you questioning my submission, anything I can do to provide proof or whatever, just let me know.

I have no need for the craft file, though others may want to have a look. I believe you did the circumnavigation. And as I said, I know first had those speeds are entirely possible just damned if I can reach them at that altitude. I simply haven't gotten the method down. I would try out your plane but I like blowing things up finding out on my own, but thanks. If you say you did it by the rules, then I shall believe you. The flight stands.

Once we get a few more flights on the books, assuming old farts at the game like me stop thinking this is too easy and actually try it, I'll start moving people into the advanced lists.

[MunGazer]

In addition, I will add sort of an explanation for the question of how did I go that fast at that altitude, considering how low the thrust is for the rapiers. My best answer for that is that the craft is extremely low drag. Drag, of course, also has an intimate relationship with the lift of the craft - if I don't have enough lift, then the aircraft has a harder time holding straight and therefore the angle of attack would increase even more. And indeed, before I angled the engines and the pre-coolers on this prototype 2, those engines would overheat. In 1.0, drag wasn't as severe, and thus heat problems weren't nearly as severe. This aircraft will easily overheat if not flown properly. Just ease up to 26,900 meters or so steadily, not going too fast, and maintain your momentum, gradually increasing your speed and keep an eye on the flames. Once you get to 26.9 km, just try to hold level and keep the throttle up. It should work just fine. One of the features that avoids heat quite a bit is the nose cone, it is so pointy that it greatly reduces the drag and friction. It is also angled in a way to line up with the velocity vector at that altitude. Without that, it would likely overheat.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no need for the craft file, though others may want to have a look. I believe you did the circumnavigation. And as I said, I know first had those speeds are entirely possible just damned if I can reach them at that altitude. I simply haven't gotten the method down. I would try out your plane but I like blowing things up finding out on my own, but thanks. If you say you did it by the rules, then I shall believe you. The flight stands.

Once we get a few more flights on the books, assuming old farts at the game like me stop thinking this is too easy and actually try it, I'll start moving people into the advanced lists.

Ok, got it man, thanks. Again, for someone just going in and looking at it for the first time, it can be like "whaa???". I've had many, many, many failures. I put a lot of work into it. Anyone can beat it really if they just apply the right principles!

[Fengist]

Here's another hint for your nosecone. Inside of it, place an I-Beam pointing forward and in front of that, I've been experimenting with the communicatron antenna, with the antenna just barely sticking out of the nose. They actually do a pretty decent job of deflecting heat and I've had them up close to 2,000m/s at sea level without them burning off.

[MunGazer]

Here's another hint for your nosecone. Inside of it, place an I-Beam pointing forward and in front of that, I've been experimenting with the communicatron antenna, with the antenna just barely sticking out of the nose. They actually do a pretty decent job of deflecting heat and I've had them up close to 2,000m/s at sea level without them burning off.

Lol cool. Yeah I've been jumping around between different games but I'm inspired by your experimentation. I'll definitely have to do some experiments of my own including those you mentioned.

[Fengist]

And, just before my game crashed yet again, I was hitting 1400m/s+ at 27km.

For Serassa, take your craft another 1000m to 27,400+. You'll find that heat generation drops off drastically above those altitudes. Only my V rudders were showing half green bars at those speeds and altitudes. Once I dropped below that, everything began heat up. So Mun, you were right.

[MunGazer]

And, just before my game crashed yet again, I was hitting 1400m/s+ at 27km.

For Serassa, take your craft another 1000m to 27,400+. You'll find that heat generation drops off drastically above those altitudes. Only my V rudders were showing half green bars at those speeds and altitudes. Once I dropped below that, everything began heat up. So Mun, you were right.

Cool. Yeah, my 1.0 craft and the run I made with it in the 1.0 client, and the associated slide show, appeared to have been scrutinized in the new 1.0.2 - which is a different ball game - someone said 33% more drag, 44% more lift (are those accurate? sure feels like it). However for my 1.0.2 version of the craft, in an absolute worst case scenario for Serassa's sake, I could even make a youtube video showing me actually going into the menu in realtime, showing that the heat is set to 100%, and then going up and doing said performance, and then just paste it whenever and wherever it's needed in the forums. I do have fraps. However, I'm figuring the issue has been resolved.

As far as your game crashing, I was figuring you're probably aware of the memory leak associated with the temperature guages, and that is likely what caused it. It can be disabled by pressing F10. Or, maybe you were already aware of that and were simply using the guages to make observations. Anyhoo figured I'd mention it just in case. Slashy was kind and attentive enough to relieve me of my frustration with that and explained it to me several hours ago, breathing new life into me and allowing me to make my second prototype.

I'm hoping to see some nice entries emerge as a result of any bars of performance being set, and it's great to have this community where we can all learn from each other. I get a lot more out of KSP because of people like you and Slashy, I appreciate your time.

[juzeris]

Well, I finally managed to complete my circumnavigation. The time is 43:19 or 44:02, depending if the time I spent taxiing to the runway from landing next to it counts or not.

The craft is capable of sustained flight at 1725+ m/s, it would overheat if doing two circumnavigations in a row without a break, but one circumnavigation is just fine.

It has lots of witchcraft inside, like cubic strut radiators (contaminated testing, not sure if works), parts attached to weird locations and offset to manage thermal conductivity (seems to work), I also added an antenna like Fengist proposed, but either it's not sticking out far enough, or it has no significant effect. When launching, sometimes it has a bit more drag, sometimes a bit less, I blame this on some part (couldn't find which) sometimes being in the cargo bay and sometimes not due to wobble, but until I figured that out lots of testing went to waste (I even thought that Bill is faster than Jeb at one point, crazy, I know). It also uses less than half of it's fuel for the circumnavigation, but dropping two tanks (3 tons or about a quarter of the mass) increases cruising speed only by about 5 m/s (1726 to 1731), and those tanks are useful for their thermal capacity. I tried angling the intake down 5 degrees, but it ended up slower, of course that's due to the above issue (contaminated testing).

Here's the craft download link if anyone's interested. It's an experimental aircraft, thus the weird name.

1 toggles engines (will turn off but won't turn on while the bay is closed), 2 opens/closes the cargo bay, 3 opens closes the small service bay in front (for extra drag and better control), 6 toggles the ladders, 0 opens the chute and 9 cuts it, the chute also won't open with the bay closed.

Liftoff: believe it or not, it actually has wings somewhere in that mess, so leave the bay open for take-off. When you leave the ground, retract the landing gear, only then close the bay, gyroscopes are enough to control it while in the air. If it turns to the side while taking off, the landing gear pushed the service bay out of position, and now it's crooked, revert to launch. If you get up to 22km, and it reaches only 1650m/s or so, you got that issue described above, some part is crooked and sticking out of the bay. Do an inspection if you can find it and revert to launch. You will overheat before completing the circumnavigation (you have enough fuel to do it at this speed if you do not mind slowing down to cool down at some point).

Cruise: I found the best cruising altitude is about 21-22km, keep it at about 8 degrees pitch and it should fly level. While building speed, at anything above 18km it should not overheat while you ascend. The engines will flame-out while climbing, so watch that throttle, but once you get up to speed, the engines are nerfed so bad one intake is enough for two.

Reentry: Do not reenter by angling down or just cutting throttle, you'll overheat and explode. Open the bay, this will produce so much drag you'll slow down rapidly, which will bring you to safer speeds for descent. In previous versions extending the landing gear at high speeds or torques caused the craft to disassemble, take care. It is actually possible to land it without the chute, but you'll have to hit the runway at at least 80m/s to have a reasonable control over the vertical velocity, so go in shallow. It will probably break something if landing just with the chute with the tanks full, but with them half empty it's fine as long as you hit the ground with all four wheels at once (also open that service bay).

I also keep crashing with this craft, but mine is a little less annoying crashing type of crashing into the runway. Still, this is probably some 20th attempt.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 3, 2015 by juzeris

[Fengist]

Well, I finally managed to complete my circumnavigation. The time is 43:19 or 44:02, depending if the time I spent taxiing to the runway from landing next to it counts or not.

Runway landings not required, the faster time is fine. I'm glad you made the craft file available otherwise I'd have had some issues. There's just gobs of part clipping going on in there. Most challenges don't allow it because you really don't know what's clipped inside. But, it became so much easier to clip parts after .90 that unless someone is willing to test your craft and raises a fuss, I'll allow it.

[juzeris]

I'm glad you made the craft file available otherwise I'd have had some issues. There's just gobs of part clipping going on in there. Most challenges don't allow it because you really don't know what's clipped inside. But, it became so much easier to clip parts after .90 that unless someone is willing to test your craft and raises a fuss, I'll allow it.

Well, the whole point of the craft is to generate as little drag as possible. The plan was to have just the cargo bay and the ram intake generating drag with everything else inside the cargo bay. That did not work out, so the service bay also generates drag. I don't think I can solve that with the ram intake still being mounted on the service bay (it's there for thermal reasons). Currently the craft contains - 1 mk1 inline cockpit, 2 rapier engines, 1 ram intake, 1 long mk2 cargo bay, one mk1 service bay, 6 mk1 lf tanks, 4 mk1 SAS units, 4 small structural wings (angled 15 degrees I think), 2 400 batteries, 2 RTGs, 2 ladders, 4 structural struts, 3 old school landing gears, 1 basic antenna, 1 radial parachute, and the rest should be cubic struts. Two of the lf tanks are stuck on the back of the rapiers and offset forward all the way, the rest of the stuff is just good old 'mount things on cubic struts and place them so that they overlap other parts because KSP only checks the placement of the strut itself' trick with offsetting to lesser degree only.

[Fengist]

Well, the whole point of the craft is to generate as little drag as possible.

I understand why you did it and it obviously works. The problem I have is, you managed to smash 30+ parts into the space of 3. While .90+ promotes part clipping with it's placement options, and because of that I didn't expressly forbid part clipping, your craft enters the world of quantum physics. Rather than working within the new aerodynamic rules, it purposefully defeats them. While I'd have preferred to see a more 'traditional' aircraft, if I disallow yours then I'll have to disallow all part clipping, which I don't want to do. I didn't think anyone would take it to the extreme you did though.

[MunGazer]

Lol juzeris. Just from an outside perspective, setting aside any reservations about excessive part clipping (I honestly can't define where one would draw the line), I must say that must have took a reasonable amount of effort to achieve. There's engineering while trying to be "lore friendly", and then there's engineering for results, period. And from the looks of it you did the latter soundly.

[Venusgate]

I understand why you did it and it obviously works. The problem I have is, you managed to smash 30+ parts into the space of 3. While .90+ promotes part clipping with it's placement options, and because of that I didn't expressly forbid part clipping, your craft enters the world of quantum physics. Rather than working within the new aerodynamic rules, it purposefully defeats them. While I'd have preferred to see a more 'traditional' aircraft, if I disallow yours then I'll have to disallow all part clipping, which I don't want to do. I didn't think anyone would take it to the extreme you did though.

How about draw the line at "Fuel cannot be more than 50% overlapped with other fuel"?

I think jezeris could do the same flight with only +1 or 2 minutes if it was 3 tandem cargobays

[smjjames]

What's a 'Phoenix screenshot'? Just wondering here.

[Fengist]

What's a 'Phoenix screenshot'? Just wondering here.

Where you can't see the ship details for the flames. As long as you have one clear screenshot, then post all the flames you want.

- - - Updated - - -

How about draw the line at "Fuel cannot be more than 50% overlapped with other fuel"?

I think jezeris could do the same flight with only +1 or 2 minutes if it was 3 tandem cargobays

Probably so. For now, I'm letting it stay. I need for some of the new pilots around to see that it can be done. Jez already offered to voluntarily remove it since he's been around a bit and knows the general rules about part clipping. Since this is a new atmosphere though, I'm trying to be a bit lenient on the experimentation side. We'll see where part clipping goes from here.

[Kelderek]

Here's my entry for a single trip around Kerbin:

Time: 1h 17m 58s

Heading: 90 degrees (East)

Highest Altitude: 23,830m

Highest speed: 1,107m/s

Javascript is disabled. View full album