[It's Back!] Another Voyage Ares Mission, and A KSP'ers Crash Course in Realism Overhaul.

[Nittany Tiger]

Patch courtesy of Ronpur50 of NASA Spaceflight.com.  His model recreation of the Ares mission helped inspire @Chris P. Bacon to do his KSP RSS recreation, which inspired myself to do mine and likely inspired many others to attempt this mission.

 

Table of Contents:

• Saturn VB Development (Here)
• MEM Development
• Ares Command Module/Ares Propulsion Module Rendezvous Test
• Ares Orbital Tests and Development
• MEM Rendezvous Test
• Venus Probe Development and Test
• Mars Rover Development and Test
• kOS Saturn VB Launch Script Development
• Final Developments Before First Mission Attempt
• First Full Practice Runs

 

Hi.

So after years of owning and playing KSP (1500 hours on stock alone according to Steam), I'm finally going to try and do the very mission I bought this game to do.  I'm also heavily inspired by rsferino and @Chris P. Bacon, who did these missions first in Orbiter and KSP RSS/RO 1.0.4 respectively.

I plan on doing my own attempt at the opposition-class mission to Mars using Apollo tech as done in Baxter's novel Voyage.  I've been enamored by the idea of a Mars mission using Apollo-era tech, and I've been wanting to fly it both as a challenge and for fun.  I've made attempts to do this before in the past in both stock and RSS/RO, but usually something happens and I end up dropping the attempt (computer breaks, or RSS/RO installs becomes too unstable due to too many mods).

Thanks to new mods and the release of 64-bit support, I've been finally able to make serious progress on this attempt, and I can now say that I believe that I can do this.  As of right now, I have a Saturn VB/Ares Command Stack and Ares Propulsion stack built, and have made some test flights of the Saturn VB to make sure it makes orbit and everything more or less functions.

I should mention before I go on that I have only 100 hours or more total in RSS/RO, so I'm attempting a complex mission on what I think is a newbie level of experience in RSS/RO.  However, I've been practicing and learning by both flying the Saturn VB and playing some RP-0 career mode, so I'm not going to go into this blind.  I plan on practicing every part of the Ares mission until I get good enough to fly the entire mission with confidence.

Using Chris' video on the mission combined with what I know of the mission itself from the book and other sources, I constructed my own Saturn VB and Ares command module.  FASA has everything I need to make the launch vehicle including configs for the F-1A and J-2S rockets, so that was as easy as pie to put together.  Combine it with 4 UA1564 SRMs, and I get a Saturn VB capable of lofting the Ares command stack into orbit (even with my horrific ascents).

I've made some differences to my command stack compared to Chris' video, mostly because I don't want to copy him 1:1 but do my own unique take on what the Saturn VB might have looked like.  For one, I made my mission module to look as close to the Skylab module as I could using procedural parts.  I was hoping to use an actual Skylab module provided by @raidernick;s mod, but every time I launched the Saturn VB with a Skylab module, aerodynamic forces would tear the antennas off and cause the rocket to fall apart.  I instead opted to build a clone of the Skylab module with procedural parts instead.  This means I can't simulate the Kerbals living in the mission module during the journey to and from Mars, but I'm able to live with that.  Some good news is that I'm able to create procedural tanks for both life support and RCS fuel with more than enough of both for the mission.  I was also able to use the solar panels from the Skylab pack with a little bit of trickery to get them to attach and function properly.  They work great, look great, and actually swing open without the need for IR hines, and it saved me some time recreating the solar panels from scratch.

I also used a different texture for the MS-II interstage and the fairing shroud for the MEM.  I wasn't sure how to recreate the look of the fairing from Chris' video, and using the Saturn/Nova stripes actually created a better aesthetic for me, so I plan on sticking with this pattern. I was able to recreate the shape though, so it'll look nice when docked to the propulsion stage.

For the MEM itself, I'm using @TiktaalikDreaming's NKR MEM mod.  I can't thank him enough for creating this mod, and I can't thank the people who created RO configs for this.  This was a major time-saver as I didn't have to spend a lot of time creating a procedural parts MEM, which is a huge hassle if you don't know what you're doing and what you're trying to build.  I believe in the book, the MEM used cryogenic propellants and not Methane/FLOX-88 like in the mod, but I'm not going to worry about that part and use the Methane/FLOX-88 version as I'd rather have a working MEM that's close to the book than a version that's perfect yet a pain to create and use.

Currently, for the OMS for the command stack, I'm using the SPS engine.  I believe this was used in the book to propel the Ares command stack to rendezvous with propulsion stack, but I may be wrong.  I may change this in the future depend on how well the SPS functions, but I'm sticking with it for now.  I also have four sets of four RCS thrusters powered my MMH/NTO bipropellant.  Only two sets are active at any time depending on the center of mass.  I did this to make sure the command stack translates with as little hassle as possible.  This is probably a break from the book (though the book AFAIK never mentioned RCS configs), but I feel NASA engineers would have thought ahead about CoM changes for different configurations of the command stack and compensated for it in a similar manner.

I've built the propulsion stack to pretty much the same look at Chris' except for the top fairing, which will use the Saturn/Nova texture.  This was pretty straightforward and easy to build from looking at the video.  The only differences are the use of the Skylab solar panels and the APS flight packs on the MS-IVB.  Also, I need to figure out how to make the FASA S-II and S-IVB tanks cryogenic so the LH2 doesn't boil off, but I think I found where to change the RO configuration of these tanks so that they register as cryogenic.  At worst, I'll have to make all of the tanks procedural cryogenic tanks, but I don't think that will be necessary.  I'll also be giving the J2-S five ignitions instead of three given that I may need to make mid-course corrections (MCCs), and given that the mission profile calls for the MS-II to be ignited 3 times without MCCs, I'd better break from reality there and give myself a couple extra ignitions.  I may also put smaller motors on the MS-II for MCCs, but I won't be sure until I start practicing the flight itself.

As of right now, I'm close to completing the Ares launch vehicle and Ares propulsion stack.  Only minor tweaks remain.  Then I plan on testing the MEM in orbit and setting the staging up.  Then comes everything else I need to do to make this mission happen, from practicing rendezvous and docking to using Fly-By Finder or other planning tools to do the Venus gravity assist to Mars to finally landing on Mars itself.  Hopefully, I'll be able to put this all together soon and finally fly the mission.

I'll be posting updates here as I prepare for the mission, and then my attempts on the mission itself.

P.S. If these images break anyone's computer, let me know and I'll throw them behind spoiler tags.

EDIT: He're a master to-do list of things I need and want to do before I do the one-shot Ares Mission.  Major tasks are things I want to do, and minor tasks are optional but would add to the cinematic value.  I'll remove tasks from the list one completed.

Last updated November 25th, 2016.

Major Tasks (All done!):

• Develop thrust curves for the Saturn VB SRBs (Done!)
• Test the MEM on descent and ascent to develop and perfect an ascent and descent plan (95% Done - Now I have the Trajectories mod.)
• Balance the RCS on the Ares Command Stack to allow for docking with the Ares Propulsion Stack and for easy reconfiguration of the Ares craft at Mars (Done!)
• Practice and test rendezvous and docking procedures of all relevant mission aspects (Done!)
• Develop and test the overall flight plan for the Ares opposition-class mission to Mars (Using KSP TOT and Flyby Finder)
• Set the game clock in my save to be close to March 21st, 1985, the launch day of the Ares Command Stack in Voyage. (Done!)
• Add balloon and floats to the command module. (Done!)

Minor Tasks (Done except for a few remaining bugs in kOS script):

• Build a Venus atmospheric probe. (Done!)
• Build a deployable Mars rover. (Done!)
• Add a science platform to the Ares Mission Module. (Done!)
• Add RPM monitors to the Apollo CM IVA.  (Will likely take too much time).
• Add an IVA to the Ares Mission Module if possible. (Done.)
• Correct the bug causing no engine plume to appear for the MS-IC separation motors. (Done. Added small SRBs.)
• Replace textures on the Saturn VB and Ares Propulsion Module to mirror book counterparts. (Done.  Thanks @raidernick for showing me where the FASA USA textures were.  Also swapped the SRB textures to ones with roll stripes).
• Write up a flight plan for viewing and download, including craft specifications and diagrams.
• Fly the other nine assembly flights and assemble the Ares Propulsion Stack. (All Earth-orbital missions, can cut down to five since the last five are identical unmanned fueling missions). (Will do this later, maybe as part of a video.) (May continue this at a later date)
• Expand Saturn VB autopilot program (Done, but program needs debugging with heading correction and dV calculation).

Edited February 24, 2020 by Nittany Tiger
Table of Contents update and added patch to first page.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

That's a mission and a half.  Good luck.  And sorry about the lack of texturing on most of my parts.  :-)  And that stupid flag.

[Bev7787]

Subbed for a good cause

[Nittany Tiger]

34 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

That's a mission and a half.  Good luck.  And sorry about the lack of texturing on most of my parts.  :-)  And that stupid flag.

Yeah, I know it's a big task, but I think I can do it.

Also, I think the texturing is fine.  It actually looks good attached to my command stack.

Personally, I'm just happy to have a functioning MEM.  Textures take a bit of a back seat.  Also, I'll slap a pretty flag on there.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 minute ago, Nittany Tiger said:

Yeah, I know it's a big task, but I think I can do it.

Also, I think the texturing is fine.  It actually looks good attached to my command stack.

Personally, I'm just happy to have a functioning MEM.  Textures take a bit of a back seat.  Also, I'll slap a pretty flag on there.

Apart from a few pieces, the textures are just random metal swatches applied per mesh.  But, yeah, they don't look awful.  Which I blame as why I keep delaying actually texturing the parts.  But then, the ascent module looks pretty sexy now with an actual texture.

The flag I meant was the position of the ascent module's flag.  For some reason it's ended up rotated over the top of one of the windows.  I just turn that one off.

[Nittany Tiger]

Yeah.  I'm sure if NASA contractors actually built the MEM, it would probably be grey and gold and whatnot.  I can agree that the windows are looking good.  That reminds me that I need to download the latest version of the MEM.  I don't think I have the version with the visibly-gimballing engines (though it's probably less realistic than the real way the MEM would gimbal).

[TiktaalikDreaming]

5 minutes ago, Nittany Tiger said:

Yeah.  I'm sure if NASA contractors actually built the MEM, it would probably be grey and gold and whatnot.  I can agree that the windows are looking good.  That reminds me that I need to download the latest version of the MEM.  I don't think I have the version with the visibly-gimballing engines (though it's probably less realistic than the real way the MEM would gimbal).

Ah, you may not have the version with the flag obscuring the window then.  :-)

The whole idea of gimballing on those engines is a fudge so users don't need to angle the engines' thrust at the centre of mass.  Doubly so for the ascent module, because the CoM would change during flight.  There's no sign in any of the studies of how Rockwell expected to deal with a radically changing CoM offset during ascent.  But maybe that's why there's such overkill in the RCS.  But, KSP RCS is a bit on the binary side, so if you tried using RCS to compensate instead of gimballing, you'd have a Parkinson's ascent module for a few hundred m followed by a complete absence of RCS propellant.
So, I figured, might as well make the gimballing a teeny bit pretty.  :-)

[Nittany Tiger]

11 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Ah, you may not have the version with the flag obscuring the window then.  :-)

The whole idea of gimballing on those engines is a fudge so users don't need to angle the engines' thrust at the centre of mass.  Doubly so for the ascent module, because the CoM would change during flight.  There's no sign in any of the studies of how Rockwell expected to deal with a radically changing CoM offset during ascent.  But maybe that's why there's such overkill in the RCS.  But, KSP RCS is a bit on the binary side, so if you tried using RCS to compensate instead of gimballing, you'd have a Parkinson's ascent module for a few hundred m followed by a complete absence of RCS propellant.
So, I figured, might as well make the gimballing a teeny bit pretty.  :-)

Can't say if NAR actually thought about the CoM issue (other than the 13-degree descent engine angling).  They probably did given they're full of brainiac engineers, but given that the whole thing was conceptual, maybe they never bothered with the issue.  Given that the SSMEs for the Space Shuttle have to gimbal 10 degrees to deal with it's offset and wildly-fluctuation CoM during launch, I think they would have turned to gimballing as a solution.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 27/08/2016 at 8:57 PM, Nittany Tiger said:

Can't say if NAR actually thought about the CoM issue (other than the 13-degree descent engine angling).  They probably did given they're full of brainiac engineers, but given that the whole thing was conceptual, maybe they never bothered with the issue.  Given that the SSMEs for the Space Shuttle have to gimbal 10 degrees to deal with it's offset and wildly-fluctuation CoM during launch, I think they would have turned to gimballing as a solution.

It was probably a "deal with it later in detailed design stage".  Some sort of thrust vectoring.  For aerospikes, it's usually easier to arrange thrust vectoring via differential throttling of the exhaust nozzles than actual gimballing, but KSP just has gimballing.  Originally I just had the thrust transform attached directly to the gimbal, but I'm not sure differential throttling would ever extend to 13 degrees anyway, so just switched to a socketed gimbal for the whole nozzle.

[Nittany Tiger]

Been reading through this thread on NASA Spaceflight.com about the Ares mission.  Made a few modifications to my propulsion stage.  Also finished up the solar panels on the MS-IVB.  Using procedural wings to make some structural elements so the solar panels don't look ugly or awkward.  I've already made these on the command stage, but they need little tweaks.

Added nosecones to the external tanks and LEM descent engines to the core MS-II stage for mid-course corrections.  These were apparently features of the propulsion stage in the book.  I don't own a copy of the book, so I tend to stumble on these things from other sources.  The ET nosecones add extra weight and cost me about 200 - 400 m/s dV, so I'm not sure about keeping them.  LM engines give the stack a bonus 100 m/s dV, and I'll adjust that as needed when I get to test-flying the mission.  This also means that I can fly the mission with the realistic three ignitions on the J2-Ss instead of five, but I'll keep the bonus ignitions on just in case.  The core tanks have the "cryogenic" property now instead of the default, so LH2 boil-off is vastly reduced but not eliminated.  Tests show that it takes a good few years for the core stage to lose all of it's LH2 instead of a few weeks, so I should be fine.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

The joys of cryo fuels boiling off is pretty much why the 60's MEM plan was liquid methane (very mildly cryo) and liquid oxygen and fluorine mix (low grade cryo, at least compared to LH2).  But the Earth->Mars->Earth vehicle really needs that efficiency that comes from LH2.  Or nuke engines (running again on LH2).  Or Ion thrusters and patience.  Lots of patience.

There's some nice work being done in improving cryo storage for LH2 and LOX.  Not really what I'd call "Apollo era" though.  It's looking pretty good.

[Nittany Tiger]

1 hour ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

The joys of cryo fuels boiling off is pretty much why the 60's MEM plan was liquid methane (very mildly cryo) and liquid oxygen and fluorine mix (low grade cryo, at least compared to LH2).  But the Earth->Mars->Earth vehicle really needs that efficiency that comes from LH2.  Or nuke engines (running again on LH2).  Or Ion thrusters and patience.  Lots of patience.

There's some nice work being done in improving cryo storage for LH2 and LOX.  Not really what I'd call "Apollo era" though.  It's looking pretty good.

This mission takes place in 1985, so it's Space Shuttle-era tech, except they never made the Space Shuttle and instead improved Apollo tech.  So Apollo + 15 years of development and re-development.  I think Baxter's NASA would have had improved cryogenic storage for the propulsion stage (and it hints at that in the book).  I also think the MEM in the book ended up with cryo fuels because the hypergolic ones were destroying the hardware for the MEM, but I'm not going to bother with switching fuels for the MEM.

Also, in the book, they were originally going full-force with NERVA tech and a direct shot to Mars until an accident with the first NERVA-powered Saturn V killed three astronauts.  After that, NASA wouldn't touch nuclear rockets, but they still wanted to go to Mars, so they went with an opposition-class (Earth -> Venus - > Mars -> Earth) mission proposed previously in the book but shot down when everyone else was giddy about NERVA tech at the time.  This is why the mission was flown with normal chemical tech and not NERVA.  If they have stuck with NERVA, then they would have gone with the nuclear shuttle proposal Van Braun had envisioned as part of his post-Apollo plan (the same one where we got our Space Shuttle).  Been thinking of making an Apollo-N for fun and making a Saturn-Shuttle.

Another thing, the F-1As in the book had throttling capability so the Saturn-VB didn't break up on Max Q.  I'm not sure what that throttle range was, but I may or may not add it into my F-1As.  Honestly, I don't get breakup unless I pitch too hard on ascent, but it would be nice to throttle and not waste delta-V on ascent or getting in a high orbit (I tend to end up with 300km apogees, but I'm not the best at gravity turns, and anything too high ends up suborbital).

Edited August 29, 2016 by Nittany Tiger

[raidernick]

The issue with the antennae breaking is actually a problem with how remotetech handles how the parts are determined to be exposed. My parts have the antenna as part of the main mesh, not separate like stock. When you expose the main body to max Q, it thinks the antenna is experiencing it as well even though it's under the fairing, and it "breaks". This is because whoever did the RT configs for my parts set a maxq value without considering this. It will be fixed in the next RO release, but until then you can go into the RO_RN_Skylab.cfg in the RealismOverhaul\RO_SuggestedMods\RaiderNick folder and search for and delete the line that says %maxq = 6000. That will fix your problem with the station antenna breaking off during ascent.

Edited August 31, 2016 by raidernick

[Nittany Tiger]

12 hours ago, raidernick said:

The issue with the antennae breaking is actually a problem with how remotetech handles how the parts are determined to be exposed. My parts have the antenna as part of the main mesh, not separate like stock. When you expose the main body to max Q, it thinks the antenna is experiencing it as well even though it's under the fairing, and it "breaks". This is because whoever did the RT configs for my parts set a maxq value without considering this. It will be fixed in the next RO release, but until then you can go into the RO_RN_Skylab.cfg in the RealismOverhaul\RO_SuggestedMods\RaiderNick folder and search for and delete the line that says %maxq = 6000. That will fix your problem with the station antenna breaking off during ascent.

Ahh.  Thanks.  I think the other reason is because the antennas on your Skylab don't fit into the standard conical fairings for an Saturn/Apollo config, so RT might count them as exposed and thus break them off.  They're actually quite long, so they may not even fit in modified procedural fairings that are conical in shape.  Furthermore, I'm not sure if those antennas have the range to go to Mars, but if they do, great.  If not, I can add a relay dish.

I planned on adding a parabolic dish to my Skylab mock-up anyway and having it extend on an IR part.

Then there's the radiator on the end, which (I don't think) exists on the Ares Mission Module version of Skylab.

This starts to present an interesting but potentially rewarding challenge of either modifying your part to fit the book's version (cutting off the end radiator and antennae and adding more life support) or trying to somehow turn my procedural parts mock-up into a part and swapping in your IVA so I can get a few screenshots of the astronauts riding in the Ares mission module.  Might not have the tools or expertise to do either, but I may try anyway once I'm done tweaking and balancing everything.

At worst, I just go without the IVA.  At best, I learn some new tricks and impress myself.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Nittany Tiger

[Nittany Tiger]

Got some work done on the propulsion stage, adding three sets of eight ullage motors on the MS-II stage for the J-2Ss and three sets of two ullage motors for the LMDEs.  Had some strange issues with some small tanks for the LMDEs when staging the external tanks, so I removed them.  Guess the kraken exists in the real world as well.  

I swapped the S-II interstage with the one from Real Scale Boosters since it has separation motors on it since the MS-II needed to be pushed away when decoupled.  New interstage isn't shown below.  Propulsion stage is pretty much complete now except for any tweaks in later tests.

Went back and made tweaks and changes to the Ares-Saturn VB launch vehicle, but unfortunately, the .craft file for it was somehow corrupted and freezes the game when I try to load it into the VAB.  I'm not sure of the cause.  I did update some mods including the MEM,mod, but I can't be positive that is the source of the error.  I may have to rebuild the Ares Command Stack and Saturn VB from scratch.  I do have the command stack saved as a subassembly, but it doesn't attach properly and at best, I can use it as a reference to rebuild it for a new craft.  I haven't deleted the .craft file if anyone wants to look at it, but I'm probably just going to rebuild the Ares Command Stack with the updated MEM and proceed with either docking tests or MEM tests.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Nittany Tiger

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 hour ago, Nittany Tiger said:

Got some work done on the propulsion stage, adding three sets of eight ullage motors on the MS-II stage for the J-2Ss and three sets of two ullage motors for the LMDEs.  Had some strange issues with some small tanks for the LMDEs when staging the external tanks, so I removed them.  Guess the kraken exists in the real world as well.  

I swapped the S-II interstage with the one from Real Scale Boosters since it has separation motors on it since the MS-II needed to be pushed away when decoupled.  New interstage isn't shown below.  Propulsion stage is pretty much complete now except for any tweaks in later tests.

Went back and made tweaks and changes to the Ares-Saturn VB launch vehicle, but unfortunately, the .craft file for it was somehow corrupted and freezes the game when I try to load it into the VAB.  I'm not sure of the cause.  I did update some mods including the MEM,mod, but I can't be positive that is the source of the error.  I may have to rebuild the Ares Command Stack and Saturn VB from scratch.  I do have the command stack saved as a subassembly, but it doesn't attach properly and at best, I can use it as a reference to rebuild it for a new craft.  I haven't deleted the .craft file if anyone wants to look at it, but I'm probably just going to rebuild the Ares Command Stack with the updated MEM and proceed with either docking tests or MEM tests.

It may be my fault, but I'd need to check. I honestly can't remember renaming a part (which is the easiest way to get your symptoms) but my memory can be a bit cr@p. Do you know what version you were working from? 

[Dafni]

Nice one, man. I love that book, one of the best reads I had lately, read it for the second time.

Nice pictures and nice mission. Cant wait seeing it unfold. One of my favorite parts is the mars lander itself.

Go Phil Stone, Ralph Gershon, and Natalie York!

Edited September 2, 2016 by Dafni

[Nittany Tiger]

4 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

It may be my fault, but I'd need to check. I honestly can't remember renaming a part (which is the easiest way to get your symptoms) but my memory can be a bit cr@p. Do you know what version you were working from? 

It might be 0.8.2.  I tried re-installing the old mod file and my craft still wouldn't load, but my subassembly did.

4 hours ago, Dafni said:

Nice one, man. I love that book, one of the best reads I had lately, read it for the second time.

Nice pictures and nice mission. Cant wait seeing it unfold. One of my favorite parts is the mars lander itself.

Go Phil Stone, Ralph Gershon, and Natalie York!

Yeah, it's a really good read.  Wish I could find a copy again.  I found some link to it from a Russian site.  I'd love to add some flavor to this thread from the book.  I'll likely be renaming the astronauts on the flight to Stone, Gershon, and York.

I also want to try other missions from Voyage like Moonlab and Apollo-N (without the tragic accident), see if I can assemble the Ares Propulsion Stack with 9 Saturn VB launches (or see how many it takes in KSP RO), and then find a copy of Titan and see if that mission is doable (though it's an one-way trip from what I've read about the book).

Edited September 2, 2016 by Nittany Tiger

[Dafni]

1 hour ago, Nittany Tiger said:

Yeah, it's a really good read.  Wish I could find a copy again.  I found some link to it from a Russian site.  I'd love to add some flavor to this thread from the book.  I'll likely be renaming the astronauts on the flight to Stone, Gershon, and York.

I also want to try other missions from Voyage like Moonlab and Apollo-N (without the tragic accident), see if I can assemble the Ares Propulsion Stack with 9 Saturn VB launches (or see how many it takes in KSP RO), and then find a copy of Titan and see if that mission is doable (though it's an one-way trip from what I've read about the book).

I just finished Titan. Indeed a one-way mission to this moon of Saturn in Shuttle hardware. Its very nice, but honestly I liked Voyage a bit better.

I had no problem finding and buying the books here in switzerland. If you really cant find copies of those books locally please feel free to drop me a PM, I could sent them to you. I'd even donate the ones I just read, free of charge, and buy myself a set of new ones. Yeah, I love them that much Heck, I'd send you a set of new ones just to share the love.

And yeah, definitely name the Kerbals accordingly and even let them perform their corresponding tasks... especially of course that first EVA. Man, and then you can even act out the return trip too. Just make sure to share it on here.

cheers

Daf

[Nittany Tiger]

39 minutes ago, Dafni said:

I just finished Titan. Indeed a one-way mission to this moon of Saturn in Shuttle hardware. Its very nice, but honestly I liked Voyage a bit better.

I had no problem finding and buying the books here in switzerland. If you really cant find copies of those books locally please feel free to drop me a PM, I could sent them to you. I'd even donate the ones I just read, free of charge, and buy myself a set of new ones. Yeah, I love them that much Heck, I'd send you a set of new ones just to share the love.

And yeah, definitely name the Kerbals accordingly and even let them perform their corresponding tasks... especially of course that first EVA. Man, and then you can even act out the return trip too. Just make sure to share it on here.

cheers

Daf

I read a synopsis of Titan on Wikipedia.  It's pretty depressing, and apparently that's a staple of Baxter's novels.  It also sounds lot more far-fetched than Voyage because of some of the crazy political aspects and actions (how crazy does a evangelical Christian America have to be to shoot a space shuttle and then doom them?)  Voyage is still an edge-case, but I think it's much more plausible.  Still, I'd love to try the Titan mission along with finding a way to get them home.

Finding the books in the US isn't hard.  There's Amazon.  It's just a money thing for me.  I can't even afford a $15 paperback.  Also, I don't read many fiction books, but I did like Voyage because I love alt history, science fiction, and rocket science, and when I first watched Rsferino's video on the Ares mission, I was so fascinated about the idea of Apollo to Mars that I wanted to try it myself, first in Oribiter, then KSP. I bought KSP years ago largely to do the same mission in stock (opposition-class Duna mission).

And I'll definitely create Kerbals for the mission that do the exact things that the Ares crew did in the book.  Stone and Gershon would be pilots and York would be a scientist in KSP, and she'll get to be the first on Mars.  I also want to make a rover for them to drive around in, but that's after I get the main craft built and tested.

I'm actually curious how a real-life Apollo mission to Mars would go.  Would we go NERVA (even if there was an Apollo-N accident), bring out the Saturn C-8, or do something like Voyage?  I don't think we'd cancel as many robotic missions IRL than in the book (especially the Voyager probes) even if we cancelled the space shuttle, and in fact that may end up dooming a RL mission to Mars in a close-to-Baxter's universe.  We'd probably end up with Eyes Turned Skyward or something similar. Of course, I'm assuming the political atmosphere of Voyage transplanted into the real world wouldn't sacrifice science and practicality for national pride.

[Nittany Tiger]

Worked hard and long today to rebuild the Saturn-VB.  I ended up putting a lot more detail into the Ares Mission Module, trying to replicate the look of @raidernick's Skylab more using procedural fairing and procedural wings.  I also put the radio dish on a boom and IR hinge.

Installed the MEM update.  Rebuilt the fairings for it.

Spent a lot of time on the solar panel placement again, this time merging the Skylab model into the Ares Mission Module and trying to get the placements there.  Solar panel work still isn't finished, but it is mostly completed.

Launch vehicle was trivial to rebuild.  I may change the SRB decouplers in the future.  I did add some separation motors to the SRBs and the upper part of the MS-II stage along with fuel vents from Smart Parts for the MS-II stage.  Hoping the fuel vents and motors will help de-orbit the MS-II after launch.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Nittany Tiger

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I've been going over the changes to the MEM.  I suspect it's mostly the changes from 0.8-0.9 around fuel tankage that would have broken craft files.  For Real Fuel/Realism Overhual I switched to using the TANK module instead of messing around changing the RESOURCE.  So, saved ships would have values of stored RESOURCE, but the parts would no longer hold that module, but instead have a TANK from Real Fuels, that in turn holds a resource.

Good to see you timed the update right.  About to put a note on the forums about the update you downloaded.  Been a bit slack with forum posts.  :-)  Twas your postings that triggered me into thinking, "hey, I should really fix up some of those textures".

[Nittany Tiger]

7 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

I've been going over the changes to the MEM.  I suspect it's mostly the changes from 0.8-0.9 around fuel tankage that would have broken craft files.  For Real Fuel/Realism Overhual I switched to using the TANK module instead of messing around changing the RESOURCE.  So, saved ships would have values of stored RESOURCE, but the parts would no longer hold that module, but instead have a TANK from Real Fuels, that in turn holds a resource.

Good to see you timed the update right.  About to put a note on the forums about the update you downloaded.  Been a bit slack with forum posts.  :-)  Twas your postings that triggered me into thinking, "hey, I should really fix up some of those textures".

Ahh.  Then I could just edit the .craft file and recover the old part, though that may not explain why I still couldn't load it after reinstalling the older MEM mod.  I'm probably not going to bother since the rebuild is better, and honestly I really enjoyed putting together the more detailed one since I tried some new tricks to get my procedural Ares Mission Module to look more like what I think the real one would have looked like.  It's the first time I've built something with that much detail with procedural parts and I really like the result, though I might change the color of the orange parts (which means taking the procedural fairing out since I used an orange-textured fairing for that).  In addition, I was able to discover some errors I made in determining how much life support I'd need, along with shedding some mass overall from the mission module (though that could be cheating, but I could try to get the mission module to a realistic mass).  I honestly, losing the old .craft file resulted in a net gain.  I just hope the mission module doesn't snap apart in flight.

I do like the changes to your MEM textures.  It matches more of what it would look like in the real world and what NAR would have painted it, though they may have forgone paint for mass.  No way to tell.  Think I might test fly it today to see how easy it is to make low martian orbit in it.

EDIT: I do want to give you feedback on your craft's performance soon, Tiktaalik, and I'll leave any issues I have with it in your mod thread.  I'm not the greatest with ascents in realism overhaul, so I won't complain about not enough delta V unless I'm 110% positive that it underperforms.

I should also admit that I have been using Hyperedit to put the propulsion stack in orbit and plan on using it for testing parts and segments of the flight.  I have been launching my command module legitimately though, both to practice ascent, gauge the mass of the whole command stack, and to iron out and bugs in the Saturn VB launch vehicle.  I'm not going to touch Hyperedit when I do the mission for real.  It would take the fun out of doing this mission because I want to see if it could be done in real life.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Nittany Tiger
P.S.

[Nittany Tiger]

Some progress updates just to show you guys this project is still kicking.

Flight test of the rebuilt Ares launch vehicle was a success.  Here are some flight images.

MS-IC Sep.  There are supposed to be engines on the F-1A fairings, but they don't have any particle effects for some reason.  Might be a bug that I'm not sure how to fix.  Also, I added ullage motors on the interstage despite later Saturn Vs not having them at all.

MS-II sep.  I ended up removing the separation motors in later tests because the fuel vents provided enough of a backwards push to kick the MS-II away from the Ares command stack.

I also took a chance to check out the launches forces on the vehicle.  The dynamic pressure gets up to over 70 kPa at max Q and the g forces exceed 5 gs before SRB burnout.  I decided to finally give the F-1As throttling capability to remedy that, and I'm going to look at the thrust curves for the SRBs.  Giving the F-1As the ability to throttle to 60% provided a 20 kPa drop in dynamic pressure at max Q at 60% throttle and a g limit of 4.1 gs at 85% throttle before SRB burnout.  I throttled the engines back up to 100% for the remainder of the MS-IC burn and did the typical center engine cutout at 30 seconds before MS-IC burnout.  Not sure if that is necessary with throttlable engines.

 

My most pressing problem is RCS power on the Ares command stack.  I'm using three sets of four 850 N thruster blocks with MMH+NTO propellant, and they don't provide enough power to maintain quick attitude control.  I don't have many options for stronger thruster quads, so not sure if I need to add more, add linear thrusters for attitude control and translation (I have 2 kN linear thrusters), modify the thruster blocks and make them stronger, or download new parts.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Nittany Tiger

[Nittany Tiger]

I decided to move onto the MEM tests, leaving the RCS issue to later.  I actually discovered that the RCS ports on some parts weren't firing due to not being connected to any fuel sources, causing them not to function.  I was able to correct that one set of ports but not the other since it was placed on procedural fairings.  Even enabling crossfeeding and placing fuel pipes to the fairing base didn't correct the issue.  I'll look at it later.

The MEM tests have proved to be my first major roadblock in this endeavor.  On ascent, the MEM performed well, and I was able to make low Martian orbit easily.  The craft did use up a lot of RCS to steady itself during the first stage due to its offset CoM, but after dumping the tanks, it flew well.  I see this as a design issue of the MEM (not the mod, but NAR's proposed version).

On descents....I made a lot of pancakes.  This is because Tiktaalik's MEM is designed to operate differently than the one in Voyage, despite being the same craft in general.  Tiktaalik's requires a chute and ballute for a safe descent.  Voyage ditched these two parts and had the MEM just use aerodynamic braking and a powered descent phase.  Therefore, trying to do a Voyage-style descent in the base MEM results in death and destruction. 

I've made approximately 8 - 10 practice descents in total, and they've all ended in crashes.  First two were from 150km circular orbits, the next couple from 300km circular orbits.  Both times, I couldn't slow down fast enough to prevent a crash.  Furthermore, I discovered that the descent stage lacked enough fuel to make a safe descent, only containing 900m/s delta V.  My solution was to add more fuel in the descent stage to extend the usable descent burn time and hopefully have enough delta V to slow the craft down for a safe landing.

Note: The final tanks were longer than this.

I was able to squeeze in enough fuel to bring the descent stage delta V to about 1800m/s while keeping the Martian TWR at 1.0.  A few more descent tests resulted in the craft being better able to kill velocity, but I still ended up crashing due to bad piloting (practice makes perfect).  Also, the additional fuel meant additional weight, but the deorbit solid motors were still able to get the MEM into an orbit that either fell below the ground at 150 km or resulted in aerocapture at 300km.

Unfortunately, even with the additional fuel, this may still not be enough to allow for a Voyage-style ascent.  Delta V margins are still tight, and so are RCS fuel margins.  Turning the craft ate up precious RCS fuel and descent delta V, so I found that I would always run out of RCS trying to keep the craft stable during powered descent, and on the last test, even with the large gimballing range of the aerospike engine, I ended up tumbling and crashing after running out of RCS.  Every other time, I was fighting to keep the vertical velocity low enough to hope that the MEM slowed down enough from air resistance to get the surface speed below the remaining delta V.  This took practice, and I almost achieved this on my last descent attempt before the tumbling hit and I lost the lander and crew to a fiery crash.  The other times, I would end up unable to kill my descent fast enough with the engine, and I'd pancake.  This is not including my attempts at doing a skip re-entry, which uses up RCS as well as I need it to angle the MEM in the hopes of gaining a bit of lift on descent.

Therefore, I'm stuck with this issue of needing more RCS fuel for descent, which adds more weight and thus requires more descent fuel, eventually leading to an unsolvable problem thanks to the law of diminishing returns and the rules of the book.  The only possible solution to this is to use some of the ascent stage RCS on descent, but I'm not sure if there's enough margin for that.  Furthermore, I still may need more descent fuel as it is to ensure I don't run out, as I have never got the craft slowed down below 400 m/s before a crash or unrecoverable tumble (most of this velocity being horizontal).

As a result, I'm stuck wondering if it's even possible to do a Voyage-style descent in the NAR MEM.  I'm also stuck wondering what Columbia did in the book to supplement the removal of the chutes and ballutes.  I vaguely remember them removing them because they weren't going to make much of a difference, but i don't have a copy of the book with me to check what they did, or if there's any indication of how Gershon landed the Challenger.  Maybe the book took an artistic license on the whole thing, which would seem odd for a hardcore science fiction novel.  As a result, I may have to break the purity of this recreation and use chutes and ballutes for my descent, or add aerobrakes.  This is not something I want to do because I think it would ruin the challenge of doing it by the book, but if the book presents something that is impossible in the game, I may have to just ignore the book and think outside the book.

I'm open to suggestions.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Nittany Tiger