Low Mass Challenge World Record Compiled (Stock + DLC) | Lightest crafts to each planet/moon

[Alpaca Z]

Low mass challenges are always fun. I have been interested in it for a long time, watched a lot of fantastic videos, and have set a few records by myself.

However, a lot of the low mass challenges on the forum are either outdated or simply doesn’t exist. I haven’t found anyone doing a compilation of the existing low mass records either.

As ksp1 is in its final version and ksp2 is approaching, I decided to dig up all the existing low mass world records and make a table of them.

I have decided to only include manned missions that lands on celestial bodies other than Kerbin. Therefore, unmanned missions and low mass to orbit are not shown here.

Due to limited time and effort, I only count the first 3 places for each mission.

Special thanks to @camacju for helping me collecting some of these records.

Low mass world record list

Destination 1st place 2nd place 3rd place Moho 1.681 ton ZG Alpaca 2.038 ton Bradley Whistance 2.976 ton Blend Flour Eve 4.598 ton Alarik0 (4.708 ton) 5.04 ton Proxima (7.5 ton) 8.061 ton Blend Flour Gilly 1.6 ton Turbo Pumped (2.9 ton)     Minmus 1.087 ton Proxima 1.199 ton Bradley Whistance (1.3 & 2.0 ton)   1.279 ton Commandante Sese Mun 1.726 ton Hodeok 1.777 ton Dr. Compton 1.951 ton  JeDoesStuff? Duna 2.291 ton ZG Alpaca 2.998 ton Bradley Whistance 3.998 ton astrobond Duna+Ike 3.398 ton Donmy Kerman 3.664 ton kspfreak   3.955 ton astrobond Dres 1.673 ton Proxima     Tylo 4.685 ton Proxima 4.906 ton Guybrush Kerman 8.1 ton Hodeok Jool-5 5.253 ton Proxima 5.819 ton ZG Alpaca   6.2 ton Bradley Whistance Eeloo 1.658 ton Blend Flour 1.8 ton Hodeok 2.7 ton Turbo Pumped Grand Tour 11.398 ton Ultimate Steve 14.508 ton Proxima 25.1 ton Bradley Whistance

 

As you can see, I try to avoid repeated counting, and include as many contributors as possible. So only the best result is counted if one person made multiple attempts at the same challenge. Following the same logic, grand tour or Jool 5 missions do not count towards any other challenges.

I have followed a few rules in my selection, which also serves as the rule if anyone wants to attempt one of the challenges.

Rules

- No infinite fuel, infinite electricity, hack gravity, or any form of cheating. (obviously)

- Stock and DLC only, no modded parts. Information mods are OK. If you are not sure, ask in your submission.

- No kraken drives (docking ports, landing gears or whatsoever), no KAL overclock, no magic wings (heat shield or flag wings), no cfg change.

- Must be Manned. The Kerbal must return to Kerbin.

- Re-entry heating must be set to at least 100%.

- Mass does not include launch clamps.

- Mass does not include pilot.

- Part clipping is allowed but should be stated clearly.

- You are welcome to post your missions here. However, missions above 25 tons will not be added to the record list, even if you are the only entry in your category. This is the mass of the heaviest craft within the current list, which is Brad’s grand tour mission a long time ago.

- In case you don’t know yet, a sandbox save with Commnet disabled allows engineers to create maneuver nodes. This is encouraged so that you can push the limit further using EVA construction.

- The craft has to start stationary and in contact with the surface of Kerbin, allowing mountain launches but forbid launch clamp trickery.

Notes

Missions prior to ksp 1.0 were not counted, because the game was very different at that early stage.

I excluded the usage of magic wings, but there are some very interesting low mass missions using them. I have included two examples here:

1.56 ton SSTO to Eve and back

0.776 ton SSTO to Minmus and back

What to do next?

Is there any new record to be set?

Of course! Dres has little attention now, and there haven’t been separate attempts to each of the Joolian moons other than Tylo.

Is there any room for improvement to the current records?

There certainly is. I know some community members are working on improving the Eve, Duna+Ike and grand tour records. The Duna and Gilly records have quite some room for improvement. The other records may also be improved, but the margin is really tight, and probably there wouldn’t be better approaches that are qualitatively different.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Alpaca Z
additional info

[camacju]

Amazing!

Maybe make a leaderboard for most records? (:

Jool surface can be another category. I know Brad Whistance, Stratzenblitz and Lt_Duckweed have done it before. I think Lark has also, but I don't know details.

[Alpaca Z]

Just now, camacju said:

Amazing!

Maybe make a leaderboard for most records? (:

Jool surface can be another category. I know Brad Whistance, Stratzenblitz and Lt_Duckweed have done it before. I think Lark has also, but I don't know details.

The leaderboard can be very long. I don't intend to make one, but anyone who is interested can make one in the comment.

I don't think anyone has optimized their Jool "lander" for low mass, so I left it out for now. I will update if someone did that.

[camacju]

 

[Ultimate Steve]

Fantastic! It is amazing that they are all finally compiled in one place!

On 2/13/2023 at 8:27 PM, Alpaca Z said:

- Mass does not include pilot.

Question about this. Does "Pilot" also include up to one EVA jetpack and one EVA parachute per Kerbal?  Assuming the wiki is correct, Kerbals are 45 kilograms, the jetpack is 40, and the chute is 4, totaling 89 (I think KER would be a better measure as I remember the total being 90, so we would have to check).

It might be worth clarifying in case it causes trouble going forward. The 11,488kg grand tour could be counted as low as 11,358kg subtracting both Kerbals and the jetpack (I counted total liftoff mass). I think this is worth clarifying seeing as Kerbals are no longer discrete ~89kg units, but now have themselves, and optional jetpacks and parachutes.

Also,

On 2/13/2023 at 8:27 PM, Alpaca Z said:

There certainly is. I know some community members are working on improving the Eve, Duna+Ike and grand tour records.

Who is working on the grand tour record? I have some very interesting design optimizations that could see the record drop by potentially another couple tons, but I am far too impatient to fly the mission as pretty much all user friendliness is stripped out. I would probably be happy to collaborate with someone, pooling our ideas and patience and varied piloting skills for a co-operative mission and shared credit.

[Ultimate Steve]

On 2/13/2023 at 8:27 PM, Alpaca Z said:

 

- In case you don’t know yet, a sandbox save with Commnet disabled allows engineers to create maneuver nodes. This is encouraged so that you can push the limit further using EVA construction.

So that's how you are all doing it! I was assuming you all were using clear input locks or something, I swear I didn't send 2 Kerbals in the grand tour just to show off, lol.

[Alpaca Z]

8 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Fantastic! It is amazing that they are all finally compiled in one place!

Question about this. Does "Pilot" also include up to one EVA jetpack and one EVA parachute per Kerbal?  Assuming the wiki is correct, Kerbals are 45 kilograms, the jetpack is 40, and the chute is 4, totaling 89 (I think KER would be a better measure as I remember the total being 90, so we would have to check).

It might be worth clarifying in case it causes trouble going forward. The 11,488kg grand tour could be counted as low as 11,358kg subtracting both Kerbals and the jetpack (I counted total liftoff mass). I think this is worth clarifying seeing as Kerbals are no longer discrete ~89kg units, but now have themselves, and optional jetpacks and parachutes.

Also,

Who is working on the grand tour record? I have some very interesting design optimizations that could see the record drop by potentially another couple tons, but I am far too impatient to fly the mission as pretty much all user friendliness is stripped out. I would probably be happy to collaborate with someone, pooling our ideas and patience and varied piloting skills for a co-operative mission and shared credit.

On the first point, I wanted to count it as total launch mass - pilot mass (45 kg X No. of pilots). Because some of the records use jetpack, some don't (mostly mine). I didn't say it because it makes calculations a bit complex, and I don't know how people would think about it.

On the second point, I believe Proxima looked at improving grand tour record, but not sure if she is still working on it.

[kspfreak]

Low mass mission to Duna + Ike:

Craft mass: 3.709t with pilot, 3.615t w/o pilot.

Note: there is some part clipping in the 2nd stage and and fairing base as well as the mk0 fuselage and whiplash engine.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iAJWsiYDi24

Edited February 25, 2023 by kspfreak

[camacju]

On 2/24/2023 at 12:42 AM, Alpaca Z said:

Proxima looked at improving grand tour record, but not sure if she is still working on it

I got a ~10 ton craft functional, but I didn't fly it beyond low Kerbin orbit.

@Ultimate Steve If you're still interested, I'd love to collaborate on another grand tour! 

[Ultimate Steve]

3 minutes ago, camacju said:

I got a ~10 ton craft functional, but I didn't fly it beyond low Kerbin orbit.

@Ultimate Steve If you're still interested, I'd love to collaborate on another grand tour! 

Fantastic! Just saw your Discord message, I'll get back to you with more details when I'm less busy (University, cubesat project, KSP 2 stuff, etc). My best design had in theory gone as low as 8.8 tons, but I was never fully able to test it, and I don't think I ever managed to successfully fly the Tylo lander even if it is successful on paper. Eve vehicle got down to ~1.4 tons but had to fight instability from using the basic fin layout (interestingly enough the Cub was used on this design as bizarrely it was somehow the best engine for the job). Another Eve design has no instability but uses the slighlty heavier actual wings.

[Donmy Kerman]

5 tons to Eve by Proxima 

 

[Alpaca Z]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:36 AM, Donmy Kerman said:

5 tons to Eve by Proxima 

 

Updated the record table.

[Donmy Kerman]

I did a Duna/Ike mission:

3.4 ton Duna/Ike mission

Total mass without kerbal: 3,398 kg

Note: part clipping is used on the second stage (a ball is clipped into the FL-T100 tank for extra dV) and in the ion stage for extra compactness

Edited December 21, 2023 by Donmy Kerman

[camacju]

By the rules of this thread, this should be 1087 kg:

 

[Donmy Kerman]

I did a low mass Duna+Ike mission (sorry for the duplicate post, I thought the original was deleted):

Mass of 3.398 tons without pilot (3.443 tons according to this thread's rules)

Part clipping is used in the second stage to store extra fuel and in the ion stage to make it smaller.

Mission Report

Edited December 21, 2023 by Donmy Kerman

[camacju]

Another!

5253 kg by the challenge rules, 5184 kg without pilot or cargo

Edited July 3, 2023 by camacju

[Alarik0]

Mass without Kerbals, without cargo: 4643 kg.
Mass without Kerbals, with cargo (rules of the challenge): 4708 kg.

[camacju]

Nice work!

[Jeb x Valentina]

It's sad there's only 1 Dres and Gilly entry... The poor boring rocks need low weight visitors, don't they?

I may try Gilly, but not Dres. I haven't even sent a normal weight mission there, so Gilly is better (I haven't gone to Gilly yet either but atleast I am capable of doing Mun and back)

 

[Alarik0]

As mass gets down, an additional rule might be needed.

Let me explain: .craft editing is not forbidden explicitly in the challenge rules (as far as I know). It should not be completely forbidden, as .craft editing is necessary to align the thrust vector with the center of mass of final stages like this Eve one (LV-1R has an arbitrary thrust offset, and the Kerbal in the command seat has an arbitrary mass offset. This is compatible with in-game editor restrictions). I also used .craft editing to find a tight fairing (whilst respecting in-game editor restrictions -- e.g. no less than 0.2 distance units between sections, at least r>0.3 if not capped, etc.).

However, when .craft editing, it is possible to circumvent in-game editor restrictions in several ways.

There's 3 options:
1. Explicitly allow all .craft editing. As .craft files are perfectly portable between installs, when you download an edited .craft file, it works in a vanilla KSP install. However these files might not be possible to generate within the in-game editor. (This is very cheaty and broken, but would lead to cool new designs that are, again, portable to a clean KSP install). (This results in a set of .craft files that is a superset of in-game generable .craft files).

2. Allow all .craft editing done in such a way that all in-game editor restrictions are respected. (I like this one as it allows a lot of freedom without being cheaty). (This results in a set of .craft files that is equal to the set of in-game generable .craft files).

3. Whitelist the kinds of .craft editing allowed. For instance, allow for part displacement within sensible ranges, part rotation, and fairing construction (such that in-game editor restrictions are respected). (Impossible to enforce since the resulting set of .craft files is equal to the set of in-game generable .craft files -- i.e. indistinguishable from the set described in point 2. However, if we trust each other, this might be fine).

A fourth option would be to disallow all forms of .craft editing. However, this is not enforceable as the resulting set is equal to sets described in points 2 and 3. (And would result in retroactive and biased (as unbiased .craft checking is impossible) disqualifications of the challenge).

[camacju]

For the record, you don't need to use craft file editing to align the Spider engine thrust and the kerbal. All you need to do is get close enough with angle snap turned off, and use the engine gimbal to compensate for any imbalance. 
 

Edit: I'm pretty sure we cannot allow all forms of craft file editing, because you can get negative fuel in a fuel tank and that makes a mockery of this whole challenge. I would err on the side of no craft editing, and if there's any doubt, have a requirement to show the in-game construction method that was used. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by camacju

[Alarik0]

1 hour ago, camacju said:

For the record, you don't need to use craft file editing to align the Spider engine thrust and the kerbal. All you need to do is get close enough with angle snap turned off, and use the engine gimbal to compensate for any imbalance. 
 

Edit: I'm pretty sure we cannot allow all forms of craft file editing, because you can get negative fuel in a fuel tank and that makes a mockery of this whole challenge. I would err on the side of no craft editing, and if there's any doubt, have a requirement to show the in-game construction method that was used. 

Ah, did not know the negative mass thing. Option 1 is out of the question then. You can also do negative fairings (negative radius) which is pretty funny.

To me it was like; I obtained the thrust vector offset of the LV-1R with Blender and, having that, it feels weird to find the balance numerically (as it now can be solved analytically). If that makes sense.

Sorry for opening the can of worms. Let's see what @Alpaca Z thinks. It's an interesting problem nonetheless. For the sake of discussion:

• A craft X exists
• In-game construction methods exist for creating X
• I say that I created X purely with in-game construction methods

The only way to conclude "X was created in-game" is if you trust me (why should you?). Without relying on trust, you can only conclude that X could have been created in-game (i.e. the .craft belongs to the set of crafts that can be created in-game).

Edited September 29, 2023 by Alarik0

[Donmy Kerman]

11 hours ago, Alarik0 said:

1. Explicitly allow all .craft editing. As .craft files are perfectly portable between installs, when you download an edited .craft file, it works in a vanilla KSP install. However these files might not be possible to generate within the in-game editor. (This is very cheaty and broken, but would lead to cool new designs that are, again, portable to a clean KSP install). (This results in a set of .craft files that is a superset of in-game generable .craft files).

2. Allow all .craft editing done in such a way that all in-game editor restrictions are respected. (I like this one as it allows a lot of freedom without being cheaty). (This results in a set of .craft files that is equal to the set of in-game generable .craft files).

3. Whitelist the kinds of .craft editing allowed. For instance, allow for part displacement within sensible ranges, part rotation, and fairing construction (such that in-game editor restrictions are respected). (Impossible to enforce since the resulting set of .craft files is equal to the set of in-game generable .craft files -- i.e. indistinguishable from the set described in point 2. However, if we trust each other, this might be fine).

A fourth option would be to disallow all forms of .craft editing. However, this is not enforceable as the resulting set is equal to sets described in points 2 and 3. (And would result in retroactive and biased (as unbiased .craft checking is impossible) disqualifications of the challenge).

In my opinion #3 and #4 seem far too restrictive and arbitrary. I would say to do #2 for the normal leaderboard, and include a second leaderboard that uses #1 just to see what happens. All of the old records would also be included on the new leaderboard (as they don't violate #1).

If #1 proves too cheaty however, we can remove that second leaderboard.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Donmy Kerman

[Jeb x Valentina]

btw @Alpaca Z, mind if I upload my submission in screenshots (and the .craft file, obviously)? My screen recorder has been glitching for a while and really kills my FPS

[JeDoesStuff]

I have beaten the 3rd place record for the mun with mass of 1.951 tons. Here is the video