Jump to content

Artemis - Duna Mission Architecture


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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

Posted (edited)
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

3 hours ago, jinnantonix said:

and there is no airlock

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jinnantonix said:

2. Absolutely yes.  The rule about solar power is only for surface operations

Oh this is a very good clarification  :)  Making adjustments now (to the design I had floating in the holographic ether that is my KSP-designated on-board Imaginationlandtm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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

Posted (edited)

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

V0gAgIBl.png

Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) and First Crew

Launched aboard two separate missions, the HALO station first into a Munar polar orbit and then the first crew of 4 crew to check things out.

IuY5wvrl.png

HALO on the Pad

The HALO has seats for 9, with 8 seats in cabins and a single command seat for logistics and communication. On board are 4 primary docking ports and two airlocks with auxiliary ports/airlocks. 

FheMwQbl.png

Four Crew headed to the HALO

The crew are aboard a partially reusable crew module that seats four, almost comfortably. Val can hardly feel that storage bin pressing against her head.

6uz8Qg7l.png

Val appears completely thrilled to be in the back seat with a storage bin behind her head.

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) has not been delivered to the KSC yet, but should be ready to launch before the break-in crew get home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I'm not going to be able to cut costs below my non-mining submission using a mining submission.

Here's the original Vulkan spacecraft:

3hut6gv.png

Here's the cheapest with-mining setup I could get:

W2aNfLY.png

And here it is without the mining rig:

FUmtY1y.png

The minimal mining rig costs almost as much as the entire Vulkan spacecraft including all the fuel needed for three missions. It's cheap enough to just launch more fuel in KSP that mining just isn't economical for a mission this small.

edit: Actually, if the booster is smaller also, this might be competitive. I'll try flying it and see how I end up doing.

second edit: Overall the mining version might be a couple thousand funds cheaper, but not enough that I'd want to fly it unless I find something significantly better. Instead, I'll try to get the aesthetics bonus.

Edited by camacju
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, camacju said:

@jinnantonix Would this hab, reentry module, and skycrane count for aesthetics points? It's pretty hard to get a 4 kerbal crew module that doesn't look ugly and this is the best I managed to do.

 

Looks pretty good to me.  Remember you can clip empty fairings as much as you like to achieve aesthetics points, and then delete them from your craft in the VAB when scoring.  So for example, you could clip  structural fuselages and FLA5 adapters in between the crew cabins to improve the look.  Also if your crew wants to pass between the crew cabins and the skycrane without ladders, you would need to add a docking port pair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, camacju said:

Here's my Aesthetics submission:

Main launch: 148k funds

opoGduM.png

 


A few rules issues, I have sent PM.  I am struggling to award an aesthetic point for the above fairing, doesn't look very realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYNthh8l.png

Gateway gets PPE! (no, not that kind)

The Power and Propulsion Element launched to the Gateway after the first crew arrived home. 

bOKa14rl.png

Using the second stage, the PPE is sent to Munar orbital insertion, but will use its own propulsion to rendezvous and dock to Gateway.

GuD83sql.png

Docked to Gateway, the PPE aligns Gateway to a near perfect polar orbit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

noNXHBrl.png

Press Release / Mission Background

Mission Parameters:

  • Operating Orbit for all missions: 115km minimum Pe
  • Goal 1: Establish Munar Orbiting Station (Gateway) Completed
    • HALO - Launch cost: 69,032
    • PPE - Launch cost: 218,241
  • Goal 2: Develop 100% reusable fuel manufacturing/Munar mining at Gateway
  • Goal 3: Land crew on Duna and safely return

 

top6AJQl.png
Primary Heavy Lifter: Death Engineering '23 Skidoo' (highlighting second stage logistics section)

Nominal Payload: 23t
Cost: 51,363
 

4PQMTqhl.png

Primary Crew Module: Orion 4
Nominal Crew: 4
Cost: 16,108
 

otAOF94l.png

HALO: Habitat and Logistics Outpost
Crew seats: 9
Nominal Crew: 4
Docking ports: 4 (one fore, one aft and two mid-ship)
Airlocks: 2
Cost: 18,197
 

mYFivecl.png

PPE: Power and Propulsion Element
Cost: 167,524
Power generation capability (with full Sol and fuel cells active): 88 EC/second  (can I time travel with that?)
Onboard EC: 14,400
Propulsion: 6x ION  and 4 Spider LFO

 

Edited by Death Engineering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 5:51 AM, Death Engineering said:

Where's the ore-gone?

Is it typical for there to be no ore on the south pole?  I may have to restart this thing..

(I don't do mining typically.. maybe it will work anyways?)

Don't worry, there is ore there.   Finding flat ground is the bigger challenge.  That's why you need a probe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7K0S2jnl.png

Landing Zone Probed!

With two dedicated communication satellites in place and a relay on the scan-sat, a simple rover set down on the selected mining site.

X2nAioAm.png  d6cFo6qm.png

pU22lbTh.png

With the landing zone below, we're tempted to do some exploring around the extreme polar terrain. Nearby is a monolith and a deeeeeeeeep hole!

FKyEtWih.png

Ready for mining!

Shown highlighting the reusable mining craft, we have our crew ready to do a test-run of mining. Notably missing is an ore-conversion module.. unfortunately, these were contracted to a company that is all show and no go.. Blue-something-or-other...

LZ Coordinates

Spoiler

LZ Coordinates

6ar5mZll.png

 

Edited by Death Engineering
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...