Kesa

It's ok, I went advanced reply and it did the job, sry for the noise

SO you you want to go the Mun in less than 18t/30parts? - yes. And come back, if possible. " What if we laucnh a rocket that wheight, let say 19.5t?" Gus : "no way. The Launchpad will break and so will the rocket" "Then what about a cheaper launch pad that can handle 60t?" Mortimer "That product does not exist, and even if it did, we could not afford. We're low on cash, may I suggest selling licenses?" When a rocket engineer cannot go bigger, he/she has to go smaller. And when the playload cannot be shrinked, we shrink the engines and the fuel tank. Jet engines are good to shrink tanks, and rockomax 48 - 7 s is a mighty shrinked engine. And guess what, that means very little science : And now, the trip : *** Some narrative speak will be added for the trip. I made very few pictures, I may add some.

I've seen thread where the first few post were marked reserved by the poster for later updates. I'm trying to do the same, but when I'm replying My own thread, it goes in the first post as an update instead of in a new post. How should I do?

With the arrival of Ksp 0.90, many low tech, low upgrade and low cost challenges have spread. Here is my attempt at this one, in a real career game, from scratch and without grinding. If you're just interested by the mission to the Mun, go to the next post. Career settings : moderate difficulty. First four rockets, to break 5000, 1100, 22000, 56000 and 33000 m altitude record (memory rebuild, there were five actually, but that gives you an idea of the kind of rocket I build) : They were all successfully recovered, near the KSC. Third landed on Water the fourth on the grass land. First Orbital mission : (Also, memory rebuild). Jebedia flew this SSTO rocket up to a low (80 km) polar Kerbin orbit, with 100 m/s spare to deorbit. Meanwhile, at the astronaut complex, engineers discovered that EVA suits were actually space proof, and that jet pack could work in absence of gravity. Maybe because his two last flys showed him that his EVA suit was waterproofed, and that mystery goo loved both water and space, Jebediah did already know about EVA suit. Without any communication mean to be told how to use EVA suit, he valiantly went on EVA and recorded his observation about many situation. Two orbits later, Jeb found that the day-night cycle were too fast up there and deorbited, to successfully splash midway between south pole and west desert. Vernher found the scientific data collected very helpfull, and stated that the Mun would soon be beyond kerbal's reach. Gene, excited : "excellent, another record to break! Oh, and before, somone called Bobman somehow get stuck into space, it would be kind if we could bring him back home" Jeb : "How the hell did he go there? And has he got a jetpack? Cannot he find a way back home? I want to go to land on the Mun. Now!" Vernher : "Well, we could first have a fly-by, then wonder if a landing is possible. - Or I can have a fly-byand land on the Mun. Remember, like when I broke the 56 km barrier and went into space. - Well, that's not the same deal... We could first send a probe there. Not meant to come back. - Nope. Bring me up there. I got a jet pack, I'll find a way back home. I'll come back when you'll have a rocket for me to ride." (At this point, I had basic rocketry, 237 science points to spare, and enough money to build any small rocket I want, but not to upgrade an morey building but mission control, which I did.) More to come..

6.6 t !! Ok, it is easy to screw the ascent path, and it needs an hardocore EVA reeentry, but after three trials, Jeb it made it to the mun! And back. Here is one picture in the VAB, and here is a poor mission report. Also, depending on play style, tech requierement does not need grinding. It is an Lite copy of Katateochi's one, without wings and only one jet engine on first stage, two rocko 48 7 s on snd stage and without any parachute on third. Oh, and there is a fourth stage called EVA suit. Ascent Path is hard, designed to be a direct transfert (no LKO). I did not fly it enough to give a precise one, I start turning slowly at 5km. I'm still above 45° at 20km, and I know I'm ok if I am a bit above 30km and faster than 500m/s with more than 100 m/s verticaally when flame out. And I'm very good if third stage ignite above 36km, and I can burn prograde without falling. On my very lucky try, I had 1643 m/s after the transfert burn, and 723 after landing. The EVA part is tricky because no navball. I aim a direct crash course to one pole, because water mean sure and instant death. A kerbal on EVA has a 60 m/s crash tolerance, but can bounce if it lands on feet or on helmet. Feet is easier as Kerbonaut tend to put feet down when rcs is activated (but can be rotated by left click and drag), but the head being considerably larger, it is more reliable, as the Kerbal can bounce high enough to be killed on the second impact.

Mun intercept requires at least 900 dv, and I find my self ease with 800 to 1000 m/s to land, depending where I come from (LMO/direct crash course), and a little fewer to ascent, so I would say 2900 is ok. Landing is the difficult part. As said above, lower the PE to surface skim, and place node at it. You can use the manoeuver node to see how many time you have to burn, but I prefer use the formula : burn when time to impact = speed * acceleration / 2, with acceleration constant (precaculed and rounded down), so I don't have to constantly adjust manoeuver node. For the end of the landing, I know use the info of KER (either impact time or suicide burn info), but I guess KER is using a formula with altitude to terrain, quite simple to understand, but not to head compute (plus altitude to terrain requires IVA, which is very painful on landing) @Katateochi you're definitely a master! You learned me that 48-7s could actually be used in a non ugly way. Subscribed! And you're getting the most of the jet engines.

Terminal velocity is 100m/s for a drag coefficient of 0.2 (up to 140m/s for 0.1), but you often fall slighty faster as you come from higher (110, 120) and don't have time to be slowed down to terminal v. For water landing, I guess landing gears won't break, but joint could, as well as anything above. not a big deal since the only point of returning such a probe is for the 'return a vessel from mun surface'. If I saw well, final stage is ~600kg, so a 3s perfect suicide burn should kill all velocity (far harder than suicide burn to 50 m/s though). If you can trim the fuel down, you probably can have 3s of landing burn

1 - launch a probe with a lot of DV and good TWR, when Mun is over head (or when ever you don't get immediately an encounter) 2 - burn until your apoapsis crosses the desired orbit 3 - use manoeuver node to cross as close as possible the target orbit. 4 - use manoeuver node to match as close as possible the beginning of the target orbit. (manoeuver node set at the intersect, try the three directions, and mix them) As simple as that. This contract may be significantly harder than other satellite contracts, but that kind of contracts are quite permissive. Also, cancelling contract few time after accepting it just takes you back the advance, with an insignificant amount of rep IIRC.

Some EVA facts : common facts : (1) The jet packs has about 500 m/s of dv, and it's fuel has no weight (2) It accelerates at ~4 m/s, Duna has the highest surface gravity at which you can use them. (3) However, a jet powered jump on kerbin is ~70 cm high, ~20 cm higher than without jet. Can be usefull when you forgot the mobility enchancers. (4) A Kerbal on EVA wheight 90 kg, but that wheight is not added/substracted while entering a pod. However, it is when on a command seat. A kerbal on a command seat is very much like a Kerbal on EVA. less known facts : (5) The drag coefficient of a kerbal is 0.1, while most parts have it set to 0.2. That's why you will most likely fall of ladders if you try to go on EVA in atmosphere, and fall faster than your rocket, unless it is mainly made of plane cockpit and wings. (6) Crash tolerance is around 60 m/s, more than any non structural parts. However, Kerbal often randomly bounce instead of crashing (I've been up to 200 m/s, sturdier than Grider!). Here are conditions that favor bouncing : - no time warp - feet first (preferably with jet on) - even more efficient : head first (left click and drag while jet on, or ). - speed : the slower the best. The jet can save tenth of m/s. (I would say 20-30) - crash on land. I have never bounced on water.

Glad you spare me the time of finding it again to post a link here... and download!

Damn right! ASAS is good, but pointing a direction will deplete RCS. I hope it to be fixed, but that it will stay as it is for new pilots (though I have no experienced pilot, so it may already be there) For the poll : all but the new sciences parts! Also better contracts, maybe several following a progression (like the altitude records). For now, on normal difficulty, your ~3rd or 5th orbital flight can be a manned mission to land on the mun.

I personnally would like to see an aerodynamic model that : 1 - really takes, in some manner, account of cross sectionnal section, making tall rocket usefull 2 - gives aerodynamical advantage to nose cones (eg not applying drag to hidden parts, and less drag to some parts) 3 - is forgiving about crapy rocket 4 - Keep the construction/piloting of plane hard but not too much, just as it is. I'm not against souposphere (and drag proportionnal to the velocity squared), but if it has to be removed, the sooner is the best, cause it will need some serious rebalancing.

For what we have now, I do prefer taking off and landing on grass than on lvl1 runway

Remote tech + life support really adds to the game, but for stock, it should be a lite version. maybe only antenna range for stock? (something like communotron for LKO, DTS for Kerbin SOI, and the 3rd for beyond). range would be necessary not only to transmit data,, but also to command probes. Signal delay leads to only manned mission outside SOI (at least landing ones), which is unrealistic and makes things harder, or leads to using mechjeb/KOS, which is reallistic, great, and even harder for KOS, but IMHO, it goes out of KSP range. Without Signal delay and direct sight of view, no need to rebalance manned mission, so no life support needed (even if it would be great)

Satellite contract : IIRC <6000 launch cost, fullfilling up to 3 contrats inside Kerbin SOI. Absurdly cost effective. I'm planning my second Mun mission (a rescue mission, previous lander was to tall and now lays horizontally). The Lander : A poddle, a MK1-2 Pod and a lab (I will fullfill space station and munar outpost with it) and some usefull stuf like docking port (willl stay in space and be reused) : 20 000. A cheap exandable lifter 10 000 will help it getting into LKO, then it will be refurbished a sent a rover (cost not known, <<60 000 I hope) and send to the mun.

Do you know about manoeuver nodes?

Makes sense. These contracts can then appear mid game (tier 2 technology). *check* 1750 k for tier 3 tracking station!!

In old fine print, there where ateroid related contracts that were challenging, fun , and often yielded up to several mil. I wonder if there are implemented. If so, accept them, and if you find them boring/to difficult, take Yemo's* way... build stuff until your low on cash and cancell contracts, reapeat, at the end, recover. *edit, I may be wrong on it's name, I searching his post I read, but don't find it. edit : found it! (Yemo).

Tracking station and mission control lvl 2 are enough to target distant objects. You can target nearby object (<60 km away) by double clicking them on normal view (there will be a target if you enabled "show vessel's label" in your settings, or pressing F4 to toggle this option)

If you choose a pth that cost 1500 m/s, you will take, say 300 m/s of margin, so yes, you are able to take a road that costs 1700 m/s, at your own risk. If you wnted to go for the 1700m/s road, you would have also take a 300m/s margin, so you would had have a heavier design. Spare fuel can be left in the station for the landers to be refurbished, sparing the time of a refuelling trip. And Heavy often goes exponentially in rocket science (exponentiallly. You seem to like Bold font ). Saying 200 m/s of dv is nothing worth for small crafts, not for big ones! My point was to show the op and the readers something they could have not known. Your way to go is good, and it's what I do most of the time, but it's a solution that anybody can figure out (that's alredy almost what Musil did before opening this thread). Think of it as aiming for the 4550 m/s orbital insertion. All my 5-min created rockets have 5000-5500m/s to go into orbit and spend them. Nontheless, I'm sometime interested in making better rockets and ascent path that aim the 4550 m/s milestone.

It's peanuts if you go from Kerbin's ground. If you want to use Thug/Bus/Cargo that stay in space, it is 200 m/s out of 1000 or 2000m/s... Well, if you just want to have an station that can land rover/ miscelanous funny thing on the planet, it do not worth care, but if you like optimization, searching the better path is part of the fun

As for the choice between Polar/equatorial, I think they are both valuable : a polar station can reach any spot on ground, wich is very good for exploration, but there are only 2 windows from and to parent planet per orbital rotation (even though windows are not as much important as interplanetary windows), and 2 windows from and to ground per moon's day. An equtorial station is good if you want to use the spin of the planet, and are easier to reach. Also, It can only reach equatorial sites of the planet, but it does it far more often (passes over a specific location ~every 20 min for kerbin to lko), and, if it is a moon station, it can be reach from parent body at any time

Establishing orbit at the edge of the moon then changing plane is reasonable, but you can be much more efficient by directely getting the good orbit. For this purpose one need to know that the direction of an orbit is constant (at least in KSP). That's why you will match your station's orbit if you send a ship at the same moment (eg a multiple of 6 days later for the Mun) or the same place (eg having an intercept with Minmus at its ascending node (hard with Mun since its orbit is perfectly Round with no equatorial inclinaison, but it has an inclinaison with Minmus, which can serves as a landmark)). But you don't want to count how many days have past since you launched your station (except if you can have Kerbal Alarm Clock doing it for you) to know when you can send things to it. So here is the way to generally match a desired inclined munar orbit (also works for contracts). When you send a spacecraft to the mun and establish a polar orbit around the mun, you maybe have noticed that, just after the orbit is made, it should be roughly facing Kerbin, ie from any point of the orbit, you can see Kerbin (if you have not, launch a probe to see!). That is because the mun has a nice circular orbit and you intercept it at your apoapsis (-> no radial velocity relatively to kerbin). If not so, your probably overshooting, or the time to circularize make that your obrit have already changed. Anyway, the position relative to Kerbin/ parent body should be the same for similar launches. So you have to make sure that when your vessel will intercept the moon's SOI, the target orbit will be facing Kerbin. You can figure that out by yourself, or follow these steps : (1) look the plane that curently contains the target orbit. It won't change orientation, it will only translate as the mun goes. Eyeball the position of the moon for which this plane will be tangent to the mun orbit. (2) this position will be your intersect. Set up a manoeuver node to have an intercept with the moon orbit (don't bother the normal burn for now). The moon should not be there at the good time. (3) Timing. Right click your manoeuver node, and set it several orbits later, until you have a good intersect. (4) Focus view on the moon, your predicted trajectory is coherent with the present target trajectory. Set the normal burn to have a ppolar orbit with no inclination. (5) Fine tunes your nodes : would it be better if I wait one more orbit? one less? If I have an intercept slightly sooner/later (draging node)? Is my PE close enough to those of my target? With a good definition of "facing Kerbin", this method apply to any inclined orbit around a moon you want to catch. IMHO, this is the most efficient way to catch an orbit, but also restrcit you to 2 launches / moon's revolution. For the mun, 3 days are not that much to wait and if you have big playload to deliver, it may worth optimize the path and transfer vahecle, but for Minmus or distant small Muns, it maybe simpler to orbit at SOI edge, then change plane + lower PE, then lower AP. If you have any questions, or need pictures, feel free to ask I may put that in a tuto, if it does not already exist.

When you use kerbal engineer to build your NERAV powered transfer stage for your Laythe station... And forgot you have clicked the 'atmospheric stats' button.

But they upgraded their launchpad. Twice. And the R&D center. Reguarding the relative costs, I think they'd better have done some more surveys contracts and go for a better tracking station and map view, but I'm not playing RO, so I don't know if the pricse were the same for them.