The Elcano Challenge: Ground-Based Circumnavigation (4th)

[damerell]

At what point do we conclude that @18Watthas been claimed by the curse of the Elcano Challenge, and have a new thread?

[Nazalassa]

2 hours ago, damerell said:

At what point do we conclude that @18Watthas been claimed by the curse of the Elcano Challenge, and have a new thread?

When they stop updating this one, I guess.

[damerell]

20 hours ago, Nazalassa said:

When they stop updating this one, I guess.

That was in June.

[damerell]

You might infer I'm getting the urge to circumnavigate again, which rather demands I look at planet packs. I have never before used a planet pack, so I've little enough idea what's out there and what's good (especially from the point of view of the circumnavigator, who would like planets that are challenging to land on as much as any KSP player, but _really_ wants planets with unusual terrain or other roving conditions). There is a Wikia, but it seems to be years since it was routinely updated.

OPM would seem the obvious option - @king of nowhere has done some but not all of the worlds, so there are some firsts to be had, and from reviewing all their mission reports it seems like there is plenty of interesting terrain to rove on. Furthermore, it just adds planets - if I add it into my existing save I can just continue on where I left off, with all the Elcano IV infrastructure in place (in particular, the _Queen Agaster_ is still mothballed in orbit along with the _Hangarmoth_ - I want to redesign the latter, but it can still be raided for pulse units etc). Any other suggestions?

I've ruled out JNSQ. I quite fancy JNSQ for a career mode game some time, but it's intended to be played at 2.5x stock scale and at that size Nara, the biggest world, is six times the size of stock Tylo, with several other bodies of Tylo-ish size. With no indication of the degree of terrain interest, I am not taking that on; it would take circa 145 hours if it was possible to make top speed (in about 38 atmospheres of pressure) in a dead straight line at all times, and the more interesting the terrain, the slower the journey would be.

(I did get far enough into looking at JNSQ to test the Eve ascent vehicle on Nara, which with no design changes lands without difficulty and can get to space going about 3 km/sec, which is not enough for orbit but does strongly suggest it could be improved into a design for almost any thick-atmosphere world...)

[OJT]

20 hours ago, damerell said:

You might infer I'm getting the urge to circumnavigate again, which rather demands I look at planet packs. I have never before used a planet pack, so I've little enough idea what's out there and what's good (especially from the point of view of the circumnavigator, who would like planets that are challenging to land on as much as any KSP player, but _really_ wants planets with unusual terrain or other roving conditions). There is a Wikia, but it seems to be years since it was routinely updated.

I haven't tried many planet packs either, but I would strongly recommend Beyond Home planet pack which takes place in far future, where Kerbals moved to another solar system after Kerbol exploded

It has a very diverse set of moons and planets, each of them bringing a unique challenge. There's Hydrus, which has thick atmosphere and floating islands (due to in-lore reasons) which might make landings tricky. There's Fury, the innermost planet, which has high gravity and very hot atmosphere with lava oceans. There's Gateway, which looks like a gas giant from distance, but is in actuality a huge ocean world with surprisingly detailed underwater surface. And if you fancy a bit of interplanetary journey, you can even return to Kerbol solar system and circumnavigate the original planets (which obviously look different after what has occured). And that's only planets: moons also are quite interesting and have unique terrains and challenges to them (of the ones I've visited, Hydron is my personal favourite)

I will note: the surfaces of some planets/moons had somewhat glitchy interactions with rovers that I've constructed. Not sure whether that's because of the way my rovers were designed or because I dropped them on the surface through debug menu as opposed to actually flying and landing them. But, if you were to try this mod out, I would recommend testing your designs with cheats before you go ahead with the actual mission

[king of nowhere]

On 9/9/2023 at 5:50 PM, damerell said:

You might infer I'm getting the urge to circumnavigate again, which rather demands I look at planet packs. I have never before used a planet pack, so I've little enough idea what's out there and what's good (especially from the point of view of the circumnavigator, who would like planets that are challenging to land on as much as any KSP player, but _really_ wants planets with unusual terrain or other roving conditions). There is a Wikia, but it seems to be years since it was routinely updated.

OPM would seem the obvious option - @king of nowhere has done some but not all of the worlds, so there are some firsts to be had, and from reviewing all their mission reports it seems like there is plenty of interesting terrain to rove on. Furthermore, it just adds planets - if I add it into my existing save I can just continue on where I left off, with all the Elcano IV infrastructure in place (in particular, the _Queen Agaster_ is still mothballed in orbit along with the _Hangarmoth_ - I want to redesign the latter, but it can still be raided for pulse units etc). Any other suggestions?

I've ruled out JNSQ. I quite fancy JNSQ for a career mode game some time, but it's intended to be played at 2.5x stock scale and at that size Nara, the biggest world, is six times the size of stock Tylo, with several other bodies of Tylo-ish size. With no indication of the degree of terrain interest, I am not taking that on; it would take circa 145 hours if it was possible to make top speed (in about 38 atmospheres of pressure) in a dead straight line at all times, and the more interesting the terrain, the slower the journey would be.

(I did get far enough into looking at JNSQ to test the Eve ascent vehicle on Nara, which with no design changes lands without difficulty and can get to space going about 3 km/sec, which is not enough for orbit but does strongly suggest it could be improved into a design for almost any thick-atmosphere world...)

there are several very interesting worlds in the whirligig world planetary pack. I scored a few circumnavigations there too.

however, if you want to circumnavigate ALL planetary bodies, it's going to be a daunting task, as there are some 44 of those

[damerell]

Thank you both. On consideration, however, I decided that (particularly since it was clearly much of the appeal of JNSQ) a pack that expands the existing system is an attractive option. From my point of view, Elcano V begins as soon as Elcano IV gets home; the ships, commsats, and leftover vessels are still up where I left them, albeit that the Eeloo scanner probe may well be pretty confused.

Edited September 11, 2023 by damerell

[Alex Verb]

Alex Verb: Kerbin Circumnavigation.

 

Full circle mostly by the ocean. 28 live hours.

 

Stock + Breaking Ground

 

[Hotel26]

I've also been thinking along similar lines: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/174601-shower-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=4322536

It's a polar route that attempts to keep as much as possible to flat ice and flat water:

It would:

• start at KSC
• head south to the only stretch you have the coastal opportunity to mount the southern polar cap
• proceed directly to the south pole
• then toward the channel at 150E, dismounting the southern cap (using chutes)
• proceed through the 10S 150E channel up toward 50N 90E to enter the northern tundra for the only land segment of the whole journey
• pass through the lake at 75N 75E
• and head up to the North Pole
• then direct to 60N 100W to re-enter the ocean and head south
• pass through the channel at 10N 95W
• circumnavigate the southern cape
• and return to KSC

My amphibian, Sea Spray III, would be a starting candidate for this mission, as it is relatively fast on water, and is likely to be stable and very fast on ice; only needing to be fitted with chutes for the maneuver to exit the southern polar cap.

I'll be doing some sea trials shortly to test feasibility.

I'm posting this here to gather thoughts and any possible objections under the rules before I invest heavily.  I understand @18Watt is "on leave", so I think I could be guided by those other interested parties with an opinion.

In sum, the route departs from and returns to KSC and visits both poles.  "Circumnavigation or no?"  Thoughts?

Edited September 16, 2023 by Hotel26

[MythicalHeFF]

9 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I've also been thinking along similar lines: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/174601-shower-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=4322536

It's a polar route that attempts to keep as much as possible to flat ice and flat water:

It would:

• start at KSC
• head south to the only stretch you have the coastal opportunity to mount the southern polar cap
• proceed directly to the south pole
• then toward the channel at 150E, dismounting the southern cap (using chutes)
• proceed through the 10S 150E channel up toward 50N 90E to enter the northern tundra for the only land segment of the whole journey
• pass through the lake at 75N 75E
• and head up to the North Pole
• then direct to 60N 100W to re-enter the ocean and head south
• pass through the channel at 10N 95W
• circumnavigate the southern cape
• and return to KSC

My amphibian, Sea Spray III, would be a starting candidate for this mission, as it is relatively fast on water, and is likely to be stable and very fast on ice; only needing to be fitted with chutes for the maneuver to exit the southern polar cap.

I'll be doing some sea trials shortly to test feasibility.

I'm posting this here to gather thoughts and any possible objections under the rules before I invest heavily.  I understand @18Watt is "on leave", so I think I could be guided by those other interested parties with an opinion.

In sum, the route departs from and returns to KSC and visits both poles.  "Circumnavigation or no?"  Thoughts?

I don’t see why this wouldn’t count as a circumnavigation; you’re starting from the KSC, and visiting both poles, which means you’re going from one point to its antipode and back. That will be, at minimum, an equal distance to the circumference of Kerbin.

[Ianwubby]

So I definitely lost motivation to finish my undersea Elcano attempt from a few months back, partially cause pausing every 2 hours or whatever to fly more fuel out was so tedious

But now I'm considering starting a new attempt, this time incorporating some electric propellers so I can coast without worrying about fuel most of the way

It unfortunately has a lower top speed than the old design, and still needs the liquid fuel engine to get up to speed and to climb steep slopes, but it'll hopefully be less tedious to drive (though no less monotonous, I'm sure)

[damerell]

9 hours ago, Jack Joseph Kerman said:

I don’t see why this wouldn’t count as a circumnavigation; you’re starting from the KSC, and visiting both poles, which means you’re going from one point to its antipode and back. That will be, at minimum, an equal distance to the circumference of Kerbin.

I think I can imagine that a route which was very similar on the northbound and southbound legs wouldn't count - just as if I roved 180 degrees West on the Equator, turned around, and came back again, I'd have done the distance but not circumnavigated at all. But the proposed route here seems to have its halves more or less opposite each other, so I don't think anyone could object.

[Hotel26]

13 hours ago, Jack Joseph Kerman said:

I don’t see why this wouldn’t count as a circumnavigation

Thank you!

My concern was about the two hemi-circumferences (of the circumnavigation) being enough in the same plane.  A trial shows though that entry and exit at the South Pole would be 55W in and 150E out.  (A change in course of 25 degrees.)  At the North Pole, in along 81E and out on 109W (about 10 degrees change in course).

To exaggerate the concern for clarity, if my route were to go from the starting point, travel to the opposite side of the globe, and then, rather than continue on in the same direction, reverse course and retract the outbound journey, it would mean not visiting one side of the planet entirely.  Though the effort (and scenery!) is the same.  (Ah yes, just like @damerell suggested.)

Meanwhile, it seems Sea Spray III will clock 80+ m/s on water and 120+ on ice reliably.  Not so lucky getting it to dive off the southern polar cap (right side up) yet.

But I'm thinking a purpose-built craft could set some traversal records.  Something like THIS:

(That look like Mk2 to you?  That certainly looks like Mk2 to me...)

Edited September 17, 2023 by Hotel26

[damerell]

If I had to guess, I think the objection 18Watt might have had is to the use of chutes to descend off the South Polar cliff. I would permit it, but 18Watt was always very down on any kind of trajectory adjustment off the ground at all.

If it comes to October I think I plan to start the Elcano Challenge, 5th thread (not because I want to but because someone has to), but (especially since one of the first things to do would be to approve or not my own RSS Earth trip) for rules interpretations to be a joint effort with other circumnavigators who are willing to be involved (particularly @Jack Joseph Kerman and @Pouicpouic as the two other recent-ish Grand Masters).

[Hotel26]

10 hours ago, damerell said:

the use of chutes to descend off the South Polar cliff

I don't see why.  It's not to gain any advantage in progress.  Just to enable a route.  Chutes don't propel; only cushion.  Like equipping a rover to perform mountainous ascent/descents.: e.g. roll bars.

I'd also say "yes, it's 18Watt's challenge, but it's an Elcano Challenge (3rd rerun) and there's a dictionary definition of circumnavigation: 1) to prove the planet is round not flat (e.g. in Magellan's day (obs.)), or these days b) an endurance run.  And my distance would be longer, not shorter.

So I have a standard rover circumnav under way 75% complete and stalled for two/three years and I deliberately went off the line, just for way better scenery (i.e. exploration).   Instead of just a mere brawn endurance test.

In my case, I'm innovating.  Everyone believes a circumnav has to be around the equator.  OK, why?  And it's an endurance race, so of course, the only way the human brain can get involved (in an otherwise muscle/sweat/boredom display) is to figure to do the equivalent in less effort.  Potentially 13 hours travel to go round Kerbin on the surface.  The rules themselves make the exception of 'dune jumps'.  "You may unavoidably go temporarily airborne."

Or replacement.  "Oh dear, I smashed my rover off an ice cliff and had to fly a replacement in and place it on the water at the location of the debris..."  All aboard.

I think I like the definition: "you must travel from A to the opposite point on the globe, A', remaining entirely within one hemisphere; then travel back to the original point A, remaining entirely within the other  hemisphere".

Edited September 17, 2023 by Hotel26

[Poppa Wheelie]

7 minutes ago, Hotel26 said:

Everyone believes a circumnav has to be around the equator.

18Watt has approved polar (vs equatorial) circumnavigations before, including my Gilly mission.  I don't think equatorial is a requirement or an expectation at all.

[MythicalHeFF]

1 hour ago, Poppa Wheelie said:

18Watt has approved polar (vs equatorial) circumnavigations before, including my Gilly mission.  I don't think equatorial is a requirement or an expectation at all.

It definitely isn’t a requirement for the challenge these days, if I remember correctly about half of my submissions were polar circumnavigations. I do think it was a requirement way back in the early days of the challenge, but was changed because it made little sense to restrict them to the equator when a polar route would be just as long.

[damerell]

6 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I don't see why.  It's not to gain any advantage in progress.  Just to enable a route.  Chutes don't propel; only cushion.  Like equipping a rover to perform mountainous ascent/descents.: e.g. roll bars.

Because in my experience 18Watt was very opposed to any kind of off-the-ground trajectory adjustment at all. I don't know what I can add to that. I didn't always agree with 18Watt's rulings either.

7 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Everyone believes a circumnav has to be around the equator.

I did a polar route around Eve (and Gilly), PouicPouic did a polar route around Laythe, 18Watt did a polar route around Duna...

7 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Or replacement.  "Oh dear, I smashed my rover off an ice cliff and had to fly a replacement in and place it on the water at the location of the debris..."  All aboard.

I definitely would seek to discourage this sort of rules lawyering.

[Hotel26]

4 hours ago, damerell said:

I definitely would seek to discourage this sort of rules lawyering.

Exactly my point that when rules are loose or vague or not ultimately cogent, they are liable to be applied arbitrarily and/or defeated easily.  (Starting at the base of the cliff and returning to it comes to mind as well.)

For example of 'loose': "Your path should not deviate significantly from the intended direction.".  In legal terms, this is known as a 'weasel' word.  Even 'intended' is ambiguous.

"Using thrust of any sort to control or change the trajectory".  Parachutes apply drag.

                                                    

So, no complaints from me.  I did ask, and I did get a workable answer.

And I do now think a separate "Elcano Speed Run" challenge with badge for completion might be appropriate, especially as the owner of this challenge appears to be absent.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Hotel26

[damerell]

10 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Exactly my point that when rules are loose or vague or not ultimately cogent, they are liable to be applied arbitrarily and/or defeated easily.

I'm not so sure about "defeated"; the challenge organiser has the option of saying "very clever, but no" - and while I'm not 18Watt, if I told someone "no chutes" and they came back with "I crashed down the cliff and flew out a replacement, checkmate", that's exactly what I would do.

I don't think it is remotely practical or necessary for any challenge organiser to write an ironbound set of rules.

10 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

And I do now think a separate "Elcano Speed Run" challenge with badge for completion might be appropriate, especially as the owner of this challenge appears to be absent.

Have fun designing the badges.

[Hotel26]

35 minutes ago, damerell said:

Have fun designing the badges.

Something like this, with Kerbin from the Map View.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Hotel26

[damerell]

20 hours ago, Jack Joseph Kerman said:

I do think it was a requirement way back in the early days of the challenge, but was changed because it made little sense to restrict them to the equator when a polar route would be just as long.

Elcano 1, 2, and 3 say "Basically, you are to circumnavigate, either equatorially or via a polar path", and the very first recorded Elcano of Eve was polar (and as of course you know, it's the only practical approach with a non-amphibious rover) so I think what has changed is that Elcano 4 permits you to, say, land at 45N 90W, rove directly to 45S 90E via 0N 0E, and continue back to where you started via 0N 180E.

Edited September 18, 2023 by damerell

[Ianwubby]

Aight so I've been doing WAY too much driving in the last few days. I ended up improving the propeller-driven design to be way faster than the old jet engine design (average ~16.4 m/s on the seafloor versus ~7 m/s for the old design). So between the higher top speed and never needing to refuel the thing, I've managed to complete the entire journey up to the old vehicle in just 38 hours, when the old one took 132 hours to get this far. The only downside about this version is that the propellers basically break instantly if you even go to 2x time warp, so I've had to do everything in real time instead of driving at 3x speed, but that's an acceptable sacrifice in my eyes.

I've just been recording the trip this time, so I'm gonna piece everything into a timelapse once the circumnavigation is over, which hopefully won't take too much longer.

Also uhhh, the seafloor texture is different now? I even did a clean install of the game to make sure no graphics mods were messing with things, and it's still like this, so idk what's going on with that-

[Nazalassa]

9 hours ago, Ianwubby said:

Also uhhh, the seafloor texture is different now? I even did a clean install of the game to make sure no graphics mods were messing with things, and it's still like this, so idk what's going on with that-

Texture resolution, perhaps?

[Ianwubby]

Did nearly 13 hours of driving today. I wanted to take a small detour to visit the deepest point on Kerbin and I figured I could get there today if I pushed it, so that's what I did

Here stands Padorf, 1390 meters below the surface, in the eye of the great seafloor smiley face.

We're in the home stretch, though I'll probably split the rest of the drive up across 2 more days instead of doing another crazy long session.