Need a forgiving rocket/lander for KSP 1.4.5

[Klapaucius]

I am running a KSP Club at our library and we have the EDU version, which unfortunately has not been updated since 1.4.5.  The stock rockets included are okay, but it would be nice to have something a bit more idiot proof--mainly something that has a lot of extra fuel.  Better yet, something that can get to Duna.

Can anyone point me to a good, reliable, forgiving fully-fledged rocket with lander that I could add to the game to give kids something to have an early success with?  I'd build it myself, but I'm really not a very good rocket builder, having spent a lot of time with aircraft.  I don't want the kids to have to fight with my bad design. Once they get the hang of it all, they can fight with their own bad designs.

I've had a look on KerbalX, but I was surprisingly unsuccessful--I think because the majority of KerbalX craft are planes and because it is an older version.

So again, what I need:

1. Multistage manned rocket with lander.

2. Enough delta V to go to the Mun, Minmus or Duna and return (and with enough so that a newbie can get there without the best flight profile)

3. Forgiving of errors.

4. Stock, 1.4.5.

 

If anyone has anything in their archives they are willing to share, that would be wonderful.  I can return the favor by building you a weird airplane. I'm good at those...

 

Thank you 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Klapaucius

[MechBFP]

Something like this might be a good choice. https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/LV-3A-Bullfrog-Titan-3M

[Jestersage]

Question: Do you want direct ascent, Apollo LOR, Artemis LOR, or Constellation EOR?

I really don't think raptor9 have a Direct Ascent at all, event back in 1.4, 1.3

I recommend the standard KerbalX, tbh. Stock, comes with the game, and is DA.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Jestersage

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, Jestersage said:

Question: Do you want direct ascent, Apollo LOR, Artemis LOR, or Constellation EOR?

I really don't think raptor9 have a Direct Ascent at all, event back in 1.4, 1.3

I recommend the standard KerbalX, tbh. Stock, comes with the game, and is DA.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is LOR vs EOR?  And what do you mean by direct ascent...as opposed to?  Sorry, I just do not have nearly the amount of hours with rockets and landers. 

[purpleivan]

5 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is LOR vs EOR?  And what do you mean by direct ascent...as opposed to?  Sorry, I just do not have nearly the amount of hours with rockets and landers. 

Luner Orbit Rendezvous (Apollo) and Earth Orbit Rendezvous (if you can't lift a lander and return vehicle in a single launch, send up two vehicles and dock them in Earth orbit).

Direct ascent would be a single vehicle from Earth to the moon and back, without separation and docking with a lander.

Edited January 18, 2020 by purpleivan

[Zeiss Ikon]

For the Mun in the stock game, direct ascent is the easy way to go.  If you can, design the craft with Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb, so you can see your dV as you come down each stage.

My current rule of thumb in 1.8.1 stock (the dV from orbit to orbit hasn't changed since 1.4.5) is that I need 3500 m/s to LKO, 850 to Mun flyby, 300 to capture and lower the orbit, 1600 to land and return to orbit (which has a good margin for a non-hoverslam descent), and another 300 to get from Mun orbit to a reentry at 36-40 km.  Of this, at least the ascent and return needs to be in the lander (or its upper stage); otherwise it works well to stage at least once before LKO insertion, and once either just after trans-Munar or before Munar descent.

This can be done with a Mk. 1 pod, Terrier on the lander, and Swivels for the first and second stages (side boosters can be either Reliants or Thumpers).  You can build this before you unlock any of the 90 science tier.

[Jestersage]

20 hours ago, purpleivan said:

Luner Orbit Rendezvous (Apollo) and Earth Orbit Rendezvous (if you can't lift a lander and return vehicle in a single launch, send up two vehicles and dock them in Earth orbit).

Direct ascent would be a single vehicle from Earth to the moon and back, without separation and docking with a lander.

To expand on this:

Note: lander in all the rendezvous procedure can be weaker because Mun/Moon have lower gravity, so need less TWR to ascent and descent, which inturns means less fuel need to be carried, but means less delta V

• Direct Ascent: using 1 rocket stack to launch 1 space craft, that goes to Kerbin Orbit, which goes to Mun orbit, then land on Mun surface, take off from Mun surface into Mun orbit, then from there return to Kerbin. KerbalX and a few tutorial use this method, and it is easiest, since it have no rendezvous. IRL, this require a large rocket, but for KSP, you can use asperagus staging or just go moar booster, as we have no budget to concern about. Requires a lot of delta-V since you need to carry the fuel all the way. IRL, proposals include the Nova rocket using the original Apollo, LK700, and the Original LEK
• earth (kerbin) orbit rendezvous: using 2 or more rocket stack, each carrying a spaceraft  (possible configuration: 1 lander and an orbiter; or 1 lander and a space tug; or 1 lander and fuel tanker) that goes to Kerbin Orbit. In Kerbin orbit, rendezvous (docking) so both craft join as one. Then depend on architecture:
  • Using orbiter architecture: orbiter use their fuel to launch both craft to Mun. Once in Mun orbit, Lander seperate, goes onto surface. Lander ascend to Mun orbit, dock with Orbiter. discard lander. Orbiter return to Kerbin.
  • Using optimized space tug architecture: space tug use their fuel to launch both craft to Mun. Once in Mun orbit, Lander seperate and discard space tug, goes onto surface. Lander ascend to Mun orbit and return to Kerbin
  • Using fueler architecture: fuel tanker, or fuel depot dock with craft and refuel the lander. Only lander goes to Mun orbit, then land on Mun surface, take off from Mun surface into Mun orbit, then from there return to Kerbin. Planned for SpaceX starship.
• Apollo/N1 Lunar Orbit rendezvous:  using 1 rocket stack to launch 2 spacecraft (1 orbiter and 1 lander), that goes to Kerbin Orbit, which goes to Mun orbit. Lander seperate, then land on Mun surface, Lander ascend to Mun orbit, dock with Orbiter. discard lander. Orbiter return to Kerbin. Used by Apollo and planned for N1
• Artemis (true) Lunar Orbit Rendezvous: using 2 rocket stack to launch 2 spacecraft (1 orbiter and 1 lander), both goes to Munar orbit on their own. Once in Mun orbit, two craft dock together (may or may not involve a spacestation.) Lander seperate, goes onto surface. Lander ascend to Mun orbit, dock with Orbiter. Discard lander. Orbiter return to Kerbin.
• Lunar surface "rendezvous": What is used to describe the LUNOX strategy. using 2 rocket stack to launch 2 spacecraft; 1 ISRU refueler and 1 lander. Each goes to Kerbin orbit, then Mun orbit, then Mun surface on its own. Once on Mun surface, ISRU refuel the lander (through refueling rover actually in the LUNOX plan).  Lander then take off from Mun surface into Mun orbit, then from there return to Kerbin.

Note that any rendezvous is quite difficult, but I find that rendezvous aroudn Kerbin/earth to be tougher than around Mun/Minmus.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Jestersage

[Zeiss Ikon]

2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Note that any rendezvous is quite difficult, but I find that rendezvous aroudn Kerbin/earth to be tougher than around Mun/Minmus.

The rule of thumb seems to be that the shorter your orbit period, the harder the rendezvous.  This is because if you match orbits and try to close by burning directly toward the target, your path will be warped by orbital mechanics, and the longer it takes to pass through a given angular fraction of the orbit, the less effect this will have.  If you're in a thirty-ish minute orbit around Kerbin, even from one kilometer this requires near-constant correction (and it's noticeable from 300 m); if you're in a two hour orbit, around either Kerbin, Mun, or Minmus, you'll hardly notice the effects at a kilometer and a five kilometer initial encounter is quite manageable as a starting point.  In addition, the lower your orbital velocity, in general, the smaller the delta-V requirement for the final match when you reach the intersect.  And if you're in a Kerbin year orbit around the sun, if you're close enough to get a target marker you can see in the sky (not just in the nav ball), you can just burn straight at your target and need minimal correction.

But the kids will figure that all out once they have multiple vessels in space.  For an initial craft, if launching from Kerbin, I'd still suggest a direct ascent for Mun or Minmus.  Add a thousand m/s or so to the transfer stage (or another stage) and you'll be set up for a Duna transfer in window and Ike landing (though the return might get dicey -- best plan to use the transfer stage at least to get to Ike parking orbit).  Duna's gravity well is enough deeper (not to mention the troublesome atmosphere -- needs LOTS of parachutes, but vacuum engines suffer significant performance loss) that Ike landing would be strongly preferred over trying for Duna's surface, and landing on the Mun is good practice for landing on Ike.

[Tweeker]

The Kerbal X is actually a pretty decent craft, It just needs 2 things, more fuel in the lower stages, and a smaller engine on the lander.  

I banged one out,  it has about 8,000 m/s delta-v work great for Mun landings, for Minus you need to lower the thrust limiter on the 3 landing engines to 33. I also added reaction wheels and RCS.

https://kerbalx.com/Tweeker/Kerbal-XL

[Klapaucius]

22 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The Kerbal X is actually a pretty decent craft, It just needs 2 things, more fuel in the lower stages, and a smaller engine on the lander.  

I banged one out,  it has about 8,000 m/s delta-v work great for Mun landings, for Minus you need to lower the thrust limiter on the 3 landing engines to 33. I also added reaction wheels and RCS.

https://kerbalx.com/Tweeker/Kerbal-XL

That is awesome. Thank you!

[Klapaucius]

@Tweeker

 

I gave it a test flight and it fulfilled all the requirements.  Even horrendously inefficient me got it to the Mun and back.  Having the Spark engines on the lander was cool as well.  I had to burn a lot longer but never overpowered the vessel. Probably the most fun landing I have done.

Thanks again and I owe you one!

[Tweeker]

Glad it worked out,  I read your post and look at the stock Kerbal X.   It seemed like it could be made into a decently capable ship, while staying true to the basic premise.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Tweeker