Apollo style mission to duna.

[mrskwid]

as the title suggests i was planing to do an Apollo style mission to duna

qestions

1 is this style good for saveing?

2 how much?

3 is duna a good planet for an Apollo style mission or is it just more complexity and lag for little fuel saving.

thanks

[Skorpychan]

I'm currently halfway through something like that. It's working fairly well; nuclear cruise stage to get to Duna, and a fairly generic lander docked to it.

You just have to be careful with it, is all.

[willow]

I'm about to do the same thing and I've done it before. IMO not using an apollo style lander is a waste of fuel on Duna. Every kilogram you bring down you must also bring back up again. Added bonus is that you can assemble an apollo style mission in near kerbin orbit. A mission to add the lander, a mission to add more fuel.

And then after your mission you can send up a taxi to retrieve kerbals and science. Refuel the whole thing, send up more kerbals, and do the whole thing again. This time with more fuel because the lander is still in duna orbit!

[capi3101]

There's a challenge in progress going over this very topic. Here's my entry:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

So eminently doable - and easier than this if you're not constrained by the restraints of a challenge. A word of caution - don't set up your engines the way I did when I went to separate the third stage; I should've just used a Poodle instead.

[Skorpychan]

The Poodle actually has a terrible TWR. The LVT45 engine works just as well, if you're willing to tolerate it being longer. Otherwise, four LV-909s on sidepods.

[capi3101]

Same Isp as the LV-909s and the setup's simpler, with comparable total thrust.

Ideally, though, the OP would use LV-Ns; there's not much reason not to.

[Skorpychan]

Same Isp as the LV-909s and the setup's simpler, with comparable total thrust.

Ideally, though, the OP would use LV-Ns; there's not much reason not to.

But still half a ton lighter for four 909s than a Poodle. Unless you're seriously skimping on part count and need a short Rockomax-sized engine, there's no reason to use a Poodle.

[capi3101]

Very true, and IIRC that was the reason why I wanted the four -909s. I just didn't set it up to separate the last booster from the engine cluster correctly (this was in the early days of 0.21, before I learned the decoupler/docking ports trick and the fact you needed both).

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I said "I should've used a Poodle" this morning. Lack of coffee, perhaps.

[Skorpychan]

I stick fuel tanks on the outside of a central one, and mount the 909s on the bottom of there.

For a radial stack like that, though, I'd just use a lvt45.

[capi3101]

Hmm...well, wuddya know. I've got a spreadsheet that compares engines for combinations that produce the highest level of delta-V; three LV-909s are better than a single LV-T45 in that regard. But not four, as it turns out.

With the Storax Anacostia setup, do you think there'd be enough pod torque provided by the Mk1-2 Command Pod to make an LV-T30 instead of the LV-T45 worth the trouble? Same Isp, lower mass (=more delta-V), slightly moar thrust...

[Soda Popinski]

By Apollo, I assume you mean Dunal orbital rendezvous so you leave most of your fuel up in orbit worked really well for me.

This was my lander with 3 LV-909. In order to keep the thing squat and thin (I play with DRE, and needed the ballute heat shield to protect the engines), I put the descent stage fuel tank on top, which I jettisoned prior to ascent (using seperatrons & a docking port on an action group).

[Skorpychan]

Hmm...well, wuddya know. I've got a spreadsheet that compares engines for combinations that produce the highest level of delta-V; three LV-909s are better than a single LV-T45 in that regard. But not four, as it turns out.

With the Storax Anacostia setup, do you think there'd be enough pod torque provided by the Mk1-2 Command Pod to make an LV-T30 instead of the LV-T45 worth the trouble? Same Isp, lower mass (=more delta-V), slightly moar thrust...

IIRC, no. But I haven't used the big command pod since career mode came about.

However, thrust vectoring is VERY powerful, so you'd probably end up using a reaction wheel and losing any DeltaV you gained with the engine change.

[capi3101]

I might have to rebuild it and see how it behaves. The ability to make major steering changes mid-transfer burn shouldn't be an issue unless you're doing it wrong.

[mrskwid]

By Apollo, I assume you mean Dunal orbital rendezvous so you leave most of your fuel up in orbit worked really well for me.

This was my lander with 3 LV-909. In order to keep the thing squat and thin (I play with DRE, and needed the ballute heat shield to protect the engines), I put the descent stage fuel tank on top, which I jettisoned prior to ascent (using seperatrons & a docking port on an action group).

http://i.imgur.com/ibBoDTa.png

http://i.imgur.com/cW7eaVd.png

yes that is what i mean.

the ship look nice my rockets always seem to long

do you use deadly reentry or is the heat shield just cosmetic?

edit: never mind,i just read your post.

[Taki117]

yes that is what i mean.

the ship look nice my rockets always seem to long

do you use deadly reentry or is the heat shield just cosmetic?

edit: never mind,i just read your post.

Remeber you can attach things radially (Specifically fuel tanks) and that the FL-T series of tanks are equal to each other (two FL-T100's = one FL-T200 and so on) so if you need an FL-T800 you can stack 3 FL-T200's around another FL-T200 and run fuel lines from the center to the radial tanks and attach your legs to your radial tanks for a nice squat lander.