Tarmenius

*WARNING: Image-heavy thread* Greetings ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for stopping by my humble showcase! I have nine designs to share with you today, but don\'t let that number intimidate you. Each one is tailored to a different purpose and style of piloting. Four rockets, four aircraft and one SSTO spaceplane provide a wide array of options to meet almost any mission profile. The rockets have been designed with minimal debris in mind while retaining the capability to reach either of Kerbin\'s moons. Two are single-Kerbal craft and two utilize the new three-Kerbal Command Pod. The four aircraft are very stable in flight, using advanced placement of both lift and control surfaces. Apply a little trim to render the included Avionics Packages unnecessary. They also include a fairly generous fuel supply for extended loitering or medium-range travel. The single SSTO spaceplane is also very stable during atmospheric flight, and surprised even me with its capabilities which I will go into in due time. And now that the 'fake company' segment is finished, allow me to present to you my various designs: The Rockets All but one of the following rockets feature an asparagus-stalk design. This allows a greater potential payload without a terribly massive set of lifting stages. The first on my list will demonstrate how it is used and what you can expect during the ascent. Demeter Mk16 This single-Kerbal rocket is a re-packaged design from previous versions. It\'s very reliable and is often my go-to rocket for basic Munar or Minmus(ian?) excursions. Here it in in the VAB: Its simplicity affords it great flexibility, but the lack of RCS may be intimidating to newer pilots. In this next screenshot taken soon after launch, you can see that all seven LFEs are active. This is what gives the asparagus-stalk design it\'s kick. For this rocket, full throttle is not needed as atmospheric drag would prevent much increase in acceleration. Note the throttle setting. Even here, I am pushing against the air a little too hard and am wasting some fuel. Fortunately there is plenty to spare. With the correct fuel line setup, all seven LFEs drain fuel from just two stacks, allowing empty weight to be jettisoned sooner. Here, you may want to increase throttle just a little to make up for the loss of two LFE\'s, but it isn\'t required. This stage can be tricky as the not-perfectly-symmetrical fuel stacks will give the rocket a tendency to spin when ASAS is off. With a little practice, gravity turns aren\'t difficult as the natural spin isn\'t very strong. Now that the rocket has jettisoned the two asymmetrical stacks, it no longer wants to spin and focus can now be put fully on achieving proper orbit. Good thing, too because this stage will take you through at least most of your burn to circularize. Just before staging, I tend to set the throttle to 100%. They don\'t necessarily have to be horizontal, but it feels like the right thing to do. If you\'ve made an efficient ascent, you may want to jettison these stacks with fuel still in them to avoid space junk. You\'ll want to do this when your Pe is at or below 23,000m as anything in orbit above that will remain when put 'on rails.' With orbit achieved and nearly all of the central stack\'s fuel yet to be burned, either moon is well within reach. Please note that the tendency to spin during the 4th Stage is a common trait to all rockets that use the asparagus-stalk setup, as far as my experience has shown. If you know of a way to prevent the need for active spin control in this design (i.e. manually counter-spinning with Q or E), I would be very interested to hear it. Antares Mk16 This single-Kerbal rocket is also a carryover from previous versions (hence the 'Mk16' on both), however this one predates the Demeter. This was my rocket of choice when I was still new and just learning about efficiency. It has a larger fuel margin and plenty of RCS for orbital maneuvers and steady Mun or Minmus landings, making it a very forgiving craft. Perfect for those who are also still learning or who want to not worry much about their fuel budgets. Ascent to orbit is almost identical to the Demeter, with more throttle being needed here due to the larger overall design. As you can see from the following image, the Antares Mk16 will also acieve orbit with almost the entire center stack of fuel still to burn. I was really hoping to get a screenshot of the lander sitting on the Mun, but for some reason the RCS tanks get disconnected anytime I come out of warp (with or without struts). Oh well, I guess you\'ll just have to try it out for yourself [uPDATE] I have made three design changes for those who have the same problem with RCS tanks disconnecting, or for those who want a more powerful Lander engine. Antares Mk16b I removed the Removed the four RCS tanks and replaced them with only two directly under the ASAS unit. I swithced the LV-909 for the LV-T45 and replaced the small landing legs with the larger ones to account for the added clearance needed. This has resulted in an even more forgiving Lander that still has a comfortable fuel margin. Here you can more clearly see the changes made With orbit achieved, there is plenty of fuel for the TMI burn And even some left over for the capture burn as well. On the surface, there is more than enough fuel to get back home; and possibly seeing another nearby landing site before you leave. Hermod The first three-Kerbal rocket I want to share is a cross between the old and the new. It features an asparagus-stalk setup similar to that of the Antares Mk16, using the old fuel tanks and LFEs but with the new SRBs to help with the initial liftoff. The lander stage is built with the new parts and designed with the simplicity of the Demeter Mk16. While it will get into orbit with fuel remaining in the central stack, it is not enough to complete a Trans-Munar Injection. Even so, the lander itself can make up the difference. The following photo was taken using a prior design version whose only difference is the large stack decoupler. I had since learned that it was not needed and updated the craft. During testing of the decoupler-less design, I was able to show that not only would the parachute be sufficient to support the whole lander, but it was also capable of a fullt powered landing. Observe: Note the descent rate of 15.4 m/s. Well within tolerances for those landing legs. Taking back off shows that there is plenty of thrust to perform a fully-powered landing on Kerbin. Indomitable This was my first successful rocket design of 0.16 with the goal of reaching the Mun. It\'s got a very comfortable fuel margin and plenty of RCS. It shares the same design philosophy with the Antares Mk16, in that the craft is very forgiving and will get anywhere around Kerbin one may wish to go. You\'ll probably notice the abundance of SAS and parachutes. Well for one, I think the unnecessary parachutes look cool Of course, I didn\'t know they were unnecessary at the time. I have since learned better. The SAS, however, may or may not be needed. For me, any ship using the large fuel tanks will rotate end-over-end uncontrollably once in orbit. And now you know the real reason why the Hermod uses the old tanks Fortunately, the uncontrollable rotation didn\'t kick in on the Indomitable until after the TMI burn, allowing this: My first Munar EVA If you don\'t have that problem with large tanks and want something sturdy, forgiving and capable, you may want to consider this one. The Spaceplane Bridging the gap between aircraft and rocket, the spaceplane can be an illusive prize. I have only had one other successful design, but it did not survive the balance changes of 0.16 and so could not be carried over. While unfortunate, it provided me with the challenge of coming up with a new design. A few of the aircraft in the next section were products of that challenge, so I\'d say it worked out well enough. Gannet While it may not be the prettiest plane in the hangar, this little jewel is able to get a three-Kerbal crew into space on a single stage. And she\'s incredibly stable during atmospheric flight, not really needing any ASAS at all if a little trim is applied. It\'s dual-aerospike rocket engines provide more than enough thrust for the craft, so even during the ascent phase I keep the throttle around 60%. Standard spaceplane ascent for me is to hold a pitch-up of 60o until around 40,000m where I begin to slowly pitch toward the horizon. When I meet with the prograde marker, I follow it until my AP is where I want it. Out of the atmosphere, the engines tend to give the craft a nose-down attitude so be sure to keep the Avionics Package active and pitch up a little while performing any burns. You may be wondering how much fuel is left after establishing orbit. Well, there is plenty. Enough even for this: Passing the Mun on a free-return trajectory, you can see there is quite a bit of fuel left. Perhaps even enough to land on the Mun? I haven\'t tried. Yet. Returning to Kerbin, I altered my free-return into an orbit so that I could land back at KSC. I even overshot a bit and the craft\'s stability in the atmosphere made turning around very easy. This post is looking to be rather larger than I thought. I will place the aircraft in another one.

After having first launched a few rockets to get a feel for the new parts, performed a rendezvous/crew transfer, tested the Lander\'s re-entry capabilities and designed a lifter able to get it to the Mun, it was time to put the cew in the Indomidable and give Jeb the honors. Bill and Bob follwed soon after and snapped this photo of the landing site. The site was nothing special, as I didn\'t want to push the limits of my fuel budget to change the Lander\'s equatorial orbit by too much. I aimed for a good view of some mountains on the southern edge of one the large Mares, but it wasn\'t quite as scenic as I\'d hoped. And I\'m okay with that. I\'ll be landing a memorial there to mark the location sometime soon.

More great resources, closette! It\'s always neat to see how our messing around in this game tends to resemble real-world methods. I haven\'t had much chance to spend the time required to run the Kerbin-Mun transfers, but the next couple days will be pretty free so I\'m sure I\'ll have some good results coming soon. Also, as PakledHostage mentioned, a comparison to Minmus would be quite interesting. If anyone wants it, I can make a setup for Minmus similar to what I\'ve done for this challenge. It\'s not much trouble, and it\'ll give me another interesting thing to do while I wait for 0.16

'Holy crap, is this thing actually gonna work?!' Two minutes later... 'Nope.'

For many of us, there is lag anytime Kerbin is on the screen (until above ~170,000m). Try keeping the camera pointed at the sky during flights. If this solves your framerate issues, Mr_Orion came up with a solution that may help you. You can find the topic here: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13682.0 I myself had this problem, so I can sympathize. Before I found that topic, I had just gotten used to launching all my rockets while looking at sky/space. Flying spaceplanes was nearly impossible. Anyway, I hope this helps you.

Well, since we\'ve shown that the ideal efficiency really depends on the mission scenario, it\'s time I looked at the bigger picture. I\'ll be taking what we\'ve learned here and running a few different Mun missions starting from a 100km Kerbin orbit in a lander capable of performing its own TMI burn. Hopefully, this will end up illustrating the struggle between mission parameters and efficient flightplans and how to get the most from each type of scenario.

I don\'t recall ever seeing a Mun landing quite like this one...

Well, those were achieved by lowering Munar Pe right from the scenario\'s start so no insertions that begin later will be quite as efficient. That aside, your results show a greater difference between the bi-elliptic and Hohmann transfers than I would have thought. Excellent work as usual!

I read that article a while back and again recently, but even with the quite significant increase of orbital altitude in the example, there wasn\'t much savings to be had (16.18 m/s Delta-v). I just wonder how I\'d set up the Insertion to perform the manuever correctly. I was thinking that I\'d wait until Munar Pe to establish an orbit of 990km x 2,000km (approximately), then from Ap I\'d lower Pe to the target 3km and circularize from there. My gut says that wouldn\'t result in any savings, but if that\'s the correct concept for insertion and bi-elliptic transfer, I\'ll give it a shot.

Back in the Optimal Descent challenge, Majiir suggested that an insertion which planned for a bi-elliptic transfer to descent could yield improved results. I\'m pretty sure I\'ve been doing it wrong, so I wanted to ask you guys for input on the correct way. I doubt it\'ll be more efficient than what we\'ve already accomplished, but I want to try it for my own sense of thoroughness.

Another awesome job, PakledHostage. It\'s curious that burning 15o above the horizon would yield the most efficient results. Is it because that burn is doing two jobs at once (being just about inbetween Retrograde and Normal)?

Anytime! I\'m very happy to have helped.

Welcome to the Forums! Getting to the Mun is definitely a challenging task early on. I would recommend being comfortable with making stable orbits before trying to go further. It doesn\'t have to be pretty at first, as long as you don\'t come crashing back to Kerbin. As you do this more, it will become easier to make more circular orbits. Here\'s a simple method: Make sure your rocket has an ASAS to help keep you pointed in one direction. Activate it with the [T] key before starting your engines. After liftoff, wait until at least 10,000m before turning ASAS off for a couple seconds to turn a little East (90o) using the [D] key, putting ASAS back on when not turning. Continue making little turns every 10,000m or so (doesn\'t have to be exact). Between turns, check the map and turn off engines with the [X] key when the highest point of your orbit (marked 'Ap' in Map View) reaches more than 70,000m. Then, keeping your rocket pointed at the yellow circle with the upside-down T mark (prograde), wait until you\'re almost at Ap. Once you\'re pretty close (20 or 30 seconds away) turn your engines back on until the lowest point of your orbit (marked 'Pe') is also more than 70,000m. You should now have a stable orbit! I hope that helps you. When you\'re able to do that consistently, getting to the Mun is as easy as waiting for it to rise on the horizon and burning until the Ap of your orbit reaches a little higher or lower than the Mun\'s orbit (so you don\'t crash into it when you get there). Then wait until the Map view shows you\'re almost at your Mun orbit Pe. Point your rocket at the green circle with an 'x' in it (retrograde) and burn until your orbit becomes a circle.

So I went ahead and made a persistent.sfs using the Standard Lander with MechJeb onboard. It\'s also on a free-return starting at the MCC1 position. I\'m not going to add it to the original post, though since it\'ll probably only be used by the group of us who are following this thread anyway.

Very interesting, indeed. I hadn\'t considered burning directly toward the Mun\'s center of gravity. I still haven\'t been able to find a more efficient method (not sure I\'m doing the bi-elliptic transfers correctly though), so I\'ll give that one a try and see how it goes for me. Your summary sounds right and makes me wonder just how big of a difference the right TMI burn would make. I see togfox just posted, and I would also be interested in diagrams

I had the same issue. Anytime Kerbin was in view (below 170,000m), framerate was horrible. I was flying all my rockets while looking at the sky or in the map view. The solution found in this thread did the trick for me. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13682.0

Another way of doing this is to have someone else fly the mission using your specific instructions and craft, taking screenshots along the way, or even making a video. That could be a ton of fun and wouldn\'t require additional software.

Nice job on the landing, closette. I wonder how far you\'d be able to get from the surface with that 111.9kg... That\'s what I get for updating at 2 in the morning Also, when I posted those tests I hadn\'t planned on putting the results on the Leaderboard because I hadn\'t taken screenshots. But I suppose that since I\'ve done it for others, I should allow it for myself as well. It\'s just too bad the game froze before I could achieve the estimated 204.1kg from the third. Anyway, thanks for pointing those out.

Congratulations, PakledHostage! It\'s incredibly close between the three of you. I don\'t think I\'ve seen such a narrow margin between the top spots in a challenge like this. I\'m very impressed. When I did my comparison of the two methods just inside the Mun\'s SOI, I found that I used less fuel when burning directly toward Kerbin as opposed to retrograde. I also tried a couple bi-elliptic transfers, but those ended up being less efficient than my posted results. Unless I didn\'t perform them correctly. I\'ll have to do some more and actually record some data so we can have something tangible to compare.

I second Vanamonde\'s suggestion. But since you asked for a .craft file, here\'s a simple design to help you get started: As you can see from the pics, it\'s an SSTO with enough fuel and RCS for limited orbital operations. It also has pretty good glide characteristics. Due to the nature of landing gear/runway interactions in 0.15 however, it doesn\'t take off until the drop at the end of the runway. Once in the air, though it hadle\'s pretty well. I don\'t have much trouble and I\'m not all that good at piloting with a keyboard. Hope that works for you. In case you\'re looking for an aircraft rather than a spaceplane, I have another design that is agile but also very controllable. I\'d be happy to share that, too.

mivanit: If I may, allow me to give some constructive feedback. The LV-T30 Engine is able to get four and even five fuel tanks off the launchpad by itself, but only very slowly. And that\'s with only a Pod as 'payload.' The longer it takes to get into orbit, the more fuel is wasted fighting gravity. It\'s been found that 3 fuel tanks per LV-T30 is 'the sweet spot'. However, with proper use of fuel lines and staging, you can go as low as 2 in your multiple-stack designs without sacrificing much payload. For example, I tend to use six stacks of 2 tanks + engine for just about every lifting stage I have. Sometimes, I\'ll use the gimballed engine in the center stack (as you\'ve done here) for greater attitude control when lifting a heavier payload. With an 'asparagus stalk' setup of stages and fuel lines, I will almost always have to ditch the final two radial stacks with fuel still in them to avoid clutter, leaving me in orbit with enough fuel in the center stack to perform a Trans-Munar Injection burn. Here is an example of the kind of payload I can get into orbit comfortably with such a lifing stage: Having said all that, your core design principle is a good one, with a ton of potential. I hope to see more of it soon.

If you can save another 0.2kg, you\'ll steal the lead from Kosmo-not!

Zephram, I knew you\'d be doing this challenge sooner or later. BlazingAngel665 as well, I\'m sure. My guess is that with 0.16 getting closer, others are reluctant to start a challenge that may need to be re-made in a couple weeks. Myself, I\'m looking forward to seeing how the new parts and balancing affect this and the other two related challenges. I plan to revisit them once I get a feel for the changes.

Good work closette. You\'ve done better than I have with both Landers. My best so far with the Low-Fuel version is 86.2kg. And I still can\'t manage to get it to the ground with any fuel left. Thanks for the suggestion to change the challenge\'s name. I\'d been wondering about why there are so few entries myself. I had been chalking it up to low forum activity overall, but you may be onto something with the title.

Nice results, Kosmo-not and closette. 0.2kg separating the two of you. Very exciting! PakledHostage, you made me Google 'nadir.' Good work. That graph shows an interesting range of deviation from Retrograde where fuel consumption is hardly affected. Also, it appears you can almost tell what direction Kerbin was in by the shape of the curve. And thanks for recommending OpenOffice. I\'ll have to dust off my spreadsheet skillz. After I retry the Low-Fuel Lander, I\'m planning on trying different bi-elliptic transfers from the original Mun Pe of 900-something km. It\'ll be intersting to see how those stack up.