Drunkrobot

Hello! This is my first entry into the challenges sub-forum, so excuse any noobishness I may radiate. :l Go into "scenarios" in the main menu. There would be one called "Mun Orbit". In that scenario you will find a Command module/Munar module duo in a 35km by 32km orbit around the Mun. Your challenge is to get the Munar module from orbit to the surface: Like so. You have to do it with as little fuel as possible. Post how much fual you used, against how much there is in the ship, and the percentage resulting from that, along with a screenshot to back up your score. It would be rude to post this challenge without doing it myself, so here is my score: If you bring your attention to the top-right, there is 302 units of fuel, out of a capacity of 450. That gives me a score of 67.1%. NOTE: You cannot use the command module's fuel and/or engines for anything. The lander has to be detached before you can do any burning. No slowing down using the CM. EDIT: The wonderful fellow below this post pointed out that you should probably explain exactly how you landed. We want this to be a learning experience as well as a friendly competition. My landing technique can be best explained by this video. (TRY NOT TO WATCH SO YOU CAN COMPARE YOUR CURRUNT TECHNIQUE WITH THIS ONE.) You CANNOT break any parts during the "lithobraking" stage of the landing. Leader board: 1st: Johnno-74.9% 2nd: Francesco-73.8% 3rd: Kosmo-not-73.1% 4th: Coneshot.72.7% 5th: metaphor-70.9% 6th: Raptor831-70.6% 7th: Drunkrobot-67.1%

Yes, you need more ÃŽâ€V to get to the Lunar surface than to the Martian surface. But, that leaves out a design point that at this moment must be blindingly obvious. A manned craft going to Mars must be far heavier, and needs more fuel getting a Trans-Mars injection than the craft going to the Moon with the same payload. Let's imagine a reusable "Moon shuttle" that continuously goes from LEO to LLO (Low Lunar orbit). It can carry, say, six people and a sizeable payload, like a lander, or a base building to be carried down by infrastructure in Lunar orbit. What would the mass of this vehicle be? The vehicle itself, enough fuel for a round-trip, the payload, enough consumables for the people on board to last, say, two weeks, shielding against a solar flare etc. Now, what would the mass of a Mars transfer vehicle be? The crew would be in there for months at a time, so it would need more space-per-crewmember, and more consumables. That slight increase in mass alone means a lot more fuel in the initial stage.

Recently, I started a poll on what humanities next big goal in space should be-a mission to Mars, or a manned base on the Moon. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/39401-Return-to-the-moon-or-mars-landing-what-first Two of every three who voted chose "Moonbase" (GO TEAM!). Let's imagine that the space programs of the world joined together to build a sustained habitat on the Moon. To justify the cost of the program, there needs to be decided a purpose of the base. Due to current budget constraints, only one venture can be explored (I know, it probably wouldn't be like this, I'm just trying to pose a question.). What, then, should the base...do? The only constraint is that it is a manned, long-term station on the Lunar surface, similar in some ways to the ISS in that humans can live there months at a time, with resupply trips coming every six months with what the astronauts can't create or recycle themselves. The six given are what I could think of. If your idea doesn't fit with any, leave it in a post, and if enough give it, I'll add it. Don't forget to say why you think your reason is the right one.

I am aware that there are many, many other options, but the thread was about the possibility of the space race continuing after the moon landings. I didn't want to start lecturing on every potential replacement to fossil fuels. I just decided to mention the most brash, ambitious and expensive option that has something to do with space, and how even it's costs don't compare to the financial disaster that will happen when the human race runs out of fossil fuels and doesn't have an alternative ready to go.

ZOMG THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THA- Ahem, I appreciate and value your design skills.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but there are hard limits on what the Earth can give us. Let's focus on power. I'm not going to lecture you on the environment impact fossil fuels have-climate change is a big issue, but I'm going to talk purely in an economic sense. Oil and coal are predicted to last several decades, a few centuries at the very most. That's at current demand, we're going to need much more per year as the "third world" develops and industrialises. Also, we can't just wait for the last deposit to dry out, and immediately switch to something else- it takes years, decades even, to change an entire infrastructure. We can either do that now,when we are functioning and progressing as a species,or do it later, and spend that time finding new forms of power in the dark ages. Since most people alive right now rely on infrastructure that will no longer exist, there will not be enough food or water or medicine for everyone... It doesn't have to be like that. We could transition gradually to something else. My comment above mentions solar power stations in orbit around the earth-setting up enough to provide power for everyone will cost billions or trillions of dollars-but is that any different to the trillions invested in fossil fuels, that will evaporate when that last barrel of oil is pumped from the ground?

I've played silent hunter 3, it's a brilliant game! I see a potential similarity to one part of SH3-that you can go to first-person on the "top deck" when not submerged (as you can see, I am an expert in U-boat design(!)). Apollo 15 pioneered a technique were the commander would peek his head out of the docking hatch after landing, to get a "look of the land" around the landing site. This chance to pick out interesting features in range (15 had the first rover, so they needed to be able to identify were to place the "forward bases") with the excellent visibility of the top of the lander made their limited time on the surface much more effective. I propose the same kind of idea. A Kerbal pokes their head out the docking port (I'm imaging the player clicking on the ladder in the two-person lander-can IVA. Gives the guy not piloting something to do). You have a first-person, panoramic view of the landing site. Potentially, it would have a "zoom-in" feature, like binoculars, and you can place "feature of note" markers on interesting features, like the rim of a crater, or an anomaly.

Igor, release the kites! <Raises the thread to the roof> Now, give it LIFE! <Lighting strikes the kites> COME ON, GIVE MY CHILD LIFE, DAMN YOU! <Thread raises from the table> It's alive... <Starts laughing.> It's alive, it's alive... IT'S ALIVE!

Your opinion assumes smartphones and Facebook were around in 1972. The problem is that it's hard to show people the benefit of space. Remember, a decent fraction of the people in the most developed, "advanced" nations on Earth are genuinely scared of the number 13. Try explaining to them the benefits of placing a manufacturing base on the Moon, then building Solar-Based Power Stations there and placing them into geosynchronous orbit when they're the sort of people who are scared of a number. Many people today, and many people in 1972, don't see beyond the horizon because they don't see how amazing space, and science in general, is.

The only other series I could think is Space Odyssey: Voyage To The Planets. It's a two part BBC docu-drama about a fictional, yet realistic, manned "grand tour" of the solar system. Among the bodies explored are Venus, Mars, the Jovian system, the Saturnine system , Pluto and a comet. Check it out!

I love the look of that design, shame my computer can't handle the part count. WARNING: SHAMELESS PLUG IMMINENT: Your idea of deploying a version of ALSEP got me thinking, and I made a suggestion here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/39793-ALSEP-Long-term-scientific-legacy-of-manned-missions Sorry! I'll delete the post if you mind the plug.

From the Earth to the Moon is an American TV series made in the 90s. Despite that, it is one of the greatest things to have happened to the culture of humanity during my brief time alive on this Earth. It was a series on the Apollo program, from the Murcury and Gemini programs that lead up to it, to the fire of Apollo 1, and NASAs recovery from the disaster, Apollo 8's 10 orbits around the Moon, 11's first landing, the war between factual news and sensationism during one of the greatest news stories of living memory, Apollo 13, turning the "throttle-jockeys" that would go on the J class missions into scientists, and finally the bittersweet end of the program on 17. I've had a look around the forums, and it seems the people on it are rather interested in spaceflight, so I imagine a great deal of you have seen at least one episode. If you've seen more than one, which one is your favourite. I know, choosing is like picking a favourite flavour of ice cream. Even blueberry is gosh darn delicious. You could say which ones tie first place, if that is the case. I have a four-way tie: "Spider", the story of the boys at Northrop-Grumman who were tasked with building the first true spaceship (these guys had to build a whole new class of flying machine. They had little knowledge at the beginning on what the moon was even like, imagine having to people for a trip to somewhere on the planet, you get ready for the arctic circle, you're landed in the amazon. Making the LM took truly inspirational genius.), "That's all there is", the crew of Apollo 12 (You've seen everything that makes sense, then you've seen an astronaut, on the moon, banging a TV camera with a hammer.), "Galileo Was Right", how a pair of geology egg-heads were tasked with turning the Apollo 15 crew, all three US air force pilots and adrenaline junkies into scientists, and their discovery of the "Genesis rock". (Seeing grown men go from being bored out of their minds in a classroom, to falling in love with how geology, and science in general, can tell a story, and how listening can only enrich the human race, was beautiful) and "Le Voyage dans la Lune", how Apollo 17 smashed record after record, ending Project Apollo with a brilliant, if premature, bang.

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question. Do move it if that's the case. Thanks. How did this game enter-and effect-your life? I ask this because it probably isn't the same reason you buy other games. Kerbal Space Program is not a global sensation-yet. Other games I play, I bought because my friends won't shut up about them, so I might as well see what the fuss is about. This time, nobody I know knew of the existence of this game. And then they knew, because I would never shut up about it. On the 1st of July, 2012, 375 days ago today, I was looking through my youtube subscriptions, and I notice this video about this game called "Kerbal Space Program"... I think to myself "FyreUK? Well, I only really watch them for the Minecraft builds... but why not? They revealed to me the existence of H.A.T. films, that was a good discovery. Besides, it has "Space Program" in the title, so it must be good." I fell in love. With a video game. About little green men. Inside spaceships that I myself can build and fly and land and crash. I needed to know more. Luckily, in the comment section, I see this post "Hey, you might want to check out this dude called trydyingtolive. He has a lot of KSP videos, and you might learn a thing or two." I look up trydyingtolive, and I learn a thing or two. The man gives me a crash-course in orbital mechanics. I didn't even know what a "Periapsis" or an "Apoapsis" is, before I watched his videos. I see that this game is science at work, it is how NASA does it. Then I spot in suggested videos a certain "Danny2462". I see that this game is also completely, magnificently insane. Danny shown me that "Kerbal" is not just a noun, it's an adjective. More players of KSP become known to me-Kurtjmac, Scot Manley, Pleborian, The Solar Gamer, HOCgaming, xPDxTV- the whole lot of them filling my brain with wonderful memories-Harv and TheMattDennis16-not the same Matt who introduced me to the game-race to get a flag on the Mun, a suave Scotsman giving a nugget of space history, Danny unveiling his orbital mass relay, Pleborian trying to skycrane down a base station on the Mun, only to accidentally release it a few kilometres too high... I download the demo. I get into orbit. I "attempt" the Mun. I fail, then I succeed. I do it again and again, getting better each time. I buy the game on steam. I send probes to the other planets. Now, very recently, I have put boot prints on the Duna soil. This game isn't even nowhere near finished, and even then, even now, it's the greatest game I have ever played. What about you guys? How has your time with this game been like? How did it start? Sorry if I'm talking about myself too much. You talk about yourselves, if you want. In the words of a great Kerbal, "Cheers".

Doesn't really qualify as "Today", but it's a big milestone, and I was busy watching the entirety of "From the Earth to the Moon", so cut me some slack. I did this for the first time:

I'VE DONE IT! Lucky number 13 km was the one for me. I'll link the mission report in the first post when I've finished the mission.

Ok, I'll try 11 km right now. <presses F5>

Hello friends. See this? This is my first mothership-lander interplanetary system. Right now, it is tearing through the cold void to Duna. It will enter orbit around Duna, the lander will detach, and make history. Then it will make the climb back into orbit, redock to the mothership, and come back home. But first: During my entire voyage, my mother ship can only use 3,616 m/s of delt-v. Already, I've used about 1,020 m/s for trans-Duna injection. The less I can use to enter a stable orbit around Duna, the better. So, aerocapture is the best way to go. However, if the entry into the atmosphere is too shallow, I'll just skip off, going back into Solar orbit. Too deep, and the whole thing will rendezvous with the ground. My question is: Assuming a near-perfect TDI (I had the assistance of protractor), what should my closest approach be to enter a nice, relatively low orbit around Duna (closer than Ike), without assistance from thr main engines? (Yes, I know that I'll need the engines to raise the periapsis after the aerocapture.)

My opinion is that using the moon would make it easier and less expensive to get to the end goal. Also, the moon is a closer target, one we could set and accomplish before getting bored.

The question wasn't whether we should have the moon or Mars, it was which one we should get first.

Mars is humanities greatest hope for becoming an interplanetary species in the short term, being "mostly harmless" and all that. But at the same time, why forget our old friend, the moon? It's also very close-by, and seems a natural "next step" from LEO. The end goal is always going to be Mars, no doubt about it. What this thread is about is what humanity should do to get to Mars, and which body has most practical benefit. Many people (including Apollo astronauts like Buzz Aldrin) says that we should forget the moon and focus our attention fully on getting to Mars. Personally, I'm not one of those people. It's often said that the moon is a "stepping stone" to the other planets. This can create a bit of confusion, since people tend to think in terms of distance, or time. They would point out a trip to the moon, then to Mars would take more time, not less, like how on a Sunday drive, visiting the shop would delay your arrival to the seaside. The moon is not like this, it aides in the area of ÃŽâ€V, thereby cost. Building a moon base, then having that base manufacture and assemble a spacecraft for a manned Mars voyage would be less expensive than building one like we've built the ISS, in chunks delivered from Earth to LEO. So, back to the question: should we focus on getting to Mars with or without the moon? Try giving a reason for your answer. Thanks!

In the sixties, NASA's budget was at its peak, 5% of the total US budget. Now, it is barely 0.5%. The idea of cutting NASA's budget to "fix the problems here on earth" might have made an impact then- it won't now. Besides, and I know this will sound a bit elitist of me, but there will always be problems here on earth. If we wait until there are no more problems, and then explore the universe, the sun will implode in our faces before we even get of the ground, so to speak. In any case, the space program has helped improved the human condition anyway, hasn't it? Both in a purely technological sense-where else would a computer need to be designed to be small and light, except in a spacecraft?-and in a more intangible, human sense-many people in science and engineering-people that humanity needs more of-can honestly say they made their career choice by seeing men leaping across the moon.

I'm being a bit ranty and off-topic here, but who else thinks that congress should be filled with younger people? A manned Mars mission is "planned" for 2030... how many people in congress right now will still be alive by 2030? If they were younger, or they set a much earlier date, then they have more reason to support such a project. Kennedy EXPECTED to be alive by 1970 when he made his moon speech. Anyway, I don't have knowledge on any replacement for the cancelled "Altair" lander. Orion would definitely have the facilities for a modern command and service module though.

I'm lucky I was wearing a hat when I saw this, or else my brains would've scattered all across the room from the mind-blow.

Wow! I really hope this game gets made. It should be really good for KSP players who want a bit more time on the administrative side of things. Fellow players on steam, go greenlight this game as well!