Death Engineering

Really enjoy your mission reports, KevinTMC. It was very busy at work today so it took most of the day to catch up on your space program, so really savoured the storytelling. Your progress in just over a week is awesome (of course much longer 'real time'). Definitely some creative solutions and looking forward to your next report.

Dragged seven crew, two Apollo-style landers and left an orbiting station behind in this 'transformer'-ish vessel. "Big Gemini" command module returned to Kerbin.. hitting massive g-forces in the re-entry. Agreed, MajorJim! While I appreciate the biomes on all bodies, the planets still need some work.

You beat me to the punch! I was planning on developing a challenge like this with the goal of setting up a "telescope" on the peak. Nice challenge.. I'll put something together.

Thanks. 11.3m from tip of heatshield to docking port.

Hello.. Not sure if this is a bug or something expected: I've launched the forward (crew) component with the inflatable heat shield separate from the propulsion section and docked them in space. The problem is that the parts on the propulsion section don't seem to be protected. Even at a shallow pass through Kerbin's atmosphere several parts are being burned off. Assembled craft in the VAB Just the propulsion unit with an inflated heat shield. Everything should be safe behind. The parts on the Cupola and the 8 canisters attached on the propulsion module are part of the mod BTSM. Thanks for any advice.. cd\

Felt a little cheaty with this plane as I was completing the third circumnavigation. Unfortunately, KSP crashed as I was coming in for a landing. May try it again.. but was in the air for a long time!

Well, I was not even aware of Tier 10. In fact, the concept makes the small wires in my brain melt. Making it to the last node in tier 9 with BTSM in .235 was my last push into the deep end and I've just "officially" abandoned it. I'm playing with a .90 BTSM now and so far the challenge to Tier 4 is still doable. I'm planning on playing until a Duna crewed return which should prove all tiers of the challenge doable.. I'll post my progess. tier 10? why why why

Cool to see a "hi-miler" gravity assist approach. When I was less than 170 ÃŽâ€v from returning to Kerbin with standard Hohmann transfers, it did occur that with Eve and Tylo nearly anywhere would be accessible.

Now that the Kerbal X can make it to the Mun and back.. I wondered, "what else can it do?" I flew it to Duna and got back into orbit but was about 170 ÃŽâ€v short to get back to Kerbin. Maybe draining the RCS and getting the kerbs to get out a push would get it back from Duna, but not really how I roll. How about Ike? Used a Duna aerocapture but had to make a mid transfer course correction because even though the burn from Kerbin orbit showed a perfect Duna encounter, about a third of the way to Duna the encounter went mysteriously (recalculated itself) way off course. Appreciated thrust limiting for fine tuning the aero brake, though! Other than visual mods, used Kerbal Alarm Clock and Trajectories (doesn't help as much around Duna but it's at least in the ballpark for aero brake maneuvers here). Kept the staging stock but deployed the 'chute with a mouse action instead of staging (to recover the upper stage) and tweaked its altitude and min pressure settings. Kerbal X to Ike and Back - Recovered from Kerbin>Ike landing>Kerbin with 46.42 fuel remaining. That's very beatable..

Derping things up can be fun, too. By the way, have you had a look at the 'Duna von Braun Style' challenge? shameless plug Who doesn't? But, yes this challenge is based on a real idea.. albeit before any real lunar exploration had been accomplished. The Air Force preferred a direct-ascent approach because they didn't think lunar or even earth rendezvous was feasible. And the Air Force will slap wings on anything (I'm looking at you F-4 Phantom).

When this thread floated back to the top after 0.90 dropped, I was surprised to learn that the Kerbal X was now truly a Munar return capable craft. My first test flight brought the crew back to Kerbin with ~24 units of fuel left, without really trying to be efficient - just being careful. Flew it again today with more attention to efficiency and had over 50 units of fuel left at entry interface. The Kerbal X was loaded directly from the Space Center (did not enter the VAB) and flown completely stock - derpy staging and all. The only slight deviation was 'chute deployment as I wanted to bring back the fuel and Poodle, not just the command pod. Perhaps didn't need a short burn at landing to slow down but did not want to break anything or tip over. Crew and command module recovered with 47.76 units of fuel remaining. There's the line in the sand.. who is going to beat that? About 3 km south of KSC with 47.76 fuel remaining.

This is KSP's most annoying bug in my opinion and has been around for several releases. Get with the program, Squad! That said.. another way to re-enable maneuver nodes is to go EVA and then re-board craft; you don't even need to let go of the ladder, just EVA and board.

XMS-2 Mini Shuttle This mission started out as a surface base contract mission to Minmus for 5 Kerbals. On the original design, the cargo bay included an ion hopper and the descent stage included a Mk1-2 command pod. Unfortunately, the ion hopper's TWR is too low for practical Mun flight so an engine for ants powers this hopper. The Mk1-2 pod had to go as well. As I flew the mission, I was reminded of the Race into Space moon mission using the fictional XMS-2 Mini Shuttle (a gestalt craft using ideas from Apollo, LUNEX and Dyna-Soar - ). In BARIS, the spaceplane mission was playable as a typical Apollo mission with a separate lander, but the real LUNEX mission was penciled as a direct-ascent mission which for KSP makes good sense but in the real world, landing a plane on the moon is definitely a thought spawned from the heady 60's space race era. The landing site was preplanned to be near another abandoned base in order to pick up the science samples accidentally left there from an earlier mission. I've already unlocked the tech tree, but I'm trading science for kerbucks now, so I'll take what I can get. Actually got lucky and found a tiny "Poles" biome while on extended EVA south of the arch, so brought home three surface samples. Although the arch wasn't flaming or anything, I thought it was a neat stunt flying the CM under the arch during Munar ascent. The return burn to Kerbin did a single pass to get the Ap down below 200km and then a quick burn at Ap to get into a shallow elliptical orbit. A few orbits later, daylight caught up with KSC and the crew burned to a landing. Re-entry was smooth but I forgot how obstructive the clouds can be when gliding and there's only one chance at a landing. The "Trajectories" mod helps somewhat, but it seems to fall short with planes. Maybe that's a known issue. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. All mission goals met and landed on the runway = 100 points (100 * 1.00)

The "Just a Space Plane" submission I've been kicking around the solar system for awhile now but just finally getting into planes. Good timing, since Squad is revamping the aero model and I get to learn things again... At 27 parts and 5.6t, it's not going to break any records, but has come in handy for delivering small satellites to orbit and rescuing hapless Kerbals from LKO, but mostly it's been very handy for doing Munar flybys to train Kerbals before they get launched into deep space missions. The craft can either carry a 1.4t payload to 100km orbit or some extra fuel and RCS for a Munar free-return trajectory flight. With no payload, it has about 450 m/s ÃŽâ€v from LKO or 850 m/s ÃŽâ€v with the fuel/RSC payload.

Oh yes the NAM is a great place to land due to its equatorial location. My landing zone will be a little tougher, but not much. Maybe someone should try the south pole monolith.. Missions that focus on realism are great. Realism and redundancy rules were originally in the challenge, actually. There were three lifters that I found, some using a pure solid first stage, as build options. And since the documentation has reasonable detail in the various failsafe systems at stages throughout the mission, building each of those into the craft would really add a lot to the challenge. That would be entirely awesome, sir! Hey, Xeldrak, thanks for the entry.. and a fine mission it was! Could there possibly be any more "Doing it so-and-so style!" challenges left? Cracked the leaderboard with a perfect mission!

Landing anywhere is fine, but there is a multiplier which affects your score. KSP Wiki on Recovery. Basically, if you land on the runway its 100% multiplier for your score after deductions. The farther off course the landing is from KSC, the lower the multiplier % (as seen from the Space Center 'Recovery' screen - see below). Complex and interesting.. I like your mission profile! But the only part that needs to be recovered on Kerbin is the CM/Lumex minishuttle. The Munar descent/landing stage is left on the Mun. Yeah, that SLS note in the write up brought a smile to my face. The only launch rule is 'must be launched'; any lifter can be used. Thanks all for the interest. This is the 'multiplier' value I'm referring to when calculating score: This is how far away a vessel can be and still earn 98% multiplier. Doing some re-entry testing now.. will have a mission report up soon! Named for the mini shuttle in BARIS.

Doing it LUNEX Style! TOP SECRET This challenge is based on a declassified USAF document which proposes a direct ascent mission profile to a lunar landing using a lifting body as the crew command module (CM). The advantages would be a higher mass return payload, on-board surface return experiments and possible reuse of the command module for future landings. Scoring All scores start with 100 points with deductions for: Craft recovery failure: Crew is recovered but command module is damaged or lost (-5) Automated avionics: Use any flight control assist other than stock (-4) Surface exploration restriction: Crew-capable surface exploration vehicle (rover/hopper) not deployed on surface (-3) Negative glide path: Backup recovery method (chutes) required for landing (-3) Re-entry corridor missed: Any use of CM/Lunex engine inside Kerbin atmosphere (-2) Geologic survey failure: Bring back surface samples from less than two biomes (-2) Scientific discovery failure: Munar landing site does not exhibit any anomalous features (-1) Score this deduction if your landing site is not within sight of an anomaly Final score = (100 - deductions) * Recovery % value (when the vessel is recovered at the end of the mission) Rules: Mission must be completed in a 'career mode' save (for the recovery value %) Must be launched from KSC Any balanced mod is acceptable CM must be pressurized and have lift Direct-ascent Munar landing: Single launch from Kerbin, Munar landing stage remains on surface, CM/Lunex lifts off from Mun and flies back to Kerbin. Leaderboard foobar - 100 Teilnehmer - 100 Martian Emigrant - 100 Xeldrak - 100 (insane scale entry) michal.don - 100 Xeldrak - 100 Death Engineering - 100 Death Engineering - 79.97 Xeldrak - 46.244 References: Lunex at Encyclopedia Astronautica (contains complete text of original 1961 proposal) Lunex Project on Wikipedia Lunex on Popular Science Original USAF proposal from May, 1961

I've had some decent success on Duna with dropping rovers and other support gear during the final landing stage. While the intent was to lower the mass of the lander and reduce chances of coming down too fast, lately I've been using a powered decent approach and deploying equipment on the ground. This is a little bit safer but also reduces the need to have a trained engineer around for every landing (those wheels break easy). Not sure what the factors are in regards to removing craft, but I've never had it negatively affect me. This example of how forgiving the system is shows some chutes coming down. They were jettisoned from the lander at 3km above the surface and took a long time to come down.. so long I had completed the powered descent landing, planted the flag and done the surface EVA science. Was a little startled to see them still descending while I was packing up to leave already. That said.. last night I did a high-speed flyby of a Duna base about 200m off the surface. While close to the base, I switched from the plane to the base to watch the flyby and housekeeping picked that plane out of the air FAST! Like, it was gone in seconds. Tried to capture the plane flying past.. got a glimpse then it was *gone*..

As far as I know, TAC-LS is considered a fair/balanced mod and is acceptable in this challenge. LS on its own isn't really "scored" except as it may pertain to "Crew Safety" and "Mission Robustness" - in which case any extra supplies will factor in to your payload to LKO. That looks like a single launch.. wonder what your lifter's nominal capacity and minimal interval between launches is? Cool looking, though! It is my understanding that if KAS is used for resource management it will not violate the "orbital construction" rule. If anything, I think it makes the challenge more complex and realistic as precision landings will be required for supply drop missions. Several months ago, I expressed my intent to run the challenge a third time, this time incorporating KAS and I didn't see any negative feedback on the thread so I'd say go for it unless anyone else feels KAS violates the 'mods' rule.

Those are some great docking pics! I meant to mention on your Orion post it was a nice touch adding a Rockomax Adapter 02 to the bottom as a heat shield/landing support piece. Those are beautiful craft.. thanks for the update! Excellent use of the cargo bays, but for some reason I'm hungry so cutting this reply short. #foodinmythread

Your Kasei-5 is great. Was going to ask if 5 or 6 engines, but I'm guessing the '5' in the name gives it away. * Mission counts for both. Intent of the point is to reward using the developed launcher, while not explicitly stating it's the only lifter that can be used to launch the Orion. ** Good deal with those mods. They're well balanced. That's a great question, CocoDaPuf and yes absolutely those are within the scope of the challenge. Futuristic Mars planes were a big creative influence early on (see Das Dunaprojekt), and even if used as a conventional capsule, the cargo bays and crew cabin add a lot of design options for spacecraft and rover designs. Good luck and welcome to the challenge.

Welcome to the challenge, Jonboy! I totally recognized the quote you used in your program's official announcement.. nice touch! Good luck with the challenge and "Let us continue the journey".

Great progress report, KevinTMC! I've had some Kerbal survival issues when I used a high-altitude pass to slow down without landing. That sub-orbital flight before hitting the atmosphere again takes a long time and with the tight budgets on LS and EC, I'd rather throw the craft down a little lower and risk it. Glad your Munar flyby went well! I like your application of the bi/tri/quad adapters to build cluster stacks. Looks like a reliable and cost effective lifter family you've developed. I see also you're getting good use out of KAC. Doing missions like this without it would be hard and decidedly not fun. Too bad about that tipped over surface return Mun lander. I've had some luck with those missions, but usually with a two-stage lander. Looking forward to your first Kerballed Mun landing mission.

Looks great panzerknoef. Leaderboard updated. Hey welcome to the challenge Chiken1880! Looking forward to your updates.

My friend came over to visit and saw my Wernher von Braun tribute (model rockets, lunar map from Apollo 15, LEM/CSM blueprints etc..). I had just finished taping the S1-B in preparation for applying the black to the fins. She said "You should check out Kerbal Space Program". Me: "Never heard of it.. what is it?" The S1-B is still waiting for its paint two years (and thousands of KSP hours) later.