Kerbin Eco Challenge: How far on 100 fuel?

[Kermunmus]

Challenge Is Closed - Go Reboot It! 

What, you thought you could just launch 10 rockets everyday and not wreak havoc to mother nature? Why do you think Kerbin is so barren?

The KSC, in attempting to look more "Eco-Friendly" to the outraged population of Kerbin, has devised a challenge: Get as far as you can on only 100 fuel! To be practical, it must also carry at least one kerbal in a command pod of some type.

Rules:

1. Oxidizer counts as fuel too, so 100 fuel Total, LF and OX combined (Monoprop and Xenon Gas are fuel too)
2. Must be manned with a command pod (no external seats) to prevent something like this from showing up, racking up infinite points 
3. Also in that category, no using glitches to get distance (Don't be a Danny) <-- he doesn't post much anymore
4. No rover wheels, because they can get distance with just electricity. EXCEPTION: Fuel Cells are your only power source, and fuel caps at 100 max, per usual (Please don't try and hide RTG's somewhere inside, prove it with a screenshot showing no electricity generation with fuel cell off)
5. Please leave the resource tab open for all screenshots, proving you still have 100 fuel max
6. Minimum Screenshots: Before takeoff, after takeoff, Maximum Height, when you run out of fuel, and touchdown with mission log open (for distance).
7. All Stock Please!
8. No EVA fuel or EVA'ing to increase distance
9. You must land your craft, in order to have a set distance (you must still land from orbit, the KSC wants to be eco friendly with returning astronauts)

Suborbital Leaderboard (Scoring is Distance in KM + Max Height in M/100)

1. @Aetharan: 7,942 Points (7,788 KM, 15,107 M Max. Height) + 7 Points for trying 7 times! This guy is dedicated 
2. @Sivonen: 6,657 Points (6,498 KM, 15,464 M Max. Height) + 3 Points for effort, distance readings can get a little funky
3. @overkill13: 6,212 (6,105 KM, 10,735 M Max. Height)
4. @Nefrums: 5,591 (5,452 KM, 13,886 M Max. Height)
5. @KerbolExplorer: 1,449 Points (437 KM, 101,284 M Max. Height)
6. @LazySoUseHyperedit: 1,289 Points (1,164 KM, 12,472 M Max. Height)

Orbital Leaderboard (Scoring is Periapsis + Apoapsis/100)

1. @Nefrums: 1,906 Points, (AP 114,398, PE 71,188) + 50 Points for first to orbit, and landing troubles 

 

I might give bonuses if you impress me (get to space, etc.), so don't be completely unoriginal!

Go Sub to my Youtube Pwease.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Kermunmus

[qzgy]

This could be interesting. I'll try later.

[Aetharan]

I've given it a go.

Ground distance traveled was 252,375m.  Peak altitude was 47,669m.  Thus, my score is 729.065.

Imgur Album

Obviously, aiming for altitude hurt my final score pretty badly.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing imgur links. Again.

[Joseph Kerman]

A loophole would be to start with 100 LFO, then filling the rest up with a tanker to get more distance.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Joseph Kerman

[Aetharan]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Kerman said:

A loophole would be to start with 100 LFO, then filling the rest up with a tanker to get more distance.

Negative.  The challenge isn't to start with 100 units of LFO.  It's to use 100 units.  Refueling missions or equipment would still result in using the fuel thus acquired.

[Joseph Kerman]

Electric gliders

[Aetharan]

And now I'm driving myself crazy, because my winning entry in the Lightest Craft to Orbit thread actually had 100 LFO total on board: two filled Oscar-Bs and a Mk0 Liquid Fuel Fuselage at 40% full.  If it hadn't been based around a command seat, I'd just re-submit that here.  Instead, I'm struggling to replicate the feat with the much heavier/draggier pod options available in stock.

Edit:  For my second entry, I built a plane.  Max altitude: 25,874m Ground distance covered: 1,774,301m.  Score is thus 2,033.041.  I didn't manage to screencap while I was at the flight's peak altitude, but that information is included in the final screenshot.

Imgur Album

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing Imgur links.

[Nefrums]

in orbit:

 

 

[Kermunmus]

@Nefrums I forgot to clearly state the landing requirement . I'm sure though as soon as I say that you'll be like: oh here is with me landing it at the end. I'll give you points anyway for my mistake

I'll add @Aetharan to the leaderboard, and give Nefrums his own special section (for now)

Edit: @Joseph Kerman I said no electricity unless you only powered it on fuel cells, and yes of course you can't refuel

Edited May 29, 2017 by LazySoUseHyperedit

[Nefrums]

Landing required? 

like this:

I hope there is no rule against engines exploding on landing.. 

 

[Kermunmus]

51 minutes ago, Nefrums said:

I hope there is no rule against engines exploding on landing.. 

Nope, that's totally good . You also have a bigger orbit!

Edited May 29, 2017 by LazySoUseHyperedit

[Aetharan]

Well, I've made a third go (second plane), and managed a max altitude of 25.676 km and ground distance traveled of 3,008.472 km for a score of 3,625.232.

Imgur Album

Edit:  As a side-note, this plane also has an RTG, this time concealed in its fairing nosecone.  As before, since it cannot derive any driving force from this electricity, but is instead using it to maintain the ability to utilize the cockpit's reaction wheel and the plane's lights, I don't believe it to be grounds for disqualification (or, for that matter, the use of MechJeb's Smart A.S.S.), with the fact that my previous entry was allowed on the board serving as precedent for both.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing Imgur links.

[Kermunmus]

1 hour ago, Aetharan said:

As a side-note, this plane also has an RTG, this time concealed in its fairing nosecone.  As before, since it cannot derive any driving force from this electricity, but is instead using it to maintain the ability to utilize the cockpit's reaction wheel and the plane's lights, I don't believe it to be grounds for disqualification (or, for that matter, the use of MechJeb's Smart A.S.S.), with the fact that my previous entry was allowed on the board serving as precedent for both.

As long as the electricity cannot provide any propulsion, it is ok

[Aetharan]

I appreciate the confirmation, @LazySoUseHyperedit.  Kinda hoping to see more people get into the challenge, or there isn't much point in having pushed my score up another 1,592 points with that third entry.  I can't make the orbit work without outright copying @Nefrums, but I can do my best to set a high enough bar on the plane side to at least slightly challenge my fellow pilots!

[KerbolExplorer]

heres my entry

This craft took me a 30 seconds to make it

go herehttp://imgur.com/a/lk1V to see the f3  menu

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by KerbolExplorer

[Aetharan]

Well, another go nets me a max altitude of 14,104 m and a total ground-distance covered of 4,299.902 km, for a score of 4,440.942.

Imgur Album

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing Imgur links.

[Kermunmus]

@Aetharan, so far up to your second attempt was worth it, because @KerbolExplorer beat your first one, if that makes you feel any better 

[Aetharan]

6 minutes ago, LazySoUseHyperedit said:

@Aetharan, so far up to your second attempt was worth it, because @KerbolExplorer beat your first one, if that makes you feel any better 

Too true, but the third and fourth?  Not quite so necessary (yet).  Edit to add a side-note:  Unless somebody actually beats the quartet of 4s, I think I'll call that enough.  I have rather extreme doubts that I'll be able to accomplish what would otherwise be my next goal-- OVER 9000!

Edited May 30, 2017 by Aetharan

[DualDesertEagle]

Challenge still open for submissions? If yes, also for those who are stuck with KSP 1.02 for some weird reason?

[Kermunmus]

@DualDesertEagle Challenge is still open, it was started two days ago! As for 1.02, since then there have been some aerodynamics overhauls, and if you haven't passed 1.05 you don't have all the new jet engines. Feel free to try though, I haven't played your version. I'll put you on the leaderboard and leave a note saying it was completed in version 1.02, no harm done!

[DualDesertEagle]

11 hours ago, LazySoUseHyperedit said:

@DualDesertEagle Challenge is still open, it was started two days ago! As for 1.02, since then there have been some aerodynamics overhauls, and if you haven't passed 1.05 you don't have all the new jet engines. Feel free to try though, I haven't played your version. I'll put you on the leaderboard and leave a note saying it was completed in version 1.02, no harm done!

That is, if I even make it to the leaderboard. But I'll try my best. What I've got working for me is that I'm quite a decent plane builder and I pay a lot of attention to weight and drag.

[Nefrums]

I tried to make a long range plane,  I hade som initial promising results with a plane flew above Mach5, while using less than 0.04 fuel/s but it took two thirds of the fuel to get up to speed, so it only got 2500km.

After several attempts I made a very light wight plane that flew slightly above Mach2 with a fuel consumption below 0.014 with drag of less than 7kN, That actually got 4500km before failing to land...

 

[Aetharan]

@Nefrums this is going to be another challenge where I get to learn from you by piloting copies of and iterations on one of your designs after pushing my own to their limits, isn't it?

[Kermunmus]

Both challenges I've posted I just get an immediate "orbit!" cry from @Nefrums, so hey learn from him, just don't copy his creations piece by piece, change things!

[Aetharan]

Back in the fight for lightest to orbit, I at least tweaked around positioning and messed with the launcher and fuel-loading after admitting that the basic design of the upper stage was impossible for my own to beat.  xD