How to get to and back from Eeloo without a mining operation?

[WalkingShadow89]

I did at least 20 trips to Eeloo and back pre-1.0 but after the update I can't seem to get there and back without sending a refueling mission. At best I can pull off about 8,500 m/s. Any tips?

[Jonboy]

8,500 m/s should be plenty to get from Kerbin orbit to Eeloo and back if you re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere directly. Of course you need to get that up into orbit. But that actually takes less delta-v than it did pre-1.0, so overall the mission should take less delta-v than before.

[nine_iron]

Two part launches also work.

I used to fuel up at my depot in LKO then head out

The only problem with a fuel depot is you have to keep refilling it!

[regex]

I can easily pull 10km/s out of Mk3 parts and nuclear engines. If you're having trouble ditch your lander at Eeloo since it's just dead weight. Also, use a proper tug and don't bring your return capsule along.

[Mesons]

Two part launches also work.

I used to fuel up at my depot in LKO then head out

The only problem with a fuel depot is you have to keep refilling it!

I personally really like this strategy, and I agree with the flaw you noted. This is, however, one of the very few scenarios where I will "cheat" and edit the save file. I'm willing to pretend I have hired a crew to refill regularly, perhaps even deducting a modest sum of funds in career mode.

[xebx]

You can easily go to Eeloo and back in around 1+1 year with a 24000 m/s deltaV manned ship (small lander included 1400 deltaV high accel for efficient landing), no nuke, one launch, 100% stock :

First part is 12000 m/s LFO aspargus (from KSC to LKO to Eeloo capture)

Second part is 12000 m/s Ion engine with jettisonable fuel cells and solar panels (from Eeloo capture to low orbit to ejection (f.cells), to Kerbin capture to LKO (s.panels)).

It's probably possible to do it faster with this design.

Trajectory is very direct and a very good transfer window is needed.

Real world Ion engines can have 30000 ISP (stock are only 4200), don't lose your time with unrealistic outdated nuke engines.

Edited September 20, 2015 by xebx

[Technical Ben]

Part count is astronomical on the ion versions (I've tried) and manageable with nukes.

I have a few super setups for ion, but part count makes them unfun to try to fly and I've not got them out of orbit so far.

[xebx]

7 Ion engine and less than 100 part (lander included) is clearly not part count astronomical.

Nukes are very slow.

Edited September 20, 2015 by xebx

[cantab]

Chemical engines are less efficient than in .90 so you'll need a larger ship if you go chemical, and you might want an extra stage.

The nuke is as efficient as ever but remember it now uses liquid fuel only. Aircraft liquid fuel tanks are best for it. Rocket fuel tanks with the oxidiser removed are OK but heavier. Rocket fuel tanks with the oxidiser accidentally left in are a disaster.

Ions will probably have to be RTG powered, solar panels now behave realistically and give very little power at Jool and Eeloo. Hold Manoeuvre and similar make long burns practical if you're OK with letting the game do its thing.

Gravity assists as always can save you a bunch of delta-V at the cost of a long mission time. Jool > Eeloo is effective in dramatically reducing your Eeloo capture burn.

[Caelib]

Reverse Gravity Assist: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Gravity_Assist#Reverse_Gravity_assist

[Fearless Son]

Chemical engines are less efficient than in .90 so you'll need a larger ship if you go chemical, and you might want an extra stage.

[...]

Ions will probably have to be RTG powered, solar panels now behave realistically and give very little power at Jool and Eeloo. Hold Manoeuvre and similar make long burns practical if you're OK with letting the game do its thing.

RTGs have a bad weight-to-electricity ratio though. Great if you only have a small draw and need to be sunlight-independent, but ion engines are a pretty dang big draw. It does make me wonder what the efficiency of using fuel cells would be for ion engines. Yeah, it means you need to take rocket fuel too which would normally defeat the point of using ions, but I wonder if the fuel consumption for the fuel cells would be low enough that you would still get better efficiency for the mass from using those to power ion engines.

[cantab]

I forgot about the fuel cells. IIRC fuel-cell-ion propulsion works out at 1600 s Isp or so, with the option of using other power sources to improve it, for example a battery bank for short correction burns.

[PB666]

Chemical engines are less efficient than in .90 so you'll need a larger ship if you go chemical, and you might want an extra stage.

The nuke is as efficient as ever but remember it now uses liquid fuel only. Aircraft liquid fuel tanks are best for it. Rocket fuel tanks with the oxidiser removed are OK but heavier. Rocket fuel tanks with the oxidiser accidentally left in are a disaster.

Ions will probably have to be RTG powered, solar panels now behave realistically and give very little power at Jool and Eeloo. Hold Manoeuvre and similar make long burns practical if you're OK with letting the game do its thing.

Gravity assists as always can save you a bunch of delta-V at the cost of a long mission time. Jool > Eeloo is effective in dramatically reducing your Eeloo capture burn.

it pays to mod on fuel tank so that it is all lf, most likely you will want the big orange 6400.

[xebx]

Yesterday i've completed a Fast Travel manned Mission to Eeloo with a 24000 m/s deltaV ship (small lander included ) LFO+Ion (3 gigantor + 3 jettisonable fuel cells), 100% stock, no refuel, no nuke (timewarpx4 ok)

1y34d to and 1y207d back, total 2 years 247 days

More pics in imgur album in signature.

Edited October 3, 2015 by xebx

[WalkingShadow89]

Yesterday i've completed a Fast Travel manned Mission to Eeloo with a 24000 m/s deltaV ship (small lander included ) LFO+Ion (3 gigantor + 3 jettisonable fuel cells), 100% stock, no refuel, no nuke (timewarpx4 ok)

1y34d to and 1y207d back, total 2 years 247 days

http://i.imgur.com/xl4VY4J.png

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

http://i.imgur.com/P25OgNy.png

http://i.imgur.com/OBuZEK6.png

More pics in imgur album in signature.

wow, very impressive! I have a pretty low-end computer so I can only manage maybe 100 parts before it starts to get unmanageable so I could never hope to build something like that

[purpleivan]

Hmmm... not that hard to get to Eeloo I think.

I sent a lander return vehicle there a few days ago, using an 88 ton (on the pad) launcher for the Small Rocket Long Way challenge (no Rockomax or Kerbodyne parts).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

First of, Eeloo and the Mun has quite the same size and Gravity.

What I would do is to build a lightweight lander that is capable of landing and getting back into Orbit of the Mun with 10-20% fuel to spare for maneuvering in Orbit.

Then, build a Little Fuel Reservoir with a Docking port on it.

Drive this Fuel through the Engine of your Lander to make your way to Eeloo and into Orbit, undock, make your way to the surface, get back into Orbit, dock with the Fuel-Tank and fly back to Kerbin.

Probably you can use the Engine of the Lander as your heatshield.

Ions might be a bad Idea as the Power-Output degrades drasticly with the distance of Kerbol.

[purpleivan]

Ions might be a bad Idea as the Power-Output degrades drasticly with the distance of Kerbol.

That's why I used RTG's to power the ion drive.

[DancesWithSquirrels]

Those aren't stock RTGs, are they? A dozen stock units should only be able to power a single ion engine, not four...

[KerikBalm]

Yesterday i've completed a Fast Travel manned Mission to Eeloo with a 24000 m/s deltaV ship (small lander included ) LFO+Ion (3 gigantor + 3 jettisonable fuel cells), 100% stock, no refuel, no nuke (timewarpx4 ok)

1y34d to and 1y207d back, total 2 years 247 days

No nukes... but lots of fuel + poodles.

Most of that was done by chemical rockets, the Ions did very little for it.

And if you replaced most of the chemical with nukes, it would do even better.

[322997am]

Nukes are probably the most efficient for long range travel in spaceplanes due to them using liquid fuel and incredible fuel consumption to thrust ratio.

[quasarrgames]

I personally really like this strategy, and I agree with the flaw you noted. This is, however, one of the very few scenarios where I will "cheat" and edit the save file. I'm willing to pretend I have hired a crew to refill regularly, perhaps even deducting a modest sum of funds in career mode.

Ditto! Why waste a couple hours of your life when you can just imagine that you did it? Same with reusable launch stages. I've proved that i can land this spaceplane, haven't i? Why not just throw it back into the atmosphere and pretend that i tediously landed it, then?

[purpleivan]

Those aren't stock RTGs, are they? A dozen stock units should only be able to power a single ion engine, not four...

Argh... you're right of course about the RTG, I missed that.

I put the vehicle together for a challenge and I always build stock vehicles for those, but I've also made some cinematics and those larger RTG's must have been in one of the parts packs I installed for use in one I've started to put together.

In my rush to build the vehicle I must have just grabbed the RTG that my attention landed on, instead of the stock one.

I wish there was a convenient way to separate stock from non stock parts in the VAB.

Edited October 1, 2015 by purpleivan

[xebx]

Ditto! Why waste a couple hours of your life when you can just imagine that you did it? Same with reusable launch stages. I've proved that i can land this spaceplane, haven't i? Why not just throw it back into the atmosphere and pretend that i tediously landed it, then?

Lol i've spent probably 30 min total time of burns and manoeuvres (thanks to time warpx4 for the ion part), if you think it's a waste of time why are you playing this game ?

No nukes... but lots of fuel + poodles.

Most of that was done by chemical rockets, the Ions did very little for it.

And if you replaced most of the chemical with nukes, it would do even better.

Relol, I clearly say it's LFO+Ion, Ion did more than half the job and nuke are useless, now where is your fast travel ?

If Lfo+Ion combo can perform very well for a Kerbin-Eeloo travel, then this combo can perform even better for any other planet in kerbol system.

Edited October 3, 2015 by xebx