Around the World in 80... Minutes (ORIGINAL - DONE)

[Gavin786]

5 hours ago, Lisias said:

KSP 1.7.3.

Half my crafts misbehave on 1.8, so I decided to stick on 1.7 and just go to 1.8 when my current gaming had run their curse. I didn't managed to migrate any of my old savegames, and this wasn't due Add'Ons - with a new Physics engine, apparently Squad didn't managed to replicate exactly the behaviour (not to mention new glitches and oversights, terribly common on such endeavours).

Lisias also made a good point, and I should add it to my chime-in.

KSP version should be the same for all participants so the craft are behaving the same way/same rules, cant have a craft winning competition on 1.7 and not working on 1.8.

Incidentally a lot of 1.7 craft I built broke on 1.8 robotic system.  I found that "lock on power loss" is a big culprit and should be set from default of True to False.

Gavin786

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Gavin786 said:

KSP version should be the same for all participants so the craft are behaving the same way/same rules, cant have a craft winning competition on 1.7 and not working on 1.8.

Or perhaps categorising them on KSP 1.7 and KSP 1.8 entries, so you don mix them on the scoring.

5 hours ago, Gavin786 said:

4. Deviation from stock by tweakscale(or other mods that alter the fundamental properties of parts) aught not be allowed.  Resizing a part alters the drag cube and makes a big difference, to the point it is an unfair advantage over pure stock.  Should be stock parts only with cosmetics being only allowed (part altering) mods. 

4.1 I have never explored tweakscale myself, so if the crafts it creates are "pure stock" which I define as a craft file that can be loaded/run and works the same fundamental way in a pure stock ksp, then I may revisit my ideas on this point 4.  I dont know the mod.  Seems like this is something that aught not be allowed though.

Of course TweakScale alters the drag cube - it alters the size of the part! How would you shrink or expand a part without doing the same with the drag? It's the whole point of scaling things!

You scale down a wing part, you will get less weight and less drag - and also, less lift! The deflectionLiftCoeff is scaled with the part.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Lisias
Post edit

[Lisias]

And a week later, after half a dozen of "Perfect Landings that didn't happened" , this is my entry for the Lightning Division!

Don't expect speed, I had gone for per seat cost effectiveness! 24 Passengers and one Pilot (plus the Core Probe on the cargo bay on the nose, where the batteries are too). This small beast took the journey in 50 Minutes and 30 15 seconds (approximately).

Craft available on Kerbal-X, and Mission Report is here.

A handfull, random, screenshots:

 

Managing the thermal threat cost me the best part of the week! The difference between life and puff are less than 100 meters in altitude!

 

 

And since I blew up a awful amount of planes while learning to manage the heat, I decided to spend some cash and weight on an emergency measures  Since such measures are not part of the challenge, screenshots are available here only.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Lisias
fixing the time score

[Jacke]

55 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Managing the thermal threat cost me the best part of the week! The difference between life and puff are less than 100 meters in altitude!

Did "puff' happen if you went up in altitude, down in altitude, or both?

[Lisias]

15 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Did "puff' happen if you went up in altitude, down in altitude, or both?

Down. As I reach cruising speed, to each 100 meters down in altitude, I lost about 5 minutes of hull life. Approximately at 25:00 MET I had to climb 500 meters, otherwise something would blow up before reaching KSP!

Edited January 11, 2020 by Lisias
kinda of typo

[Klapaucius]

This is really my silliest attempt. I took a pretty functional aircraft (original here) and added more wings (solely for fuel) and more tanks on the front. Not a great time 72:06, but it was fun. @Lisias seems to be the champion of the low altitude entries. 

The highest I got was just above 23,000, but I spent most the flight under 20,000.  It will hold 30 Kerbals, but I forgot to seat them, so it just had one pilot.  It had a takeoff mass of 98,065 KG but landed at 51,232 which means it started out in the heavy rain division but finished in the thunder division. 

 

The whole thing is on video, sped up a lot.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Klapaucius

[Lisias]

On 1/11/2020 at 9:51 AM, Klapaucius said:

The highest I got was just above 23,000, but I spent most the flight under 20,000.  It will hold 30 Kerbals, but I forgot to seat them, so it just had one pilot.  It had a takeoff mass of 98,065 KG but landed at 51,232 which means it started out in the heavy rain division but finished in the thunder division. 

Avoid exchanging altitude. Find the best altitude for a speed/heat trade for your current weight and stick to it until you burn fuel enough to be lighter, and then can choose a higher altitude where you can speed up a bit without cooking the PAX.

You loose an awful amount of energy when you climb, but also when you go down as the control surfaces induces a lot of parasitic drag when not in the default position.

[Laie]

@Lisias I see your 24 Passengers and raise you 48, at a slightly lower cost per passenger:

The pilot can actually see where he's going with the lid closed, but all things considered, this craft is a failure. It's a rip-off from an earlier attempt to complete this challenge on Panthers in dry mode. And while I believe that 700m/s is not bad at all, for Panthers, in dry mode, it is far short of what is necessary to go around the world in 80 minutes.

Of course I could use the afterburners, but then I might as well use Whiplashes and go both higher and faster at less fuel consumption. Heat will not be an issue, with everything wrapped in cargo bays. Still, I like the plane for what it is, and while I currently have no use for it, I wanted to show it around anyways. Thanks for looking!

And for all the high-velocity contenders out there: the cargo ramp is an extremely promising nose cone. On 3km/s flights it remained  cooler than fairings or intakes in the same situation, presumably because it has a larger surface area to radiate with.

[Klapaucius]

44 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Avoid exchanging altitude. Find the best altitude for a speed/heat trade for your current weight and stick to it until you burn fuel enough to be lighter, and then can choose a higher altitude where you can speed up a bit without cooking the PAX.

You loose an awful amount of energy when you climb, but also when you go down as the control surfaces induces a lot of parasitic drag when not in the default position.

I know that, but I was flying at 4x timewarp (don't have the time or patience to it in real time) and it is just too twitchy to keep that steady.

[Castille7]

Ok so I broke a rule or two  but I don't have to be on the board, this was fun and I may do it again at a later date without breaking any rules. Timing was not impressive but like I said this was all in the fun.

Thanks to my friend @klond he realized my Mini SR-71 could Circumnavigate. I had no idea that the fuel would be cut so close, I made with very little fuel to spare.

MINI SR-71 AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 MINUTES

 

And off we go!

 

 

More Pictures of the Adventure

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Halfway and timing is terrible

 

 

 

@Triop & @DoctorDavinci Kinda Funny, I was using the Dakar 2020 Challenge Game Save for this Challenge and flew by the Course!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Trip could have been done with Jeb......maybe

 

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Castille7

[Flying dutchman]

I'm trying to do this in a supersonic propeller aircraft. I need a minimum speed of 460 m/s but the best i've been able to do is 360 m/s, Just over mach 1 so wish me luck :p

Edited January 14, 2020 by Flying dutchman

[Flying dutchman]

Did 480 m/s which is enough. It is a son of a b*tch to fly though and i still need  to make it self sufficient power wise.. 

 

178 electric charge per second is going to be difficult, i'll probably weld some rtg's together to be able to run in with decent framerate.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Flying dutchman

[Flying dutchman]

aaaaand that pretty much ruined it. the problem is that to be able to carry 16 tonnes worth of rtg's (and batteries would weigh even more) i need more wing area which reduces my top speed to just under mach 1. i wonder if the topic starter ( @Mars-Bound Hokie) would allow me to use infinite electricity in light of the extra difficulty i already expercience because of the way i want to complete this challenge.

[AHHans]

@Flying dutchman Have you tried fuel-cells?

[Flying dutchman]

3 minutes ago, AHHans said:

@Flying dutchman Have you tried fuel-cells?

Not yet but i highly doubt this would give me any advantage over rtg's when you consider the distance.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Flying dutchman

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

@Flying dutchman, although I never explicitly stated that cheats weren't allowed (I probably should have), it is pretty much implied in this challenge. Besides, even if you used infinite electricity, you probably wouldn't make the time anyway.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:37 PM, Pds314 said:

So, in order to achieve this time, we need to go very roughly 4000 km in 80 minutes or less, with time to land. That means average speed must exceed 833 m/s.

You would need to go over Mach 2.5 THE WHOLE TIME in order to get around Kerbin in less than 80 minutes, so 480 m/s isn't good enough. Besides, why use propellers when you have supersonic jet engines?

[AHHans]

10 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

Not yet but i highly doubt this would give me any advantage over rtg's when you consider the distance.

Hmmm, quoting the wiki:

Quote

As a rule of thumb, two RTGs is equivalent in power to a single Fuel Cell after about 1.5 hours of operation, while 24 RTGs is equivalent to a Fuel Cell Array after about 2 hours of operation.

So if you manage to do this in 80 minutes, then it should help. But probably not enough to matter.

Well, and it only helps if you do manage to do it in about 80 minutes...

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by AHHans

[Flying dutchman]

6 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

@Flying dutchman, although I never explicitly stated that cheats weren't allowed (I probably should have), it is pretty much implied in this challenge. Besides, even if you used infinite electricity, you probably wouldn't make the time anyway.

*i made a calculation error i used the radius as diameter

You would need to go over Mach 2.5 THE WHOLE TIME in order to get around Kerbin in less than 80 minutes, so 480 m/s isn't good enough. Besides, why use propellers when you have supersonic jet engines?

you really don't have to get this angry, some people like the challenge. and i thought that you only needed 460m/s (which would be doable) because of a calculation error i'm sorry but it happens.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Flying dutchman

[AHHans]

3 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

you really don't have to get this angry, some people like the challenge.

Sorry, to me @Mars-Bound Hokie didn't sound angry. He just wanted to emphasize his point.

And I would love to see your supersonic propeller plane - even if it needs infinite electricity to fly.

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

Just now, Flying dutchman said:

you really don't have to get this angry

I'm not angry, I'm just saying that it's (generally) an unspoken rule to not use cheats in forum challenges.

 

Even if I was down with you using infinite electricity, you wouldn't have made the time at 480 m/s. The name of the game is "Around the World in 80 minutes," and your current top speed would take you well over 2 hours to fly around Kerbin.

• Also, couldn't you just attach OX-STAT solar panels to the tops of the wings/fuselage - or at least where they won't become an aerodynamic liability?

• I don't know @Matt Lowne's top speed for this plane on Kerbin, but this is to prove that overhead panels are indeed possible.

[Flying dutchman]

No, too much drag sadly.. off course it is possible for prop Planes going less than 250m/s but when you are trying to go this fast the amount of drag i simply too much..

 

Btw as i already stated i understand that 480 m/s is not enough. But i thought that before because of An error in my calculations.

[Lisias]

38 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

No, too much drag sadly.. off course it is possible for prop Planes going less than 250m/s but when you are trying to go this fast the amount of drag i simply too much..

Drag is not a problem if you have thrust to overcome it.

I think you need something able to get 800m/s more or less (you need a average speed of 736m/s to go around Kerbin in 80 minutes, but you need to count too time to take off, reach cruising altitude and speed, and the landing procedures, so you need to get a bit faster on the rest of the journey).

Your real enemies are heat and dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure is what will try to rip off your solar panels from the fuselage, and the heat is what will try to cook them - and solar panels are not know for mechanical and heat resilience.

Also, since this is a circumnavigation challenge, half of the journey will be made at night when the solar panels will be useless, but still be there and whatever you would had done to protect them will be wasting weight and drag without any gain. Not to mention the need of batteries to sustain things while the solar panels are useless, i.e., tons of weight.

I think you may need to rely on RTGs and PowerCells to do it, and get the (needed by the rules) batteries isolated from the electrical engines to keep the craft flying if some fluctuation on the power generation happens in middle flight (as the engine would drain all the current, leaving nothing to the flight controls).

[Turbofreak]

Working on a Lightning class run and doing well so far Except i forgot about the battery rule. (FIXED). and got Stupidly close to that time just the run does not count but i was 17 second short of beating the OP's time. that and i botched the landing at the very end

[Turbofreak]

Here's MY entry after the warm up round about. the jet is named (Lightning speed mk1.2) and was 17 sec short from breaking the OP'S time weight is 38.6 metric tons

UPDATES:

Spoiler

FINAL CHECKS LADDERS UP AND STARTING ENGINES.

 

LIFTOFF AND NOW WE CLIMB HARD TO CONSERVE FUEL

Had a Brief Stall at 29K feet due to lack of oxygen but were all good engines came right back at 25K

MOVING LIKE THE DEVIL...

More Progress

HEAT TEMP CRITICAL

TOUCHDOWN!!!

Official Touchdown time was 55:50 i was trying to get the screen-cap of it when i accidentally eva'd bill and he fell off the ladder.... Had 568 LBS of Liquid Fuel left in the tanks.

CREATORS NOTE: When i designed the supersonic jet i used a mk2 to a bi-mk1 coupler and Dumped the oxidizer in the Creation stage so all the jet was carrying was liquid fuel. time for the Thunder/Heavy rain classes next >:D

Edited January 19, 2020 by Turbofreak

[Turbofreak]

On 1/7/2020 at 5:48 AM, nelso said:

Congrats, 3000m/s at 3:48 is definitely a sign this is record breaking early on, and 24:32 is by far the best.  I would give you a recommendation for that.  Think it could do even better though, perhaps by 30 seconds by not doing the loop at the end.

I also did another run with a craft that can carry 32 passengers, in under 30 minutes.  Trying to optimize takeoffs and landings, and getting decent at quick landings.  This craft has all the requirements of OP but it's a little hard to board passengers from the ladder.

you still need to add oxidizer and or redo the wings since rule 11 is in effect. (11.You cannot run out of fuel (and/or oxidizer) mid-flight.)