Munar Base Collaboration Challenge

[Johnster_Space_Program]

Well we can either land stuff near each other or dock them together depending on what we think is the best option

[Rocket_man1234]

2 hours ago, Johnster_Space_Program said:

Well we can either land stuff near each other or dock them together depending on what we think is the best option

What about the solar power mission? Will the habs have to generate there own power? 

[Ultimate Steve]

So does the LES requirement mean that each crewed vehicle realistically needs its own fairing, necessitating an extra 12.5k cost for each crewed mission? I don't believe you can safely abort from a fairing. Maybe in KSP, but certainly not in real life. If so, that's fine, I'm just checking.

[Rocket_man1234]

I have a concern for the custom faring costs. A faring shouldn't cost half a Munar habitation module + sky crane, its unrealistic and too expensive. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Rocket_man1234

[Ultimate Steve]

11 minutes ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

I have a concern for the custom faring costs. A faring shouldn't cost half a Munar habitation module + sky crane, its unrealistic and too expensive. 

It's already been reduced, it was previously 30k.

[Rocket_man1234]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

It's already been reduced, it was previously 30k.

K thanks, didn't see that

[Ultimate Steve]

https://kerbalx.com/UltimateSteve/Serenity-Lunar-Lander-II

Here is the Serenity Lunar Lander.

It launches on a Katurn III, and can ferry 3 people to and from the Munar surface, or probably Minmus as well, although that hasn't been tested and that is outside this challenge's scope. It features a ladder, a probe core, solar panels, an antenna, a battery, and docking capability, although RCS should be used sparingly, using the main engine for as long as possible in the rendezvous. While many of these capabilities are not mission requirements, you never know when you may need capabilities like these.

When flown near optimally, while also hovering and changing course for a while, simulating a precision landing, the Serenity had 479m/s remaining at the end of its mission. When the mission was flown like an idiot, if you started flying smartly near lunar landing and ascent you could still make it home, but I crashed it before that could happen and I hadn't saved.

The only action group is abort, which is backspace. The launch escape system should be jettisoned towards the end of the first stage burn assuming an efficient gravity turn. The fairing should be jettisoned in the upper atmosphere, around 50km.

Cost is 67,540 plus a custom fairing to allow for safe abort of the crew, bringing the total cost to 80,040 funds to transfer three crew members.

At this point I must say once more that I disagree with the idea that the crew descent and ascent vehicle must be separate, as a return vehicle has to get there in the first place, so it might as well carry crew. However, as these are the rules, I'm considering modifying the Serenity to stick on a lighter rocket to serve as just a descent vehicle if needed. Afterwards, it could be tipped over, with different legs on board, to be docked to the rest of the base as a permanent module.

But that's far off, if ever.

So, I don't know which crew transfer I will choose, but this can do any of them.

If it's chosen for a return vehicle, then the fairing can be set back to default, the LES can be removed, and the cost can be reduced.

Also, as far as docking port standards go:

I have two options. Both of them are based off of the inherent length of the landing legs and cannot be messed up if you stick the legs at the proper angle. The reference angle should be the horizontal modules and not the vertical module, you will need to build a horizontal module to be the guide for the vertical module in construction.

Another good thing about these standards is that they are diameter independent. If you used 1.25m parts instead of 2.5m parts, but used the same landing legs, the docking port height would be the same. The same goes for trusses, provided you make sure to attach to the middle, which can be done easily if you leave angle snap on.

So, now it's up to y'all. Large legs or normal sized ones?

The large ones have the advantage of being stronger and can just barely touch the ground when mounted on 3.75m parts, although it's not recommended. We won't be using parts that large, however, I believe. Another advantage is the increased ground clearance. If I remember correctly, with 2.5m parts, Kerbals can walk under them. Cons, they are heavier and harder to fit in fairings.

The normal ones don't have as much ground clearance or strength, but are lighter and easier to fit in fairings. I'd recommend this option because I've had bad experiences with the large legs and fairings. They tend to stick out, even when retracted if you mount modules sideways. Especially because of the extra expense of custom fairings, fairing footprint should be kept to a minimum here, I believe.

I also think we should use 1.25m ports and not 2.5m ports in case someone builds a 1.25m module. It is possible that we could use a mixture, but that would require a lot of coordination.

 

Edit: Rounding to the 52k cost for the lifter stated in the OP increases the cost to 80,362 funds per launch, or about 26.8k per crewmember.

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Ultimate Steve

[Rocket_man1234]

@Ultimate Steve I forgot how to display images like that, could you tell me how to do that with an imgur link?

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

@Ultimate Steve I forgot how to display images like that, could you tell me how to do that with an imgur link?

 

After I have uploaded an image to imgur, what I usually do is right click on the image, click "copy image," and then ctrl+v it into the forum.

Also, the current plan specifies 15 "turns" and 14 launches. Taking the 14 number leaves us with an average cost per launch of 125k, so don't exceed that by too much! It's okay that some go over, but try to keep it inexpensive.

[Rocket_man1234]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Steve said:

After I have uploaded an image to imgur, what I usually do is right click on the image, click "copy image," and then ctrl+v it into the forum.

Oh, I thought you had to do something with the URL lol 

[Johnster_Space_Program]

Ok, the crew vehicles and return vehicles will not be separate

updated launch plan and removed ascent vehicles for OP

@Ultimate Steve so the serenity lander is the first crew vehicle?

[Ultimate Steve]

39 minutes ago, Johnster_Space_Program said:

Ok, the crew vehicles and return vehicles will not be separate

updated launch plan and removed ascent vehicles for OP

@Ultimate Steve so the serenity lander is the first crew vehicle?

Thank you and alright!

[Johnster_Space_Program]

I have made a hangar on kerbalx for all the craft for the collab challenge to go, so when others are done with their parts put them in here! https://kerbalx.com/hangars/61713

 

Also, how many tons is the lander @Ultimate Steve? 

Also is it able to bring kerbals back from the munar surface to kerbin, now that we are not using return vehicles, or does it need to be refueled on the surface, probably with the mining rig?

Edited March 30, 2019 by Johnster_Space_Program

[Rocket_man1234]

3 hours ago, Johnster_Space_Program said:

Ok, the crew vehicles and return vehicles will not be separate

updated launch plan and removed ascent vehicles for OP

@Ultimate Steve so the serenity lander is the first crew vehicle?

 

Could you replace the return vehicle with a small station that the lander could dock with?

[Rocket_man1234]

Here is the completed hub, it's pretty small but does its job. If you guys want anything changed just tell me. 

[Johnster_Space_Program]

51 minutes ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

Could you replace the return vehicle with a small station that the lander could dock with?

by station do you mean a mobile station on the surface? also can you give me stats for the hub, such as launch vehicle, cost, weight in tons, etc.

we also need to decide where the base will be on the mun's surface (like in a large crater or a less cratered area)

@Rocket_man1234 how are we gonna dock all the parts together, or are we gonna dock only some parts and land others close to the base?

Edited March 30, 2019 by Johnster_Space_Program

[Rocket_man1234]

24 minutes ago, Johnster_Space_Program said:

by station do you mean a mobile station on the surface? also can you give me stats for the hub, such as launch vehicle, cost, weight in tons, etc.

we also need to decide where the base will be on the mun's surface (like in a large crater or a less cratered area)

@Rocket_man1234 how are we gonna dock all the parts together, or are we gonna dock only some parts and land others close to the base?

Sorry for not giving this information out earlier:

• Without the sky crane: 15,566
• With sky crane: 24,365

Wet mass: 10t.

It will be launching on the Kova VT6 as the faring is a perfect size and the second stage has enough delta-V to capture.

My idea was that both hubs and solar would be connected together, the height on the hub can be changed so that we can make a standard, as it is the docking ports are 4 cubic otags off the ground

 Also by a station, I meant a space station but a mobile station rover is cool too.

[Johnster_Space_Program]

22 minutes ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

Sorry for not giving this information out earlier:

• Without the sky crane: 15,566
• With sky crane: 24,365

Wet mass: 10t.

It will be launching on the Kova VT6 as the faring is a perfect size and the second stage has enough delta-V to capture.

My idea was that both hubs and solar would be connected together, the height on the hub can be changed so that we can make a standard, as it is the docking ports are 4 cubic otags off the ground

 Also by a station, I meant a space station but a mobile station rover is cool too.

ok, mobile station it is! Also im ok with your idea of connecting them together, would they be connected via docking in mun orbit, then landed on the mun? also I think we will use the sky crane version

Edited March 30, 2019 by Johnster_Space_Program

[Rocket_man1234]

1 minute ago, Johnster_Space_Program said:

ok, mobile station it is! Also im ok with your idea of connecting them together, would they be connected via docking in mun orbit, then landed on the mun?

I think it would be harder to land the entire thing at once but I don't know, also the first crew would have to wait for the solar to arrive to have a habitation module to live in.

 

[Johnster_Space_Program]

29 minutes ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

I think it would be harder to land the entire thing at once but I don't know, also the first crew would have to wait for the solar to arrive to have a habitation module to live in.

 

ok, how should I change the launch schedule, this is what it currently looks like:

1. Robotic Lander: @Johnster_Space_Program

2. Hab. Base Part 1: @Rocket_man1234

3. First Crew: @Ultimate Steve

4. Mobile Station:

4.5. Electric/Solar Panel Base Part:

5. Mining Rig:

6. Science Base Part:

7. Second Crew:

8. First Crew Returns Home:

9. Rover 1:

10. Hab. Base Part 2: @Bill the Kerbal

11. Sample Return Mission:

12. Rover 2:

13. Third Crew:

I also updated the spreadsheet and added some things: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10E4nOUEnGMonw6QJEy7B7FKFzueSDRLnwy4RXsGcD38/edit?usp=sharing

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Johnster_Space_Program

[Ultimate Steve]

It's fairly simple to connect things once they are on the surface, as long as the docking ports are at the same height. You just have to hop progressively closer. I would do assembly on the surface if I were you. However I do realize that not everyone is as skilled as me.

Put me down for the science base. I may do one more, but I haven';t decided what it will be, yet.

@Rocket_man1234 Is that docking port height the same as one of the standards I proposed, or is that a completely new one?

3 hours ago, Johnster_Space_Program said:

Also, how many tons is the lander @Ultimate Steve? 

Also is it able to bring kerbals back from the munar surface to kerbin, now that we are not using return vehicles, or does it need to be refueled on the surface, probably with the mining rig?

11.51 tons without the launch escape system, 13.215 tons with. It can return to Kerbin without refueling.

[Johnster_Space_Program]

8 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

It's fairly simple to connect things once they are on the surface, as long as the docking ports are at the same height. You just have to hop progressively closer. I would do assembly on the surface if I were you. However I do realize that not everyone is as skilled as me.

Put me down for the science base. I may do one more, but I haven';t decided what it will be, yet.

@Rocket_man1234 Is that docking port height the same as one of the standards I proposed, or is that a completely new one?

ok

[KerbalKore]

@Johnster_Space_Program

What is the "Station/Mobile Station"?

[Johnster_Space_Program]

1 minute ago, Bill the Kerbal said:

@Johnster_Space_Program

What is the "Station/Mobile Station"?

that is a mobile station that @Rocket_man1234 is building that will be part of the base

[KerbalKore]

But what is it? What does it do?