Min/Min Mun Challenge!

[Superfluous J]

LEADERBOARDS:

[table]

[tr][td]FUEL:

1. Tigik (299)
   
2. tavert (360)
   
3. Smidge204 (405)
   
4. magico13 (450)
   
5. 5thHoresman (585)
   
6. zorque (31050)
   
7. PLAD (61425)
   
8. .
   

[/td][td]TIME:

1. PLAD (43:33)
   
2. zorque (1:10:02)
   
3. tavert (2:45:03)
   
4. 5thHoresman (4:16:54)
   
5. magico13 (4:49:50)
   
6. Tigik (7:03:10)
   
7. Smidge204 (9:40:23)
   
8. .
   

[/td][td]BOTH:

1. tavert (5)
   
2. Tigik (7)
   
3. (T3) zorque (8)
   
4. (T3) PLAD (8)
   
5. (T5) 5thHoresman (9)
   
6. (T5) magico13 (9)
   
7. Smidge204 (10)
   
8. .
   

[/td][/tr][/table]

The Krussians have announced they're mere hours from planting a flag on Mun! We have to beat them there! However, Kongress will cancel the Space Program if we use too much fuel, and the populace will demand they close it if a Kerbal dies on the way.

To be eligible for the leaderboards you must:

1) Launch a ship. This ship can have no Solid Boosters, Ion drives, RCS thrusters or jet engines. We're building a good old fashioned Liquid Fuel Rocket here.

2) Plant a flag on Mun with a Kerbal you launched in that ship.

3) Return every Kerbal you launched back to Kerbin.

That's it. Simple, no?

NO! There are 3 leader boards:

The FUEL leaderboard will track who did this challenge with the least fuel. Kongress will love you.

The TIME leaderboard will track who planted a flag in the least amount of time. Beat those Krussians!

The BOTH leaderboard is for the elites. Add up your two ranks on the FUEL and TIME leaderboards, and that will determine your place you on the BOTH leaderboard. Again, you want the smallest number. NOTE: These have to be from the SAME MISSION. You are allowed to do multiple missions, but your BOTH ranking will be of the FUEL and TIME rankings of the same mission.

NOTE 1: It doesn't matter how long it takes to bring your Kerbals home. ALL that matters is MISSION TIME when you plant the flag, TOTAL LIQUID FUEL on the launch pad, and SAFE RETURN of all Kerbals involved.

NOTE 2: You can enter as often as you like, but you'll only get ONE entry. When you submit an entry, it REPLACES your previous entry. So only submit a new entry if it'll better your score (or say in the post that you're not submitting, but just showing off)

I have successfully done this with 1350 liters of fuel in 4:56:10, returning my single Kerbal home. Who can beat me? (It shouldn't be too hard. I didn't work that hard on it )

To enter: Post your scores. I'll trust anybody with a typical score but if you have something that beats the average, please post pictures at least at the launch pad and of your flag site. Your flag site picture must show MISSION time, not EVA time. You have to EVA your Kerbal to plant the flag and his clock will reset when you do. After you've planted the flag, switch back to your ship so you are reporting MISSION TIME. I'm sure there are ways to cheat the mission time. Please don't do that. I want the time elapsed from launch to flag planting. You can NOT get in the top 3 without posting proof images. Craft files would be nice as well.

MODS:

If you could fly the ship without the mod, the mod is okay. If you need the mod to get your score, the mod is NOT okay.

Allowed:

Informational and Control mods (KER, MechJeb, Enhanced Navball)

Visual/Flavor mods (Chatterer, Visual Enhancements, Universe Replacer)

Disallowed:

Parts mods (B9) - NOTE: Both KER and MechJeb have parts in them and those parts are okay to use because they don't affect how the craft flies.

Physics Modifying Mods (FAR, DRE, even KMP)

Special Rules (NOTE: This list looks long but it all boils down to the first rule)

• No abusing physics. If it feels wrong, don't do it. If you don't know, ask. In pariticular:
  
• No decoupler spam. This isn't a "I can get there in 4 seconds by hitting the spacebar twice" challenge. Though if you could do it with decouplers, I'd love to see a picture of your landed craft
  
• No infinigliders. As above I'd love to see one, but you can't enter it for the leaderboard.
  
• No Airplane Landing gear (the kind with 50m/s collision tolerance). It's extra strong and light to make planes work. And to make Mun Landers for this challenge Don't do it
  
• No putting a Kerbal sideways on a ladder. This causes them to become massless. Clever, but not valid for the challenge.
  
• No Lithobraking Strut Connectors. Struts are strong and light as well, and can save a craft from a horrible crash when really that wouldn't happen if KSP physics were a little better. So don't use 'em as high-impact landing gear.
  
• No "Getting Out And Pushing." While a totally valid way to save a craft in regular KSP, it uses a type of fuel that is not only not a Liquid/Oxidizer mix, but it's free, infinite, and weightless to boot. So no. Your Kerbal can use it to get around on Mun but you can't use it to push your ship while flying.
  

Let me know if I forgot anything, or if anything is confusing. Hopefully the idea is simple and fun!

EDITS:

Old rule, modified above to specify airplane landing gear

• No Landing gear. It's extra strong and light to make planes work. And to make Mun Landers for this challenge Don't do it

Edited April 14, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[Superfluous J]

Here's my entry:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

And here's my .craft file

I start it a little higher than is typical but it's possible to do that in the VAB so I figure it's fair

The 4 asparagus tanks get me most of the way to orbit, and the central tank gets the rest of the way to orbit and then to Mun, and almost slows me down all the way (I think I had about 100m/s left when it ran out). The little fuel tank under the capsule finishes the landing and then brings my guy home. I had about 200 m/s to spare when I had a re-entry trajectory, but I burned it all off by mistake. Almost screwed up my entry!

I did an aggressive gravity turn, starting at 5km up and reaching 45 degrees when my apoapsis was at 20km (I love Kerbal Engineer). I then slowly brought it down 5 degrees for every 5km the apoapsis went up, until I was horizontal at 70km. I did about a half orbit before burning for Mun, and I burned so I had a Mun periapsis 6km up on the sunny side. I burned at that periapsis, dumping my penultimate tank with about 100m/s to spare. I think it's in orbit around Mun and will eventually crash as 6km is pretty low. I landed pretty easily, jumped out, planted my flag, and then quickly switched to the lander to take the 2nd screen shot. Then it was a very easy trip home with fuel to spare, with only one scary moment when I realized I'd hit shift by accident. My periapsis was over 70km but I had a little fuel left so I brought it back down. Sadly, I missed my day-side landing because of it, which is why the 3rd shot is in the dark.

Edited January 3, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[tavert]

This was from .21, so you can get away with less fuel now that the 48-7S has 50% more thrust: 855 fuel, about 7h 21min (pictures are a few months old, so no flag + mission timer shot, sorry)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Using a seat should cut down on the fuel usage by quite a bit. You should also probably ban infinigliders, unless you want to see someone do that...

Edited January 3, 2014 by tavert

[Superfluous J]

This was from .21, so you can get away with less fuel now that the 48-7S has 50% more thrust: 855 fuel, about 7h 21min (pictures are a few months old, so no flag + mission timer shot, sorry)

I'm going to make an executive decision and count the time on your takeoff. It's a bit after the flag planting but it's the first mission time you showed after the proof you planted a flag. Congrats, we're tied for first place!

Using a seat should cut down on the fuel usage by quite a bit. You should also probably ban infinigliders, unless you want to see someone do that...

Good call. I forgot about infinigliders. I've added a rule. Seats are perfectly acceptable but remember, your Kerbal has to get home safely and seats and parachutes don't always go well together

Edited January 3, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[JohnW]

Still working on this, but...

[Superfluous J]

Still working on this, but...

http://i.imgur.com/cd0AcDk.gif

Haha! I love it! I've been thinking of a chaired craft but mine had nowhere near yours' style.

I work 3rd shift in the Eastern US time zone, so I'm going to sleep. Anybody who posts one will get on the leaderboard but it may not be for 8+ hours.

But post 'em!

[tavert]

Here's an abuse of KSP physics, with only 180 fuel, flag planted at 3:07:30.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Fuel margins are nonexistent so I doubt this can be flown on the same flight plan without MechJeb (a slower more efficient trajectory to the Mun could probably work with manual flying though), and some substantial lithobraking was performed on both the Mun landing and the Kerbin return landing. Only part that broke was an octo-strut that was only needed to cheat physics. Good thing the aircraft landing gear are massless and have a very high landing speed tolerance. This time is definitely beatable - I could've cut off 15 or 20 minutes if I had launched at the right time, whoops - but not by much without using more fuel as far as I can see (or with jets, which aren't allowed here).

Counting the ways this exploits odd glitches in KSP physics:

1. The Kerbal rides on a perpendicular ladder, so has no inertia and gets brought along on the ride for free. The Kerbal mass costs no extra delta-V or fuel beyond bringing just the probe with this design. It does limit time warp to physical warp, or require you to let go of the ladder and drift around while warping.

2. As previously mentioned, the aircraft landing gear are massless and can stand very rough landings without exploding.

3. Placing an octo-strut below the last-stage engine means its thrust is not counted as obstructed, so I can freely asparagus one tank at a time, in a single stack below that engine while firing it from the start. There's just one more 48-7S on the first drop tank, helping to stay at terminal velocity for the first ~25 seconds.

Did I miss anything else that seems strange?

Edited January 3, 2014 by tavert

[Smidge204]

Okay, I had to get out and push twice which I'm not entirely sure means my entry is valid... but I'm submitting it anyway.

369 units of fuel, but took 9 hours, 4 min 51 seconds form launch pad to flag plant (includes 34 seconds of EVA time to plant flag).

Edit: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRjRFfYF3Wg

To my credit, I can totally do it without pushing except I just *had* to land at the Neil monument

If the pushing disqualifies me, and you don't believe I could do it without, I'll run it again.

=Smidge=

Edited January 3, 2014 by Smidge204

[Superfluous J]

Awesome entries. I'm disqualifying both, though both are awesome.

tavert: You've caused me to put a blanket ban on weird physics glitches, and specific bans on landing gear, the ladder trick, and using struts to lithobrake

Smidge: jet engines are already banned by the challenge, and I've decided to ban pushing as well.

Thanks to both of you for very interesting entries, though, and for making the rules more bulletproof.

[Smidge204]

I did not notice the part about no jets - oh well! Still fun.

=Smidge=

[Smidge204]

Okay, let's try this again:

http://youtu.be/j600dXapuhA

720 fuel, 9 hours, 38 minutes, 49 seconds to flag.

=Smidge=

[Superfluous J]

Okay, let's try this again:

http://youtu.be/j600dXapuhA

720 fuel, 9 hours, 38 minutes, 49 seconds to flag.

=Smidge=

Not only a valid entry, but a sweet ride!

One change I'm making to your score, though: The only acceptable time is mission time on the screen, the first chance you get back to the pod. That time was 9:38:57 from what I saw. The reasoning is: We don't have to guess when things happened or how long they took and you can submit a screen shot as proof. My time submitted was that time, and tavert's was actually later than that time

Amusingly, your entry had the least fuel but the most time (which is actually reasonable considering it takes a balance of both to win this challenge) so now instead of a 2-way tie for first on the BOTH board, there's a 3-way tie!

Someone submit an entry to shake this thing up!

[Smidge204]

The only acceptable time is mission time on the screen, the first chance you get back to the pod. That time was 9:38:57 from what I saw. The reasoning is: We don't have to guess when things happened or how long they took and you can submit a screen shot as proof.

No guessing necessary: Clock reads 9h 38m 36s when I get out of the chair, and the clock reads 13s when the flag pops out. Add the two together!

=Smidge=

[Superfluous J]

No guessing necessary: Clock reads 9h 38m 36s when I get out of the chair, and the clock reads 13s when the flag pops out. Add the two together!

=Smidge=

I just noticed your forum name is *not* =Smidge= so I'll change that on the leaderboard.

And it's just easier this way. I specifically defined that time knowing that it would be a few seconds beyond when you actually planted the flag, and also knowing that the chances that it would matter are so miniscule as to not matter. Also, time isn't defined as when you right clicked your Kerbal, it's when the flag is planted and text is typed. I think I typed "asdf" as the text. That includes time for your Kerbal to turn, plant, get the GUI up, and type some text. Only after all this is done do I consider your flag "planted." You did this 16 seconds after you got out, or 4 seconds before you got back in.

Also, your EVA clock reads 20 seconds when you get back in the chair, but mission time reads 9:38:57, so there is a 1 second difference between the "guessed" time there. I would rather have the argument we're having now about actual text you can read on the screen, than someone post an entry 1 second from yours and have to figure out if your time was "actually" 9:38:49 or 9:38:50.

But really. We're talking seconds here, out of 9 hours. If I have to I can make a blanket statement that I'll subtract 5 seconds from everybody's displayed time, but it won't affect the leaderboard.

[zorque]

Jeb took it upon himself to decide that beating the Krussians was far more important than saving fuel, so set off on a solo mission to get to the Mun well before anyone else.

1:10:02 from launch to flag planted, and just another 1:10 to get back home safely in time for dinner. Probably the polar opposite of Smidge's entry.

-Mike

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Superfluous J]

Jeb took it upon himself to decide that beating the Krussians was far more important than saving fuel, so set off on a solo mission to get to the Mun well before anyone else.

1:10:02 from launch to flag planted, and just another 1:10 to get back home safely in time for dinner. Probably the polar opposite of Smidge's entry.

-Mike

Haha I was hoping someone would try that approach. I was curious what the absolute fastest you could get there is. I doubt anybody will submit an entry with about that amount of fuel, but just to be sure I assume 31050 is the correct amount of fuel before takeoff?

[zorque]

...I assume 31050 is the correct amount of fuel before takeoff?

Yes, 31050 is the starting amount, with *snicker* 302 left at Munar touchdown.

[Superfluous J]

Inspired by the entries with the chair, I tried again. Lowest fuel at 630, lowest time of the low-fueled crafts at 6:49:42. Though higher than my last lowest time, it puts me in first place! It also jumbles the leaderboard a bit and gives zorque 2nd place.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Smidge204]

So those legs don't count as "landing gear" then?

=Smidge=

[Superfluous J]

So those legs don't count as "landing gear" then?

=Smidge=

Bah. I meant airplane landing gear, the kind that let you smack into the ground at 50m/s. Amusingly, I could have landed on the engine (I was going about 2m/s) so the gear was actually dead weight.

I've modified the rules. I apologize, and thanks for helping make them more clear.

[Superfluous J]

In the spirit of fairness, I redid the mission with no landing legs and a slightly redesigned craft to account for the loss of weight.

I used less fuel (585) and got there faster than even my first attempt (4:16:54).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

NOTE: Landing legs are still fine to use. The only thing banned is airplane landing gear.

[Smidge204]

405 fuel in 9h40m23s

Edit: Y'know, I could use some learning on better timing. There's no reason I couldn't cut that time in half but I just can't manage it :/

=Smidge=

Edited January 8, 2014 by Smidge204

[Superfluous J]

405 fuel in 9h40m23s

Edit: Y'know, I could use some learning on better timing. There's no reason I couldn't cut that time in half but I just can't manage it :/

=Smidge=

Nicely done, and another shakeup on the leaderboard. It's weird to see how rankings on the BOTH board change with new entries.

I hate to help someone beat me, but I found that launching when KSP is at the bottom of map mode on Kerbin, when Mun is at 3:00 is pretty good. If you time it for a sunrise launch you will also come in on the sunny side of Mun. For my most recent launch I did that, launched and just kept burning prograde once I'd normally coast to apoapsis, and as soon as I got a Mun encounter I killed my forward thrust and instead thrust inward on my orbit (blue circle with the lines going in) to bring it really close. I think I did about 4km. Then ride it out to Mun and burn retro as you're coming in really close.

Not only is it fast, it's fun to do Not sure if you can do it with that much fuel but it's worth a try I suppose!

[Smidge204]

Yeah, nope. Can't do it in under 9 hours. *shrug* Not without significantly more dV anyway.

=Smidge=

[magico13]

My ship is similar to Smidge's (the cubic plus mini decoupler weighs less than the radial decouplers) but has some noticeable differences. I couldn't get less than 450 fuel and still return (though made it there with less than 400 once). It still took many tries...

In the end, 450 units of LF and 4:49:50, which I believe will make a 4 way tie for first on the Both leaderboard

Javascript is disabled. View full album