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

[Alarik0]

On 9/21/2023 at 1:42 AM, Alarik0 said:

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

-110 kg.

Mass without Kerbals, without cargo: 4533 kg.
Mass without Kerbals, with cargo (rules of the challenge): 4598 kg.

[Celeste SI]

Hey, I was wondering if you're still maintaining this thread/compilation? Alarik0's 4.6 ton run hasn't been added yet, so I'm not sure.

If so, I have 2 questions, and I hope you wouldn't mind answering them.
Looking at the rules, it seems as if KJR isn't allowed? (I haven't played without it for months, that'll be painful!)
Mechjeb's computer (for readouts and orientation) should be allowed, right?
 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Celeste SI

[camacju]

4 hours ago, Celeste SI said:

Looking at the rules, it seems as if KJR isn't allowed? (I haven't played without it for months, that'll be painful!)

If you're going for a spot on the table then the crafts are gonna be light enough to not need KJR. Autostrut is perfectly fine for anything here. Actually, a lot of the time, you will want to not use autostrut, for example with DLC propellers. 

4 hours ago, Celeste SI said:

Mechjeb's computer (for readouts and orientation) should be allowed, right?

Yes, at least that's what I've been using

[Celeste SI]

 

20 hours ago, camacju said:

If you're going for a spot on the table then the crafts are gonna be light enough to not need KJR.

That does make sense. It's just been a while, so I wasn't sure how wobbly stock is. TBF, with props, it shouldn't matter anyway (like you said).

 

20 hours ago, camacju said:

Yes, at least that's what I've been using

Alright, thank you.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Celeste SI
wording

[Alpaca Z]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:20 PM, Alarik0 said:

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).

To be rigorous and consistent, my thought is we should not allow craft file editing for this challenge in principle.

If you have edited your craft file, or want to whitelist some types of craft file editing, please list them out and I can add them into the challenge rules if appropriate.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Alpaca Z

[Alpaca Z]

On 10/5/2023 at 11:14 AM, JeDoesStuff said:

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

 

I have added your mission to the list. But I am wondering if I should another rule restricting the launch location to be on the surface of Kerbin ...

On 10/9/2023 at 7:50 AM, Alarik0 said:

-110 kg.

Mass without Kerbals, without cargo: 4533 kg.
Mass without Kerbals, with cargo (rules of the challenge): 4598 kg.

Well done! Added to the list. I am not monitoring the post frequently, but I will come back occasionally if I have time.

[Celeste SI]

ignore, used to hold a run that wasn't accepted

Edited January 23 by Celeste SI

[camacju]

I think launch clamp trickery should be banned because someone is going to just start in interplanetary space and that isn't really fun. You could have the rules say the craft has to start stationary and in contact with the surface of Kerbin, which does allow mountain launches but that's a bit more interesting than just sticking a 1 million km long launch clamp on the craft.

[Celeste SI]

That does make sense. Without the clamps, that attempt would have taken much more mass.

Clamps make it very unfair, especially for previous runs, so I do think they should be banned.

If my run isn't accepted, it's fine. I'll do another one.

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Celeste SI
original reply felt quite weird

[JeDoesStuff]

14 hours ago, Celeste SI said:

That does make sense. Without the clamps, that attempt would have taken probably another 400-500kg, maybe more.

Because of clamps allowing extremely high launch heights, I have these 3 craft ready:

1.782 ton Duna craft, a 2.975 ton Tylo craft, and a 1.2 ton (forgot exact weight, can't check right now) Mun craft.

These are hundreds of kgs, if not tons ahead of the previous record. Having to resort to "normal" methods like props would make them much more reasonable. So, it probably would be a good idea to ban it.

Although, above 100km or so, it does glitch and you can't move the craft at all, so there is a limit.

If my run isn't accepted, it's fine. I'll do another one.

Actually without the clamps it would have required less mass. At the time I was struggling with getting the fairing to get low drag (I was unaware of interstage node occlusion), so below a certain mass the drag limited my top speed. The higher mass allowed for the a more efficient ascent, but I wasn't able to take off with just the juno engine. Now, however, I've realized that the world record is very beatable, and I have put together a craft that could do it. It will have to wait for now, since I'm about to travel for thanksgiving, but the run wont stay for too long hopefully. As for the rules with the clamps, I think that the starting height for the clamps should not exceed the height of any mountain on Kerbin (6,767m), which will remove my run from the list. Only reason why the clamps were so tall in my video was because I didn't really plan how high the clamps were, but just offset the craft up in the SPH and winged (wung?) it from there.

Edited November 21, 2023 by JeDoesStuff

[Alpaca Z]

6 hours ago, camacju said:

I think launch clamp trickery should be banned because someone is going to just start in interplanetary space and that isn't really fun. You could have the rules say the craft has to start stationary and in contact with the surface of Kerbin, which does allow mountain launches but that's a bit more interesting than just sticking a 1 million km long launch clamp on the craft.

This makes sense, launch clamp trickery removes a lot of challenges. I have added the rule of launching stationary from the surface of Kerbin.

So unfortunately, @Celeste SI your submission is not accepted, but I do appreciate your effort and hope you can keep on challenging.

@JeDoesStuff I have temporarily kept your entry, since you launched within the lower atmosphere. But I suggest that you do another run without the launch clamp trick, and post it here when you have some time. 

[Celeste SI]

On 11/21/2023 at 4:00 AM, Alpaca Z said:

So unfortunately, @Celeste SI your submission is not accepted, but I do appreciate your effort and hope you can keep on challenging.

Alright, that's fine.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Celeste SI

[Celeste SI]

Quick question. How do you make counter-rotating props?

Edit: Ah, I think I've figured it out, you attach the second rotor to a part where the other rotor isn't the parent part. (ex. the side of a decoupler).

Hope this helps others who may have the same question.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Celeste SI

[Ultimate Steve]

Many months in the making, a new grand tour record jointly designed and flown by @camacju and myself!

Music video:

Technical details video:

Almost 4 tons lighter than the previous record, and we thought of nearly a ton of optimizations during the time it took to fly, so 6.8 is definitely possible. I'm not sure how far this optimization can continue, but I have a hunch that enough stuff will be discovered to make 6 tons a reality some day.

Edit: Silly me, forgot the exact mass. 7719kg with Bill, 7673 (or maybe 7674 depending on how it is rounded?) without Bill.

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Ultimate Steve

[JeDoesStuff]

I have beaten the world record for the Minimalist Mun Mission. Here is the video 

 

[Celeste SI]

 

 

1,493 kg Mun Mission
Reupload due to audio problems

Edited December 23, 2023 by Celeste SI

[Celeste SI]

1,483 kg Mun Mission

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Celeste SI

[camacju]

Eve in 4 tons. 3996 kg without pilot or cargo, 4061 kg by this thread's rules.

@Alpaca Z The central trick of this mission is the use of a ladder to effectively ignore a kerbal's mass and drag. By the rules of this thread as they are now, this should be legal, but an official ruling on this specific trick would be nice.

Edited December 18, 2023 by camacju

[camacju]

1.447 ton to Moho by JeDoesStuff

[JeDoesStuff]

@camacju Thanks for sharing for me, I was just about to do this but then I saw you had already done it!

[kspfreak]

I've been hearing about the launch clamp limits a lot, and in my personal opinion, launch clamps should be no higher than 100 meters.

That is because while mountains are only found in specific places, with launch clamps, you can position them almost anywhere.

Edited March 10 by kspfreak
Typo

[JeDoesStuff]

I have beaten the record for lightest mission to tylo. here is the video.

 

On 3/10/2024 at 8:03 AM, kspfreak said:

I've been hearing about the launch clamp limits a lot, and in my personal opinion, launch clamps should be no higher than 100 meters.

That is because while mountains are only found in specific places, with launch clamps, you can position them almost anywhere.

I agree, the rule I use is that launch clamps may not exceed the altitude of the VAB, since mountain terrain adds more complications than a tall launch clamp

[Donmy Kerman]

About the launch clamps, I think that they should be limited to the height of the mountains west of the KSC (around 5.5 km). I think we should also consider this, however: What if someone makes a craft with "feet" offsetted down several kilometers so that when they spawn in and decouple them, they end up several kilometers in the air (effectively a launch clamp, but not using a launch clamp). Should this be allowed?

[JeDoesStuff]

Perhaps the rule should be that the craft may not load at more than ~100 meters, and that if you want to start at a higher altitude, you must use a transport vehicle.  Also on using the mountains west of the KSC as the limit for lunch clamps, I disagree, since for many kilometers after the mountain the ground level is substantially higher than sea level, which as we all know will decrease the effectiveness of the juno engine, so using a 5km launch clamp instead of a mountain provides a significant advantage. However, I personally wouldn't be opposed to using set-position to place crafts on specific mountains, since this will help with speeding up the process of flying the mission (or using some vab/sph trickery to have the craft launch from a mountain in the first place).