Scarecrow88

When designing my ships, I tend to work backwards. For originally going to Duna, I planned to have a command module that was capable of returning to Kerbin, so that was the first thing I built. Recognising the efficiency of having a separate lander, this was the next thing to be designed, with the goals of being able to de-orbit, land and return to orbit at Duna. With these two key elements ready, the next part was to design and build an inter-planetary stage. Once I was happy with that, the final part was to build a lifter that was capable of getting everything I had built so far in to orbit around Kerbin; usually my lifters comprise 2 stages. Something like engineer redux will help you with the various stages of your build, ensuring that each has enough dV to perform it's role. Just so that you know, with judicious use of aerobraking on arrival at Duna to save fuel, going there is not so different to going to Mun, and I have in fact used a Mun craft to go to Duna, after adding parachutes to the lander to save fuel during landing. Here's a thread showing my Mun craft going to Duna

I'd be interested to receive any feedback from someone who has downloaded this craft and flown it.

The only thing I haven't done yet, which I feel I should before being able to consider myself as a competent Kerbalnaut, is put a manned lander on Eve, and then get it back to Kerbin.

I have just built a user friendly ship, capable of getting to the Mun and back. Flight instructions and craft download file can be found in this thread

I set out to put together a craft that looks like something that should go to the Mun, but with simple flight characteristics that meant it wouldn't be too difficult to fly. This is what I came up with. To start with, it follows an Apollo style flight plan i.e. 2 stages to establish apoapsis, and a 3rd stage to complete a parking orbit and thereafter to perform the Munar insertion burn. After that, this craft follows a much simpler flight plan, as the Munar vehicle is a single stage designed to go to the Mun surface and then return to Kerbin. The fuel loads and throttle limits have been tweaked to avoid having to juggle the throttle during flight. By adopting this approach, it means that this craft can be flown by someone who has not yet mastered docking, or who prefers not to leave debris lying around on the Mun. Flight Plan: On the pad, press T for SAS and throttle up to 100% Stage to launch When passing through 8000m/200 m/s, start a gentle gravity turn, reaching 45 degrees when somewhere between 10k and 11k When the first stage runs out of fuel, stage to jettison it and again to fire the 2nd stage motors Press 9 to jettison the escape tower Upon reaching 40,000m altitude, flatten the trajectory to 20 degrees above horizontal, and wait for the 2nd stage to run out of fuel Your apoapsis should be above 80k While coasting up to apoapsis, stage to jettison the 2nd stage, and again to activate the 3rd stage motor When approx. 20 seconds away from apoapsis, throttle up to perform the circularisation burn Once in LKO, set up your manoeuvre node for a Mun insertion burn, and execute when appropriate The 3rd stage will probably have a small amount of fuel left after the insertion burn, but it is no longer required and you can stage to jettison it Stage again to activate the Munar Module engine What you are left with now is capable of attaining orbit around the Mun, performing a landing, returning to Munar orbit and then returning to Kerbin. Once back at Kerbin and on a sub-orbital trajectory, you can stage to jettison the last fuel tank and engine, and a final time when you are ready to deploy parachutes. Action group keys: 4 : Toggle lander ladder 9 : Jettison escape tower 0 : Jettison escape tower and deploy chutes after an aborted launch Ready to go 1st stage separation 2nd stage separation 3rd stage separation Munar module on the Mun Re-entry Almost home Craft file

I was going to include a hard mode that required landing on the control tower roof on the island, but I have a sneaky feeling that there isn't enough room for that behemoth on there.

Sorry, no Mechjeb.

I usually send up a framework with senior docking ports for adding modules. I try to plan to have enough for any/all of the following: refuelling tanks, habitation, communications, science lab etc. Docking ports for visiting ships to attach to are included in the appropriate modules.

The VAB will allow you to attach a docking port to your ship whichever way round you present it. If you presented it in a reversed position then it will attach as such, and thereafter be useless for docking.

I'd like to see designs that are fast in horizontal flight, but have the ability to land and take off under engine power, hence the no parachutes but there's no cap on number of engines. As you can see from my proof of concept images, I went for the small and light option, but that's not to suggest that that is the best way to go. And indeed, the greatest time consumer for me was the landings.

Parachutes not permitted. I'd like to allow them for slowing down but there is now way to check that they weren't also used for landing, so I will have to disallow them completely. As with most challenges of this nature, trust plays a large part that submitted entries have abided by the rules, as the challenge is only there to provide some fun and entertainment. Have added it to rules in OP for clarification.

I have seen a few challenges involving flying to the island and back, but I don't recall seeing this one. The challenge is to design and build a craft capable of Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL). Once you have your craft, you must then fly it to the island, and land on the roof of one of the hangars. Having done so, you are then required to return to KSC and land on the helipad on the roof of the VAB. Rules : Stock only for the craft and flying. This means no special parts available only in mods and all flying must be done manually i.e. no Mechjeb. There will be two leader boards; one for the souposphere of the stock game, and one for those who prefer the atmospherics of NEAR/FAR. Please declare which of these your entry uses. You may use rockets or jet engines as you see fit. You may not use parachutes. Screenshots are required of your craft on the runway at KSC, on the hanger roof at the island showing zero speed, and one on the helipad of the VAB, again showing zero speed. I look forward to seeing your designs. LEADERBOARDS Stock 1. Aphobius 2:37 2. Batz_10K 7:54 3. Scarecrow88 8:03 4. Torquimedes 19:18 5. NEAR/FAR 1. WhiteKnuckle 5:20 2. percyPrune 6:19 3. 4. 5.

The number of chutes required is surely dependent on the mass of the lander. My last few missions to Duna used a lander that only required one drogue chute and one main chute to land safely, with a small amount of engine braking in the last 100m or so.

My last mission to Duna used the same craft I used to go to Mun. The only change I made was to add some parachutes to the lander. The flight profile was slightly different; I used aerobraking at Duna to establish my original orbit, parachutes on the lander took care of most of the braking prior to landing so very little fuel was used during the descent and the 2-stage lander took off as a single unit and the 'descent' stage was only jettisoned when it ran out of fuel. By using aerobraking and parachuting to save fuel, the dV required to go to Duna isn't so different to going to Mun, so you shouldn't have too many problems. A thread showing the craft I used can be seen here, if you are interested. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107486-Going-to-Duna-Apollo-style?p=1673449#post1673449

Sorry I didn't credit you by name in the original post, but I couldn't remember whose design it was.

I went to Duna in an Apollo style mission, using a craft that was originally designed to go to Mun. Thread and pictures here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107486-Going-to-Duna-Apollo-style

Sometime back I downloaded an Apollo 15 craft that someone from these good forums had uploaded, and had a lot of fun with it going to the Mun. Along the way, I made a few alterations, tweaks and changes, to end up with my own version to do Apollo style missions to the Mun which I felt was a little more forgiving and a little easier to fly. During one of the many Mun missions I did with this modified craft, I wondered if it would also be capable of going to Duna, Apollo style, and this is a record of that flight. The biggest change my craft has from the one that I downloaded is a completely new excursion module and lander. The only change I made to my modified version to make it ready to go to Duna was to add a drag and main chute to the lander. Duna Apollo on the launch pad. Launch 1st stage separation. 2nd stage burn. LKO established Duna insertion burn Payload fairing discarded and DEM extraction. Up to this point, the flight profile has been the same as it would have been for a flight to the Mun. Arriving at Duna made heavy use of aerobraking to establish the original orbit to save on fuel in the CSM. Only a relatively small burn was required to circularise the orbit. In orbit around Duna. Excursion module crewed and detached to begin landing sequence. The use of a drogue and main chute meant that very little lander fuel was required to actually make the landing. On the surface. Due to the increased dV requirements to return to orbit from Duna, compared to the Mun, the entire lander is used in the initial part of the launch, the descent module only being discarded when it runs out of fuel. Launch. Crew module approaching for docking with CSM. Crew excursion module being discarded, after any remaining fuel is transferred to the CSM. Return to Kerbin is fairly standard. Fuel is not exactly tight, but you can't afford to be extravagant with it either. Service module is jettisoned in sight of home. A few seconds from splashdown and another successful mission. As already stated, the only difference between this craft and my now standard Munar Apollo craft is the addition of 2 parachutes on the lander. The flight profile needs to be slightly different due to the differences between Duna and the Mun, but these are limited to using aerobraking on arrival at Duna to save fuel, parachutes during descent, again for fuel saving purposes, and using the descent module for the initial phase of the return to orbit, rather than leaving it on the surface. Overall the trickiest part of the mission was setting up the Duna encounter so that I wouldn't waste fuel in the CSM unnecessarily trying to establish an orbit on arrival.

If the last part of your post was aimed at me, I wasn't poking fun at anyone, just stating a fact. If I had wanted to be negative, I would have suggested the OP did a search before posting such old news.

I do believe this was posted in the threads some considerable time ago.

I'm sure you will return to the Mun many times in the future, with even bigger and better landers, but that first one is always special and one that you will always remember.

If your ships are still whizzing by each other when they get close, then you haven't matched orbits sufficiently well, as it is the difference in orbits that leads to high closing/parting speeds. When you are close, you need to make sure that your nav ball is in target mode and that you burn retrograde. This has two effects. the first is to kill the relevant velocity between the two ships. The secondary effect is that by doing this, you are also matching the orbits more closely.

There was another thread recently asking if the Kerbal X was now capable of getting to the Mun as the originator of that thread was struggling to even get it to LKO. As I've not flown the Kerbal X (or any stock craft) for some time, given how bad most of them are, I thought I would give it another go, just a couple of days ago. The best I could manage was a landing on Mun, followed by take off, but not enough fuel to re-establish Munar orbit. I know I am not the best pilot in KSP, but neither am I the worst. I'm still playing 0.25, so I don't know if that makes any difference, but I would say that the Kerbal X is still not Mun friendly for a new player.

To avoid wobble, wheels need to be absolutely vertical, and they shouldn't be attached to something that is likely to flex as speed builds up, as this could also affect the vertical alignment. Not sure why you would want that stability for speeds in excess of 200 m/s though, as most planes will take off and land at far slower speeds.

Starting from orbit rather than burning straight out also allows you to build more interesting ships to explore those further planets, the sort of ships that wouldn't get off the launch pad as a single design.

I didn't vote as I feel that KSP is a game and not a space simulator, so there are bound to be parts of it that aren't particularly realistic.