Minmus fasttrack, anybody else doing this?

[ag3nt108]

Equipping mining gear also greatly increases the pay load of your craft, I'm a little confused I was under the impression you were early career mode and launching science craft to minmus.  If were talking about craft that are miner equipped or part of a fuel supply chain then yes fuel becomes a lesser issues but a craft carries a finite amount of fuel before it either needs to land and mine to convert more fuel or runs out of fuel and needs to be re-supplied.  Time on the other hand is never an issue, we can at any moment accelerate time and journeys to minmus take at most 5 minutes of real time to launch, orbit, intercept and orbit again.  I am of the opinion that real time is there fore not a commodity for minmus missions.  Interplanetary missions can at times take much more real time regardless of acceleration and choosing a trajectory that saves time can be a deciding factor.

 

To sum up, 3 days of time under time acceleration is of no consequence if you have the DV to spare unless you have modded for life support or another mod that adds "value" to time. 20 m/s is a trivial amount of DV and building, engineering or planning your craft and missions to suit your own needs and objectives is what the game is all about.  By the time I visit minmus i usually engineer a craft with about 8K DV that is capable of biome hopping and maximising my science return but i find minmus to be a very boring moon. Too many wide open flat spaces to land on and so little gravity that touching down is exceptionally easy.  If anything you should be proud you can launch and burn to minmus without orbiting and a plane change, you have already reached a stage where you can commit DV to a more efficient transfer which is awesome.

[ag3nt108]

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Unless your play style does consider time to be a resource. In my career mode I try to reduce stress for my Kerbals as much as possible. That rules out any Minmus missions in a Mk I, and if I can cut 10 days of travel time on a round trip mission then the fuel price might be worth paying it.

Which is exactly that, your play style.  Your engineering and your mission planning.  The stock game does not recognise your chosen parameters. Fuel remains a resource the game measures regardless of modification.  You might equally choose to engineer a craft to visits minmus via laythe with the understanding that you would need a craft with the required DV to do so. Whether or not you choose to measure stress is, mission length or time is up to you.

[Kerbart]

41 minutes ago, ag3nt108 said:

Which is exactly that, your play style.  Your engineering and your mission planning.  The stock game does not recognise your chosen parameters. Fuel remains a resource the game measures regardless of modification.  You might equally choose to engineer a craft to visits minmus via laythe with the understanding that you would need a craft with the required DV to do so. Whether or not you choose to measure stress is, mission length or time is up to you.

That's not what you said.

9 hours ago, ag3nt108 said:

(...) you can simply accelerate time to suit your play style.  (...)

Time accelleration doesn't make the trip to Minmus shorter. Using extra DV to get there faster does.

Besides that, my play style is “limit time warp as much as possible.” To “simply accelerate time” does not suit that. The suggestion that fullfilling other criteria is outrageous (if your quote “You might equally choose to engineer a craft to visits minmus via laythe” is intended to illustrate anything else I’d love to hear an explanation of that) because it doesn't fullfill bare economic needs is shortsighted, and for those who like to add a bit of extracurricular spice to the game, perhaps even insulting.

41 minutes ago, ag3nt108 said:

I don't understand the supposed advantage the OP is stating 

So, since you don't understand, let me make it clear: depending on how you want to play the game, shortening the travel time can be worth the fuel cost.

[Glaran K'erman]

10 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

depending on how you want to play the game, shortening the travel time can be worth the fuel cost

It surely can. Has saved me time, dV, funds...the whole lot!
It's been brought up earlier but this is really all about life support users, nowhere in the stock game time is dictated as a resource (except for contracts but lets leave those at the door).
Fun note to remember as well, a reduction in mission time can save life support resources (water, food, etc), which depending on the mod you use can also increase your available dV (by not bringing along as much), which can (sometimes) without cost get you that extra dV to acquire the time. Quicker is always better.

[regex]

Just now, Glaran K'erman said:

It's been brought up earlier but this is really all about life support users

It's not, it's also about people exploring different mission architecture and techniques.

[Glaran K'erman]

Just now, regex said:

It's not, it's also about people exploring different mission architecture and techniques.

Not as much as life support.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Glaran K'erman said:

Not as much as life support.

You stated it was all about life support users.  It's not.

[Glaran K'erman]

19 minutes ago, regex said:

You stated it was all about life support users.  It's not.

Hyperbole. Regex, please buddy, I know you like starting little squabbles but come on. 

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Glaran K'erman
sprelling

[suicidejunkie]

In practice, a lot of my Minmus shots are slower than Hohmann; due to inaccuracies in the nodes and burn they end up loitering at AP waiting for Minmus to arrive, making it a 9 day trip instead of 7-8.

At that point, I figure anything that can wait 7 days for delivery can also wait 9 days; so set a KAC timer, and let it ride while doing other launches and stuff.

[RizzoTheRat]

I'm not using life support in my current game but used TAC-LS on my 1.05 game.  I found for Mun/Minmus missions the LS requirement was so small it hardly made any difference.  I can see on longer trips though the extra fuel burned could be easily offset by the reduction in LS needed.

My current Minmus mission used 1/4 of it's fuel getting there, leaving around 18k m/s dV for the lander.  I guess I could have afforded to go a bit quicker but I'm a miser

[regex]

23 minutes ago, Glaran K'erman said:

Hyperbole.

Thanks.

My point is that there are reasons to do these sorts of things other than "I have a mod installed that makes me think about it" which ties back in to my original post in this thread.  Despite it's simplicity KSP allows you to explore many different kinds of different space mission architecture and techniques without requiring the user to modify the game.  I can, for instance, use upper stage SRM kick motors and RCS motors to perform my missions even though there is pretty much zero incentive to do so in the game.

Edited May 17, 2016 by regex

[Glaran K'erman]

2 hours ago, regex said:

Thanks.

My point is that there are reasons to do these sorts of things other than "I have a mod installed that makes me think about it" which ties back in to my original post in this thread.  Despite it's simplicity KSP allows you to explore many different kinds of different space mission architecture and techniques without requiring the user to modify the game.  I can, for instance, use upper stage SRM kick motors and RCS motors to perform my missions even though there is pretty much zero incentive to do so in the game.

And that's is a great-totally-awesome point...for another thread.
This one is about time a time saving maneuver and the merits behind such a thing, how your creative uses for SRB's fits in I don't really think is relevant enough to chime back. But ok.
 

[KerikBalm]

I have used this before... not just to minmus... there is a value to time in career mode sometimes.

I have a "standard training program" for new recruits: mun flag (sometimes I skip the landing and just have them orbit, its not strictly needed IIRC), minmus flag, trip to outside the SOI.

At the moment, my Kerbonaut corps is depleted, nearly all my trained kerbonauts are away at duna, eve, on the way to Dres or Jool...

If I realize that another transfer window is soon and I need more kerbonauts (ok, the scientists aren't strictly neccessary to train, and a pilot can be replaced by a probe core for now... but I need the engineers for chute packing, wheel fixing, and mining far from the sun under fuel cell power)... then waiting for slow hohmans to minmus and then to the edge of kerbin's SOI can take over 50 days... its usefull to get  trained crew before the next launch window if you fell behind in that area.

I haven't bothered with minmus soo much, but it really helps for the trip just outside kerbin's SOI... that takes forever if you don't spend about 10 m/s extra...

[Archgeek]

They can be great when a non-reusable craft is coming home.  Take Bill here:

Spoiler

I decided Bill's been out long enough, and since there's no re-using the Derpatron, I may as well go non-Hohmann. Nothing like saving 5 days with a half km/s burn.

Note that braking costs quite a bit less in dv and in burn time due to proximity to Kerbin and hilarious speed.

Spoiler

Well, the slow-down burn was more efficient than expected. This is getting out of hand.

5 Minutes burn and...

Spoiler

Nice.

AP closer than the Mun.

A lot of gas left in the tank, but an ion ship is a bit of an extreme example for high-energy transfer shenanigans.

[dlrk]

How do you plan for these burns, and know how much Dv you need? KSPTOT?

[herbal space program]

Unless you're you're playing some sort of hair shirt version of career mode or involved in a lowest dV to Minmus challenge, I can't see why it matters so much one way or the other how you do this. For Mun or other bigger bodies, how you come at them matters a bit more.

Edited May 25, 2016 by herbal space program

[Tig]

Let me see if I can sum up this silly back and forth.

 

Basically, (for insert whatever reason why) we're being informed that by using more than minimum delta-v required by a dV efficient transfer that we can "get places faster."

DUH.

I mean, no offense, but is that supposed to be informative or insightful?

I'm not criticizing anyone's reasoning as to the "why".  Cause you want to, cause you're using life support, cause you wanna RP with your kerbals... whatever floats your boat is good by me.

Its practically a tautology.  Going faster can get you there faster.  Well damn, guess I done learn'd me somethin'.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Tig

[Mjarf]

On 17.5.2016 at 4:43 PM, Kerbart said:

Unless your play style does consider time to be a resource. In my career mode I try to reduce stress for my Kerbals as much as possible. That rules out any Minmus missions in a Mk I, and if I can cut 10 days of travel time on a round trip mission then the fuel price might be worth paying it.

I also like to keep my little green dudes relatively comfortable, but I'm not that good with radical maneuvering and high velocity transfers so I compensate by building a craft with bigger living quarters. This makes the crafts more challenging to build because of the added weight, but I live the building and tinkering part of the game, so that suits me well. I used to fly to the Mun in this fashion before, launched directly towards the mun and burned radially to get a direct intercept course. i didn't even bother to enter orbit, so the landing location was quite random.

I find it a bit funny how much I have evolved as a KSP player, I've gone from crash courses to docking with my Mun surface base. It was a pain to do initially, but now I can do it quite well.

[magnemoe]

On 17.5.2016 at 6:19 PM, Glaran K'erman said:

Not as much as life support.

Life support for an 20 days one man trip is not an major issue. 
Main purpose is to speed things up a bit, needs two minmus missions to unlock the tree, then I need an mining base on Minmus and an tanker return before duna missions, 

Now I had one issue with an kerbal stranded outside the orbit of Mun, beefed up the standard rescue rocket a bit so it had 2km/s in LKO and should be able to rescue anybody but forgot to add life support so he only had the default 1 day in pod, now I had to do an fast return, to get back in less than one day.

Edited May 25, 2016 by magnemoe

[Terwin]

I mostly use this for Kerbol SOI visits, both leaving minmus and returning to Kerbin.

My standard procedure is(After refueling on Minmus), burn from Minmus until the time to Kerbol orbit is not going down very fast any more, then set a node shortly before leaving Kerbin SOI where I drop all but 50m/s so that I know that buring towards Kerbin for 100m/s will get be home.

Once back in the Kerbin SOI I will usually burn a fair bit to get my periapps where I want it and have a fairly quick trip down to LKO.  So long as I have > 1 km/s once I am in LKO I am pretty good.

(I generally do retro-burns during reentry instead of using heat shields, so I like to have plenty of fuel left for reentry.  Not generally a problem when I am using an Ike capable ISRU ship for training and Kerbin SOI missions(Duna ships get extra engines because I need more engines to SSTO from Duna on NERVs)

[Glaran K'erman]

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Life support for an 20 days one man trip is not an major issue. 

Well then it comes down to how you you play the game. I don't stick to RO/RSS style realism, but I don't do things like send a single kerbal on a 20 day mission alone. As soon as you add one more kerbal, life support definitely gets stepped up and time-saving maneuvers become fairly routine.

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Main purpose is to speed things up a bit...

  Just to clarify do you mean literally "speed" things up as in you get there faster, that's it? Just time warp, right? Unless you're trying to do a speed-run of some sort I really don't see a use for this otherwise. 

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, Glaran K'erman said:

Well then it comes down to how you you play the game. I don't stick to RO/RSS style realism, but I don't do things like send a single kerbal on a 20 day mission alone. As soon as you add one more kerbal, life support definitely gets stepped up and time-saving maneuvers become fairly routine.

  Just to clarify do you mean literally "speed" things up as in you get there faster, that's it? Just time warp, right? Unless you're trying to do a speed-run of some sort I really don't see a use for this otherwise. 

Yes the 20 days mission is max duration and an extreme situation in the early days of the space program. 
I use TAC life support. 

And again time does not matter much in the game except transfer windows and the setup for them, you want well trained kerbals and for the more dV intensive missions its an huge benefit to take your ship to Minmus and top up the tanks and then drop down to LKO for the burn, this saves 1km/s but take an month to set up. 

[Van Disaster]

On 16/05/2016 at 0:12 AM, wumpus said:

It would be tricky (but possible) to align the Mun and Minmus to save more than 100m/s of delta-v, but the planning required scares me (that's assuming the Mun can kick you that hard).  You need 100m/s more transfer to Minmus, but you should be able to reduce the capture burn by coming in at an angle form the Mun.  I wonder how efficient you can make it (and how much coding it would take to find the launch windows you could do it on).

It's really not hard - the Mun comes around so often that if you can be bothered setting up the assist it's worth waiting for it, and you can do the plane change at the Mun also - *and* it should knock quite a bit of time off the trip. I gave it a shot for a Minmus economy challenge once & since then I'll look for assists everywhere. You do need to be able to see your planned trajectory in and out of multiple SoI, though.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Megadeath]

Well, some people here sure are snarky.

 I haven't done this myself. Or, not intentionally, to achieve a specific result anyway. Partly because I don't rp or use ls mods, but more because I barely plan any aspect of my missions.

 I can see a reason to do it that hasn't been mentioned though; to beat another ship somewhere. Say, you launch a mission to Duna, only to realise as it exits Kerbin soi that you didn't deploy solar panels and it's going to go sailing past. Using a less efficient, but faster transfer, you send a small ship to beat it there, dock and restore power. That'd make sense right? If it does, I imagine there's other similar situations where it's of value.

Also, does anyone really think they're being enlightening when they point out time warp cuts down time? It's just condescension, stop it.

[Glaran K'erman]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes the 20 days mission is max duration and an extreme situation in the early days of the space program. 
I use TAC life support. 

And again time does not matter much in the game except transfer windows and the setup for them, you want well trained kerbals and for the more dV intensive missions its an huge benefit to take your ship to Minmus and top up the tanks and then drop down to LKO for the burn, this saves 1km/s but take an month to set up. 

Yea no worries, just was curious as to what actually utility to saw in it. I'm going back to not watching the BEAM deployment because they screwed up.