GregroxMun

The Apollo Applications Program: 1.0 Edition

Recommended Posts

Now the Kapollo 8 mission log is up too. Here's the photo I'm proudest of from that mission - a manually plotted, manually burned, textbook perfect free return trajectory. Enjoy.

http://i.imgur.com/iR1e4u9.png

That is the most beautiful free return I've ever seen! All of mine have a super-high Mun periapsis and I have to correct it when I get in the Mun's SOI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the most beautiful free return I've ever seen! All of mine have a super-high Mun periapsis and I have to correct it when I get in the Mun's SOI.

Yeah, it's beautiful.

Now as regards your free return trajectories, it may be this way because you are coming in prograde to (from the back of) the Mun, which adds Velocity to your craft and makes your periapsis higher -which, because of your parking orbit, is already outside of the atmosphere. Norcal is coming in retrograde to (from the front of) the Mun, which retracts Velocity and if properly made, gives you a free ticket to Kerbin. This is the standard, figure-8 approach used during the Apollo Program.

I do believe you already know this, but it may educate others who pass through.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's beautiful.

Now as regards your free return trajectories, it may be this way because you are coming in prograde to (from the back of) the Mun, which adds Velocity to your craft and makes your periapsis higher -which, because of your parking orbit, is already outside of the atmosphere. Norcal is coming in retrograde to (from the front of) the Mun, which retracts Velocity and if properly made, gives you a free ticket to Kerbin. This is the standard, figure-8 approach used during the Apollo Program.

I do believe you already know this, but it may educate others who pass through.

Thanks for the explanation. This is in fact how I set mine up.

In my case the issue is that I'm very lazy with where I slap my maneuver nodes for Mun transfers, so I don't get an optimal ejection angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its much much nicer than my Apollo 8 Free-return

VvdNvZUl.jpg, so I'll be trying hard to get that on future missions.

The first half of my Apollo 8 report is up. Imgur is being uppity about uploading my survival training pictures and those are needed for the next half of the report. Still need to let 8 orbit Mun 10 more times before heading home.

For survival training I built a Jumbo jet and dropped 3 teams out of the cargo-bay into random locations North of KSC to fend for themselves for a few days. The logistics was a fun challenge - took me a long time to get the drop-pods set up right so that they didn't crash into the plane, not to mention keeping the plane flying and balanced while I switched to the pod to make sure it landed gently. That part of the report will likely be up tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un-Kerballed testing phase of Kerbollo Program is complete Link to mission report

Ended up having to use a Twin boar setup for my Saturn IB, my original plan of using a Mammoth with four LV-T30s poking out the bottom proved very unreliable. The setup I went with is laid out more like the Gamma 8 on the BLACK ARROW than a true Saturn IB replica though.

jGuGXBhm.png

Current scoring

Saturn Five uses 5 engines on the first stage, 5 engines on the second stage, and one engine on the third stage. +20

Lander stored behind a fairing. +10

Stock. +20 (Use only stock parts)

Launch Escape System. +5

Use fuel cells for power generation only +10

Current Total: 65

About the fuel cells score... I am assuming it only applies to the basic Apollo hardware. For example the ALSEP included an RTG and Skylab had solar panels. Would it negate the score to replicate?

Do we have to use a free return trajectory on all Apollo 11-18 missions? In reality they stopped using them after 11 hence Apollo 13 having to use the LM Descent engine to establish one.

Also 15 points for an Apollo 19 mission to Minmus and 30 points for a Minmus mission using Apollo hardware?

Edited by Rhomphaia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the Kapollo 8 mission log is up too. Here's the photo I'm proudest of from that mission - a manually plotted, manually burned, textbook perfect free return trajectory. Enjoy.

http://i.imgur.com/iR1e4u9.png

I CAN'T GIVE YOU ENOUGH REP FOR THAT.

Seriously, that's a beautiful free-return trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying on with the AAP 'Major Milestone' flights, we complete the historical missions. Although Apollo XVI and XVII were scientifically significant, they weren't exactly milestone missions. Apollo XV introduces the Lunar Rover which gives surface exploration more range (and let's be honest, more fun :) ).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Computer guidance and improved radar demonstrated precision landing ability by setting the LM down only 360m from the Surveyor 3 probe, landed on the Moon two years earlier.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

"Lucky 13" was a mission of resourcefulness overcoming failure, starting off with a center engine cutoff on the S-II stage caused by severe pogo oscillation. Then, a major explosion on the C/SM caused the landing to be aborted and required the crew to use the LM as a lifeboat. The LM also had the only working engine and using it to get the crew home safely tested the ground and flight crews like no other mission before.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

With a precision landing at a place thought to have ancient volcanoes and a surface rover to explore with, this first extended-stay mission proved that real surface science was possible. On their return, the crew had to rely on only two chutes for landing, as one of the three failed to deploy.

Next (edit: Skylab and), some speculative explorations of what might have been..

Edited by Death Engineering
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi! A couple of questions:

There are some mods that offered single-part clustered engines (e.g., SpaceY). Do those count as only one engine for scoring purposes, or can we treat them as the number of engines they claim to cluster?

And two, on mechjeb, we can't use the autopilot but can use the information. But can we use MJ to auto-generate maneuver nodes or are we limited only to using the precision node editor to fine tune manually-generated nodes (since autogeneration might be considered autopiloting)?

I'm interested too. I've been proceeding assuming that the R5 and M5 lifter engines from SpaceY meet the five engine requirement. Since it'so possible to build essentially the same thing using the provided thrust plates and single engines, I don't see any real difference other than a higher part count.

Regarding MechJeb, I would think that any automatically generated maneuver nodes or use of any autopilot functions would incur the points penalty. I'm very interested in using an informational readout in MJ which is right on the cusp - the landing location prediction indicator found within the landing guidance module. While I will fly all flights manually, it would be really nice to know how close a ship's descent trajectory is going to put it in relation to a base or ship already on the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, with the standard Apollo missions out of the way I've got round to the Apollo Applications Program itself, with two missions completed so far.

APOLLO XIX - MISSION TO MINMUS

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I nearly lost my kerbals due to underestimating the amount of life support I would need, but through some risky flying I managed to bring them back to Kerbin much faster than usual.

SKYLAB

7UXB62N.png

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I hadn't intended to replicate the Skylab solar panel incident but it happened anyway - on launch the fairings clipped both solar panels and ripped them clean off. Luckily with KIS I was able to fly up two replacements with the Skylab I crew.

The 3.75m crew can I created myself since I couldn't find one in a mod that was quite what I wanted. It pretty much matches the dimensions of my S-IVB stage. And the Apollo Telescope Mount is a deirivative of the LEM ascent stage.

Score:

- Apollo 19 Mission to Minmus +15

- Fly a mission to Minmus using Apollo/Saturn hardware. +30

- 1 AAP mission (required)

Total = 170

Next up, Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and probably some Lunar Base stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhomphaia created this awesome new completion badge, if you have completed the challenge at Apollo-Applications Program finished level, you may add this to your signature.

jC9OmmT.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey GregroxMun...

Thanks for posting this challenge! :D Having fun in KSP again. :cool:

I'm planning on keeping the 'space program' going and will be using RoverDude's "USI Life Support" mod for the interplanetary missions. I don't really know much about how it compares to TAC, but I like the parts in USI and it seems fairly straightforward. Does it count for the 'life support' points in your challenge? No prob if not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey GregroxMun...

Thanks for posting this challenge! :D Having fun in KSP again. :cool:

I'm planning on keeping the 'space program' going and will be using RoverDude's "USI Life Support" mod for the interplanetary missions. I don't really know much about how it compares to TAC, but I like the parts in USI and it seems fairly straightforward. Does it count for the 'life support' points in your challenge? No prob if not.

Yes it does count for Life Support. I should edit the list in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, I've got USI life-support installed as well. It hasn't been needed yet, it won't really effect things until I get into AAP and start having missions longer than the 15 day grace period.

Apollo 8 has made it back now, I'll be doing Apollo IX and X soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A full report for my combined Kapollo 9-10-11 mission is up on my mission report thread, along with the initial MLV concepts which will enable further space exploration and settlement. Here's a shot of the MLV Block V, the largest rocket created to date in the KABOOM Kapollo program, and good for 265 tons to LKO.

zvMXV6A.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice MLV!

I'm not yet there, but I've actually got game-play and imgur back-logs for the first time (usually I've got the post half written and then have to wait to fight with Imgur to finish loading stuff). This time I've got Apollo IX and X done and uploaded - but I've not had time to sit down to write the reports. IX went very smooth, that team is likely going back on XIV or XV. For Apollo X I will say that it didn't match the real one. I should have the posts up soonish (Tomorrow I'm likely to be busy).

On a different note: I am learning! lrCYf5dl.jpg

Still not as nice as Norcal's but advice in thread helped me get closer. This was the FRT used on Apollo X [Jeb (pilot), Bill (Commander), and Astha (navigator].

I made special props for that mission report, but I need to write up Apollo IX before I get there.

dcB1DHMl.jpg

Edited by loch.ness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested too. I've been proceeding assuming that the R5 and M5 lifter engines from SpaceY meet the five engine requirement. Since it'so possible to build essentially the same thing using the provided thrust plates and single engines, I don't see any real difference other than a higher part count.

Regarding MechJeb, I would think that any automatically generated maneuver nodes or use of any autopilot functions would incur the points penalty. I'm very interested in using an informational readout in MJ which is right on the cusp - the landing location prediction indicator found within the landing guidance module. While I will fly all flights manually, it would be really nice to know how close a ship's descent trajectory is going to put it in relation to a base or ship already on the surface.

Thanks for the reply! I'll probably adopt the same philosophy--although to be safe I'll also calculate alternate scores which assume otherwise. I'd agree, though that theoretically the only difference should be part count. (Though maybe I should go back and see if the mass of 5 engines + thrust plate = clustered engine part. Although in the long run, that should be negligible, especially in a base stage.)

Going back to the autopilots, if norcalplanner or anyone else can sound off on this, the ban would also extend to other non-MJ aids, like Diazo's VV aid and Horizontal Landing Aid, and Throttle Controlled Avionics' similar vertical and horizontal velocity control modes right? (speaking of which, would TCA's thrust balancing function be legit for this challenge, or is it also out?)

And yes, norcal, I do love that fig-8 FRT. That should be on every science textbook in kerbalgarten. (And you manage to do it again! :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously not Greg, but I'd say that if the part your using have 5 visible engines it counts as 5 engines. The only time I think it would matter is if you were using the mechanical failure or Dang IT! mods (I'm using the latter).

My Saturn V would be able to recover from an engine burn out - which is an actual danger because of the afore mentioned mods - but my Saturn IB which uses the stock 4 engine 3-m lifter piece for the center core would case a failed mission if the center "engine" cut out. Happily, engine failures seem rare so far (fuel leaks on the other hand happen with surprising frequency).

I look forward to seeing your entries and I hope you have fun with the challenge. This challenge has given me a new lease on the game - I'm engaged with it just like I had been when I first bough it. I think I've had more sheer fun with KSP in the last couple weeks than I'd had in the previous few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm obviously not Greg, but I'd say that if the part your using have 5 visible engines it counts as 5 engines. The only time I think it would matter is if you were using the mechanical failure or Dang IT! mods (I'm using the latter).

Correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SunShooter Program

An Apollo Program analogue by B-STRK

PROLOGUE: SunShooter IV - Boil Harder

"We choose to go to the Mun... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because apparently Ore can be used by a Mobile Processing Lab to create Snacks! And there is plenty of Ore on the Mun. AND WHO WOULDN'T WANT MORE SNACKS?!"

-- President John F. Kerman, after receiving tgruetzm's latest report on Snacks! cultuvation

DzHdZhj.png

On a training flight, Valentina and Felix Kerman fly over the Sparkle V launch stack

As the sun rises on the inaugural launch of the SunShooter's prized booster, the Sparkle V, program managers reflect on Pres. Kerman's mandate to the KSP: get to the Mun, get the Ore, and get out of Kerbin's subsystem and into the other planets and satellites of the Kerbol system. Colonize space, and make it safe for democracy Snacks! And all this, using only a restricted family of lifters, the Sparkle series of booster rockets designed with professional attention childish glee by Wernher von Kerman, and on the limited budget of vF INFINITY.00 provided by an increasingly stingy Kongress. It was a mandate to take one's breath away.

No kidding. Several engineers had to reach for their inhalers from the stress of rocket design and testing. Not to mention all that second-hand exhaust fumes.

But it was a mandate that would be achieved. By the Kraken, it would be achieved. And with today's launch, kerbalkind's first steps into an arena that humankind has already well worn, and whose experience we are banking on to accomplish this challenge the unknown will be taken.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

MISSION REPORT

To: Chris Kerman

Project Manager, SunShooter

Fr: Gene Kerman

Flight Director, KSP

Re: SunShooter IV

Launch, orbit, and transposition tests went as planned, with perfect results. Telemetry from Launch and Orbit phases compiled and attached to this report for parsing and analysis by launch vehicle and flight simulation engineers. GNC and FIDO summaries of transposition are also attached for flight simulation and training purposes.

Reentry and Recovery phase however has BOMBED. From orbit. Like a kinetic strike. The CM boilerplate is a total loss, though at least the flight tracking data remains with us.

Project ALY managers send their apologies and have contacted Danny at the 2462 Office for the appropriate disciplinary measures for the erring telemetry engineers who forgot to install antennas on the SIVB and Luna MEM, and antenna + probe core on the Celestia CM. Project EVANNA engineers still bewailing the loss of the boilerplate, with a few requiring counseling before return to work.

Otherwise, flight profile has been validated, and we know from prior missions that the two radial chutes on the CM are enough for safe Kerbin reentry. Recommend GO for the rest of SunShooter.

Sincerely,

GENE KERMAN

Flight Director

Kerbal Space Program

PS: I think I'll also need a lawyer. I might have backhanded SYSTEMS into a monitor when he tried to cheer me up after the boilerplate bit it.

Yeah, I forgot to place antennas on all parts that were supposed to operate while detached. **facepalm** While I was kind of worried going full RemoteTech for accomplishing this program, toadicus' AntennaRange provides a similar experience with a couple of options turned on, minus the need for command caching on the flight computer and time delay. A harsh lesson for future unmanned SunShooter launches: make sure there are antennas on board. I wonder if the failed recovery will affect my score. Greg?

Okay, some tentative score calculations, though can someone check my math as well, to be sure I'm scoring this right?

Points racked so far with an Apollo 4 mission launch:

  • Saturn V uses 5 + 5 + 1 = 20 (SIC uses a SpaceY cluster, SII uses 4+1 separate engines)
  • Launch Escape System = 5 (MRS Boost Protective Cover + LES)
  • Use fuel cells only = debatable. :P CSM had the fuel cells, but the MEM had solar panels. Then again, this was an LKO test flight, so maybe the MEM doesn't really count? 10 points if GO, 0 if NO GO.
  • Life Support Mod = wait. This was an unkerballed flight. I guess having Snacks! onboard won't count this time. Also, now that I think about it, will Snacks! be acceptable to score Life Support? The 50 kerbal-day supply on the command pods are still pretty generous by life support standards; even real-world!Orion does only about 21 days max, if I read Wiki right "with up to 21 days active crew time plus 6 months quiescent".

Total score to date: 25 max, 15 min, depending on how the jury rules on the solar panels in the MEM. Maybe less, if GregroxMun docks points for fouled recovery. :D

Next on SunShooter: a tour of the hardware (maybe?), and sending willing victims volunteers those engineers better get things right on everything this time

PS: loch.ness, yes, I am having way too much fun. Actually being restricted from going wild on my mission design and having specific goals to pursue actually helps in keeping things focused, keeping me from blowing up my RAM with too many mods, and creating a sense of achievement. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good! I just got Apollo IX's report up. IX went flawlessly. No failures from the Dang IT! mod, no issues with LEM extraction or testing. Hezner (IX's pilot) made his gravity turn too shallow but had tons of fuel for the mission so it all worked out.

Should get Apollo X up tomorrow (Mission already ran, images on Imgur, just need the time to write it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I'm having loads of fun doing this challenge! It's great to approach KSP from almost a real-world engineering point of view and make sure everything seems plausible and fits within the Apollo aesthetic.

APOLLO-SOYUZ TEST PROJECT

7xCCPFi.png

h9A7rNe.png

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This mission went pretty smoothly. I used Beale's Tantares parts for the Soyuz because gosh they are beautiful.

MOLAB

I used the ASET Exploration Rover System parts for this. They're so pretty. I don't even care that my game crashes every half hour or so because of RAM. SO PRETTY

Javascript is disabled. View full album

mNChEeM.png

cOkp3ja.png

tyWHGJz.png

3W9jGvu.png

wo5ZE0N.png?1

MKl1yUn.png

bVqTG4a.png

Not yet brought them home but they're going to be staying on the surface for around 20 days thanks to MOLAB's expanded life support capability. Eventually a similar design will be used on a Duna expedition.

Points:

-ASTP +20

-MOLAB +20

Total = 210

Also working on a chart with all the vehicles I've used using Kronal Vessel Viewer (even if it's a bit temperamental):

pvoe8As.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benjee10, I love the picture with all of your craft so far. I've never used Kronal, and now I'm inspired to give this a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making first steps to a permanent presence in space, Skylab's successes were numerous. (These missions also test the USI Life Support mod before sending crew interplanetary.) Starting with a creative solution to a failed solar panel deployment by the crew in the first ever in-space repair, three crews flew to Skylab establishing new records for space endurance and used the built in science sensors and Apollo Telescope Mount to learn more about Earth and the cosmos than could ever be done from the surface.

"Hey there's another planet out there!" Apollo XIX, initially intended for a munar landing, flew out to this little green rock (should be called Mintmus) using an unmodified CSM/LM package. Launching the mission was the first Saturn V ELV (Saturn V with four integrated solid boosters). Instead of a rover the crew brought along an RCS powered 'hopper'.

Another ELV next launched the MOLAB which set down near the Twin Craters. With only a crew of two, Apollo XX landed adjacent to the MOLAB while the uncrewed CM remained in hibernation mode in munar orbit. The modified LM now carries nuclear power generation and sufficient life support for an extended stay up to 45 days, while the MOLAB on its own can support up to four kerbals for a total of 45 days (or two for 90 days).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

First mission in this challenge to push the life support (USI Life Support) mod. Flew two crews to Skylab, the first three crew staying 20 days the second two crew flight staying 30 days. Consumption was a predictable 1.08 'supplies' / kerbal / day.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Close enough still to not require any extra supplies, the only change from a typical mission was the addition of four SRB's to the S-IC first stage (Saturn V ELV) and instead of a rover, the crew flew a hopper around.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

With a max crew of four, the MOLAB set down near the twin craters and was later joined by two crew of Apollo XX. The crew stayed on the surface in the MOLAB for 55 days then returned to the uncrewed CM and orbited the Mun for another 10 days before returning home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now