paul_c

Its very easy to determine if its a comms problem - saves needlessly sending a relay? (You might need >1)?

You don't need a relay if you have sight of Kerbin (and a decent aerial). If you time-warp (or plan the mission) so the landing occurs at full moon, it will be in daylight AND in comms. Obviously, there is an icon to show whether the craft has control (top left). It does sound like a MJ issue but obviously there's a list of things which make a spaceship easy to land, or a nightmare. I dare say MJ could control even a nightmare craft if it had the necessary bits etc. I am surprised you say you need to handle the throttle, I would have thought an automated landing system did that. Otherwise, what is it doing differently to SAS retro hold?

With another design iteration, I was able to have +270dV more once into LKO, so it was time to go for the Mun. 2 contracts popped up - "land on the Mun" and "science from space around Mun". I nearly forgot to transmit the science from space! The landing....went as well as I could hope. Its not really designed for landings but it landed ok on the engine, then I let it topple (it was never coming back.....). Managed to transmit 1 piece of science (the most points) before the battery went dead so definitely more potential once I have solar panels (which are not too far out of reach now).

A non-booting PC, hmmmm.... 1) What's the screen display just before it reboots itself? Something to do with Windows 10 maybe? 2) If so, then unplug the hard disk(s) or SSD(s) and see if it boots to a basic message such as "Non system disk" or "No operating system found". Also see if it enters the BIOS okay. These days with UEFI its not so simple to insert a CD and see if it boots off another source - you'd probably need to go into the BIOS or at least know which key to press to get the boot menu up, etc....

I was going to ask......can the craft land manually with no issues or comms loss etc etc.

The tech tree square to unlock reaction wheels was purchased, and duly incorporated into a modified design without a Command Capsule for more performance. It took 8 iterations to achieve a stable, controllable craft - the problem being aero drag balance front-rear, rather than reaction wheels etc. Anyway, after a number of flippy ascents, I succeeded in a smooth ascent and LKO with 1906m/s dV left: A very average/poor encounter with the Mun, but now in orbit with some low (<60km) passes to gather science: Return was looking promising with the remaining fuel, and the caveman components didn't explode on re-entry: Laundry out: It did the "let's roll down the slope" thing but didn't gather speed and eventually settled: 36.2 returned science (plus some world first stuff and an "explore the Mun" contract): I had hoped for a smooth progress but its taken a bit longer, and more money, than anticipated. So, back to contracts for now.....

Thanks, I need to have a re-think of my rocket design and try something different! Can't afford to trash too many in the process.....

To turn, you need: 1. Full control of the vessel - so if its a probe, that means comms, electrical power, etc; or a pilot in a command module 2. either RCS (thrusters and monopropellant) OR reaction wheel OR engine gimbal while running Its the same for everyone, its not a Mac-specific issue. Obviously there are factors, such as the torque of your reaction wheel(s) vs vessel weight; and/or gimbal range and thrust of engines if done that way. Its a bit sucky but that's KSP. Its possible to turn down or off, reaction wheels, gimbal etc if it presents an issue.

A bit of progress yesterday. With the crippling 20% science multiplier in Diamond, we are very much technology-limited. Some of the elements of tech level 4 and 5 are irrelevant or easy to work round, so they will be earned much later (in the "end game" phase of the challenge). However, there is a delicate balancing act to sniff out and scrape together enough science to buy the tech needed for Mun exploration. The problem I am having is, once the command module is "on top" as the payload, the 18t limit really bites and the deltaV possible is really limiting. Fortunately I am using remote probes now (with the Stayputnik) but it needs the command capsule for stability control - I can't afford the small reaction wheels yet. Its a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. So......as an example, I made a burn for the Mun, in as good a free-return-trajectory I could estimate, and got a 1.2Mm Pe, but once out of Mun SOI it left me with a Kerbin elliptical orbit with Pe ~1.5Mm. And I had about 49m/s of dV left, not enough to lower it for aero-reentry. I was able to transmit "Mun high" science though. Another tweak/design iteration and a splash more dV, try again and this time the same 1.2Mm Pe Mun encounter, but with ~100m/s fuel left. It was enough to get the Pe down to 18km and a successful, if scorchy, reentry was made and some returned science: So, a test flight was made without the command module, which will save a lot of weight, but leave me with no reaction wheels. It was only semi-possible to control the vehicle, it was tumbling all over the place and only engine gimbal to determine direction. But it was possible to eject the heatshield/science storage box/controller/chute and at least recover this part. I did log some atmospheric science but no gains left there. So, I NEED the reaction wheels! And more money! The next few hours were grinding away doing contract work. Some are better paying than others and about 1/3 the time, a +1 science one comes up too. Also some are a bit higher or more involved, so no longer trivial to do. I am going to need to choose between reaction wheel OR solar panels/OCTO controller for my next iteration of remote probes, hopefully with actual control and a better dV so I can point it at things and it will actually go there. Maybe orbit the Mun soon? Or even land on it??? Who knows???

Brilliant! May I ask, what is the dV (say, in a vacuum) of the craft that got you to the Mun and back with a science jr and command capsule on it? I am short of fuel, as usual, trying to do the same!

Thanks! Its actually not too hard to align it even with caveman controls, because you can see the lines between the relays so you put the relay into a slightly-different orbit then wait as the shape alters from a skewed triangle to an equilateral triangle. I suspect I might be raising their orbits a bit, too allow for some deviation, rather than keeping them at that altitude and tweaking phase again and again. One has a splash of fuel, the others have a good reserve.

Well done, nice trip! If you want a polar orbit, there is a little trick you can do. On about 1/3 theway there: 1. Burn either normal or antinormal to make the Pe around 15,000m (its not too important what it is yet) 2. Burn either retrograde or prograde to minimise the Pe, in fact it might disappear ie put you on a collision course. 3. Burn normal/antinormal until you once again have a Pe, make it (say) 15000m ----Repeat 2 - 3 until the burn for retro or prograde in 2 is at a minimum value, at that point any burn in either pro/retro makes it more ---- 4. Burn normal/antinormal to'set' the Pe to say 10,000m What this does, basically, is puts your approach at the 'top' (or bottom if you antinormal in steps 1&3) of the body you're aiming for.

That's my thought too - why not relight 3 engines at 2/3 throttle? It must be more consistent to throttle them from 2/3 to full; rather than rely 100% on engine relight. Or....a tin of this:

With the 3x relays and another spaceship for science (contracts), my funds are once again low......so its back to contracts. I am now able to pick and choose which ones to do, ie the higher paying or those with science bonus too; but that are fully recyclable for parts. My diligent recording/research before means that I can now reliably do those of the style "test/haul a part between wwww-xxxx m altitude, at speed yyy-zzz m/s" and hit the parameters - or see that its out of reach. One tip, if you're asked to test a part by staging, but want to actually use it before, you can set up the staging for the test but manually activate it earlier. For example in the above, the test wanted the Skipper engine activated thru staging while splashed down, but I was also able to use it beforehand to arrive there. (The decouple stage is my emergency eject, but it wasn't needed).

The relay network is in place, let's hope the batteries don't run out too soon: The theory goes that if you set the altitude to the radius of the body, then the phases at 120deg, an equilateral triangle network will form. I've gone for a bit more (711km; radius of Kerbin is 600km) to allow for a bit of leeway and in the above screenshot I've also highlighted/thickened the CommNet vessel links.

Not sure......but I'll just send another relay up if one runs out of batteries. AFAIK KSP doesn't do the normal power consumption simulation when a signal goes through a relay, unless its in focus. But whether it allows one with a dead battery to still relay....not sure! I'll keep an eye on them! It almost feels like a cheat though if it does.

With the science value of "crew report" not being that high, and the risk of losing an astronaut, my focus will now be on remote probes again. I can't afford the OCTO yet so its Stayputnik stuff for now. Also, I don't have solar panels. This is the prototype: Next job is to develop a stopgap relay network - it will be 3x satellites on the equator. They'll need to just be on batteries for now, later on the network will be upgraded with solar ones.

Anyway, here is an update. Thanks to a brilliant idea of using the reaction wheels, this is my "science roller". Bob is checking out resetting the Science Jr and Goo. Note the 4x science storage - every last scrap of science was to be gathered!!! The elusive flagpole science: So......that didn't earn me enough science, so to the sky again. My research on dV & TWR stats meant I could build a rocket to squeak into space: Other nearby surface biomes too: The easy ones are done, now for the more risky highlands/beyond: I have just enough to buy that elusive Terrier engine, which has wonderful efficiency and should get me into orbit, to the Mun and beyond:

Yeah definitely more efficient, but without the nodes, very imprecise (at least for me). Thus, I did it in 2 stages - inside and outside Mun's SOI. I did in fact, burn at more/less the correct ejection angle (guesstimated), with more/less the right amount of deltaV (from my vague memory of other flights in better times). I guess for my caveman challenge, I can do a bunch of research and build up a table of "get you home" ejection angle/dv from a range of circular Mun orbits? Then use it as a ready reckoner for my blind attempts. Obviously elliptical orbits are another thing entirely though. The other strategy might be to consistently do docking, so there is excess fuel available and that makes things much safer.

Great write up! Regarding leaving Mun/Minmus SOI, if you research the radius of the SOI then burn so the Ap is beyond this, you will leave it. If needs be, do that burn just to leave the moon's SOI, then if the orbit of Kerbin is near circular (ie the Pe is not low (enough)), wait until the Ap and burn retrograde to set your Pe. To avoid hot re-entrys, you can set the Pe to something like 60km then do a number of orbits! However it will wear down the ablator more than a single, hot, entry (but not heat other components which might blow up).

How do you adjust LAN without Mechjob?

I was thinking about how it could be worked-around to keep the challenge on. The best I can do, is to suggest that if eg a staging is unusual and manually controlled, its set up as best it can be in the VAB (so it reports the as-near-best figure). Similarly with engines, if they are activated or thrust altered manually, a "measurement" calculation is made where its staged/activated/thrust 100%. That way, although not 100% accurate, the deltaV figure on the launchpad is more representative. Also, there can be a difference between the VAB figure ASL and the launchpad figure (because the launchpad is +68m)

.......Or if you (need to) have an engine start out with 0% thrust. Its basically, that the editor/KSP doesn't know what flying controls/decisions are going to be made in the future, so its indication of deltaV at the launch site or in the editor is at best, approximate! To illustrate: Don't let me put you (or others) off though, its a great idea for a challenge.....its just that the way KSP determines delta V once the rocket (staging or engines) become a bit more involved, is flawed. So its difficult to make a level playing field there.

This challenge becomes trivial if you (or if the editor.....) deliberately messes up the staging sequence as built; but then you correct it or manually decouple and/or activate engines on the flight.

The extra info makes little/no difference until you do stuff like to go the Mun, so I think you would be okay to just carry it on? Come back to it in a week? Its up to JAFO though......