Training for the Moon landing

[Rickenbacker]

Well, since we\'re getting a moon soon (hey, monsoons would be cool too! But I digress), I thought I\'d practice landing on it. Not knowing how much I might be able to lift up there, I designed two trainers for my suicidal brave guinea pigs kerbalnauts. I realize that some of you have already designed craft like this, but if you haven\'t, these might be helpful.

The Practice Lander is the bare minimum, flywheel control, one engine and one fuel tank. Still surprisingly easy to fly and land. The Fat Practice Lander is a three-engine, three-tank craft, designed to take more stuff to the moons surface and back. It\'s heavier, so it requires more throttle to hover - don\'t use it all up slowing down on the way down!

Both craft have a solid booster pack to get them to a starting height. So just set your throttle to low, hit space and watch them fly. When the boosters burn out, drop them and prepare for your first landing lesson. The Fat lander has the nonsymmetrical tri-coupler, so it\'s also equipped with RCS and the advanced stability system (which incidentally also simulate the heavier payload). Hit R, T then space for the best possible start. You can also keep RCT and stability control on while landing, makes it much easier to hover in place.

Both craft use all stock parts.

[Guest LoSboccacc]

I wonder what will happen when you are hovering in place but the mun is rotating and moving away.

probably hovering in place, while useful and a good starting point, may not be the best solution for touching down; I think one should try to match land speed due planet rotation

that is, if the moon rotates ;P

[Rickenbacker]

Well, yeah, the trick is to hover relative to the moon, I guess .

[NovaSilisko]

The moon will be stationary relative to you when you\'re on or near the surface

[JupiterII]

I was only able to lan with the fat 1.

[Rickenbacker]

The fat one is easier, since you can use the stability system to keep the nose up, and just nudge it the way you want it to go. But it\'s very doable with the smaller one too, just takes more work .

[Rascal Nag]

I\'ve been practicing with this guy.

Though it\'s a bit bulky and hard to slow down, you waste a bunch of fuel slowing your descent.

[JupiterII]

This is my attempt with my own rocket.

[Tim_Barrett]

This is my attempt with my own rocket.

Take a look at how heavy full SRB\'s are. Then try making another one...

[JupiterII]

Take a look at how heavy full SRB\'s are. Then try making another one...

How could a booster help when landing on the Mun? It would just send me flying.

[Rascal Nag]

How could a booster help when landing on the Mun? It would just send me flying.

Try using something else as the base for the lander so it\'s not so heavy. Or else you\'ll pancake on the Mun\'s surface without an atmosphere.

[scratch]

Shame yourselves! leaving those kerbals stuck on the moon?!

This is an example of how my mission should go.

[Rickenbacker]

Nice way to solve the takeoff! I haven\'t gotten that far yet, I also need to build something that will GET my landers to the moon. And since I prefer only stock parts, it\'ll be a challenge to get there, land and get back.

[Guest GroundHOG-2010]

Testing before you do it,

THATS NOT KERBAL

Launching a contraption that can\'t even fly let alone get to the mun

THATS KERBAL

oh wait. Sorry. Wrong thread.

[comradephil]

Doesn\'t make you any less correct, of course. I\'d had the same idea for RCS powered launchers though. Might even mod my own tiny SRB\'s with RCS models and make them seperate 'RCS boosters' with similar power.

[Tiberion]

So the RCS ascent plan, is that contingent on \'docking\' being added? Or do you think you can get enough speed to break munar orbit and get back to Kerbin?

[frenchie16]

So the RCS ascent plan, is that contingent on \'docking\' being added? Or do you think you can get enough speed to break munar orbit and get back to Kerbin?

Well, has anyone calculated the Mün escape velocity from the Münar surface? The only number I\'ve seen is about 350m/s at surface+10km, which seems fairly low. SO maybe RCS would be enough.

[Kryten]

I got 860m/s for escape velocity at surface-probably well below what an RCS-craft could do.

[frenchie16]

Here\'s my attempt: the Seagull Lander (Beagle is already taken ;P), made in KSP Silisko edition.

I\'ve got a launch vehicle which should be able to send it to the moon. As for the lander, i\'ve mounted it atop a solid booster for testing, and it… works, more or less. As long as I can find smooth terrain to land on, and manage to remember to control the throttle while i\'m working the RCS to cancel out lateral motion… It has a liquid engine ascent stage, rather than RCS; it uses a liquid engine, RCS, and SAS in concert for easy, controlled landings. Despite not having much fuel, the ascent stage has a quite efficient engine and has something like 1600 m/s of delta-v in a vacuum, which should be plenty to get back to Kerbin (especially since the G-forces and thermal concerns with entering the atmosphere aren\'t a problem in KSP, so we can just aim straight at Kerbin and deploy parachutes once we get there ;P)

Images here.

Usually the descent stage just slides a bit but stays upright and intact, but for some reason when I was taking screenshots it decided to explode.