Sign in to follow this  
Luc1fer

First land on moon and way back home! :D

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow Kerbonauts!:sticktongue::sticktongue:

 

I'm here in the forums again to show you my first sucessful manned kerbin-moon-kerbin travel.

Valentina and Bill, my brave pilots went on this risky mission (mainly because i killed 2 kerbals on the first try by slapping the ship on the mun at 250 m/s :o) and came back to tell the history.

1-The ship 

The ''Big Daddy'' is a 3 stage rocket to launch the manned ''nostromo'' into the space and send it towards the mun. (Pre-mission photo)

KosmXth.jpg

2-The launch.

I launched and went to the left till i was aligned with the mun, then go a circular orbit of 150k over kerbin, maneubred and finally got near the moon, the easy part is done, now comes the hard one, the landing. (Nostromo aproaching the mun)

Rm1Jiic.jpg

eVWRCTE.jpg

3 The landing.

So i got near the surface and tried multiple times to land, but jumped off the ground 2 times, did a backflip and broke 2 solar panels, 2 RCS trusters and 2 RCS tanks, UPSSSSSS:sealed:!

V6UrPdr.jpg

Finally managed to land!

FDD6qCx.jpg

Here you have valentina and Bill doing a moon walk :D:cool:

JiiTXR4.jpg

BTW the ship cracked in the final stage, but survived to get back to kerbin!

4- Reentry

So this was easy, just accelerate towards Kerbin, survive reentry and PARACHUTES OUT!

66yeumd.jpg

ioFmeO5.jpg

MISSION SUCCESS!!!!!!!!:cool::cool::cool::D:cool::D:sticktongue::P

 

 

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly the single best feeling in the whole game is your first successful Mun mission. Congratulations. :D

Also, interesting craft. Despite the name, not many people use the lander can for landers. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ah yes, the first successful Mun mission is definitely a kick. :D I always find it interesting to see how different designs people use for their Mun landers, seems like yours got the job done, so that's a success. Just wait until you do your first successful rendezvous and docking, that's an even bigger high. :D

Edited by Mjarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mjarf said:

Ah yes, the first successful Mun mission is definitely a kick. :D I always find it interesting to see how different designs people use for their Mun landers, seems like yours got the job done, so that's a success. Just wait until you do your first successful rendezvous and docking, that's an even bigger high. :D

I actually did my 1st docking/rendezvous building a 2 piece station on kerbin orbit time ago, but landing on the moon took me ages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

Despite the name, not many people use the lander can for landers.

? Really ?

I'm surprised, although I've heard many comment about its weight. I use it, my largish Duna lander for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Juanlu16 said:

I actually did my 1st docking/rendezvous building a 2 piece station on kerbin orbit time ago, but landing on the moon took me ages!

Huh, it was the other way around for me, I had probably done close to a hundred Mun landings before my first successful rendezvous and docking. The docking maneuver wasn't very difficult, but it was difficult to wrap my brain around how to use lower or higher orbits to catch up or wait for the other craft.

Edited by Mjarf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Possible the single best feeling in the whole game is your first successful Mun mission. Congratulations. :D

Also, interesting craft. Despite the name, not many people use the lander can for landers. 

IDK, i usually try my ships to have good aesthetics and the can looks good :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, LordFerret said:

? Really ?

I'm surprised, although I've heard many comment about its weight. I use it, my largish Duna lander for example.

I never used the Mk.2 can for a while, but it's nice for ships that have a science facility:  one pilot, one engineer, two scientists.  It's also the only [edit: manned] command part that is 2.5m on top and bottom, which can come in handy sometimes.  I mostly use it on things where the extra weight is a drop in the bucket anyway, or things where I really want the 2.5m size (e.g. a Clampy Sr. needs to go on top). 

But the weight of the thing really is nonsensical.  You could use a 2.5m-to-2x1.25m adapter, two Mk.1 lander cans, and another adapter, and get a similar result that only weighs about 1.5 tons.  And, to add insult to injury, the description calls it "very lightweight"! 

There may be a reason in terms of the real-life thing it is copying, but in game it makes no sense.  The Mk.1 can is much lighter than the Mk.1 command pod, but the Mk.2 can holds fewer kerbals than the Mk.1-3 pod and weighs almost as much.  Has more monopropellant but less electricity. 

Honestly, it probably gets more hate than it deserves, like, "That is too heavy, so I hate it completely disproportionately to the problem and vow never to use it!" 

I guess the key to what Vanamonde said is that most landers are small and don't care about 2.5m form factor on top, therefore the weight is a bigger problem and what it brings to the table isn't as much of an asset. 

1 hour ago, Juanlu16 said:

IDK, i usually try my ships to have good aesthetics and the can looks good :cool:

On that topic, I was wondering:  why do you have the second set of legs? 

Edited by FinalFan
manned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FinalFan said:

why do you have the second set of legs? 

Backup.

Same reason we have two legs.  A spare in case the first breaks off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FinalFan said:

I never used the Mk.2 can for a while, but it's nice for ships that have a science facility:  one pilot, one engineer, two scientists.  It's also the only [edit: manned] command part that is 2.5m on top and bottom, which can come in handy sometimes.  I mostly use it on things where the extra weight is a drop in the bucket anyway, or things where I really want the 2.5m size (e.g. a Clampy Sr. needs to go on top). 

But the weight of the thing really is nonsensical.  You could use a 2.5m-to-2x1.25m adapter, two Mk.1 lander cans, and another adapter, and get a similar result that only weighs about 1.5 tons.  And, to add insult to injury, the description calls it "very lightweight"! 

There may be a reason in terms of the real-life thing it is copying, but in game it makes no sense.  The Mk.1 can is much lighter than the Mk.1 command pod, but the Mk.2 can holds fewer kerbals than the Mk.1-3 pod and weighs almost as much.  Has more monopropellant but less electricity. 

Honestly, it probably gets more hate than it deserves, like, "That is too heavy, so I hate it completely disproportionately to the problem and vow never to use it!" 

I guess the key to what Vanamonde said is that most landers are small and don't care about 2.5m form factor on top, therefore the weight is a bigger problem and what it brings to the table isn't as much of an asset. 

On that topic, I was wondering:  why do you have the second set of legs? 

 

8 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Backup.

Same reason we have two legs.  A spare in case the first breaks off. 

There two stages, one lands on the mun (2nd legs) and other on kerbin (1st legs)

I explain in this photo, hope this explains you everything :D!

7apH0p7.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Juanlu16 said:

There two stages, one lands on the mun (2nd legs) and other on kerbin (1st legs) 

If you have enough parachutes to land on kerbin with lander legs, then you usually don't need them.   Even if you are going a touch fast, you can ditch the heatshield either through the right click pop up, or through an action group (I tend use the pop up, because accidentally ditching the HS at the wrong time is baaad), which will reduce your mass and therefore descent speed.    And if you don't ditch it, if you are going just a touch too fast, it will take the brunt of the impact before the rest of the craft does.   Consider it a frangible lithobraking device. 

The point of landing legs is two fold.  First they protect the rest of the craft from becoming frangible lithobraking devices, and two, they keep the ship upright.  This design is (assumedly) intended to be recovered on Kerbin, and not launch again, so you don't need ALL the parts of the craft (it'd be nice, but if something minor breaks, oh well) and you don't need to stay upright.   

Losing the second set of gear will reduce the mass of the vessel, giving you more dV and a slower descent under the chutes.

And speaking of mass.....  If this lander is only going to the Mun, lose that huge comm dish.   That thing is wicked heavy and way overpowered for this mission.  One of the itty bitty atennas will do just fine for Munar missions. 

And one more suggestion.  Place your RCS and the solar panels slightly offset to each other.   RCS thrusters can hit other parts of the ship and reduce the effectiveness of the thrusters.  So if the panels are just to the side of the RCS, and not directly in their thrust direction, the thrusters will be more effective. 

Edited by Gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

If you have enough parachutes to land on kerbin with lander legs, then you usually don't need them.   Even if you are going a touch fast, you can ditch the heatshield either through the right click pop up, or through an action group (I tend use the pop up, because accidentally ditching the HS at the wrong time is baaad), which will reduce your mass and therefore descent speed.    And if you don't ditch it, if you are going just a touch too fast, it will take the brunt of the impact before the rest of the craft does.   Consider it a frangible lithobraking device. 

The point of landing legs is two fold.  First they protect the rest of the craft from becoming frangible lithobraking devices, and two, they keep the ship upright.  This design is (assumedly) intended to be recovered on Kerbin, and not launch again, so you don't need ALL the parts of the craft (it'd be nice, but if something minor breaks, oh well) and you don't need to stay upright.   

Losing the second set of gear will reduce the mass of the vessel, giving you more dV and a slower descent under the chutes.

And speaking of mass.....  If this lander is only going to the Mun, lose that huge comm dish.   That thing is wicked heavy and way overpowered for this mission.  One of the itty bitty atennas will do just fine for Munar missions. 

And one more suggestion.  Place your RCS and the solar panels slightly offset to each other.   RCS thrusters can hit other parts of the ship and reduce the effectiveness of the thrusters.  So if the panels are just to the side of the RCS, and not directly in their thrust direction, the thrusters will be more effective. 

Thx for comment, gonna try a second design, when it’s finished gotta show you :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

If you have enough parachutes to land on kerbin with lander legs, then you usually don't need them.   Even if you are going a touch fast, you can ditch the heatshield either through the right click pop up, or through an action group (I tend use the pop up, because accidentally ditching the HS at the wrong time is baaad), which will reduce your mass and therefore descent speed.    And if you don't ditch it, if you are going just a touch too fast, it will take the brunt of the impact before the rest of the craft does.   Consider it a frangible lithobraking device. 

The point of landing legs is two fold.  First they protect the rest of the craft from becoming frangible lithobraking devices, and two, they keep the ship upright.  This design is (assumedly) intended to be recovered on Kerbin, and not launch again, so you don't need ALL the parts of the craft (it'd be nice, but if something minor breaks, oh well) and you don't need to stay upright.   

Losing the second set of gear will reduce the mass of the vessel, giving you more dV and a slower descent under the chutes.

And speaking of mass.....  If this lander is only going to the Mun, lose that huge comm dish.   That thing is wicked heavy and way overpowered for this mission.  One of the itty bitty atennas will do just fine for Munar missions. 

And one more suggestion.  Place your RCS and the solar panels slightly offset to each other.   RCS thrusters can hit other parts of the ship and reduce the effectiveness of the thrusters.  So if the panels are just to the side of the RCS, and not directly in their thrust direction, the thrusters will be more effective. 

He could make the vessel lighter ... or he could use more parachutes!  Four LV-1 landing legs have the same weight as two Mk2-R radial parachutes.  As for the dish, I had assumed he chose that one for the "good aesthetics" but if not then yes that is obviously unnecessary.  And it just happens to weigh the same as a Mk16XL parachute :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and thread moved to Mission Reports. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What engines are those?

Also, well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FinalFan said:

Four LV-1 landing legs have the same weight as two Mk2-R radial parachutes.

But they are for completely different purposes.   That's like saying 10000 oranges is the same weight as a crocodile.    I really don't have a use for one of those. 

If you remove the legs, you won't need the extra chutes.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, obney kerman said:

What engines are those?

Also, well done!

It's the ''skycrane'' from the umbra industries mod pack, i don't remember which holds that rocket but you should install the whole mods, they are so useful :D

https://umbraspaceindustries.github.io/UmbraSpaceIndustries/

10 hours ago, Gargamel said:

But they are for completely different purposes.   That's like saying 10000 oranges is the same weight as a crocodile.    I really don't have a use for one of those. 

If you remove the legs, you won't need the extra chutes.....

You know a lot of ksp so...

I tried to do a mun lander with electric engine, but this engine seem to not be powerful enough to actually counter the moon gravity, does ksp have some engine which fuel can be refueled by gathering resources into space (not drilling)?

Like an electric engine but much more powerful!:huh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/13/2018 at 8:03 PM, Gargamel said:

But they are for completely different purposes.   That's like saying 10000 oranges is the same weight as a crocodile.    I really don't have a use for one of those. 

If you remove the legs, you won't need the extra chutes.....

I would argue that if I understood the OP's earlier statement correctly he included the legs out of concern for the landing on Kerbin.  Thus they're not totally unrelated.  Adding parachutes is generally a more effective way to ensure safe landing speed on atmospheric bodies. 

I was not 100% sure about whether removing the legs without adding at least one parachute would be safe; being relatively noob, for all I knew, the legs were absorbing force from an impact speed that would have been fatal to the lander can, and I didn't take time to analyze whether taking 0.2 tons off the can's weight would or would not outweigh their utility.  Certainly adding two parachutes would be overkill, though. 

Edited by FinalFan
corrected LT-1 leg weight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, FinalFan said:

I was not 100% sure about whether removing the legs without adding at least one parachute would be safe; being relatively noob, for all I knew, the legs were absorbing force from an impact speed that would have been fatal to the lander can, and I didn't take time to analyze whether taking 0.2 tons off the can's weight would or would not outweigh their utility.  Certainly adding two parachutes would be overkill, though. 

Impact speed of a heat shield is 9 m/s. 

If you can get your speed under a chute less than 9 m/s upon landing, nothing will break.  10-12 m/s, the heatshield will break, but probably nothing else.    Landing gear impact speed is 12 m/s.  Above that and stuff starts breaking.  If you're coming down at ~ >12 m/s with landing gear, somethings going to break, the landing gear, and probably nothing else. 

But the same craft minus the landing gear will probably come down below that 12 m/s, and the heatshield will bite it too, but the craft should still survive.    But adding another chute or two, while removing the landing gear, you should easily come down without breaking anything.    The impact reduction gains is by far offset by the increased mass, and ergo descent speed. 

With 1 mk-something radial parachute weighing 1/3 (at most!) the amount that a set of landing gear does, it's a no brainer to lose the landing gear.   There really* isn't a scenario where using landing gear to land on kerbin is more beneficial than losing the gear and adding a chute. 

*If you require your rocket to stay upright, then use landing gear.   Some larger vessels returning to Kerbin might land safely, but then tip over without gear, damaging the craft.   But vessels of this size, the cost/benefits of an extra chute really doesn't make a difference in the big picture, and since it's basically a hockey puck, it won't tip over when landed.   It takes multiple chutes to have the same effect that one chute has on the craft in this topic.  ALSO, if you are planning to do something other than just recover the vessel, then gear may be required. 

 

THUS.... my statement that while they might weigh the same, I have no use for one of them.  IMO, there is little use for landing gear on a recoverable vessel on Kerbin (see caveats above). 

Edited by Gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Impact speed of a heat shield is 9 m/s. 

If you can get your speed under a chute less than 9 m/s upon landing, nothing will break.  10-12 m/s, the heatshield will break, but probably nothing else.    Landing gear impact speed is 12 m/s.  Above that and stuff starts breaking.  If you're coming down at ~ >12 m/s with landing gear, somethings going to break, the landing gear, and probably nothing else. 

But the same craft minus the landing gear will probably come down below that 12 m/s, and the heatshield will bite it too, but the craft should still survive.    But adding another chute or two, while removing the landing gear, you should easily come down without breaking anything.    The impact reduction gains is by far offset by the increased mass, and ergo descent speed. 

With 1 mk-something radial parachute weighing 1/3 (at most!) the amount that a set of landing gear does, it's a no brainer to lose the landing gear.   There really* isn't a scenario where using landing gear to land on kerbin is more beneficial than losing the gear and adding a chute. 

*If you require your rocket to stay upright, then use landing gear.   Some larger vessels returning to Kerbin might land safely, but then tip over without gear, damaging the craft.   But vessels of this size, the cost/benefits of an extra chute really doesn't make a difference in the big picture, and since it's basically a hockey puck, it won't tip over when landed.   It takes multiple chutes to have the same effect that one chute has on the craft in this topic.  ALSO, if you are planning to do something other than just recover the vessel, then gear may be required. 

 

THUS.... my statement that while they might weigh the same, I have no use for one of them.  IMO, there is little use for landing gear on a recoverable vessel on Kerbin (see caveats above). 

Thank your for the impact info.  I think we are almost saying the same thing now!  To recap, my original point was "for the weight of those landing legs, you could add two parachutes which would be even better at ensuring safe landing on Kerbin." 

I don't disagree with anything you said, but there is one thing I didn't understand of what you said:  "It takes multiple chutes to have the same effect that one chute has on the craft in this topic."  Please help me understand this. 

*Landing gear is certainly useful in these cases, but when I am concerned about tipping damage, I like (when possible) to give the ship a bit of angle and/or sideways motion just before touchdown (using a bit of engine perhaps) so the parachutes won't cut out when you land; this generally gently eases the nose to the ground.  But if you're going for precision landings on the launchpad I guess you'd definitely need legs. 

Edited by FinalFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FinalFan said:


*Landing gear is certainly useful in these cases, but when I am concerned about tipping damage, I like (when possible) to give the ship a bit of angle and/or sideways motion just before touchdown (using a bit of engine perhaps) so the parachutes won't cut out when you land; this generally gently eases the nose to the ground.  But if you're going for precision landings on the launchpad I guess you'd definitely need legs.  

Not always legs.   I have a 40 passenger space bus for getting tourists to my hotel and back.  It has something like 20 some parachutes on it.  But because it is long and thin, it's more tipsy on the ground than a college freshman on saint patrick's day.    I considered adding legs, but the size and weight of what was required didn't fit very well, especially because I only have like a 40 dV margin of error already.  Also, legs don't do crap for a tippy craft on a water landing, and water can just as easily cause damage.  As soon as the craft hits the water and the overall velocity is 0, the chutes disappear, the craft tips over, and blam/splash, dead kerbals. 

So, I took some of the chutes, and placed them along the 'spine' of the bus.  That way, when fully deployed, the craft is actually at an angle.  So when it lands, the nose of the craft never stops falling.  The chutes lower on the craft disappear, but the nose chutes stay deployed all the way down.   

18 hours ago, FinalFan said:

I don't disagree with anything you said, but there is one thing I didn't understand of what you said:  "It takes multiple chutes to have the same effect that one chute has on the craft in this topic."  Please help me understand this. 

I can't find where I wrote that, but I vaguely remember saying that.  I believe I was saying that adding two more chutes to account for the extra weight of the dish and legs, the same gains would be had for for removing the dish and legs and only adding 1 chute.  

 

On 5/14/2018 at 7:08 AM, Juanlu16 said:

I tried to do a mun lander with electric engine, but this engine seem to not be powerful enough to actually counter the moon gravity, does ksp have some engine which fuel can be refueled by gathering resources into space (not drilling)?

Like an electric engine but much more powerful!:huh:

The ion engines Can do a mun landing (I think), it just needs to be a super light craft.  I'm not sure if a manned mission on a single ion engine is possible.    Multiple Ion engines would probably do it, but then the power requirements to do so start to add up. 

Look up some of the threads, tutorials, and wiki articles on ISRU.  There are many ways to refuel your tanks during a mission in KSP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done! Way cooler than my first Mun lander for sure!

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
Sign in to follow this