jinnantonix

The rule about solar power not being used for ISRU is intentional since it is highly unlikely the Artemis plan will be able to use solar power in the depths of craters where no sunlight has fallen for millenia. I realise that this makes the ISRU more expensive, and one must therefore wonder if it's worthwhile. This challenge is intended to optimise the design so as to verify that it is cost effective. My design gets payback by the end of the second mission, so I disagree with your calculations somewhat. RTGs may be expensive, but they provide a lot of power continuously and this can be the basis of a relatively lightweight ISRU rig. IRL I see efforts to make a refinery that is low mass, and generates modest amounts of energy over a long period. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/fission-surface-power/index.html#:~:text=NASA plans to demonstrate and,Moon by the late 2020s. I do not doubt this will be costly, but you can't make solar energy work where the sun don't shine. Future Mars missions need a fuel that is not only very weight efficient, but can also generate enough thrust to launch a Mars lander from surface to orbit. Hydrogen may be used as a nuclear propellant, but introduces the problem of boil off for the return journey. I question if xenon propellant and ion engines offer a good solution considering the high mass of a Mars exploration craft. It's anyone's guess what the best fuel will be, but I am thinking hydrazine , ammonia, and/or methane, which are reasonably well modelled by KSP in terms of energy density.

Yes, but no mention of Mars. I found this: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4027/has-luna-been-used-for-gravity-assist-for-interplanetary-probes As for why it is not used regularly, it's because usually time is of the essence. If you're trying to hit a particular outgoing trajectory to, say, Mars, which is good for maybe two or three weeks once every two years, the Moon would be potentially in a useful position for a gravity assist for only a few days during that time, if at all. You need about three weeks of launch days to have a sufficient probability of launching, and your spacecraft and launch system must accommodate that entire period. So you could not mine the benefit of a lunar assist that might be available over only a few days. That's all if you launch directly to escape. If you plan to hang around in Earth orbit and use longer-lived propulsion systems to escape, then you could plan to use a lunar assist, so long as you assure that you get into orbit in time to take advantage of it. Nozomi did that, using lunar flybys to reduce the propellant needed to escape and inject. Towards the end of the MER-A 21-day launch period there was a little dip in the C3 curve. It was due to distant lunar flybys on those days. The orbital period of the Mun is much less than the Earths moon, and orbital tilts are quite well aligned. Based on this I would say that any KSP model that uses a Mun slingshot is not realistic.

@camacjuIf they can be connected, then connect them. Docking ports aren't that expensive. With regard to your question about not using ISRU, and going direct to Duna. Do you know if there is a significant difference between the KSP model and Real Solar System with regard to using Mun/Moon gravity assist. In KSP it makes a marked difference to required dV. I have never heard of any serious plans for using the Earths moon as a slingshot to Mars, and I am wondering why. Probably because IRL the orbital tilts dont match up?

In case anyone's interested, I am developing an Artemis challenge.

@camacjugreat questions, here's my thoughts, let me know what you think. -Would a survey satellite (to determine the best place near the south pole to mine ore) need to count toward launch cost? If so, that's fine, but it would be easier if I could have a survey done before landing. A probe to find a landing site on the Mun would be necessary, plus I think comms satellites for Duna. I will mandate them in the rules. Prior to landing on the Mun and Duna, a probe must land to mark a suitable landing site. Must include a resource scanner. A minimum of three relay satellites must be deployed in Duna orbit to provide continuous communications coverage. -Are crew cabins allowed for a surface habitat and for vacuum flight? It's only for the ascent vehicle and Duna lander that command pods are required? Yes, crew cabins and hitchhikers are OK for surface and vacuum. Pods required for any crewed atmospheric flight on Kerbin or Duna. -How reusable are we allowed to get? For example could I pull a SpaceX and use the same booster for all three/four Duna missions? Or is all Kerbin-atmospheric rocket hardware required to be single use? Similarly what's the restriction on reusing the Duna lander? Re-usability should be encouraged where it is realistic. So the Duna lander could be re-usable. The idea of re-using the launch vehicle first stage is OK and realistic, but to keep the challenge simple , there is no recovery of costs for landing on Kerbin. Perhaps a rule like this?: If the first stage of a launch vehicle is recovered, 50% of the cost of the stage (minus fuel) may be subtracted for the launch cost. -Does each Duna habitat have to be contiguous or can it consist of several separate "buildings" within a few meters of one another? If it must be contiguous, can it be assembled with EVA construction once on Duna? Although EVA construction is cool, allowing it would disadvantage anyone using an older version of KSP, so its use is disallowed. Multiple Duna habitats is not realistic, so the habitat must be a contiguous construction. -Is ISRU required? If I find that I can do three Duna missions for lower cost if I don't use ISRU vs if I do, will I be allowed to do that? If this isn't in the spirit of the challenge, then please let me know. I was wondering if anyone would ask that. It's an interesting question, because if it was demonstrated, it could make a mockery of the whole Artemis program (god forbid). A crazy Kerbal invention might succeed, which would be disappointing, it would need to be realistic. I will give this some thought and respond in a day or two. My general plan now revolves around the fact that the nuclear engine is efficient but expensive, so I want to use it for as much stuff as possible. Your plan looks good. Add probes and relays..

Challenge details moved to the OP.

@camacju yes I think you are on the right track. Just a few points ... It is a requirement to show the launch and deployment of all craft, including the nuclear tug and mining base, as well as the lander and surface habitat for each mission Only craft docked at the space station/nuclear tug may transfer fuel Craft may only be in Kerbin, Mun and Duna SOI. Minmus and Ike don't exist IRL. Mining is only allowed at the Mun south pole. (latitude > 88 degrees south) and cannot use solar power The cost of the program is measured by the cost of all launches, and to simplify the modelling, there is no recovering of costs of craft landing on Kerbin You only need to complete one Duna mission. You can use this to calculate the total cost of 3 Duna missions Also Crew cabins may not be occupied while in atmospheric flight, so command pods / re-entry vehicles are mandatory. No command chairs allowed in flight Kerbals must remain in a pressurized seat at all times except on the surface of Kerbin, Mun and Duna. An airlock is not a pressurized seat. Jet packs not allowed. I am still working out the rules to make sure the challenge produces realistic entries. Any suggestions appreciated.

We all love spaceplanes. But spaceplanes are not really what this challenge is about. I don't see spaceplanes being a solution for future Mars exploration, do you? KSP has unrealistic physics/ aerodynamic / recoverability modelling that make fully recoverable SSTOs viable, but that's not going to work IRL. To encourage development of near real world solutions I would have a rule that excludes any recovery costs. I think also the cost of non functional fairings and adapters would be zero to encourage aesthetically accurate solutions. Yes, a new habitat in a different biome. KSP would allow building a rover, but the model does not include geographical hazards which would make a large long range rover non viable, and I am looking for modelling what would be feasible IRL.

@Mars-Bound Hokie the concept here is to do a simulation of the future (post) Artemis program with an architecture for a mission to Duna/Mars that utilises ISRU, mining for water in the deep craters of the Mun/Moons south pole. So in answer to your questions> 1. The concept is to encourage realistic multistage vertical lift rockets that might be next generation, perhaps with a recoverable first stage. Try to think of what SpaceX or Blue Origin would do if they have their craft refuelled at the Moon. 2. Yes, Munar south pole. The Moons south pole is where NASAs Artemis program is looking for ice for making fuel. 3. Yes, land on Duna's surface. The idea is to architect multiple manned missions for planting flags on the red planet, and doing some science and stuff - using Munar refuelling. Here is draft of what I am thinking: Challenge: Create an orbital space station with a minimum of 8 pressurised seats, providing a staging point for refuelling Establish an ISRU facility at the Mun south pole to make fuel, and craft for delivering it to the space station Plant a flag on Duna. A minimum of 4 kerbals must be sent, and all must land on the surface of Duna While on Duna, habitat is modelled by a requirement for a minimum of 2 pressurised seats per Kerbal, excluding seats in the lander craft Option: Send additional missions to Duna to demonstrate re-usability. Additional missions must land in different biomes and establish new habitats. Rules: Stock parts and DLC only. No part mods are allowed. (perhaps a separate leaderboard for modded entries?) Visual, informational and flight control mods (eg MechJeb) allowed Submission: The mission value is the sum of the cost of all launches from the KSC to complete 4 missions to Duna. Fairings to be subtracted from the launch cost to encourage aesthetics.

Basic idea is this: Launch rockets from the VAB Establish ISRU at the Mun south pole Launch a mission to Duna, using the Mun ISRU facility to reduce costs Provide a total cost for 3 identical Duna missions.

Overview: It is 2030 and KASA has completed a pilot plant demonstrating ISRU, mining water ice and making fuel in the depths of a crater at the Mun's south pole. KASA is planning a program of three missions to Duna utilising fuel mined on the Mun. Challenge: Create at least one orbital craft / space station with a minimum of 8 pressurised seats and four docking ports, to be used for fuel and crew transfer. Establish an ISRU facility at the Mun south pole to make fuel. Surface mining operations may not use solar power. Launch 4 Kerbals from the KSC in a command pod/re-entry vehicle, and plant a flag on Duna. All 4 Kerbals must stand on the surface of Duna. Deploy a Duna habitat, modelled by a requirement for a minimum of 2 pressurised seats per Kerbal, excluding seats in the lander craft. Prior to landing on the Mun and Duna, deploy a probe to mark a suitable landing site. Must include a resource scanner. Deploy a minimum of three RA-15 relay satellites, in Duna orbit, to provide continuous communications coverage. Rules: Stock parts and DLC only. No part mods are allowed. No EVA Construction. No airbreathing engines are allowed Visual, informational and flight control mods (eg MechJeb) are allowed No cheating, including debug menu, kraken drives, file editing or Hyperedit (except for testing) All fuel transfers must be at either the ISRU facility on the Mun, or between craft docked at the orbital craft / space station All Kerbals sent to Duna must return alive to the surface of Kerbin. No Kerbal can remain away from Kerbin for more than 3 Kerbal years, or it is assumed he/she dies of radiation exposure Crew cabins and lander cans may not be occupied while in atmospheric flight, but may be used on the Duna and Mun surface and in vacuum. No command chairs allowed Kerbals must remain in a pressurized seat at all times except on the surface of Kerbin, Mun and Duna. An airlock is not a pressurized seat. Jet packs not allowed The Duna habitat must be a single contiguous structure, a new Duna habitat must be established with each new mission and additional missions must land in different biomes No aerobraking of any craft with Kerbals aboard in Kerbin's atmosphere except when doing a direct (or "skip") re-entry. A stock Heat Shield on the reentry capsule is therefore mandatory. "Direct" means: every part that aerobrakes at Kerbin with a Kerbal must land on Kerbin following the aerobrake" Duna aerobraking of a craft assembly is allowed provided the crew is behind the heat shield. No craft may enter the SOI of any planet or moon except Kerbin, Mun and Duna. Minmus and Ike are forbidden Gravity assists are not allowed Mining for ore is allowed only within 2 degrees of latitude of the Mun south pole, and must not rely on any solar energy. No mining on Kerbin or Duna. Habitat and Space station must be able to generate power, sufficient to allow lights to be left on and the battery does not ever go flat Rovers may not travel more than 1 km from the Duna landing site All craft and habitats on the Mun and Duna may touch the surface only with stock lander legs or wheels Scoring Five points awarded for each Challenge task completed (maximum=30 points) An additional point is awarded for aesthetics for each component (maximum = 8 points): Launch vehicles Initial Resupply Space station with docked craft Mun ISR facility and craft Duna transfer vehicle Duna Lander Duna Habitat Re-entry capsule The mission value = the sum of points - (the cost of all launches from the KSC to complete 3 Duna landings)/100,000 Submission: Provide video or images of all craft and key mission moments, with the resource window open Show launch craft in the VAB showing craft cost, and technical specifications. Any parts that are purely for aesthetics may be deleted. Calculate the total cost of all launches to complete 3 Duna missions Notes: Only entries that are considered within the spirit of this challenge will be accepted. Any use of game exploits will invalidate the entry. If you want to use a mod, and you are not sure, ask me No recovery cost of craft landing at Kerbin Default settings only, if you change any setting you have broken this rule Clipping may be used for aesthetics purposes. Clipping parts where the overall volume is approximately maintained is allowed. All parts must appear adjacent to each other, and appear functional Aesthetics will be determined by both form and function, with points lost for obvious faults. Since aesthetics can be subjective, feel free to message me with questions/images prior to submission, and I will advise. Rule of thumb: If a part is included, but without it included the rules may be met AND mission completed AND it has negligible impact on aerodynamics, then it may be excluded from the cost of the mission. Leaderboard: (In order of mission value) @Death Engineering extremely impressive and grand, includes a fully functioning Gateway station (25.2). . . Rogues Gallery (In order of submission) - for entries that are incomplete and/or do not meet the rules requirements @camacju. A very frugal design using a re-usable sky crane, and refuelling in Mun orbit. . .

SSTO with mass = 7.085t plus 1.04t payload Kudos: two kerbals to orbit (18+points) >1 t payload (25+points)

SSTO with mass = 6.9t wet. Kudos: two kerbals to orbit (18+points) Landed at runway. Mission completed in hard mode.

Ariane 6

Since this challenge has a distinctly European feel, we need an Ariane 6 launch.

During the design of the Soteria mission, the alternative option of using the more efficient ion engine for meteor deflection was considered. This solution would be suitable if it is known that mining for H2 propellant is not feasible, but would require carrying all of the propellant needed for the deflection to the asteroid, since it is not really feasible to assume the ability to mine noble gas propellant from the asteroid or comet. Below is a mockup of a suggested craft, which would have an estimated mass of 16 tons (mostly propellant). The ion engine deflector craft that attaches to the asteroid has a thrust of 4kN and a delta-V of ~50,000 m/s. The estimated deflection that could be achieved: Body mass Deflection (tons) (mm/s) Chelyabinsk 14,000 3.570 Tunguska 560,000 0.090 Apophis 27,000,000 0.002 Assuming arrival at the asteroid a few years in advance, a deflection would need to be greater than 10-100 mm/s to realistically deflect an asteroid away from imminent Earth impact. Conclusion is that an ion propelled craft would not be an effective deflection solution. Proposed ion engine propelled craft: Design Notes:

KSC Planetary Defense Coordination Division Project Soteria Imagine the sudden discovery of a large asteroid on direct collision with Earth, and less than a year before impact? We don’t have the opportunity to use low thrust ion engines or lasers over a long period, nor to transport all of the gas propellant to the asteroid, we need to deploy quickly and nimbly to get to the asteroid in time and have enough thrust and propellant to deflect the asteroid just enough to avoid impact with Earth. Solution: A craft with a nuclear thermal propulsion engine, that pushes the asteroid onto a new trajectory. To reduce costs and time to deploy, the craft will avoid carrying a huge amount of propellant, and will instead continuously mine the asteroid for propellant while under thrust. Design Notes: The voyage of the Soteria, Saviour of Gaia: Simulates rendezvous with a near Earth orbit asteroid, with a mass similar to the Tunguska comet (560, 000 tons) Mission notes: Mods used: ReStock and ReStock Plus Kerbal Atomics Tweakscale Visuals: EVE and Scatterer Control: Mechjeb, Kerbal Engineer, Trajectories

I would assume that this is about pushing the asteroid with some kind of engine. It would need a huge amount of fuel/energy, it could not be transported from Kerbin, and ISRU would be mandatory. I think IRL it's going to depend a lot on the chemical composition of the asteroid. KSP allows you to mine an asteroid to make liquid fuel and oxygen, but IRL that isn't necessarily feasible. It might be reasonable to assume an asteroid has water ice that would allow electrolysis, and perhaps that could be done with massive solar panels or a huge nuclear reactor. The scale would be enormous, and a very Kerbal thing to do. Edit: The concept I am working on is building a mass driver / with a nuclear rocket engine that mines the asteroid for propellant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance. I can model a realistic craft that can provide a continuous thrust of about 200kN. This could accelerate a body such as the Tunguska comet (560,000 kt) at 0.36 mm/s . I have no idea if that would be sufficient to deflect an asteroid enough to prevent an impact from a future threat, it all depends on how big the object, and how long the craft pushes. I have designed the craft to carry Kerbals as there would likely need to be real time piloting and engineering required to avoid issue with communications lag and unforeseen events. It is large and heavy, so will be modular and assembled in low Kerbin orbit. Where possible it will be re-useable.

Vulcan Centaur.

@camacju it looks like you have a Kerbal in a deflated airlock, and also that you are inflating it through a fairing. That's an illegal clip/exploit. Sorry.

@Death Engineering Restock is fine, and your clipping is legal.

An interesting challenge might be to get a payload (eg a scanner) to Kerbol polar orbit with Pe > Moho and Ap < Jool for lowest cost.

Here is my entry. https://kerbalx.com/jinnantonix/Lightweight-VTOL Mass = 625kg dry. (886 kg with enough fuel to reach the island runway) The jinnantonix Lightweight VTOL uses a Juno engine, and launches and lands vertically using two Vernor thrusters,

Yes, it is apologies I had not thought about that. Saturn V (stock only)

Falcon Heavy and SLS Block1B in Real Solar System Edit: Removed, not a valid entry.