Jump to content

Artemis - Duna Mission Architecture


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, QF9E said:

1. Can you have multiple orbital craft, for instance an additional one in Mun or Duna orbit, to also be able to do fuel transfers at Duna?

2. Would it be allowed to launch raw ore from the Munar surface and refine it in orbit, with the help of solar power)?

2. How will points for aesthetics be judged for vehicles with multiple roles? For instance, my current plan uses the same craft as the Duna transfer vehicle (with an additional transfer stage), Duna lander and re-entry vehicle.

1. Yes.  Each orbital craft with 8 seats represents a staging point with fuel pumping capability.  You need a minimum of one craft, but can have as many as you wish.

2. Absolutely yes.  The rule about solar power is only for surface operations.  So you can drill for ore (no solar) and refine in orbit (with solar).

3.  The aim of aesthetics is to ensure that all of the craft functions are realistic.  You should be aiming for 8 points.  If any of your craft have deficits in function or form, you will lose points.  I recommend that you PM me with questions to ensure your designs pass the 8 point test prior to submission.

Edited by jinnantonix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jinnantonix said:

Obviously, no. 

Wasn't so obvious to me, else I would not have asked. But in hindsight I worded my intent poorly.

The point is this: the crater that I showed pictures of is in almost eternal darkness, with Kerbin barely visible over the crater wall, depending on your location inside the crater. In real life you would have problems with communication from such a place, which would be a problem for a robotic landing site. Therefore, in reality you might want to seek a different spot at a high point nearby to install a communications antenna.

However, KSP does not seem to take terrain into account when determining if a place is within communication reach. From the bottom of that crater, it will happily draw a line of communication that passes through the crater wall. Which i find unrealistic.

Therefore I could imagine that landing TWO probes in the crater in preparation of landing the mining rig, one on the crater floor and one on the rim, could be seen as more realistic and therefore more worthy of bonus points.

12 minutes ago, jinnantonix said:

to address the problem that the proposed low cost entries just looked ridiculous.

No thanks for that. I grant you that my return vehicle, with 4 separate capsules is as unrealistic as it gets, but other than that I fail to see what was so wrong with it. In fact I quite liked @camacju's ring design for a Duna hab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, QF9E said:

Wasn't so obvious to me, else I would not have asked. But in hindsight I worded my intent poorly.

The point is this: the crater that I showed pictures of is in almost eternal darkness, with Kerbin barely visible over the crater wall, depending on your location inside the crater. In real life you would have problems with communication from such a place, which would be a problem for a robotic landing site. Therefore, in reality you might want to seek a different spot at a high point nearby to install a communications antenna.

However, KSP does not seem to take terrain into account when determining if a place is within communication reach. From the bottom of that crater, it will happily draw a line of communication that passes through the crater wall. Which i find unrealistic.

Therefore I could imagine that landing TWO probes in the crater in preparation of landing the mining rig, one on the crater floor and one on the rim, could be seen as more realistic and therefore more worthy of bonus points.

Apologies, I thought you were referring to visualisation mods as being worthy of aesthetics points.  My bad.

Setting up a relay station at the Mun south pole is not an aesthetics issue, but rather an issue of good mission design.  I like your thinking, but best not to mandate a relay on the Mun, and so over-complicate the rules.
 

Spoiler

No thanks for that. I grant you that my return vehicle, with 4 separate capsules is as unrealistic as it gets, but other than that I fail to see what was so wrong with it. In fact I quite liked @camacju's ring design for a Duna hab.

The whole point of aesthetics is to avoid unrealistic design.  Try to imagine, would NASA design a re-entry schema with four separate capsules?  No?  Then it's not realistic.

The ring design is clever, but fails the aesthetics test.  Each crew cabin is separate, and so crew clearly can't move between them, and there is no airlock, so no means for the crew to move from the launch vehicle to the habitat.  Here is a habitat design that might pass the aesthetics test.

wTvpWRv.png






 

Edited by jinnantonix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, camacju said:

The mk1 crew cabins have a hatch at both ends, that's why I have a 3/4 ring and leave one of the corners open. The kerbals exit the hatch, climb up the struts to the top of the hab, then climb the ladder back into the return vehicle

I don't believe there is any means to exit the crew cabins unless you include an airlock.  It is arguable that the inclusion of the airlock is aesthetic, so may be deleted from the craft cost.  The idea of the aesthetics rule is to ensure that the craft "appear" fully functional and realistic, but does not penalise your score.

Edited by jinnantonix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jinnantonix said:

I don't believe there is any means to exit the crew cabins unless you include an airlock.  It is arguable that the inclusion of the airlock is aesthetic, so may be deleted from the craft cost.  The idea of the aesthetics rule is to ensure that the craft "appear" fully functional and realistic, but does not penalise your score.

https://streamable.com/2rva1n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a video of my first launch.  I am using a SRB based standard launch vehicle (SLV) for all my launches, capable of lifting a payload of 10 tons.  My mission architecture requires 6 launches of my SLV to complete three Duna missions.
 

 

Edited by jinnantonix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, camacju said:

Awesome! What's the total cost?

Total cost for the Duna-1 launch is 26,585.  This includes 2250 kg of fuel which will later be used to boost the ISRU facility to the Mun, and also the very expensive RA-15 relays.

The SLV costs 11,134 fully fuelled, with the fairing which I include as it is not for aesthetics, it provides a necessary aerodynamic function.

YtfNXPV.png

jfabp0k.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...