DBowman

Oh good point re the scoring BBowman: Dinky Duna Until Day 0500: Launches 6, 207 ton LKO, Early Mission Value:5314, Efficiency: 26 Until Day 1000: Launches 6, 207 ton LKO, Sustained Mission Value: 17623, Efficiency: 85 Mission Execution 3, Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 3, Crew Safety 2, Mission Robustness 2 Mods: Deadly Reentry, TACLS, Duna Direct (in-situ fuel refining), KAS (for resource xfer), Mechjeb, Kerbal Engineer, Kerbal Alarm Clock, EVE, Enhanced NavBall (re-size and position) ( btw what is NIMLKO compared to LKO? I'll fix up the above if required ) I'll have a think about scoring. One way to avoid boundary conditions is to have the scoring window be a subset of the 'program window'; e.g. program has to go for 3000 days and you score on a fixed 4 transfer window in that.

Hey thanks! I'd studied Mesklin, chickenblender, Ziv, & all before making my run. All the Jool 5 ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57197-THE-ULTIMATE-JOOL-5-CHALLENGE-land-Kerbals-on-all-moons-and-return-in-one-big-misson ) flavors are a great challenge, I sure learned heaps, even trying fragments of it. Check out the mass trajectory on the low mass sub-challenge: 724 ton, 144, 123, ...

vosechu had done some good work assembling recent work on this challenge. I've been working on Deeply Duna, but I know it will take a good while - and I guess thats part of the fun. It struck me that I could hack something together based on the Duna Ascent Vehicle I posted here earlier. Keep it small, simple, executable, and maybe also test out a few things I was going to use in Deeply Duna. The mission report is here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115188-Dinky-Duna-a-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge-Mission-Report. There are some 'options' in the flight plan where I could go for score or efficiency. I'd like to pick the 'just one launch' option 1482@43 Early and 3588@104 Sustained - but I think it doesn't really meet the 'continuous occupation' criteria (though if I sent it on the second window I guess it would - but with lower score and efficiency...). I think I have to pick my plan #4 for 5412@26 Early, 17623@85 Sustained. The Achievements scoring is clear at least - I think I hit a full 12 points. And the craft is kind of cute. I guess I should include a pic here: A few things you guys might be interested in / can help me with: KAS seemed to 'eat my ship'. I wanted to use pipe to transfer fuel, so: I 'got' a pipe from craft 1, walked to craft2, attached there (I forget which option, or if there was ore than one choice), at that point the game started treating 1&2 like one craft, I didn't worry 'docking' I thought, when I 'disconnected' I could not switch to craft 1, I quick save & reloaded, craft one was gone - only the fuel tank I had connected from was there floating in the air... either I've messed up somehow - or KAS is at best 'flaky' I thought I'd call it out in case anyone was about to use KAS without testing it first. Anyone have a similar experience? I used 'Duna Direct' mod, it does Sabatier reaction to make fuel - nice. Does any one know of others / similar that pull out O2 (it's chemically doable). How about in situ water on Duna? I'd been discounting it since we think it's mainly only on the poles, but I think there possibilities of harvesting water from soil chemicals? I was about to go through TAC and make a spreadsheet of wet/dry container masses and figure out the consumption rates ,and recycling rates etc - does anyone know if I've just not found someone else's work? It seems like a weakness that the scoring tempts you to mess with the boundary conditions of a 'permanent' 'continuous occupation' challenge - it doesn't make sense it should reward you for not flying the last window for example. It seems like either it should be scored on some measure of 'steady state' score and efficiency, like once it's 'up and running' whats the average Kerbals on Duna and that per ton - would it be hard to figure a scoring system like that? Also it's fun to do a limited duration missions - e.g. having 'divisions' like max 500/750/1000 Earth days away, or weight classes - what do you all think? at some point 'someone' should 'refresh' this challenge to bring the times to Kerbin days (just so we don't have to keep converting back and forth and noting which we were using when). I watched this the other night: Zubrin on Mars Semi Direct, pretty good, he makes some funny comments as well as getting so het up he can barely get his words out. cheers, DBowman

I hope it's clear whats going on: Red flights are to Duna, dark red when on Duna itself. Green flights are to Kerbin. To the left side is the nominal flight window. To the right the flown flight, e.g. a little late on the first one due to 4.5 extra tons to LKO. The LKOs are launches from Kerbin. The light red Duna flight at the bottom is one that I'd skip flying in order to max the challenge score, if the program was 'in perpetuity' I'd fly it. It would launch 172.5 ton that will not hit Duna before the 1000 days runs out, i.e. drag down efficiency for no score gain. The scorings I worked out are in gold. There are three main plans that make sense: One Shot: here I just send one launch here I worked it out as the first window. This makes some sense if the challenge was measuring a single, or finite set of flights - like an Apollo or something. You can see it has great efficiency, 104! But the challenge calls to keep Duna continuously occupied. 3588 @ 104 efficiency. Two Shot: make one launch for the second window to get 'continuous occupation.', the second flight's crew will be on Duna when the challenge timer ends. This plan still has great efficiency. 6200 @ 90 efficiency. Rack em Up: Launch everything you can: 28363 @ 50 efficiency. The one I just thought of: I can just use the first six launches to hit 'continuous occupation' 10448 + 7175 = 17623 @ 85 efficiency (5412@26 Early). If I had to pick a flight plan as an 'official entry' I'd go for #4, but I like the purity of the One Shot.

3 Mission Execution: 1 - Actually flown every unique mission in the first 500 days: Evey mission is identical, I flew 1 2 - Actually flown every unique mission in the first 1000 days: as above. 3 - Actually flown every mission, or got at least #1 and posted a mission report: tick. 2 Crew Mobility 1 - More than 50% of the crew have a rover seat. 2 - Every one has a rover seat. Even if two rovers are lost everyone would have a seat. 3 Base Mobility: All my bases are self powered mobile. 2 Crew Safety 1 - The crew will survive the loss of a single unmanned spacecraft or base: Everything is crewed 2 - Also the crew will survive the loss of a single engine (or rover mobility) and the loss of 20% of DeltaV: I planed for it and think I hit the numbers. 2 Mission Robustness 1 - The loss of any single launch will not prevent getting 4 Kerbols to Duna before day 500: with a KLV-34.5 I can hit the first window even if the day 10 launch 'fails'. 2 - Also the loss of any single spacecraft or Duna module will not prevent 4 Kerbols to Duna: see the flights plan below there are plenty of windows. I think I hit all twelve achievement points. Primary score and efficiency from the 1000 day plan

imgur embed seems messed up - I cannot 'zoom' in to a pic, here is the album http://imgur.com/a/hT5uQ#0 Don't forget to load the crew! Don't forget to set control from here on something pointing up! Launch on D247. Pretending the first launcher failed for some reason and I'm flying the backup "Mission Robustness" flight. Wait for dawn for the publicity snaps / paparazzi. 1.55 G launch max, to 80x80 LKO and de-orbit the 3rd stage, tidy. Separate DAV++s and name each craft; Dinky 1 and Dinky 2 ( cf B1 & B2 in https://www.facebook.com/bananasinpyjamas ). Jeb is in Dinky 1 and will fly with one engine and one chute disabled to simulate "Crew Safety #2". Dinky 1 Trans Duna Injection burn 1054+1 m/s tweak => t+271 KDay to Duna Pe @ 18.4Mm. Remaining 147 of 470f = 323 used. Dinky 2 Trans Duna Injection burn 1055 m/s => t+272 KDay to Duna Pe @ 35.6Mm. Remaining 149 of 470f = 321 used. Shutdown most LS to make it consume top hex can first. 3868 days unlocked, 99 days in the hex can. 99 days later, dump the life support hex can, turn on the outboard regular cans. Duna descending node inclination correction t+131 tweaks D2 @ 12.4 m/s got 18km Duna Pe, D1 @ 8.1 m/s got 37km DPe D1 crossed SOI, aerocapture wants 12km Pe for sub 200km Ap (thanks alterbaron: http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/) D1 Duna aerocapture had max 570C on the wheels, 0.68G. 144 fuel left, +5.51 m/s @Ap to18km Pe => 50km Ap, 24m/s to circularise now since D2 is coming in. [*]D2 same AC, +5 m/s @Ap for 18km Pe => 51km Ap. 142 fuel left. +24 m/s to circularise=> 135 fuel left (luck was not with me on D2 'direct landing' had to circularise first) Oops the orbits are pretty inclined (5 degrees-ish), luckily at the next pass they happen to cross the equator near 84East where I want to land on low altitude rolling hills. D1 can get pretty close to target, so I decided to go for it . -21.72 m/s for impact 128f 7f=22m/s => 44 to spend - I think 4 secs to burn - went at 4sec burned much longer 102f left. D2 down with 123f left, 24km from D1. Crew Safety check: VAB 'non staged version' of the craft with 102 fuel left has 433 m/s left => 333 + JustInCase, 333 * 5 = 1665 m/s so we landed with "Crew Safety #2" DeltaV intact. VAB ascent config with 8 less fuel than full => 2791/2711 need 2725 so looks ok. I can get home with 330 fuel (legs cost 100 m/s) I will transfer fuel from D2 which has excess. Next time add a little more fuel or H2. [*]Drove both craft to a meetup near the equator, about 30km for the longest drive. Joined up and D1 processing Sabatier - 104f t+272:3 [*]All processed - but lets try pipe fuel between them and if so fill D1 since D2 could make to 483 => 13 excess I used KAS to pipe join, pump fuel, and separate. On quick save and restore it - lost one vehicle!!! There was just the attach source fuel tank floating there. Am I doing it wrong? cause it seems like a problem! Backed out to the previous quick save. [*]Deploy all the rovers & Dunauts for a group photo. [*]I made KerbalAlarmClock alarms for each crew & vehicle for ease of switching. Return planning: launched KD 247 + 3868 LS => 4115 deadline for return = Kerbal Y10D281, this is less than the "One-way Ticket Penalty" 1000 EDays away. take ED 951 return window 309 days LS on the craft and I want to leave as late as possible for score! alexmoon says: Y9:398:4:00:00 @ 657+9 m/s (http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/) Note TAC did NOT use furthest storage first - be sure to check all your containers before launch. It looks like maybe if you leave the brakes on it thinks you are moving over terrain and not let you warp save etc. D1: 2767 m/s on the surface, 1423 m/s left at 50x50 LDO. D2: 1427m/s left at 50x50 LDO Clean up the inclinations, D1 with the off centre thrust from an out board engine off is a little messy. Trans Kerbin Injection burns: D1 arrive Kerbin Pe at +298:2, add .6 m/s to get +297 and get there before D1. 1417 m/s, pulls about 1G, 759 m/s left post burn. D2 arrive Kerbin Pe at +298:0, pulls 1.5 G, 769 m/s left post burn. [*]Kerbin Descending Node & Pe tune manoeuvres: D2 9 m/s, D1 10.3 m/s TAC helpfully scares the snacks out of you with 'Food & water running out' warp stop warnings - I'm in Duna-Kerbin transit what am I going to do about it? - but it's a 32 day warning and I expect to AC with 10 days to spare. Kerbin SOI, I know Kerbin aerocapture will burn so I'm fine with any kind of Ap: D1: 83546 km @ 928 => 38182 = 5000km capture - high == cool == good D2: 83299 km @ 925 => 38197 [*]Kerbin Aerocapture: D1: 870 C peak temp 0.9 G. 2nd pass 740 C, cabin at 61 C. 3rd 600 C, ++ m/s to raise AP out of atmosphere to get clear for D2 which is coming in. [*]D2: 865 C peak temp 0.86 G. 2nd pass 750 C, 3rd 690 C, finally +52 m/s to circularise to 99x99. 742 m/s sec left. [*]D1 -11 m/s to catch more air after D2 circularised, finally +31 m/s to circularise, 712 m/s left - well under "Crew Safety 2" margins. [*]Dinky1 & Dinky2 both home safe in 100x100 LKO @ Y10 D271 02:39, 965 Earth days away, 822 days on Duna

Kudos to sturmstiger for a most excellent challenge: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/31510-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge Recenty vosechu put in some hard work of collecting all the attempts not yet noted in the Original Post. That got me to thinking that my current Deeply Duna is going to take a while but maybe I could throw something quick and dirty together with 'parts I have lying around'? The idea being to keep it small, simple, achievements oriented, and executable. I have a reusable SSTO Duna Ascent Vehicle (DAV) I am going to use in Deeply Duna. It's intended only to transport Dunauts between Duna surface and Low Duna Orbit. Very aerodynamic and futuristic, sort of stock linear aerospike engine... To test it's Duna aero capture I had flown it there. I thought 'strap some drop tanks so it has the fuel to return from Duna & life support for the duration on it and it can be an outpost' - hence 'Dinky Duna'. 'Dinky' in both the British (attractively small and neat) and North American ( disappointingly/comically small, insignificant) sense. The basic plan is an extended stay mission, that could be a permanent presence by doing a relay overlap of identical missions. For me it's really about hacking together a quick completion with some good constraints and technology / technique trailing. For mission robustness / I want to hit that first transfer window with the second launch - I need that if the first launch fails then the second can complete the mission => close to 30t total payload. Also small means simple, simple means fly-able. A few extra ton I can cope with by spending more dV for a slightly off Hohmann transfer. I can fly and complete just the 'Mission Robustness' second launch flight as a 'one off standalone' to get "Mission Execution 1" and use it's Mission Report to get "Mission Execution 3" on a plan for as many copies of identical flights as the eventual craft weight allows. Here are some sanity numbers: Earth Day 951 is the last D-K transfer in the 1000 days, returns by 1015, first window day 55 => 960 day mission < 1000 day "One-way Ticket Penalty" of 50% off the score. My DAV is 6.5 ton, +960 LS weighs ???? so 2 at 15 ton each could be do-able. But lugging return fuel all that way will blow out the mass budget with the 48s. I found the 'Duna Direct' mod that has two parts; a hydrogen tank and a reactor that does the Sabatier process to generate liquid fuel and oxidiser - http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/224286-dunadirect. One tank of H2 will make 360 fuel + oxidiser. How much does it cost to push 360 f&o to Duna ? => how much does Sabatier save: 1*48 engine => 360f&o is a 8.5 ton craft, H2+13f is a 364 kg craft! => 8400 vs 264 kg (excluding the engine) - a factor of 32 times or 3.14%. (16kg is H2 of 78.5 kg wet weight tank) Too good not to use to generate the return ascent and transfer fuel, and as a bonus it's exactly what Dr Robert Zubrin proposes for the real life (planned) Mars Direct missions. Duna Ascent and Kerbin transfer requires: 100(just in case) + (1380 + 700 + 100(man)) *1.25 = 2725 + 100(just in case) m/s and I can stage the drop tanks. (got 2824 vac / 2742 atmospheric) The times 1.25 is to hit "Crew Safety #2" of the challenge, succeed in the face of loosing 20% deltaV. Transferring to Duna requires 100(jic) + ( 1200 + 100(man) ) * 1.25 = 1625 + 100(jic) m/s but I cannot stage anything I will need on Duna. I have to arrive with fuel such that adding 360 will get me home. So take the Duna asc+xfer config, jimmy the staging like it wont stage => 2232 m/s -1725 = 507 should be left, remove 360 f => 483 m/s left - so there should be slightly more fuel than I need left - 24m/s worth! we have a 100 m/s 'buffer'. Adding 2x45 will add 200 m/s @ 17250 kg = 34500 => 51.75 days => 61.75 = 247 EDay - a Duna transfer then will be well under the nominal 1200 m/s. So I go with extra Kerbin-Duna drop tanks. After messing about the resulting 2 man transfer+outpost+rover+fuel-refinery+ascent vehicle ( DAV++ ) was a little too heavy on landing to hit Crew Safety #2, so I had to add one more engine. I wanted to keep the engines under the centre of mass so a single failure would not generate too much torque. Not so areodynamic and futuristic, but all the extra junk will be left on Duna. The DAV++ can land okay with one failed engine & one failed chute, it can ascend with one failed engine. Flight plan sketch for DAV++ from LKO is: be full of fuel. transfer to Duna aerocapture land somewhere low and flat use Sabatier and H2 to make the ascent and return fuel sit for XXX days, maybe take the rovers for a drive, selfies, Settlers of Catan, etc - try not to get on each others nerves. ascent to LDO transfer to Kerbin aerocapture take the shuttle down. The DAV++ can re-enter if it needed to. Things I thought about but decided against: nukes - much more efficient! putting a nuke on a craft this small just does not pay off in fuel savings. Also makes the flight plan more complex by adding a rendezvous and as far as I know I'd have to have a 'buffer tank' with the nukes, if the buffer was too small I'd have to use the manual fuel transfer to keep it fed. Does anyone know a neat way to transfer fuel to 'an engine mounted straight to a docking port'? I had an idea how to make it flyable even under a single nuke out of two failure. In the end I thought to just keep it simple and 'Dinky'. life support recycling - I've only got 4 Kerbal, split across two craft, if it wasn't dinky I could send re-cyclers with a second wave. I have a 30 ton re-usable launcher ( henceforth named Kerbin Lift Vehicle - 30 (KLV-30), like it's larger sister KLV-75 ), see 'Dash 4 Duna' (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112640-Dash-4-Duna-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge) for details. It has TWR headroom so I added 720f to the 3rd stage, this left the recoveable first stage at 66% of launcher weight ( KLV-34.5 ). That will lift two DAV++ to meet the Basic Requirement of 4 Kerbals on Duna. Also as a bonus, travelling as a pair, in the case of 'total engine failure' of a DAV++ they can dock and one can get them both home on two engines, if they were 'great pilots' they could probably even do that in the middle of a transfer burn. Now I jus have to fly it.

Nice work, for what it's worth, I always found it hard to get LKO on a jet.

Mesklin, I really like the engineering on your mobile base, very neat and compact. Since seeing your Jool-5 low mass entry I always find myself wanting to 'reach in' to the image to take your stuff apart.

Mesklin - what is the rainbow pork-chop mod I see in your screenshot? (for a laugh google 'ksp eex') IBA I could't find either? vosechu - I'd never looked at the details of RO, thanks for the link it looks really interesting. I guess I've been kind of gradually/piecemeal going in that direction. I do like the stock aesthetic - where a Kerbol could imagine building a Jool return vessel in the back garden (check out ziv's Jool challenge, low mass division). I'll have to give RO a try sometime. I think it would need a 'refreshed' version of this challenge since the demands would be so different. Having some 'divisions' would also make sense, for example: robots & rovers, 'manned plant the flag', 'manned big science', & 'colonize'.

I added the second entry to my "Deeply Duna" Mission Report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113541-Deeply-Duna-a-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge-Mission-Report?p=1807189&viewfull=1#post1807189 The summary is that I've settled on a rough fuel and engine mass for my DKXV and shown it can aerocapture at Duna and Kerbin. Rely on Duna in-situ resource processing to produce fuel and oxidizer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct and many others), this means: Once the program is established: the DKXV will fuel at Duna, go to Kerbin, and then push 75 ton of payload back to Duna. Rinse and repeat. KLV-75 will lift 'no fuel'. A little over 3/4 of an Orange tank for each Duna-Kerbin-Duna cycle using 4 nukes. Engines first aerocapture worked 'fine' when I did a test run with a sketch build under Deadly Reentry. The engines didn't get too hot and the payload was well shielded and stayed cool, though Kerbin was pushing back much harder than gentle Duna. ​ ​ The mission report post includes some details about how I worked out the fuel required to cover Crew Safety and the DK no payload but full of fuel & KD 75 ton payload. Next I want to sketch out the first flight, targeting: Crew Safety via unassisted immediate return from LDO and Duna surface. Crew Safety via life support to cover a missed Kerbin Duna Hohmann transfer. and as much non Crew Safety as will fit.

My Kerbin Launch Vehicle will have 75 ton payload mass, ideally none of that mass would be for a Duna Kerbin Xfer Vehicle or the Kerbin-Duna transfer fuel. A reusable DKXV takes care of part of the problem, using in-situ resources to produce fuel on Duna takes care of the rest. Like Mars Direct ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct ) we can produce fuel on Duna from Hydrogen brought from Kerbin and CO2 from the Duna atmosphere. On Mars 8 ton of H2 can produce 112 ton of fuel and oxidizer - so not free but a big saving. If a Duna H2O source were available we could arrange free by electrolizing water to H2 and O2. I'll plan on bringing H2 to produce enough fuel & oxidizer on Duna to cover the Duna - Kerbin - Duna transfer cycle. ( I didn't realize Mars Direct called for spinning the Hab and Booster twice a minute on a 150m tether to produce Mars surface 'gravity'! scary Duna 0.3g http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/ => 270m @1/min, 68m @ 2/min - hmm something to think about ) It costs 4500m/s to get fuel from KSC to LKO and only 1400 + (700 using nukes) to get it there from Duna (so 'like' 1750m/s correcting for 800 ISP of nukes). Getting the H2 to Duna eats some of that. I haven't worked out the break even on the cost of getting the Duna Resource Processing & Ascent Vehicles to Duna - but I won't need that many and if the program goes 'forever' it's bound to break even before then. The first (single) fully Duna fueled KDXV would arrive at Kerbin on Earth Day 331, the subsequent 495 Kerbin-Duna would have half the flight fueled for free, the first pair of Duna fueled DKXV would arrive at Kerbin on day 559, day 723 would be the first Kerbin Duna trip with no fuel required from Kerbin. At that point the program is fully established. So I need a nuke powered DKXV that get itself full of fuel from Duna to Kerbin, aero-capture, then push 75 tons back to Duna, aero-capture, and do a bit of maneuvering. Any leg could be manned so I have to add the 25% deltaV Crew Safety allowance, on an unmanned trip I could either under-fuel it or store any excess/leftover fuel in an LKO fuel dump. For Crew Safety it should have at least 2 nukes, and be able to fly / abort safely with a single engine. Here is my method to figure out the vehicle: first sketch something to push 75 ton to Duna (1200 + 300 Crew Safety + 100 maneuver = 1600 m/s), rip the payload off & note the new unrealistic deltaV, add 700 + 175 Crew Safety +100 maneuver m/s, tweak the transfer part to meet that new deltaV. That should be able to push the fuel to Kerbin, 100 m/s for maneuvering, connect to a payload, push it back to Duna, 100 m/s for maneuvering. 4 * 360s + 340 fuel will get 1599 m/s @0.22 TWR rip off the payload => 7569 m/s => I need need 8544 m/s by just filling all the tanks I got 8544 - ... a co-incidence! Of course I also forgot to put placeholders for avionics etc. need to add SAS etc => add a 90. So a little over 3/4 of an Orange tank + 4 nukes. The TWR should be okay for KD transfer, even on three engines. This is pretty finely tuned so when we start pushing kerbals back to Kerbin, or doing 'sample returns' those 'payload' 'units' may have have to carry their own fuel tanks to make up for their extra mass - or I may decide to add more fuel tanks to the KDXV. Now I need to confirm that aerocapture at Duna and Kerbin don't need heat shields - it makes the vehicles much simpler. I've just started using Deadly Reentry, it's neat how it shows you the temperature of the parts. I've burned a few vehicles reentering Kerbin atmosphere so I guess it's installed and working okay. Duna AC test entered SOI: 45134 km 976 m/s desire 250 km => 11940 m Pe ( thanks to http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ ) Hit atmos @1600 m/s - peak temp 485 @12000m 3rd can back is cold. The pics are from about 12000 m, close to max heating. Nukes are rated to 4000, tanks to 1400. So all looks safe for Duna. Return to Kerbin: entered SOI; 83540 km 864 m/s desire 80 => 32575 m Well this is a little different! The engines maxed at 1200 deg @ 32 km, first tanks like 850, the rest 'cold'. Solar cells arrays unfolded etc okay after. For the real flights I'll be less aggressive & take care to tuck things away behind fuel tanks. Note to self - don't forget all three kinds of antenna; omni, long range, & interplanetary. Next I want to sketch out the first flight, targeting: Crew Safety via unassisted immediate return from LDO and Duna surface. Crew Safety via life support to cover a missed Kerbin Duna Hohmann transfer. and as much non Crew Safety as will fit.

I came across this today http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marpost.htm it has a summary of lots of proposed Mars missions. Including the sov Marpost "... powered to and from Mars by matrices of hundreds of solar-powered ion thrusters using xenon as propellant" - woot go Ion. - - - Updated - - - Also - thanks vosechu for the good work on putting together a summary of the current works in progress!

I added the first entry to my "Deeply Duna" Mission Report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113541-Deeply-Duna-a-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge-Mission-Report?p=1803870#post1803870 The summary is that I've settled on a 75 ton to LKO Kerbin Launch Vehicle - KLV-75. For Mission Robustness & Crew Safety I require being able to guarantee transfer of life support to Dunauts on every Hohmann window even if a single KLV fails. For fly-ability and ease of packing payload I want to maximize the KLV payload. I'm ignoring any optimization available by trickily matching start time and first Hohmann window or 1000 day end of challenge cut-off. I'm treating the program as permanent, Duna in perpetuity. I've got a proof of concept for the launcher: Note: Two Mainsail cluster, 6 total. Asparagus staging. Nice TWR on all stages. Some excess deltaV to support adding recovery hardware. My first transfer will be limited to 75 tons to establish the program on Duna. 45 Earth Days are 'wasted' before the first KD transfer window. This is 20% of the period between transfers, so it's significant, but I'm not optimizing for the start / end of the challenge. I'm sure I can make it re-usable etc so I'm going to leave it as a proof for now and move onto mission planning the KLV payloads; Duna Kerbin Xfer Vehicle, and Duna payloads. I'm targeting: emergency Duna-Kerbin return (requires also Duna ascent), scan-sat survey to prep for Duna descent, sat comms network, Mars Direct style fuel generation on Duna surface, Duna Space Center (Remote Tech 'like'), Mobile Duna Manned Science Teams, & Duna Unmanned Science Thingies.

To maximize mass to LKO over time the Kerbin Launch Vehicle has to be 're-usable' ( > 50% of KLV weight can be recovered undamaged). I'm content to do a simple passive 'chute and forget' recovery, though I've seen some nice Space-X style "land the launch vehicle at KSC". The key question is how big a KLV to build, we can launch every 1.5 * PayloadMass Earth Days. The K2D windows happen every 228 Earth Days. If your KLV launch period does not 'go into' 228 then some windows will get more mass than others. This is 'okay' but does make mission planning more complex, either you have some kind of modular Kerbin Duna Xfer Vehicle, or you have a 'packing problem' where something you want to send is too massy and has to be split across DKXVs. 150 tons fits perfectly into the windows and has no 'packing problem'. Also given the off K-D window start and the 1000 Earth Day end of challenge your KLV payload size can affect your total mass to LKO in the 1000 days. For example with the 30 ton KLV I already have the first window gets 60 ton and the rest get 150 ton = 660 ton total. A 50 ton KLV would get 650 ton total. If the program went 'forever' then this cutoff effect would not happen and any KLV size would deliver the same mass to LKO. Since the challenge is "Duna Permanent ... " I'm not going to optimize for the effect of the 1000 day cutoff and off D2K transfer window start. I'll just pick a mass that makes sense from a mission planning point of view. I guess a minor point is less launches makes the program more 'fly-able', also nukes make each KD transfer more flyable (as well as real-ish-tic). I looked into how reasonable it is to build a 150 ton KLV, firstly here are some real world comparable launchers: Energia: 100 ton to LEO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia was 2400 ton on the pad, payload doing final insertion, totally reusable - landed the parts, built in the 1980s. Long March: 130 ton to LEO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_(rocket_family)#Long_March_9 currently in development. StaurnV: 120 ton to LEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V from the 1960s 3000 ton on the pad. SLS-2: 130 ton to LEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System block-2 under development. So 150 ton looks 'large' but not ridiculous. I built a proof of concept, it just gets up: Note: Three Mainsail cluster on the final stage, 9 total. It looks a little clunky, maybe 2 KR-2L extra large engines would do it (better TWR, worse ISP), but would be even clunkier. Asparagus staging. Orange tanks - they have the best wet to dry weight ratio. Borderline TWR on most stages Fuel drop tanks. For Mission Robustness and Crew Safety I want to ensure that even if 1 KLV fails I still get a payload with life support to the Dunauts every Hohmann transfer. That eliminates using a 150 ton KLV - 75 tons would deliver on Robustness, Safety, and Fly-ability. This proof of concept looks much more reasonable: Note: Two Mainsail cluster, 6 total. Asparagus staging. Nice TWR on all stages. Some excess deltaV to support adding recovery hardware. My first transfer will be limited to 75 tons to establish the program on Duna. 45 Earth Days are 'wasted' before the first KD transfer window. This is 20% of the period between transfers, so it's significant, but I'm not optimizing for the start / end of the challenge. I'm sure I can make it re-usable etc so I'm going to leave it as a proof for now and move onto mission planning the KLV payloads; Duna Kerbin Xfer Vehicle, and Duna payloads. I'm targeting: emergency Duna-Kerbin return (requires also Duna ascent), scan-sat survey to prep for Duna descent, sat comms network, Mars Direct style fuel generation on Duna surface, Duna Space Center (Remote Tech 'like'), Mobile Duna Manned Science Teams, & Duna Unmanned Science Thingies.

Those ion engines are magic, painful but magic. :D Au-2-H20 - they are taking the .... ( Au = gold[en ...] ):D I had a query around Crew Safety. I just finished doing a proof of concept for a 75t launcher and suddenly thought 'oh no does it also need to 'get up' with a 20% deltaV loss?'. I just re-read the challenge rules and I guess not as it's going to be un-crewed. Also there is no point larding on the deltaV for the launcher since they have plenty of experience of KSC2LKO. Seem the right approach? I'm very interested in in-situ resources, like for Mars Direct, does BTSM include something like that? I didn't see good docs with the mod (but haven't searched too hard yet).

Looking good, I love those inflatable heat shields! Are you doing this in career mode? or BTM sandbox? On your KDS-4 what part are the cupolas mounted on? is that A BTM part?

I had taken a run at this challenge focusing on maximising Primary Score. It's not really what the challenge is about but I was having trouble trading off (for example) safety and score. I got 'stuck' in 0.25 with some mods not really working (Deadly Reentry I'm looking at you - though to be fair it was probably me). I decided to get the Primary Score MinMax 'out of my system' on a stock 0.25. Now I'd like to take a more nuanced approach, to play with some of the mods out there, make some fun engineering solutions, and preferably have it all flyable. My goal is a real-ish-tic plan to do in depth science, learn as much as possible about Duna in the 4000 KDays. Last time I looked the game's science system didn't seem that true to life, and I'd be doing sandbox anyway, so I'll use 'scientist astronauts' on Duna as my proxy for science. Similarly I'll add some extra constraints: The Four Man Rule: Lighthouses always had a three man crew - one to be in trouble, one to try to help, and one to tell the tale after it all went terribly wrong. There were quite a few cases where the lighthouse was found mysteriously unmanned. One more must be safer - right? Also four fits nicely with the various Hitchhikers and crew cabins. So four is my minimum number of Kerbals in a team. The Belt and Suspenders Rule: extend the original 'crew survives the loss of a single engine' to also survive the loss/failure of a single parachute. As far as is reasonable I'd similarly guard against failures of single components. I'm not too sure how far I can should push that. The Really Robust Rule: a failure of a single spacecraft or surface module / vehicle will not prevent the accomplishment of a mission milestone. For example if the goal is to get a crew up for a particular return flight and an ascent vehicle is lost/malfunctioning there should be another available, or if the milestone is to get a Duna scan-sat network up on the first flight then the loss of any one satellite should not prevent the network getting all the requried scans. I'll use any mods that can make the mission architecture as near future real-ish-tic as possible, some kind of retro 1970s near future. For example I'll use Deadly Reentry and TACLS. A lot of the fun is in figuring out how to achieve the goals, so I plan to post the development process of the mission plan and the vehicles and engineering required to achieve the plan, and then finally the flights themselves.

Kudos to sturmstiger for a most excellent challenge: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/31510-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge The basic conception of the challenge is to establish a manned presence on Duna, 'scored' in Duna surface Kerbal days over 2000 & 4000 days (500 & 1000 earth days from the then current version when the challenge was started). Like all great challenges the fun is in the constraints and limitations that have to be overcome. Kerbal and Duna provide some physical limits. Sturmstiger has added some well thought out natural seeming constraints, most obviously a flexible LKO mass budget scheme based on the idea of industrial capacity. You must use a single Kerbin to LKO launcher design, it's payload mass to orbit determines how often you can launch, 2 days per ton between launches. So 30 tons to orbit means you can launch every 60 days ( or every 45 days if your launcher is more than 50% re-usable ). Various safety, mobility, and robustness constraints can be added to your taste. Mod usage is very open, no magic drives - but very permissive. I had taken a run at the challenge focusing on maximising Primary Score. It's not really what the challenge is about but I was having trouble trading off (for example) safety and score. I got 'stuck' in 0.25 with some mods not really working (Deadly Reentry I'm looking at you - though to be fair it was probably me). I decided to get the Primary Score MinMax 'out of my system' on a stock 0.25. Now I'd like to take a more nuanced approach, to play with some of the mods out there, make some fun engineering solutions, and preferably have it all flyable. My goal is a real-ish-tic plan to do in depth science, learn as much as possible about Duna in the 4000 KDays. Last time I looked the game's science system didn't seem that true to life, and I'd be doing sandbox anyway, so I'll use 'scientist astronauts' on Duna as my proxy for science. Similarly I'll add some extra constraints: The Four Man Rule: Lighthouses always had a three man crew - one to be in trouble, one to try to help, and one to tell the tale after it all went terribly wrong. There were quite a few cases where the lighthouse was found mysteriously unmanned. One more must be safer - right? Also four fits nicely with the various Hitchhikers and crew cabins. So four is my minimum number of Kerbals in a team. The Belt and Suspenders Rule: extend the original 'crew survives the loss of a single engine' to also survive the loss/failure of a single parachute. As far as is reasonable I'd similarly guard against failures of single components. I'm not too sure how far I can should push that. The Really Robust Rule: a failure of a single spacecraft or surface module / vehicle will not prevent the accomplishment of a mission milestone. For example if the goal is to get a crew up for a particular return flight and an ascent vehicle is lost/malfunctioning there should be another available, or if the milestone is to get a Duna scan-sat network up on the first flight then the loss of any one satellite should not prevent the network getting all the requried scans. I'll use any mods that can make the mission architecture as near future real-ish-tic as possible, some kind of retro 1970s near future. For example I'll use Deadly Reentry and TACLS. A lot of the fun is in figuring out how to achieve the goals, so I plan to post the development process of the mission plan and the vehicles and engineering required to achieve the plan, and then finally the flights themselves.

Hi, I couldn't find any documentation re how to use Regolith. Could someone point me to it? or an example mod that I could poke at to see how things work? I have no modding experience, I've peeked into some .cgf files. I'm interested in making some 'chemical reactors' using either ship or atmospheric resources. I guess it would make sense to separate the the 'in-take' part from the reactor part.

I finally got 0.9 and also installed Deadly Reentry & TAC life support. For anyone thinking of using the mods I found it fairly painless so far. DR is not so deadly; sure you can fry yourself easily, but also seems not hard to avoid it. The inflatable heat shield worked okay without flipping over as it had when I tried DR in 0.25. It's nice to see the temps of parts while re-entering and it means you have some kind of objective answer the question 'will it burn up'. TAC seems easy to understand. The 'recyclers' etc seem very heavy - but you can just take containers of stuff. I've not run multiple ships or warping etc, but I didn't see any issues flagged in forums etc when I was trying to decide between TAC, IS, & Ironcross. I made this 4 man Duna Ascent / Decsent vehicle:

I've added the Early Mission Flight schedule to http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112640-Dash-4-Duna-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge. First 12 Kerbals on Duna by day 80. 56 Kerbals on Duna by day 305. The next 200 days just keep them in supplies until 3 flights can land on day 530. Early Mission Score: 15840 Early Mission Efficiency: 48 Early Mission Achievements: 0

The planning algorithm is: Use the Kerbin launches one before, at, one after the Hohmann window for Kerbin-Duna transfers. Push as many Kerbols to Duna as soon as possible without actually letting them run out of supplies. Zero redundancy. Zero margin for error. Duna ascent & crew interplanetary transfer vehicles will be sent 'later'. I've used ED for Earth Day per the game version of the original challenge, & KD for Kerbin Day per version 0.25 that I am using. S = supplies = RCS ED 10 : KD 40 Flight 1 6 Hab 101 ED of total supplies landed t+KD 277 ED 79.25 : KD 317 landed supplies = 750 + 9*50 +12 - 12*69.25 = 1212-831 = 381S 12 Kerbols on Duna, dead in 381/12 = 31.75 dead by ED 111 : KD 444 ED 55 : KD 220 Flight 2 4 Hab: 3*750S, 300 xfer supplies = 37.5 ED, 2900m/s Xe, can get a 2300m/s encounter landed ED 90.5 : KD 362 => 35.5 ED flight Duna residual supplies = 12*(111-90.5) = 301 Landed supplies = 3*750 = 2250 (had to discard a little in orbit) 20 kerbols on Duna, dead in 2551/20 =125.55 ED dead by ED 218.05 : KD 872.2 ED 100 : KD 400 Flight 3 2Hab + 4*750S +4*50S +6*50S (for transit) landed ED 189 : KD 756 Duna residual supplies = 17.75*20 = 355 landed supplies = 4*750+200-60 = 3140 24 Kerbols on Duna with 3495 supplies dead by ED 334.625 ED 235 Flight 4, 5, 6 - all leave with Flight 6, one 'slot' before the Hohmann window 2*6Hab 1*4Hab landed ED 305 Duna residual supplies = 29.625*24 = 711 landed supplies = 2*(381) + 3*750 + 300 - 8*70 = 762 + 2550 - 560 = 2752 56 Kerbols on Duna with 3463 supplies death by 366.84 ED <- ED 257 Duna-Kerbin return Hohmann window. Kerbin by ED 321 F1,2,3 return components can go. ED 280 Flight 7 0 Hab, Supply only landed ED 315.5 landed supplies 4740 => +84.643 EDays 56 Kerbols on Duna dead by ED 451.47 ED325 Flight 8 0 Hab, Supply only landed ED 414 landed supplies per Flight 7 => +84.643 EDays 56 Kerbols dead by ED 536.113 ED460 Flight 9, 10, 11 landed ED530 so the mission can continue through to day 1000 but these flights land outside the 500 day mark and don't contribute to the 'Early Mission' Early Mission Value: 15840 = (500-79)*12 + (500-90)*8 + (500-189)*4 + (500-305)*32 = 421*12 + 410*8 + 311 * 4 + 195 * 32 = = 5052 + 3280 + 1244 + 6240 = 15840 Early Mission Efficiency: 48 = 15840 / 330 / 1 = 48

To maximize payload I had to go Ion, it's kinda painful but it just makes sense. Each interplanetary flight consists of Ion thruster modules, a heat shield, a payload, and transit supplies. Transit supplies are designed to be consumed en-route and jettisoned, Xe for the transfer burn and RCS for the crew. The first image is the payload-less thruster and heat shield Duna-Kerbin return configuration. For those not familiar with low thrust transfers here is the flight profile: I used alexmoon's transfer calculator (http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/) to know what to expect and when to time the initial burn to have the pre-escape orbit close to the right angle. Make a series of few minute burns, for my craft about 3.5 mins for 80 m/s delta v each burn. After about 9 of these and 4 Kerbin days your orbit is Ap-ing near Munn distance and you are ready for the final burn. I just picked the simple method of setting a maneuver node in the middle of the 'falling to Kerbin' side (where everything is still happening slowly) then tweaking time to start the burn and the delta v to get an encounter. Finally burn for ages, after SOI adjust, fine turn on Duna approach, fine fine tune in Duna SOI for aerocapture. Aerocapture with Ap between 50 & 100 km, you will impact after the Ap. After the capture you can use the atmosphere to lower your orbit without needing the heat shield, the thrusters will be doing this. Jettison the shield and half the thrusters, they dock and thrust as a unit to get a safe Pe. Each thruster will have about half a Xe tank left - enough to get home. Tune the payload Pe so that it will land where you want, I went for Lon 84 in the big flat smooth depression south of the volcano. Jettison the remaining thrusters, they will thrust to a safe Pe & rendezvous with their siblings and the heat shield. Open the chutes, at the 'last possible moment' burn the landing engine for a soft landing. I'm doing a Kerbin-Duna transfer one launch before and one after the Hohmann window, so 3 transfers each window. I can tune the payload by trading off Supplies for Xe depending on how much delta/v is required. Soft landings are via a combination of parachute and Rockomax 48-7S with minimal fuel. I started out with 4 radial parachutes per Hitchhiker for a fully passive landing costing 600kg, but a single chute slows it to about 25m/s and needing only a little burn at the end. With passive landing I could have independent Hitchhikers, but I was aiming for something flyable so I thought to stick them together and then found they needed less than one chute each. I settled on about 1 chute & 1 engine per pair, about 250kg for landing. There are four payloads, each consists of a number of Hitchhikers and the remaining mass budget in RCS supplies. There 6, 4, 2, and 0 Hitchhiker configuration, the 4 & 2 configuration are mobile, 2 can be used to ferry supplies around the surface. The 6 Hitchhiker payload. 6 stacked in a triangle to be compact & low to the ground solar arrays on the 'edges' to minimize self shadowing and so you can yaw the craft to maximize solar exposure thrusters coupled to the payload 3 parachutes & 3 Rockomax 48-7S for a soft landing. surface supplies are down low for 'balance' The 4 Hitchhiker payload 3 750 RCS for supplies 4 hitchhikers wheels underneath 4 chutes & 3 48-7S for landing The 2 Hitchhiker a supply wagon with detachable Hitchhikers rove to the 'base camp', dump the Habs, then be a supply shuttle 4 chutes & 3 48-7S for landing The 0 Hitchhiker a supply dump, no wheels 6 chutes (symmetry) & 3 48-7S for landing

Thanks to Sturmstiger for this most excellent challenge. It's really gotten into my head and made me try out all sorts of things, but now it's time to stop cutting bait. I applaud vosechu's self discipline ! I had been making some prototype and proof of concept craft and kept going back and forth between things I wanted to play with and the scoring scheme. Cool realistic features like safety (what astronaut would settle for less) and mobility (an astronaut can sit in a can at home) all cost Primary Score. I couldn't find a good reason to weigh one against the other. While watching Kubrick's Dr Strangelove I was inspired to an all out Primary Score effort. SAY NO TO A RED DUNA! DASH 4 DUNA In a UN speech the Krussian Premier Khrushchev drunkenly boasts "We will bury you!". The incident is widely reported and the world laughs at our impotence. ... A spy within the Komunist space program reports the Krussians have advanced plans for a permanent Duna base of unknown size. ... Secretary State Kissinger advises the President that 'we cannot afford a red Duna! we must preempt the Krussians with our own even more ambitious program!' - How ambitious? 'we just don't know, we'll have to go all out' ... President KFJ addresses the nation setting out an ambitious new space program: "We chose to do this thing, and some others, not because it makes sense - but because we must be first" ... General Keck Turgidson is appointed to head the program. Engineering says it can deliver on two of fast, cheap, and safe. Gen Keck practically explodes out of his chair "Two? Two! You WILL deliver three - fast, fast, and fast! I don't want to hear any of your Hohmann bat guano. Burn early, burn hard, and burn often!" ... I'm putting all the details in a mission report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112640-Dash-4-Duna-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge so far the intro, lifter, and aerocapture details.