The Elcano Challenge: Ground-Based Circumnavigation (Continued)

[Thalamask]

2 hours ago, Claw said:

How many left, and are you planning on going all the way?

Four left - Mun, Kerbin, Laythe and Moho. I'm kind of scared of Moho. But I'll certainly be going all the way, yes! 

[rocketengineer1982]

OK, after pushing my vehicle more than 140 kilometers since losing 4 of its 20 wheels and half a pontoon, and suffering a Kraken attack on 2 of the remaining 4 rear wheels, I think it has finally given up the ghost.  The force on the 2 right outside rear wheels is so great that after both tires blew, the little jolt caused by repairing the tires causes a great enough force on the wheels that the tires promptly blow again.  I even tried pointing it back to the West (sacrilege!) to get it pointed downhill and get as much weight off the wheels as possible, but no dice.

So hypothetically, if I brought a plane out, picked up the vehicle, flew it back to KSC, then flew a "refitted" vehicle back out to the same place, would this still count as a replacement vehicle?

What if I just flew out a "repaired" vehicle of identical design?

The refit would involve adding some solar panels and more batteries.  The drilling equipment and refinery might get ditched.  None of these are structural changes to the design (drills are mounted externally, and the refinery is in a cargo bay).

Out of curiosity, has anyone retrieved a damaged Elcano vehicle and then flown out the "repaired" vehicle?

 

Record of the trip so far: 

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by rocketengineer1982

[The_Rocketeer]

@Claw could you give me a little clarification on Rule 4?

If I launch a single vehicle that has a boat underneath with a rover as payload, and discard the boat having completed my water crossing and make no further water crossings, does that comply with the rules? In other words, does the whole craft have to complete the journey, or can it include disposable modules?

This doesn't affect my current attempt, but I'm thinking of following my nearly-all-water circumnavigation with a nearly-all-land circumnavigation.

Edited July 15, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Claw]

I've updated the front page (I didn't realize how out of date it was). So please check it over and make sure I didn't miss your submission! Congratulations to all the new completions. You all got me excited again about finishing my own, and finally posting the ones I had completed.

 

12 hours ago, Thalamask said:

Four left - Mun, Kerbin, Laythe and Moho. I'm kind of scared of Moho. But I'll certainly be going all the way, yes! 

Awesome to hear you're aiming to do them all. Looking back on it, Kerbin and Laythe are among the most interesting to look at, so enjoy them! Moho was also neat, and the terrain at the poles isn't nearly as jagged as some other places (like Eve, if you decide to go polar).

 

11 hours ago, rocketengineer1982 said:

So hypothetically, if I brought a plane out, picked up the vehicle, flew it back to KSC, then flew a "refitted" vehicle back out to the same place, would this still count as a replacement vehicle? (The refit would involve ...)

What if I just flew out a "repaired" vehicle of identical design?

Either of these options are acceptable. There's no requirement to recover the broken vehicle. Ideally the replacement vehicle would be highly similar, but I am also sympathetic to the fact that stock wheels have undergone extensive changes. Ditching the drilling equipment and refinery to ease the mass burden on the wheels is acceptable. Just to point out: "Your crew must be transferred to any replacement vehicle and it must be very similar to the original."

11 hours ago, rocketengineer1982 said:

Out of curiosity, has anyone retrieved a damaged Elcano vehicle and then flown out the "repaired" vehicle?

Not that I recall, so it would be a unique way to go about it and is very much in the spirit of an Elcano journey.

 

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

If I launch a single vehicle that has a boat underneath with a rover as payload, and discard the boat having completed my water crossing and make no further water crossings, does that comply with the rules?

Well, the rules weren't exactly built with that sort of setup in mind. Since there is no rule about ditching parts, the only thing that might directly apply is "No ferrying your vehicle on a boat." The general idea is to have a vessel that manages to do the circumnavigation under it's own design.

I've actually been considering relaxing this rule some for Kerbin, with maybe some stipulations about where a primarily ground vehicle can cross the water, but then it starts getting complicated with a bunch of exceptions. I'm all about the journey being wide open and flexible, but I also want simple rules.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if you build an amphibious rover that can get itself down to the water (under it's own power), crosses the river/lake/ocean (where ever you are crossing), then ditches pontoons and completes the rest of the drive without other "help" (aside from refueling), I think that would be okay (technically not breaking any rules). I might be a bit of a stickler first and ask for a map or ship design to make sure it's still in-spirit, but quite frankly I'd be pretty willing to be flexible on those rules for someone who's taking on a more complex mission. (I'm not sure if any of that helps. I'm sure you'd rather have just a "yes" or "no" )

[The_Rocketeer]

19 minutes ago, Claw said:

(I'm not sure if any of that helps. I'm sure you'd rather have just a "yes" or "no" )

No it's very helpful.

For boats that cross land, generally the best propulsion is jet power because it's so fast on the water, and all u need to add is a few landing gears for the land. But for rovers that cross water, the preferable electric roverwheels are a real drag (literally) to water crossings, and u still need auxiliary thrust AND balanced low-drag buoyancy. While I'm all for hybrids in RL, the amphibious kind are horrifically inefficient in KSP! Yes, I could just build a boat that can be driven on land, but then what's the point in driving when sticking to the water is faster and more efficient? Not to mention the fact that I'd rather drive something that feels like a car than something that feels like a jet-powered climbing frame/jungle-gym on roller-skates!

So, my current thinking is to set out from KSC heading more or less due-south until I reach the ice-shelf, at which point somehow get ashore, dump the water-crossing modules, and head south until I reach the pole, then drive from the south pole to the north pole up the continental land bridge, and from the north pole return to KSC. This is still all very embryonic, I haven't even started properly researching my route or come up with a vehicle that can do the job. An alternative to ditching equipment is to tow it as a trailer, in which case I can modify my route somewhat to make use of other water crossings later. But while the idea of a dediated boat-trailer appeals to my love of utility, the idea of towing it all the way around Kerbin for the sake of a couple of short hops does not - in fact I can imagine the kraken consuming it just as I get close to a very short river crossing, forcing a thousand-kilometer detour .

Thoughts welcomed - perhaps the towed boat is still in contravention of the 'no boats' rule?

[SpaceK531]

17 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@Claw could you give me a little clarification on Rule 4?

If I launch a single vehicle that has a boat underneath with a rover as payload, and discard the boat having completed my water crossing and make no further water crossings, does that comply with the rules? In other words, does the whole craft have to complete the journey, or can it include disposable modules?

This doesn't affect my current attempt, but I'm thinking of following my nearly-all-water circumnavigation with a nearly-all-land circumnavigation.

My interpretation of the rules is based on the journey of Lewis and Clark. On their journey of discovery, the Discovery Corp. brought with them a metal-framed boat that they would later cover with animal hide to use as a boat. The metal boat ended up being a failure, but the fact remains that they brought with them an extra vessel from the start of the journey. To me, the "no boats" rule seems to be more in the vein of a "no airlifting" rule: you can't get outside help to move the circumnavigating craft. If the boat module was a part of the vessel since the beginning of the circumnavigation, it should count as part of the vessel during the water crossing as part of rule 4. My interpretation is that using a boat module that you bring with you from the beginning is within the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: I think the spirit that @Claw is going for is that the Elcano challenge is about solving problems on the road: if you bring it, it's fair game (with stipulations for mods), but if you deliver it, it's not fair game (support vehicles other than replacement craft and fuel).

Of course, if I'm totally wrong about this, I will concede my point.

Edited July 15, 2016 by SpaceK531

[Claw]

18 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Thoughts welcomed - perhaps the towed boat is still in contravention of the 'no boats' rule?

Yes, that would also be acceptable, since it's a singular vessel all traveling together. Not sure it's quite been done that way either, so it could be an interesting ride.

 

10 hours ago, SpaceK531 said:

To me, the "no boats" rule seems to be more in the vein of a "no airlifting" rule: you can't get outside help to move the circumnavigating craft.

Yeah, I think that idea is definitely in the spirit. The circumnavigating craft is supposed to do the circumnavigating.

 

So if you had to deliver the boat/rover to the water via a rocket or plane (because it can't make it on it's own from the runway), then it later ditches the boat part, it didn't really show that it can complete the whole circumnavigation itself (because you had to get it to the water first via a non-qualifying method)....If that makes sense? (wow, that's a badly formed sentence)

[The_Rocketeer]

News Report:

My water-based Kerbin Elcano Mission is well underway, hopefully finished within the next 2 days (depending how much time I get to myself)! My final boat borrowed a lot from the craft in my earlier pics, but with significant modification to fuel capacity. I was actually still in the middle of a very frustrating design-and-refine process to achieve non-stop circumnavigation (no refuelling at all). when I got annoyed over failed revisions and decided to bite the bullet and just go with what I had. Perhaps when my current plans are completed I'll try the non-stop again, but first I have to deliver on this and the promised polar-route!
 

[Claw]

7 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

My water-based Kerbin Elcano Mission is well underway, hopefully finished within the next 2 days

Getting close, good luck!

7 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

and decided to bite the bullet and just go with what I had

That's kind of what I did with my Laythe trip. Finally found something that (mostly) worked, so I just stuck with that. I found it was definitely a bit of a tradeoff of how much time to spend on design vs. the actual drive.

[The_Rocketeer]

Had a catastrope this afternoon.

Reached the land-portion of the trip, and during the drive I somehow lost a rudder and far more seriously a hydrofoil somewhere between saves. Never even noticed they were gone until I was planing on a strange angle back in the water. Last quicksave was 20km ago on land and they're already missing. So bummed, because I thought there was a possibility of completing without a 2nd fuel service. Well, that's out the window. My current problem is making up those 20kms and finding a way to make her ride on an even keel without veering off course. Luckily I have plenty of options for surface and mass trimming.

[Claw]

Keep it up @The_Rocketeer, I am sure you will persevere.

 

-----

On an unrelated topic, how's this?

[The_Rocketeer]

Appreciated - I have not given up

And looking awesome! Just a thought, have u tried gold laurels and silver wings (instead of silver laurels and gold wings? Simple-but-distinctive?

Edited July 17, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Claw]

59 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

have u tried gold laurels and silver wings

Maybe something like this?

             

[Claw]

Maybe this is easier to compare.

 

[SpaceK531]

I had a thought for the grand master badge:

Two wings with the number of feathers equaling the number of bodies, and the surface of each body pictured in the feather. Below the wings are the propeller and the wheel. The sun can be in the center.

Here's a concept:

[Thalamask]

5 hours ago, Claw said:

Maybe this is easier to compare.

I quite like the last one in the series, Claw.

[The_Rocketeer]

7 hours ago, Claw said:

Maybe something like this?

             

Those all look frickin great, man.  Dunno if I'll ever get the honour but I'd wear any of them with pride.

[Claw]

3 hours ago, SpaceK531 said:

Here's a concept

I like the concept, but it's quite different than the other badges. I kind of want the badge to be similar but distinctive, but I will let my subconscious chew on this one for a bit.

 

1 hour ago, Thalamask said:

I quite like the last one in the series, Claw.

I'm thinking that one is most like your original suggestion?

I'm a bit partial to the last two, myself. The last one of the series is more similar to the other badges than the one right before it, but I like the framing on the second to the last one (with the gold wreath on the ends).

 

10 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Those all look frickin great, man.

Thanks! And you'll get there if you want to. For me, I had to not think about the finish line, because it seemed so far away until I was on Moho (only Gilly and Eve after that). I finished the JoolCano-5 and realized I still had four bodies left, and one of them wasn't small. 

[The_Rocketeer]

I'm back in the ocean, solved my trim problems (with some applied violence) and tho I've taken a pretty big hit on top speed at least I can go in a straight line! Hope to have it wrapped up and finished perhaps later today or tomorrow. I've been collecting screens so I'll follow the convention of notifying here and posting up a crew report.

Edited July 17, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[The_Rocketeer]

The mission is over - successful completion of ground-based circumnavigation.

Full documentation is going to take a little preparation - I have many screenshots to sort thru and upload, and I'd like to present a proper report of what went wrong and what steps had to be taken - it was quite the adventure! I have started a thread in Mission Reports which I will be adding to in the next couple of days.

Edit: First day added, more to come soon.
 

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Maverick_aus]

@Claw My opinion for what it's worth is I prefer the last two, I think due to the lettering all being in gold. 

[Maverick_aus]

Day 2 & 3 Mission Report is updated with all the thrills and spills. 

Highlights include kraken presences!   

 

[W. Kerman]

Hey the equator of Kerbin is: 600,000 m

Fastest speed that I would be fine with, 100 m/s

600,000/100= 6000 seconds

6000/60= 100 hours

100/24= 4.1 days roughly, of non stop driving, right

X4 time=1.25 days

30 hours, with quicksaves due to the X4 kraken.

Amount of time that I can play per day: 12 hour

Days per week that I can play KSP, 2 and 1/2 

This challenge is gonna be tough 

 

[Claw]

7 hours ago, Maverick_aus said:

My opinion for what it's worth is I prefer the last two

Sounds good. I think this one wins out:

 

5 hours ago, Maverick_aus said:

Day 2 & 3 Mission Report

Looking good! I'm enjoying your mission report style. I imagine it's quite a lot of work, but looking good!

 

1 hour ago, W. Kerman said:

Hey the equator of Kerbin is: 600,000 m

That's actually the radius of the planet. So multiply that by 2 * pi, and the circumference is about 3.77 million meters. Good news is that I think you skipped a factor of 60 (either 60 minutes in an hour, or 60 seconds in a minute). There's actually 3,600 seconds in an hour.

But with the rest of your numbers (traveling at an average 100 m/s), then it's 3.77Mm / 3600 = ~10.5 hours. I would say that 100m/s as an average is pretty optimistic though, maybe more like 60m/s ish... With stops and such, it's probably somewhere around 20 hours.

You could probably get the drive done in two sittings, but I certainly encourage some straying around to look at the shore lines and such (assuming a boat around Kerbin). There's actually some interesting places to see and it'll make the trip feel less of a grind.

 

1 hour ago, W. Kerman said:

This challenge is gonna be tough 

Indeed, but it's also not a race (no leader board for fastest times). I think I spent a couple weeks planning, building, and designing for Kerbin. So seriously, enjoy the drive. It's all about the adventure.  

[The_Rocketeer]

@Claw agreed on your selection for the Grand Master badge, and may I say your sig looks particularly resplendent