Jump to content

Possible to make an "Apollo" type lunar craft?


Recommended Posts

I'm not asking for a replica of the Apollo lunar missions ships but a ship with same functionality. A ship which orbits the Mun (or any other body), separates a manned "lander" while the manned "command module" stays in orbit. The lander does what landers do and then returns to re-dock with the orbiting ship. The science and Kerbal/s are then transferred back to the orbiting part, the lander is jettisoned and the orbiting part returns to Kerbin. I can't figure out, without actually having tried, if I can do this. Can a KSP ship have 2 command pods? I have had no luck constructing, in one attempt, a ship with 2 docking ports between the orbiter and lander, so that they can re-dock when the lander returns to orbit. Maybe the lander has to re-dock in a different configuration than it was originally launched in...re-dock nose-to-nose, perhaps?

The reason I ask is, as an example, landing on the Mun with a ship that can make it back to Kerbin on it's own, requires much more fuel and engine than a simple lander would...if it could re-dock with the "mother ship". Can this be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only can it be done, it's pretty much a staple of the game. You can have 100 command modules if you want. Docking ports are the best way to go about connecting them during construction, so that you can reconnect them later. There are other ways, as well. When you detach, as long as it has a command module and pilot (or a probecore), with power, engine and fuel, it will be a completely operable and separate vessel. And they can be reconnected later. It's actually a lot of fun. At work now, so I can't put up any screenshots, but someone surely will. Or just look around the forum. As I said, this is a staple of KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it's not my preferred method of Munar landing. (I'm a direct return fan.) I'm not here to disagree with your methods or theories; (direct return from the surface is easier and more efficient really). Anyways; I think I have an Apollo style Mun lander I made for fun one time lying around.

You can definitely build ships docked together in the VAB, disconnect them in flight and then reattach them.

I'll toss a pic up so you can at least get a vague idea of what it may look like in game.

?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-forma

Here was my quick take; I went without docking ports as the pilot can just rendezvous the lander with the return pod ,leave the lander, grab all the science and fly over to the return pod with his jetpack while orbiting the Mun, then he leaves for Kerbin, abandoning the lander module. Same concept though.

Spoiler

For comparisons sake; here's a very small Mun lander with direct return. This goes down to the Munar surface, then returns the pilot directly to Kerbin.

E9B8CA2BB75030C2DD4302543BB859EB2B8A94FC

 

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really bad at searches...I can never seem to get the right search criteria to find what I'm looking for...without a hundred extraneous posts showing up...but I've always had that problem at popular game/simulation forums. The one problem I ran into, in my first attempt in the VAB...I could not get opposing docking ports to "mount". I was trying to attach one port to the top of a section and the other to the bottom of the next higher up section. No luck, so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

I'm really bad at searches...I can never seem to get the right search criteria to find what I'm looking for...without a hundred extraneous posts showing up...but I've always had that problem at popular game/simulation forums. The one problem I ran into, in my first attempt in the VAB...I could not get opposing docking ports to "mount". I was trying to attach one port to the top of a section and the other to the bottom of the next higher up section. No luck, so far.

They need to be facing each other.

You see the little o__o faces on the front? (Assuming you are using Jr.'s) They need to "kiss."

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Although it's not my preferred method of Munar landing. (I'm a direct return fan.) I'm not here to disagree with your methods or theories; (direct return from the surface is easier and more efficient really). Anyways; I think I have an Apollo style Mun lander I made for fun one time lying around.

You can definitely build ships docked together in the VAB, disconnect them in flight and then reattach them.

I'll toss a pic up so you can at least get a vague idea of what it may look like in game.

?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-forma

Here was my quick take; I went without docking ports as the pilot can just rendezvous the lander with the return pod ,leave the lander, grab all the science and fly over to the return pod with his jetpack while orbiting the Mun, then he leaves for Kerbin, abandoning the lander module. Same concept though.

I see what your saying...simpler, really. I have to ask though...why is direct return more efficient? I'm finding that landing on the Mun with a direct return ship is requiring more mass...and height...than I'd like?

3 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

They need to be facing each other.

You see the little o__o faces on the front? (Assuming you are using Jr.'s) They need to "kiss."

When I rotate the one port so that it faces the other...it refuses to "mount" or attach to the part I need it to? Or should I attach the ports together first, before attaching one end to it's final part?

Edited by strider3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

I see what your saying...simpler, really. I have to ask though...why is direct return more efficient? I'm finding that landing on the Mun with a direct return ship is requiring more mass...and height...than I'd like?

I put an example under the spoiler above. You probably just need to build smaller and lighter, over-designing is so easy to do; I still do it all the time! Lol.

It has a lot to do with KSP being a game. I'm sure Apollo style is more efficient in real life but the Mun has very weak gravity, extra parts are heavy, we only really need 1 Kerbal, etc...

Don't let that stop you or anything though if you feel Apollo style is cool. It's pretty comparable as far as efficiency and Dv spent. I'm just saying you don't have to feel forced to do it that way just cause that's how Apollo did it.

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I put an example under the spoiler above. You probably just need to build smaller and lighter, over-designing is so easy to do; I still do it all the time! Lol.

It has a lot to do with KSP being a game. I'm sure Apollo style is more efficient in real life but the Mun has very weak gravity, extra parts are heavy, we only really need 1 Kerbal, etc...

Don't let that stop you or anything though if you feel Apollo style is cool. It's pretty comparable as far as efficiency and Dv spent. I'm just saying you don't have to feel forced to do it that way just cause that's how Apollo did it.

Yeah...I think I've fallen into the "overkill rabbit hole" again. I mean, it's just the Mun, not some far off planet! But I seem to do this all the time until someone "talks me off the ledge", so to speak. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

I see what your saying...simpler, really. I have to ask though...why is direct return more efficient? I'm finding that landing on the Mun with a direct return ship is requiring more mass...and height...than I'd like?

There's more than one way to skin a cat.  Instead of building up you can build sideways:

unbalanced-lander.png

On the one side, a droptank.  On the other side, a droppable payload full of science instruments and a probe core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

Yeah...I think I've fallen into the "overkill rabbit hole" again. I mean, it's just the Mun, not some far off planet! But I seem to do this all the time until someone "talks me off the ledge", so to speak. LOL!

Keep in mind that example ship was pretty darn minimal, even I don't go to the Mun on that little as a matter of course. It's wise to have some breathing room.

Here's one of my early Mun Landers with direct return from my latest Career save. As you can see; she's got a little more meat on her bones.

Spoiler

87451A42CCFD1FB06C3F44A5BDE63244A0FDE2FE

As @Corona688 said; building wider is often smarter for landers. Helps with stability and there are no aero forces to slow you down out in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

When I rotate the one port so that it faces the other...it refuses to "mount" or attach to the part I need it to? Or should I attach the ports together first, before attaching one end to it's final part?

Just built your ship like normal with a docking port on the nose. Then grab another docking port of the same size. Hit the S or W key twice to flip it upside down. Now bring it to the top of your rocket. It should connect to the other docking port easily.

Apollo style is a lot of fun, and has a "cool factor" but, for the record, I'm in agreement with @Rocket In My Pocket. I prefer single launches and direct ascents for simplicity's sake. I only go Apollo-style when I need to make multiple landings without refueling or docking. It is a lot of fun, though. And the first time you split one ship into 2 really opens your eyes to how cool this game really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

And @Victor3, if you wanna see a sort of extreme example of Apollo-style, this is my Jool 5 below. Wanted to make all the landings with the Mk1-2 (which is absurdly heavy), so Apollo-style was the only way to go. Obviously, a Mun lander would look nothing like this, but here ya go. :)

https://imgur.com/a/Yog1d

Wow, that was impressive as all heck.

What kind of FPS were you getting at launch lol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor3 said:

When I rotate the one port so that it faces the other...it refuses to "mount" or attach to the part I need it to? Or should I attach the ports together first, before attaching one end to it's final part?

I have that problem, try bringing the camera down level with the first docking port, then drag the second one down, flip it and it should snap. For some reason when you are trying to do it while looking at an angle it will try and attach radially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor3 said:

I see what your saying...simpler, really. I have to ask though...why is direct return more efficient? I'm finding that landing on the Mun with a direct return ship is requiring more mass...and height...than I'd like?

Generally speaking, if your ship is reasonably trim, the tiny size of the KSP Mun (leading to reduced delta-V requirement) and the heavy nature of its parts (disfavoring duplication of parts) favors a direct-ascent mission; the gains from leaving your return-to-Kerbin fuel and heatshield in orbit are outweighed by the losses of having a separate lunar lander with many duplicated parts.

While it's been forever since I last played in the stock KSP system, I suspect that the most efficient sort of mission profile will be direct-ascent, with landing legs and scientific equipment staged off either at the surface of the Mun or shortly after takeoff. You can store one set of experiments in the command pod itself, and a 50 kg experiment storage unit on top of the pod can store a second set of experiments if wanted.

1 minute ago, FrostedShoe said:

I have that problem, try bringing the camera down level with the first docking port, then drag the second one down, flip it and it should snap. For some reason when you are trying to do it while looking at an angle it will try and attach radially.

Hold down alt (at least on Windows); that should prevent radial attachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FrostedShoe said:

I have that problem, try bringing the camera down level with the first docking port, then drag the second one down, flip it and it should snap. For some reason when you are trying to do it while looking at an angle it will try and attach radially.

You can hold Alt (Or Shift in some cases.  It's shift for me - either Linux or Nvidia is doing it) to prevent radial attachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do go to the Mun using a dedicated lander, I don't do it in a single launch. I launch a big tanker with multiple docking ports to serve as an orbital base. Then I launch the dedicated landers and dock them to it. Finally, I launch the manned "ferry" with extra fuel, monoprop, and astronaut.

Astronaut arrives, EVAs to the lander, refuels it, and lands. Upon return, the astronaut EVAs back to the ferry, transfers the extra resources, and returns to Kerbin.

My lander is a single stage and expends nothing but fuel, so can be reused indefinitely. So long as I keep bringing crew and supplies, I can use this setup to hit every Munar biome with a minimal waste of cash and equipment.

 

My interplanetary missions are largely the same, except they use a mothership and a crew of 4 instead of a dumb tank.

Best,
-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Wow, that was impressive as all heck.

What kind of FPS were you getting at launch lol?

Thank you, kind sir. :) (Sorry for the delayed response; work got nuts).

The mission was alotta fun. The launch, as you already surmised, was not. I've got a laptop that was pretty much top-of-the-line when I got it 2 years ago (i7, 24gb RAM, 980m, 1.25tb SSD), and is still a monster even now, but launching a 1,400 part behemoth (even with just KAC installed) was a freakin, chore. I can't remember how long it took, but I timed a 1,900 part ship (from hitting the spacebar until stable orbit) at almost exactly 30 minutes. This one was probably about the same. And the really fun part is the staging. You know from playing that it can get a bit confused on large ships. I think I launched 3 or 4 times cuz I kept staging engines. It was a blast. :)

Edited by Cpt Kerbalkrunch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally doable and fun. Here's a series of pics from an Apollo style mission using 1.25m parts and the K2 command pod

In this version the CM had all the fuel for both translunar injection and return. In real life they used the final boost stage to complete TLI, so my CM fuel tank is a lot bigger.

vAwdEpt.png
 
PIgz8mG.png
 
d5Vlg5C.png
 
hAtZmgz.png
Edited by Tyko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, lots of good ideas. I think, as this is my 1st mun landing contract (for this career), smaller will be better. I was trying to get as much science out of a single launch and munar landing as possible...but going bigger is tanking my funds advance (funds always being a consideration). Even after several careers, I still fall into that trap...being away from KSP for a year doesn't help.

>Tyko< That's what I'm talking about, right there. Something like that will be used for a science gathering trip to the Mun and Minmus in the future...once I learn how to "store" science. This has always been a gray area for me...but that's another subject for a different post.

Thanks guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

>Tyko< That's what I'm talking about, right there. Something like that will be used for a science gathering trip to the Mun and Minmus in the future...once I learn how to "store" science. This has always been a gray area for me.

Nothing to it.  You EVA, right-click on a command pod, and 'take experiments'.  Now your kerbal has them and can carry them wherever you want.

The experiment container also has a 'take all science' option.  I use it on some early automated missions.  Stick four parachutes on it (two drogues, two full) and it can survive re-entry all by itself.  Make sure to deploy the parachutes before you decouple it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good explanation of direct ascent efficiency above.  But it's also worth noting that direct ascent is way easier and faster.  You can design a simpler craft,  don't have to dock, etc.  Even if the cost at the end of the day were a little higher,  I'd make that trade for convenience.

But if doing an Apollo style mission sounds like fun,  there is no reason not to do it either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...