Doing it LUNEX Style!

[Death Engineering]

Doing it LUNEX Style!

TOP SECRET

This challenge is based on a declassified USAF document which proposes a direct ascent mission profile to a lunar landing using a lifting body as the crew command module (CM). The advantages would be a higher mass return payload, on-board surface return experiments and possible reuse of the command module for future landings.

Scoring

All scores start with 100 points with deductions for:

• Craft recovery failure: Crew is recovered but command module is damaged or lost (-5)
• Automated avionics: Use any flight control assist other than stock (-4)
• Surface exploration restriction: Crew-capable surface exploration vehicle (rover/hopper) not deployed on surface (-3)
• Negative glide path: Backup recovery method (chutes) required for landing (-3)
• Re-entry corridor missed: Any use of CM/Lunex engine inside Kerbin atmosphere (-2)
• Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2)
• Scientific discovery failure: Munar landing site does not exhibit any anomalous features (-1) Score this deduction if your landing site is not within sight of an anomaly

 

Final score

= (100 - deductions) * Recovery % value (when the vessel is recovered at the end of the mission)

Rules:

• Mission must be completed in a 'career mode' save (for the recovery value %)
• Must be launched from KSC
• Any balanced mod is acceptable
• CM must be pressurized and have lift
• Direct-ascent Munar landing: Single launch from Kerbin, Munar landing stage remains on surface, CM/Lunex lifts off from Mun and flies back to Kerbin.

 

Leaderboard foobar - 100 Teilnehmer - 100 Martian Emigrant - 100 Xeldrak - 100 (insane scale entry) michal.don - 100 Xeldrak - 100 Death Engineering - 100 Death Engineering - 79.97 Xeldrak - 46.244

 

References:

• Lunex at Encyclopedia Astronautica (contains complete text of original 1961 proposal)
• Lunex Project on Wikipedia
• Lunex on Popular Science
• Original USAF proposal from May, 1961

Edited May 1, 2017 by Death Engineering
update lizardboard

[JacobT11]

Any penalties for not landing back at the KSC? Or is anywhere on Kerbin fine?

[FleshJeb]

How 60s NASA-y do you want it? I can easily build an SSTM and back spaceplane that will double as a rover. 100% recovery - fuel

If that's too cheaty, may we recover our Kerbin Ascent / Munar Transfer stage separately? I'm thinking free-return trajectory to the Mun, and land that with parachutes or powered.

[Jasonden]

Cool idea. What was it with engineers back then that they wanted to put wings on everything? I mean, sheesh. Why would you ever put wings on a moon-lander -- that's crazy!

I also enjoyed the page near the end of the USAF proposal where it talks about needing to use the "Space Launching System" or "S.L.S." once it is developed in order to get into orbit. What foresight!

I can easily build an SSTM and back spaceplane that will double as a rover. 100% recovery - fuel

How about you make the challenge "no jets" so that the challenge is, you know, actually challenging

Edited January 22, 2015 by Jasonden

[Death Engineering]

Any penalties for not landing back at the KSC? Or is anywhere on Kerbin fine?

Landing anywhere is fine, but there is a multiplier which affects your score. KSP Wiki on Recovery.

Basically, if you land on the runway its 100% multiplier for your score after deductions. The farther off course the landing is from KSC, the lower the multiplier % (as seen from the Space Center 'Recovery' screen - see below).

How 60s NASA-y do you want it? I can easily build an SSTM and back spaceplane that will double as a rover. 100% recovery - fuel

If that's too cheaty, may we recover our Kerbin Ascent / Munar Transfer stage separately? I'm thinking free-return trajectory to the Mun, and land that with parachutes or powered.

Complex and interesting.. I like your mission profile! But the only part that needs to be recovered on Kerbin is the CM/Lumex minishuttle. The Munar descent/landing stage is left on the Mun.

Cool idea. What was it with engineers back then that they wanted to put wings on everything? I mean, sheesh. Why would you ever put wings on a moon-lander -- that's crazy!

I also enjoyed the page near the end of the USAF proposal where it talks about needing to use the "Space Launching System" or "S.L.S." once it is developed in order to get into orbit. What foresight!

How about you make the challenge "no jets" so that the challenge is, you know, actually challenging

Yeah, that SLS note in the write up brought a smile to my face. The only launch rule is 'must be launched'; any lifter can be used.

---

Thanks all for the interest. This is the 'multiplier' value I'm referring to when calculating score:

This is how far away a vessel can be and still earn 98% multiplier.

Doing some re-entry testing now.. will have a mission report up soon!

Named for the mini shuttle in BARIS.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Death Engineering

[FleshJeb]

Complex and interesting.. I like your mission profile! But the only part that needs to be recovered on Kerbin is the CM/Lumex minishuttle. The Munar descent/landing stage is left on the Mun.

Thanks. I think I'm going to try to stick to the spirit of the challenge/realism and not focus on the points. No jets, no munar jetpacks; 1960s tech and techniques; minimize dV/mass; add safety, redundancy and the ability to complete/survive the mission in case of malfunction.

I assume the Armstrong Memorial counts as an Anomaly? I can hit that one from memory, it requires minimal inclination change, and it's near the edge of two biomes.

Crap, now I need to download 0.90...

[Xeldrak]

Hm...a Doing it so-and-so Style Challenge.

How could I resist?

The Hardware is set up, maybe I'll fly the mission today. But probably I'll do it tomorrow.

[GusTurbo]

Oh, this looks like a fun one. I'm envisioning throwing one of those atop this:

[Xeldrak]

Allright, my entry:

MÜNEX

Javascript is disabled. View full album

• Craft recovery failure: Crew is recovered but command module is damaged or lost (-5)
• Automated avionics: Use any flight control assist other than stock (-4)
• Surface exploration restriction: Crew-capable surface exploration vehicle (rover/hopper) not deployed on surface (-3)
• Negative glide path: Backup recovery method (chutes) required for landing (-3) What backup?!
• Re-entry corridor missed: Any use of CM/Lunex engine inside Kerbin atmosphere (-2)
• Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2)
• Scientific discovery failure: Munar landing site does not exhibit any anomalous features (-1)

Final score = (100 - 0)*100% = 100

Well, that was fun! I allways like "Going to the Mün"-Challenges. This time I finally could use the "new" fuselages and the cargo bay. And while I'm usually a rover-kind-of-guy, I decided to go with a hopper, since you mentioned it. All in all a really nice challenge - made my afternoon

Edited January 30, 2017 by Xeldrak

[Death Engineering]

Thanks. I think I'm going to try to stick to the spirit of the challenge/realism and not focus on the points. No jets, no munar jetpacks; 1960s tech and techniques; minimize dV/mass; add safety, redundancy and the ability to complete/survive the mission in case of malfunction.

I assume the Armstrong Memorial counts as an Anomaly? I can hit that one from memory, it requires minimal inclination change, and it's near the edge of two biomes.

Crap, now I need to download 0.90...

Oh yes the NAM is a great place to land due to its equatorial location. My landing zone will be a little tougher, but not much. Maybe someone should try the south pole monolith..

Missions that focus on realism are great. Realism and redundancy rules were originally in the challenge, actually. There were three lifters that I found, some using a pure solid first stage, as build options. And since the documentation has reasonable detail in the various failsafe systems at stages throughout the mission, building each of those into the craft would really add a lot to the challenge.

Oh, this looks like a fun one. I'm envisioning throwing one of those atop this:

http://i.imgur.com/Khi5MbS.png?1

That would be entirely awesome, sir!

Allright, my entry:

MÃœNEX

http://imgur.com/a/mq9Tu

• Craft recovery failure: Crew is recovered but command module is damaged or lost (-5)
  
• Automated avionics: Use any flight control assist other than stock (-4)
  
• Surface exploration restriction: Crew-capable surface exploration vehicle (rover/hopper) not deployed on surface (-3)
  
• Negative glide path: Backup recovery method (chutes) required for landing (-3) What backup?!
  
• Re-entry corridor missed: Any use of CM/Lunex engine inside Kerbin atmosphere (-2)
  
• Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2)
  
• Scientific discovery failure: Munar landing site does not exhibit any anomalous features (-1)
  

Final score = (100 - 0)*100% = 100

Well, that was fun! I allways like "Going to the Mün"-Challenges. This time I finally could use the "new" fuselages and the cargo bay. And while I'm usually a rover-kind-of-guy, I decided to go with a hopper, since you mentioned it. All in all a really nice challenge - made my afternoon

Hey, Xeldrak, thanks for the entry.. and a fine mission it was! Could there possibly be any more "Doing it so-and-so style!" challenges left?

Cracked the leaderboard with a perfect mission!

[Death Engineering]

XMS-2 Mini Shuttle

This mission started out as a surface base contract mission to Minmus for 5 Kerbals. On the original design, the cargo bay included an ion hopper and the descent stage included a Mk1-2 command pod. Unfortunately, the ion hopper's TWR is too low for practical Mun flight so an engine for ants powers this hopper. The Mk1-2 pod had to go as well.

As I flew the mission, I was reminded of the Race into Space moon mission using the fictional XMS-2 Mini Shuttle (a gestalt craft using ideas from Apollo, LUNEX and Dyna-Soar -

). In BARIS, the spaceplane mission was playable as a typical Apollo mission with a separate lander, but the real LUNEX mission was penciled as a direct-ascent mission which for KSP makes good sense but in the real world, landing a plane on the moon is definitely a thought spawned from the heady 60's space race era.

The landing site was preplanned to be near another abandoned base in order to pick up the science samples accidentally left there from an earlier mission. I've already unlocked the tech tree, but I'm trading science for kerbucks now, so I'll take what I can get. Actually got lucky and found a tiny "Poles" biome while on extended EVA south of the arch, so brought home three surface samples.

Although the arch wasn't flaming or anything, I thought it was a neat stunt flying the CM under the arch during Munar ascent. The return burn to Kerbin did a single pass to get the Ap down below 200km and then a quick burn at Ap to get into a shallow elliptical orbit. A few orbits later, daylight caught up with KSC and the crew burned to a landing.

Re-entry was smooth but I forgot how obstructive the clouds can be when gliding and there's only one chance at a landing. The "Trajectories" mod helps somewhat, but it seems to fall short with planes. Maybe that's a known issue. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.

All mission goals met and landed on the runway = 100 points (100 * 1.00)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Xeldrak]

I had a guilty conscience, because I was the first participant and scored max points. I fear this leads to people loosing interest, because they think the challenge is "done". Also this challenge was really fun, so I decided to do it again. I wanted to use a Ion-Powered return vehicle. Well, without much ado:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Now, there were a few problems with this mission:

• It forgot that you can't store your sample in a command seat. Since it's a one-man mission, I had to leave one sample at the Mun
  
• It seems like Melcan suffered a stroke on his return trip to Kerbin. I could still controll this craft, but he would not leave the command seat or use his piloting skills. Since the Ion-Glider needed his piloting skills to be at least somewhat controleable, this was a real problem.
  
• I decided to abandon the Idea of landing near the KSC and just bring Melcan home alive, wich lead to a really bad recovery value (50.8%).
  

Therefore these mali apply:

• Craft recovery failure: Crew is recovered but command module is damaged or lost (-5)
  
• Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2)
  

Leaving me with: (100 - 7) * 0.508 = 46.244 Points

Challengewise not a success, but it still was fun. And I saved Melcan!

[Pds314]

So, are you telling me that we DID want to put a space shuttle on the Mun?

LOL

[Death Engineering]

I had a guilty conscience, because I was the first participant and scored max points. I fear this leads to people loosing interest, because they think the challenge is "done". Also this challenge was really fun, so I decided to do it again. I wanted to use a Ion-Powered return vehicle. Well, without much ado:

http://imgur.com/a/LtIma

Now, there were a few problems with this mission:

• It forgot that you can't store your sample in a command seat. Since it's a one-man mission, I had to leave one sample at the Mun
  
• It seems like Melcan suffered a stroke on his return trip to Kerbin. I could still controll this craft, but he would not leave the command seat or use his piloting skills. Since the Ion-Glider needed his piloting skills to be at least somewhat controleable, this was a real problem.
  
• I decided to abandon the Idea of landing near the KSC and just bring Melcan home alive, wich lead to a really bad recovery value (50.8%).
  

Therefore these mali apply:

• Craft recovery failure: Crew is recovered but command module is damaged or lost (-5)
  
• Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2)
  

Leaving me with: (100 - 7) * 0.508 = 46.244 Points

Challengewise not a success, but it still was fun. And I saved Melcan!

Derping things up can be fun, too.

By the way, have you had a look at the 'Duna von Braun Style' challenge? shameless plug

So, are you telling me that we DID want to put a space shuttle on the Mun?

LOL

Who doesn't? But, yes this challenge is based on a real idea.. albeit before any real lunar exploration had been accomplished. The Air Force preferred a direct-ascent approach because they didn't think lunar or even earth rendezvous was feasible. And the Air Force will slap wings on anything (I'm looking at you F-4 Phantom).

[Death Engineering]

anti-necros triggered..

Mun-Ex

Resurrecting another of my threads from the depths of Challengia, this was not an attempt to max the points but to re-do this mission with more attention to the original Lunex. This Mun-Ex is a pure glider having only attitude control thrusters on the space plane/recovered craft. This also has more living space on board which would be used for extended surface stays and performing research before heading home.

This single-launch, direct-ascent style launch was brought down near the NAM, but the rover didn't last long enough before suffering a Jeb-up rendering it upside down so only one biome sample recovered. Little time (okay, none) was spent planning the landing, so missed KSC by 350km, resulting in 81.6% recovery value. At least there was flat land nearby, but this sweet-flying glider could have landed anywhere. I did have problems keeping the Mk1 Cockpit from exploding during re-entry however, so not sure what's up with that. Wound up having to take several passes through the atmosphere to slow down to a safe, non-explodey terminal velocity. 

Base points: 100 - "Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2)" * 0.816 = 79.97

Been there, done that and got the t-shirt to prove it.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Death Engineering

[KerbalKore]

What mod did you use for the mun dust?

[Xeldrak]

Now I feel the urge for a third entry....

[Death Engineering]

2 hours ago, Bill the Kerbal said:

What mod did you use for the mun dust?

Visual mods are Stock Visual Enhancements and Stock Visual Terrain. Not sure which added the Munar dust clouds but I love it!

 

2 hours ago, Xeldrak said:

Now I feel the urge for a third entry....

Gopher it. You otter be able to find some really cool stock-alike parts too.

[KerbalKore]

1 hour ago, Death Engineering said:

Visual mods are Stock Visual Enhancements and Stock Visual Terrain. Not sure which added the Munar dust clouds but I love it!

Thank you! SVE should be stock

[Xeldrak]

10 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

Gopher it. You otter be able to find some really cool stock-alike parts too.

I was thinking a little bit more along the a-little-ridiculous lines...

Edited January 31, 2017 by Xeldrak

[michal.don]

Glad you resurrected this one as well, again, this was a fun challenge.

Imgur album documenting the mission:

http://imgur.com/a/H0Y85

(imgur is trying really hard to make me hate it, some pictures might be in wrong order)

 

I believe I completed all the objectives, and since I landed on the KSC runway, my score should be 100 pts.

Some pictures:

Two stage launch vehicle + 4 SRBs

Even Valentina looks a bit nervous

The rover performs really well, even in rough terrain

reentry

 

Thanks for the challenge, I really had fun, expect me soon in another one of yours

Michal.don

[Xeldrak]

My next entry:

Münex Max - Album

I know, it's a little ridiculous to land a fully sized space shuttle on the mun.....anyways...

• Craft successfully recovered
• No automated avionics were used
• Two hoppers deployed
• No parachutes were used
• Engine was not used inside atmosphere
• Surface Samples from two biomes
• anomalous feature present
• Landing on KSP runway

---> 100 Points

 

[Jestersage]

Xeldrak, can you share your craft file? Yours is the most interesting.

P.S. For some odd reason, the Munex landers keep having issue with tipping over during landing... been trying to make one since there was no Lunex/Munex craft files over at KerbalX

Edited February 5, 2017 by Jestersage

[Xeldrak]

@Jestersage Yeah, sure, I can share the craft file of my latest landing. I fear the former two are lost.

But if you're having problems with tipping, I fear you won't have much fun with it. You need a realy flat surface to land it, as it's quite unstable.

edit: There you go

Edited February 5, 2017 by Xeldrak

[Martian Emigrant]

Hey Kerb-O-fan-O-Rama.

Took me a long time (Slow learner I guess).

My greatest difficulties was achieving the targeted landings. On the Mun and at the KSC.

Here is my entry for the challenge. http://imgur.com/a/97gDL The pics are mostly in order if you start from the bottom.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Had to do a bit of driving to get a second biome.

First sampling

Secong sampling

 

Thank you much.

Covered all the objectives and got 100% recovery on an intact ship.

 

ME

Edited February 5, 2017 by Martian Emigrant