Kerbin Circumnavigation Challenge - updated for KSP 1.10

[zolotiyeruki]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Rules question: from what I can tell, a mod like the following is allowed: 

the mod as written uses a single part to control the fuel, but I was thinking of writing a MM patch to add it to the command part

Hmm, that's a great question, and I appreciate you asking ahead of time.  I'm torn on this one--on the one hand, it automates a menial task the player would normally be expected to perform, similar to an autopilot.  At the same time, the design of the craft is an integral part of the challenge, and I'm a bit hesitant to change the rules in a way that enables brute-forcing it....

Anybody else have an opinion?

[linuxgurugamer]

20 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Hmm, that's a great question, and I appreciate you asking ahead of time.  I'm torn on this one--on the one hand, it automates a menial task the player would normally be expected to perform, similar to an autopilot.  At the same time, the design of the craft is an integral part of the challenge, and I'm a bit hesitant to change the rules in a way that enables brute-forcing it....

Anybody else have an opinion?

While I was specific regarding a mod, I suppose the question can be applied to any of the various fuel transfer mods

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/29/2020 at 11:01 PM, zolotiyeruki said:

Smokey Yunick rule(*): If you find a creative way around the rules, kudos!  I'll allow it once, but since other players won't get to use the same loophole, you'll get an asterisk on the leaderboard

I'd like to submit that even if the consensus is to disallow this, that I be allowed because of the above rule.

I'll be trying to do this on my stream this evening, if you care to watch.  https://twitch.tv/linuxgurugamer  starting around 6:30PM US Eastern

[Krazy1]

I'm back with a new plane for Voyager without changing fuel this time (Simple Fuel Switch was not allowed).  It didn't fly quite as well as the first one but I'm happy with it. 

8 laps complete in under a day (6 hours). I used RAPIERs at high altitude. 

Full Imgur post with photos and captions:

https://imgur.com/a/fYczkIo

 

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, Krazy1 said:

It didn't fly quite as well as the first one but I'm happy with it.

You are not using that airframe to its full potential yet. I suspect a combination of relying too much on the autopilot mod, resulting in a less than optimal flight profile, and a not quite optimally balanced plane.

I got the impression from your screenshots that more must be possible, so I did a manual rebuild (you offer no craft file, and I'm in still  on 1.3.1 anyway). Parts-wise, the only things I think I changed from your build are the precooler at the front instead of the structural tube, the slightly smaller Big-S elevon 1 for the canards, and I used larger landing gear (2x LY-35 and 2x LY-99). I did offset parts somewhat different to balance it better for zero CoM shift.

Spoiler

Lap 1. Notice it starts out with marginally more LF than yours due to the precooler (+40 LF), but it has already used significantly less for its first lap (3634 vs 4472). Consumption only gets lower from here as cruising altitude slowly increases with diminishing fuel load.

For comparison, your first lap:

And lap 2 of both:

I didn't continue beyond that, the difference is clear.

So get tweaking, there's more to be had from this design.

Parting tips: an extra set of wings would allow this frame to cruise a few km higher, with only a small penalty to its cruising speed, for even less fuel consumption. Along with the extra fuel it'd add a few laps more. As for tweaks and flight profile: if you balance your plane well and design for it to be at equilibrium at its cruising altitude, you shouldn't need any manual adjustment during the whole flight - it should stay level at its optimum and adjust automatically to the changing fuel load. My personal opinion: for this particular challenge, using the AA mod is actually a disadvantage from stock.

 

Clarification: this is not an entry to the challenge - it's basically @Krazy1's plane rebuilt in 1.3.1 with a few tweaks and flown a bit differently. Just showing there's room for improvement in this entry.

P.S.: @Krazy1 I can PM you a link to the tweaked craft file if you want it; just let me know.

[zolotiyeruki]

6 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I'd like to submit that even if the consensus is to disallow this, that I be allowed because of the above rule.

I'll be trying to do this on my stream this evening, if you care to watch.  https://twitch.tv/linuxgurugamer  starting around 6:30PM US Eastern

Absent any dissent, your request has been granted.  I'm intrigued to see what you come up with!

[linuxgurugamer]

On 9/12/2020 at 7:15 PM, Bob_Saget54 said:

Approach, descent, and full stop on the KSC runway with an even faster time of 39:19! This plane was much easier to control with a newly-installed counterweight, as well as a revised landing gear that doesn't want to flip the plane during any ground maneuvers.

I think I should try for an endurance challenge next... We're loosing money since these air frames can only be used once...

Seems that you are using a RAPIER, I don't see any pics showing that there was no oxidizer on board

[linuxgurugamer]

Placeholder for mission report:

• Mission done in 42:39.  Average speed at 24,500m was about 1670 m/sec.
• Mass at launch:  32,398 kg
• Size: 16.2m long, 12.3m wide, 4.6m high
• Power: 6 CR-7 RAPIER engines, running in open cycle only
• Air Intake: 5 Shock Cones, 4 Engine Precoolers
• Landing Gear: 3 LV-35 Medium Landing Gear
• Crew: 2
• CoM controlled by crew using PWB Fuel Balancer

Ground crew reported various melted connections after landing due to the continued extreme heat.

Craft available on KerbalX:  https://kerbalx.com/linuxgurugamer/Test-Vehicle-1G

Note regarding the fuel balancer.  It turned out that it wasn't absolutely necessary, I could probably have done it without, but having it let me fine-tune the balance point for landing

Full imgur album here, highlights below:

https://imgur.com/gallery/ocDo2Zi

On runway, showing zero oxidizer:

Head Shot:

Ascent at speed:

Leveled out, speed app. 1620 at this time (needed to burn off some fuel):

Dawn at 24500 & 1670 m/sec

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by linuxgurugamer

[swjr-swis]

*** Please ignore this as anything other than informative - this entry breaks the challenge rules. ***

 

I got curious to see what range I could get out of a low nr of RAPIERs. A single RAPIER plane, while easy to design for one fast lap, seems to have too little margin to carry a long-range fuel load. The Mk1 cabins kept overheating too, so I shelved that for now and tried with two RAPIERs instead.

Presenting the swis-circ 2b. 8 laps in 05:20:24.

Pure stock, twin RAPIER powered, hybrid Mk2/Mk1 fuselage to combine the high temp tolerance of the Mk2 cockpit with the low drag high fuel density of the Mk1 LF tanks.

Since it starts with 832 of LF space unfueled and lands with 116 unused, this design has the potential of another 3-4 laps with some prioritizing and a bit more tweaking.

Highlights below, full imgur album here.

On the runway. Note that there's still quite a bit of tank space unfilled.

First lap.

Obligatory screenie from the other side of the world.

Coming in hot for landing on the 8th lap.

Results screen. 116 units LF left after 8 laps.

Edited September 21, 2020 by swjr-swis
my apologies to OP and other participants

[swjr-swis]

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Placeholder for mission report:

Not sure what happened here... you must've edited this exactly between me opening the thread and posting my own entry, but at reloading it locked up my browser entirely, showing just your imgur album link and no pics. Gotta love this forum software.

 

11 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 

What mod provides that arrow indicator? I don't think I've seen that one before.

[Lt_Duckweed]

Question, one of the rules mentions that you must take off from the runway.  But it mentions nothing about the takeoff run needing to be entirely on the runway or not.

So my question is: as long as I spawn on the runway, and my wheels leave the ground for powered flight on the runway, does the location of my craft between these two events matter?

[swjr-swis]

14 minutes ago, Lt_Duckweed said:

as long as I spawn on the runway, and my wheels leave the ground for powered flight on the runway, does the location of my craft between these two events matter?

If this is about needing a longer run, I don't think it matters if you taxi to and use some of the flat area around the KSC too. It's being allowed explicitly for landing as well, why not for take off.

But perhaps specifying what you want/need to do would make answering the question easier.

[Lt_Duckweed]

13 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

If this is about needing a longer run

That's exactly what this is about lol.  On a lot of my more optimized sstos/planes in general (intended as exercises in theory more so than any practical craft) I am pushing takeoff mass per rapier well north of 40 tons, some even as high as 50+. I ramp up the hills to the west, then accelerate down the hills and across the flats before climbing onto the runway from the side at a very shallow angle, then take off at the end of the runway much like any "normal" plane would.

This allows for very high fuel fractions and thus very high dv.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Lt_Duckweed

[zolotiyeruki]

Quote

Question, one of the rules mentions that you must take off from the runway.  But it mentions nothing about the takeoff run needing to be entirely on the runway or not.

So my question is: as long as I spawn on the runway, and my wheels leave the ground for powered flight on the runway, does the location of my craft between these two events matter?

That's some great ingenuity there, but I think that proposal breaks the spirit of the challenge a bit.  The runway length imposes a uniform design constraint on all contestants, so that the challenge is more about craft design and piloting skill.

Edited September 14, 2020 by zolotiyeruki

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said:

That's some great ingenuity there, but I think that proposal breaks the spirit of the challenge a bit.

Might I call on the Smokey Yunick rule on this one? Even if it goes marked on the leaderboard and it's the only one to be allowed, I'm rather curious to see what range one such designs might achieve. Might pose an extra challenge to see if a regular entry can achieve similar results.

 

[zolotiyeruki]

48 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Might I call on the Smokey Yunick rule on this one? Even if it goes marked on the leaderboard and it's the only one to be allowed, I'm rather curious to see what range one such designs might achieve. Might pose an extra challenge to see if a regular entry can achieve similar results.

 

How about this?:  An "Honorable Mention" leaderboard, for entries that don't quite fit the rules as intended, but are still noteworthy

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

 

What mod provides that arrow indicator? I don't think I've seen that one before.

PWB Fuel Balancer. The released version requires a part, I ran using a beta version which eliminates the need for the part.

On 8/29/2020 at 11:01 PM, zolotiyeruki said:

Velocity Division

Make it around as fast as possible!  Lowest time wins!

1. Bob_Saget54 - 39:19 * (was still moving at 0.1m/s at the screenshot)
2. GDJ - 41:46
3. linuxgurugamer - 42:39
4. Krazy1 - 55:59 (posted in the old thread)
5. Nantares

 3rd place. Not bad but now I have a reason to go faster.

Hope to release the update after this evening. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by linuxgurugamer

[MakerTribe]

Definitely left some time on the table, will keep trying... 

 

 

[linuxgurugamer]

11 hours ago, MakerTribe said:

 

Did you fly around 2x?  The ground distance covered is a lot more than Kerbin's circumference, according to the wiki:

Quote

Equatorial circumference

3 769 911 m

Yet the time is apparently for once around

[swjr-swis]

35 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Did you fly around 2x?  The ground distance covered is a lot more than Kerbin's circumference, according to the wiki:

The F3 readout numbers are notoriously inaccurate, to the point of useless. On my 8 laps entry, it displayed a total of 69M km.

Edited September 15, 2020 by swjr-swis

[MakerTribe]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Did you fly around 2x?  The ground distance covered is a lot more than Kerbin's circumference, according to the wiki:

Yet the time is apparently for once around

Yeah, just the once around. Not sure why F3 is showing such large distances like that.

[Bob_Saget54]

Another update from the producers of the Lawn Dart. The aircraft has managed to crack the 39 minute barrier, screaming into the KSC with a blistering time of 38 minutes and 54 seconds!

Screenshot on the runway, showing no oxidizer (or EC for that matter, but reaction wheels aren't needed for a craft this light)

Halfway around the world, making good time

Kerbal Space Center in sight!

Touchdown and full stop (with the exception of the aircraft rocking due to strong brakes). This landing wasn't as nice as the previous landings, as the craft came in at an extra 50m/s compared to last attempt.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Bob_Saget54
wrong picture

[MakerTribe]

With a more optimized version of the Speed-EZ craft was able to knock significant time off my previous attempt. Was finally able to get under the 40 minute wall with a time of 39m and 47s. Think I've pretty much reached the top cruise speed for this craft now at just shy of 1745 m/s. Any time improvement now will mostly have to be made up in the take off to cruise and especially the cruise to landing portions of the flight...which is proving a little tricky atm.

[Bryson]

Finally somehow... I did it, I could go faster but overheat became a problem above 1400m/s < 20000 m altitude, then breaking was a mayor problem... the autopilot mod that I download for this event. turns off the sas and leave the plane  totaly out of control, when is dissengaged, I donwload it yersterday... so.

I wonder how does everyone manage to stop withuot breaking parts, the air brakes couldnt withstand the forces. done in 44 min and 19 Sec
https://imgur.com/OTzxEdf
https://imgur.com/1tXJ0At
https://imgur.com/ShSqyNR

Edited September 15, 2020 by Bryson
It was unfinish seems that the image upload is slow, post preview is required as an option to avoid this "unknow" image upload.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Bryson said:

wonder how does everyone manage to stop withuot breaking parts, the air brakes couldnt withstand the forces. done in 44 min and 19 Sec

I drop my landing gear, seems to work.  I've dropped the gear at over 1650 m/sec without any problems