Jump to content

No-emission Kerbin Circumnavigation Challenge


Recommended Posts

Thanks to a bunch of hippies from Green Springs and their goons at the so-called Environmental Security Agency (or, as we like to call it, the Economical Screw-up Agency), we now have to limit our Kerbin circumnavigation challenges to have ZERO overall emissions. In other words, whenever we circumnavigate the planet, we have to do it in an electric vehicle. Fortunately, thanks to our folks at Kerbal Motion LLC, we now have the means to do so. It may be slow, but it is possible.

 

In other words, the challenge is to go one full equator's length of Kerbin WITHOUT any gas-powered engines - which means ABSOLUTELY NO:

  • Jet engines
  • Rockets
  • Gas-powered turboshaft engines (like the R121 or the R7000)
    • Electric motors are okay.

 

Here are some other rules for this challenge.

  • Leaderboard placement will be awarded based on TOTAL MISSION TIME ELAPSED
  • (As you may have already guessed) vehicle must be all-electric.
    • Which means are solar panels and/or RTGs are highly recommended.
  • Having liquid fuel and/or oxidizer is okay ONLY for weight and balancing purposes.
    • This can come in real handy if you need to move your CoM forward or backward.
  • Fuel cells are not permitted, since we're trying to conserve gas thanks to those pot-smoking bureaucrats at the ESA.
    • Even if I did allow fuel cells, they won't be enough to push your vehicle through the whole length of the trip.
  • Stock and/or DLC parts only.
    • Autopilot/navigation/gauge mods okay.
      • Generally, no mods outside of DLCs that come with additional parts
    • EXCEPTION: mods that come with balloon or dirigible-related parts are permitted, but those craft go in a separate division. 
      • If you want to allow a specific mod that conforms to the other rules, let me know and I'll take a look at it before deciding if it shall be allowed.
  • Your vehicle must come back IN ONE PIECE.
    • Not that you should need an extra fuel tank for an all-electric vehicle.
  • Surface vehicles are okay, but they'll get placed in a separate division. 
    • Mostly because you'll take longer to go around the planet.
    • On the bright side, if you have to stop to recharge, you can pause and take a break IRL.
      • Just keep in mind that any and all recharge breaks in which the MET clock is running count for your finishing time.
  • Crew capacity is optional.  
  • Divisions are as follows:
    • Trekker Division - vehicles that can't fly, but travels on land and/or water to complete the journey.
    • Earhart Division - aircraft like planes, helicopters, and gyroplanes.
      • You'll get an Earhart Division: First Class medal if you successfully fly Kerbin's equator WITHOUT STOPPING.
    • Heisenberg Division - balloons, blimps, zeppelins, et cetera.
      • I don't know much about the balloon/airship mods, but the reason they're a separate division is because they can stay airborne without needing to land or stop. This may provide an unfair advantage over the aircraft, since they'll have to come down and recharge for God-knows-how-long before taking off again.
    • Sun Soaker Division - any craft that can successfully cruise at 175 m/s. 
      • More details later. 
  • Multiple entries per person allowed, but only the best-performing one for each division will be accepted.
  • Pictures and/or video required for entry to be valid. Be sure to include:
    • Your craft in action.
    • Start/finish times.
    • (Optional) the craft in the hangar.

 

If you're having trouble getting your rotors to work, please consult this thread below. @Echo__3 and @18Watt really helped me out when I started to use the Breaking Ground DLC.

  • Sure, I originally asked about a motor that's prohibited on this challenge. Nevertheless, the same principles still apply - and I got the electric-rotor plane to work successfully.

 

As promised, here's an explanation as to why the Sun Soaker Division has a speed requirement:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

And last but not least, here's my entry. Can't wait to see what you all come up with.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

LEADERBOARD - (ONGOING) MARCH 7, 2023

  1. TREKKER DIVISION
    1. (empty)
  2. EARHART DIVISION
    1. @18Watt - 3 hours, 14 minutes (FIRST CLASS)
    2. @Mars-Bound Hokie (ME) - 5 hours, 11 minutes, 30 seconds (FIRST CLASS)
      1. This was a last-minute entry.
      2. Better time than my last entry, but not fast enough to overtake the current leader
    3. @OJT - 17 hours, 13 minutes
  3. HEISENBERG DIVISION
    1. @Snigel - 5 hours, 3 minutes
      1. I know that he damaged the Thunderbolt's lower battery pod during the landing, but the "Come back in one piece" rule was mainly intended to prevent jettisoning and mid-air explosions. Had he kept the landing a little softer - or if landing gear wasn't too much of a problem for the craft's performance - he could have landed the craft intact.
  4. SUN SOAKER DIVISION
    1. (Could be me, but I don't really care since I was doing a speed test before sending the E-40 to Laythe)

(Please let me know if I missed anything)

Edited by Mars-Bound Hokie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me somewhat of the 100 EC range challenge, where it was demonstrated that you can fly basically forever on a single Z-100 battery.

As an aside, will we be allowed to use a turboshaft engine if no liquid fuel is consumed? My plan is to use one as a ram air turbine - have it passively spinning so its alternator will generate electricity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/3/2022 at 6:15 AM, camacju said:

As an aside, will we be allowed to use a turboshaft engine if no liquid fuel is consumed? My plan is to use one as a ram air turbine - have it passively spinning so its alternator will generate electricity.

Expand  

That is an interesting take on a perpetual motion machine!  If that works, I'd love to see it.  KSP has some interesting physics..

I know it's possible to go faster, but my current plane is cruising at 307 m/s, about Mach 0.82 I think.  I'm sure I'll lose a little speed when I need to go over mountains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/3/2022 at 6:30 AM, 18Watt said:

That is an interesting take on a perpetual motion machine!  If that works, I'd love to see it.  KSP has some interesting physics..

I know it's possible to go faster, but my current plane is cruising at 307 m/s, about Mach 0.82 I think.  I'm sure I'll lose a little speed when I need to go over mountains.

Expand  

Personally I think altitude will be slightly more important than speed, mainly due to the relationship between air pressure, thrust and drag which i think adds another layer to this challenge over your average circumnavigation.
currently I'm getting 310m/s at about mach 0.95 after some tweaking of the rake of the propellors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's my entry.  3 hours 28 minutes.  I threw Jeb onboard, just because.

Starting out:

  Reveal hidden contents

More screenshots:

  Reveal hidden contents

Finish:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently working on a second run.  I've optimized my plane to maintain better speed at higher altitudes, for clearing various mountains.  A side benefit is it's getting better speed down low too.  Hoping to shave a minute or two off my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/3/2022 at 6:15 AM, camacju said:

This reminds me somewhat of the 100 EC range challenge

Expand  

*Vietnam flashbacks* :lol: It was a fun challenge to be fair

Regarding this challenge: I know the challenge specifically requires electric propulsion, but hydrogen fuel cells are a thing and they produce basically no harmful emissions. Canonically, KSP's Liquid Fuel is closest to RP-1 Kerosene, but I think allowing fuel cells that use hydrogen (there might be mods for it) can give an interesting spin on the challenge

With that being said, here's my 100 EC circumnavigator that I built for 18Watt's challenge. Since it is all electric, it is eligible for this thread. Although, with flight time of 17 hours and 13 minutes, it will probably be the slowest submission in this thread :lol:

 

 

Edited by OJT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After crashing my plane into mountains at night too many times to count, I've done something I seldom do, install a mod.  I'm using a mod called Pilot Assistant.  It's a pretty basic autopilot for airplanes.  

I played around with using servos to help keep pitch and roll steady, but never achieved satisfactory results.  Just need something to keep the wings level and the pitch fairly constant.

And yes, I did attempt to recover with a F9 after crashing.  Unfortunately, my planes did not F9 in the atmosphere correctly, so I need to do the run without relying on quick saves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updated time:  3 hours 14 minutes.

After repeatedly crashing into mountains, I started using an autopilot mod.

  Reveal hidden contents

Second hour:

  Reveal hidden contents

Third hour:

  Reveal hidden contents

Finish:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a small bit of research and some more tinkering it looks like the optimal way to get more speed is using the largest motors with the medium sized ducted fan.
bSpaV1D.png

As you can see I've used quite a few of them, as well as shrouding them in a fairing to reduce drag.
All in all this gives me 352m/s at sea level and 331m/s at 2500m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/3/2022 at 5:06 AM, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Having liquid fuel and/or oxidizer is okay ONLY for weight and balancing purposes.

Expand  

Are ore tanks allowed for the same purpose?

  On 10/3/2022 at 5:06 AM, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

ABSOLUTELY NO:

  • Jet engines
  • Rockets
  • Gas-powered turboshaft engines (like the R121 or the R7000)
    • Electric motors are okay.
Expand  

What about ion engines? They run mainly on electricity, and the emitted xenon isn't harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/11/2022 at 4:07 AM, Leganeski said:

Are ore tanks allowed for the same purpose?

Expand  

Absolutely.

 

  On 10/11/2022 at 4:07 AM, Leganeski said:

What about ion engines? They run mainly on electricity, and the emitted xenon isn't harmful.

Expand  

I suppose so, but good luck going anywhere with their weak thrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the results of further tweaking, i'm eek even more speed out at sea level for the runs in between the various landmasses.
bLNlO6u.png
I'm currently using a part edited ion engine to provide for the energy generation requirements, I'd need around 100 rtg's to comfortably satisfy electric charge requirements. I did, however for the sake of fairness add roughly 8 tons of ballast to simulate the RTGs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point is it better to stop using turbine blades and start using wings on your BG motors? If this is a speed-limited challenge I feel like that's the bigger concern. Throwing a big pile of BG motors or SAS wheels behind a stock prop might break 350 m/s. I mean, people have gotten to like 1400 using stock bearings (twice that with magic wings) so BG bearings have to be better, right?

 

Edited by Pds314
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/18/2022 at 12:15 PM, Pds314 said:

At what point is it better to stop using turbine blades and start using wings on your BG motors? If this is a speed-limited challenge I feel like that's the bigger concern. Throwing a big pile of BG motors or SAS wheels behind a stock prop might break 350 m/s. I mean, people have gotten to like 1400 using stock bearings (twice that with magic wings) so BG bearings have to be better, right?

 

Expand  

I think it's more of a function of speed at altitude over anything else. If you can optimise an engine and aircraft to fly it's fastest at 4.5 to 5.5km you can avoid all the tedium of a more direct approach in regards to piloting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/18/2022 at 12:15 PM, Pds314 said:

so BG bearings have to be better, right?

Expand  

Actually, no - the limiting factor is torque per mass, rather than top speed. Reaction wheels provide a lot more torque than the Breaking Ground rotors - with normal elevon props, the rotors can't even reach 300 meters per second. The lift to drag ratio is just too low.

One interesting compromise would be using reaction wheels to spin a Breaking Ground rotor and provide more torque this way, but I haven't quite worked out how the control scheme would work yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...