4 tourist mission

[Starchaser]

So, I got a contract last night for 4 tourist. 1 tourist has all minmus/kerbin targets, 1 has all mun/kerbin targets and the other 2 have targets in both mun and minmus. 

I looked at just launching my 4 passenger lander and launching twice, once to each moon. I advance both 2 pilots and 2 support people this way However, I thought it was expensive.

I started thinking of ways to do a 4 passenger lander with capability to land on both the mun and minmus within my 'budget' of about 214,000 which is the cost of running my 4 passenger lander twice. My initial thought was to make 1 rocket and then separate and dock with a tug module, a la Apollo. I discarded it, as I wasn't sure how to stack them. However I might come back to it, if I can make the tug module fit in an interstaged fairing. Or I could launched them docked, I suppose, with the tug over the lander. 

I thought about launching the tug on a separate rocket, but that approached my current cost

At the absolute cheapest, I can slap a probe core on my 2 passenger lander which lets me put a passenger in the mk-1 pod and do the whole thing by launching that twice, which would cost me 88,000 total. But I'd lose on the crew experience. 

What are people's thoughts. 2 launches or one? And if 1, how would you arrange it?

Additional info, I have a station in kerbin orbit I could dock with and drain about 1100 units of fuel, but that would work out to about 600 delta V for my tug stage, and I have 2 stations in orbit around the mun that could provide about the same in total.  I also have a refueling craft in an orbit about halfway to the mun with plenty of fuel, but I try to use that only for emergencies.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

Definitely one launch. I usually hit Mun first. The transfer from Mun to Minmus is extremely easy. You won't have much fuel left, but you won't need much anyway. Landing and maneuvers around Minmus don't really cost anything, and you can free-return home. If you have lander cans or passenger cabins (which you most likely will), set Kerbin Pe to a bit above 40km instead of 30km. You'll have to pass through twice, and maybe even 3 times, but it'll keep the less rugged modules from overheating.

There are probably plenty of guys would do the opposite; go to Minmus first, then do Mun when their craft is lighter. I think it comes down to personal preference. Either way, you definitely won't need 200,000 bucks.

 

You obviously don't need room for 9, but something similar will do the job easily.

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[bewing]

I think that tourist missions should not be seen as an end unto themselves. You should always combine contracts to make them more profitable. Also, it sounds like you are overdesigning and overpowering your rockets. My TSTO spaceplane carries 7, gets to Minmus and back without refueling, and lands on the runway for full funds recovery of the spaceplane -- for 36 thousand kerbucks. Admittedly, it's probably higher tech than what you've got. But the point is that you can trim a lot. You might want to think of it this way: a tourist contract is an opportunity to get paid to go someplace you wanted to go anyway.

So, really, the question is what else can you do while you are carrying a couple tourists to Minmus or the Mun? You can rescue stranded Kerbals at your destination. You can ferry Kerbonauts and rovers and bases to your destination and leave them there to collect science. You can pick up Kerbonauts and their science from the destination and bring them back to Kerbin. There are contracts to grab wreckage and bring that back to Kerbin (to land gently). You can deliver small satellites to the destination CB's SOI. You can take scientific readings in orbit at the destination for a survey contract. You can ferry fuel from one orbital tanker or ground base to another.

So, generally, I would advise saving up until you have several contracts at Minmus, and several contracts at the Mun, and then doing the two missions separately. And spending a bunch of brain cells figuring out how to do multiple completely different contracts in one ship -- rather than just a couple similar contracts in one ship. (Because that's one of the funnest parts of the game.)

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by bewing

[Plusck]

Can't add much to the two excellent answers above.

Except maybe to underline that the 2-person crew cabin really is an essential early purchase in career mode so that you can make money easily with tourist and large base-building and expansion contracts. Unlocking science instruments comes first, of course, but the crew cabin pays for itself in hard cash very quickly.

And the advantage of tourists is they can't go on EVA anyway, so you don't even need to worry about having a hatch-bearing pod on your ship if you have the probe cores to do the actual flying.

[Aegolius13]

2 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

Definitely one launch. I usually hit Mun first. The transfer from Mun to Minmus is extremely easy.

Agree on one launch.  I find that, except in rare edge cases, it's not worth the hassle or additional part cost to put stuff together in orbit.   Similarly, I don't think it's worth it to do Apollo style on these missions - the delta-v requirements are small enough your'e better off with just one ship.

Where to go to the Mun or Minmus first is an interesting question.  I personally think it's a lot easier to transfer from Minmus to the Mun rather than the other way around, since the Mun has a bigger SOI and shorter orbital period.  But if your rocket is constrained by TWR at various parts of its life cycle, that can play a part too (i.e., you want to do the Mun when you have more thrust).  

Here is an example "mini grand tour" vessel for cheap tourism and astronaut training.  It's designed to land on the Mun, Minmus and poke out into the Sun's SOI before returning to Kerbin.  Note that I have tweaked down the mass of the Mk 1-2 pod a bit since it's so uselessly heavy in stock.  But it would probably be possible to redesign this thing around a Hitchhiker or Mk 2 passenger cabin or whatnot if weight was at a premium.  This thing goes to the Mun first because the Poodle stage has just enough Delta-v to perform most of the descent, before I stage and land using the upper stage.  The Terrier segment then completes the rest of the tour: to Minmus, then out into interplanetary space, then back to Kerbin.  

While this thing was relatively cost-effective, in my subsequent career I transitioned to a fully-reusable rig for tourism and training.  A 16 passenger SSTO rocket would carry passengers up to LKO meet a nuclear-powered lander (which refueled from ISRU).  So the only cost was a couple-thousand per launch for fuel and a small recovery penalty for not landing right at the KSC.  You can certainly use an SSTO plane instead of a rocket, but I wanted to try something different (and something that went a little quicker).  

 

 

 

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

2 hours ago, Aegolius13 said:

Agree on one launch.  I find that, except in rare edge cases, it's not worth the hassle or additional part cost to put stuff together in orbit.   Similarly, I don't think it's worth it to do Apollo style on these missions - the delta-v requirements are small enough your'e better off with just one ship.

Where to go to the Mun or Minmus first is an interesting question.  I personally think it's a lot easier to transfer from Minmus to the Mun rather than the other way around, since the Mun has a bigger SOI and shorter orbital period.  But if your rocket is constrained by TWR at various parts of its life cycle, that can play a part too (i.e., you want to do the Mun when you have more thrust).

 

 

 

Ah, my beloved Mk1-2. I try to take it everywhere. I've brought to Eve's surface and back, and it did all the landings on my Jool 5 (I even have a thread in Mission Reports dedicated to it). However, even I, its most ardent supporter had to admit it was a bit heavy for early tourist missions. I love the look of it, though, so I can't fault anyone for using it. I especially like the passenger module on the top. I often do that with the Mk1 command module on top when I need a 4 man crew. Looks kinda cool.

I can't fault the Minmus first thinking either. I knew there'd be plenty of guys going that route. I guess I just like getting the tougher landing over with first. Plus I find it easier to hit Minmus at the node from Mun. I'm always surprised how little it takes for the transfer, capture, and landing. It's easy from Kerbin as well, but I usually have to swing around a few times to get lined up right and I'm an impatient guy (which explains why I single-launch absolutely everything, never use the Nerv, and would only use an ion under threat of banishment from the Forum ).

One thing I was curious about was that I saw you're dropping your Kickbacks 2 at a time; almost asparagus-style. Were they maybe hitting your rocket? The only other thing I can think of is that it looks cooler to stage them 2 at a time for a video or something.

It just occurred to me that maybe you have the fuel or thrust limiters set to different levels for timing reasons.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[Oiff]

30 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

One thing I was curious about was that I saw you're dropping your Kickbacks 2 at a time; almost asparagus-style. Were they maybe hitting your rocket? The only other thing I can think of is that it looks cooler to stage them 2 at a time for a video or something.

I have done this before by having some set to full throttle and others set slightly lower.  When full thrust is too much at blastoff this is more efficient than lowering all of the boosters thrust as you start to shed weight sooner.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

1 minute ago, Oiff said:

I have done this before by having some set to full throttle and others set slightly lower.  When full thrust is too much at blastoff this is more efficient than lowering all of the boosters thrust as you start to shed weight sooner.

Yup. Just put that in the edit while you were typing. I've changed thrust on SRB's when I need to, but I don't think I've used different levels on the same stage before. That's interesting.

[Aegolius13]

7 hours ago, Oiff said:

I have done this before by having some set to full throttle and others set slightly lower.  When full thrust is too much at blastoff this is more efficient than lowering all of the boosters thrust as you start to shed weight sooner.

 

8 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

It just occurred to me that maybe you have the fuel or thrust limiters set to different levels for timing reasons.

Yep, I had the second set of SRBs throttled down a little so they put out less thrust but lasted longer.  The idea was to try to smooth out the thrust curve a bit.  I'm usually in favor of using all possible TWR to minimize gravity losses, but I think I remember this one going a little crazy toward the end with all of the Kickbacks on full blast.  Throttling down the Skipper would be another option, but I think that was making it a little hard to steer.  

[Kryxal]

You can do something similar VERY early game (as in, before radial decouplers) by making a cluster of SRBs, and turning down all but the center one ... means your TWR goes up, then drops as the center one burns out, then goes up again.

[Gilph]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:28 AM, bewing said:

You should always combine contracts to make them more profitable

I found this to be the best choice for me. If you look at the wording of the contracts carefully on whether you need to land or just flyby, you can make a 5-6 capacity rockets to flyby both bodies and return for about 50-70k. Because the landing requirements occur less frequently in the beginning, design lower capacity landers to complete the contracts. you should be in the 50% profit margin, at least, by doing so.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Gilph
stupid insert key