DeeplyDuna-"Permanent Outpost Mission Architecture" #9: not 1.0 ! finished KLV-76 reusability demo

[DBowman]

Kudos to sturmstiger for a most excellent challenge: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/31510-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge

The basic conception of the challenge is to establish a manned presence on Duna, 'scored' in Duna surface Kerbal days over 2000 & 4000 days (500 & 1000 earth days from the then current version when the challenge was started). Like all great challenges the fun is in the constraints and limitations that have to be overcome. Kerbal and Duna provide some physical limits. Sturmstiger has added some well thought out natural seeming constraints, most obviously a flexible LKO mass budget scheme based on the idea of industrial capacity. You must use a single Kerbin to LKO launcher design, it's payload mass to orbit determines how often you can launch, 2 days per ton between launches. So 30 tons to orbit means you can launch every 60 days ( or every 45 days if your launcher is more than 50% re-usable ). Various safety, mobility, and robustness constraints can be added to your taste. Mod usage is very open, no magic drives - but very permissive.

I had taken a run at the challenge focusing on maximising Primary Score. It's not really what the challenge is about but I was having trouble trading off (for example) safety and score. I got 'stuck' in 0.25 with some mods not really working (Deadly Reentry I'm looking at you - though to be fair it was probably me). I decided to get the Primary Score MinMax 'out of my system' on a stock 0.25.

Now I'd like to take a more nuanced approach, to play with some of the mods out there, make some fun engineering solutions, and preferably have it all flyable.

My goal is a real-ish-tic plan to do in depth science, learn as much as possible about Duna in the 4000 KDays. Last time I looked the game's science system didn't seem that true to life, and I'd be doing sandbox anyway, so I'll use 'scientist astronauts' on Duna as my proxy for science. Similarly I'll add some extra constraints:

The Four Man Rule:

Lighthouses always had a three man crew - one to be in trouble, one to try to help, and one to tell the tale after it all went terribly wrong. There were quite a few cases where the lighthouse was found mysteriously unmanned. One more must be safer - right? Also four fits nicely with the various Hitchhikers and crew cabins. So four is my minimum number of Kerbals in a team.

The Belt and Suspenders Rule:

extend the original 'crew survives the loss of a single engine' to also survive the loss/failure of a single parachute. As far as is reasonable I'd similarly guard against failures of single components. I'm not too sure how far I can should push that.

The Really Robust Rule:

a failure of a single spacecraft or surface module / vehicle will not prevent the accomplishment of a mission milestone. For example if the goal is to get a crew up for a particular return flight and an ascent vehicle is lost/malfunctioning there should be another available, or if the milestone is to get a Duna scan-sat network up on the first flight then the loss of any one satellite should not prevent the network getting all the requried scans.

I'll use any mods that can make the mission architecture as near future real-ish-tic as possible, some kind of retro 1970s near future. For example I'll use Deadly Reentry and TACLS.

A lot of the fun is in figuring out how to achieve the goals, so I plan to post the development process of the mission plan and the vehicles and engineering required to achieve the plan, and then finally the flights themselves.

Edited May 12, 2015 by DBowman

[DBowman]

To maximize mass to LKO over time the Kerbin Launch Vehicle has to be 're-usable' ( > 50% of KLV weight can be recovered undamaged). I'm content to do a simple passive 'chute and forget' recovery, though I've seen some nice Space-X style "land the launch vehicle at KSC".

The key question is how big a KLV to build, we can launch every 1.5 * PayloadMass Earth Days.

The K2D windows happen every 228 Earth Days. If your KLV launch period does not 'go into' 228 then some windows will get more mass than others. This is 'okay' but does make mission planning more complex, either you have some kind of modular Kerbin Duna Xfer Vehicle, or you have a 'packing problem' where something you want to send is too massy and has to be split across DKXVs. 150 tons fits perfectly into the windows and has no 'packing problem'.

Also given the off K-D window start and the 1000 Earth Day end of challenge your KLV payload size can affect your total mass to LKO in the 1000 days. For example with the 30 ton KLV I already have the first window gets 60 ton and the rest get 150 ton = 660 ton total. A 50 ton KLV would get 650 ton total. If the program went 'forever' then this cutoff effect would not happen and any KLV size would deliver the same mass to LKO. Since the challenge is "Duna Permanent ... " I'm not going to optimize for the effect of the 1000 day cutoff and off D2K transfer window start. I'll just pick a mass that makes sense from a mission planning point of view.

I guess a minor point is less launches makes the program more 'fly-able', also nukes make each KD transfer more flyable (as well as real-ish-tic).

I looked into how reasonable it is to build a 150 ton KLV, firstly here are some real world comparable launchers:

• Energia: 100 ton to LEO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia was 2400 ton on the pad, payload doing final insertion, totally reusable - landed the parts, built in the 1980s.
  
• Long March: 130 ton to LEO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_(rocket_family)#Long_March_9 currently in development.
  
• StaurnV: 120 ton to LEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V from the 1960s 3000 ton on the pad.
  
• SLS-2: 130 ton to LEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System block-2 under development.
  

So 150 ton looks 'large' but not ridiculous.

I built a proof of concept, it just gets up:

Note:

• Three Mainsail cluster on the final stage, 9 total. It looks a little clunky, maybe 2 KR-2L extra large engines would do it (better TWR, worse ISP), but would be even clunkier.
  
• Asparagus staging.
  
• Orange tanks - they have the best wet to dry weight ratio.
  
• Borderline TWR on most stages
  
• Fuel drop tanks.
  

For Mission Robustness and Crew Safety I want to ensure that even if 1 KLV fails I still get a payload with life support to the Dunauts every Hohmann transfer. That eliminates using a 150 ton KLV - 75 tons would deliver on Robustness, Safety, and Fly-ability. This proof of concept looks much more reasonable:

Note:

• Two Mainsail cluster, 6 total.
  
• Asparagus staging.
  
• Nice TWR on all stages.
  
• Some excess deltaV to support adding recovery hardware.
  
• My first transfer will be limited to 75 tons to establish the program on Duna.
  
• 45 Earth Days are 'wasted' before the first KD transfer window. This is 20% of the period between transfers, so it's significant, but I'm not optimizing for the start / end of the challenge.
  

I'm sure I can make it re-usable etc so I'm going to leave it as a proof for now and move onto mission planning the KLV payloads; Duna Kerbin Xfer Vehicle, and Duna payloads. I'm targeting: emergency Duna-Kerbin return (requires also Duna ascent), scan-sat survey to prep for Duna descent, sat comms network, Mars Direct style fuel generation on Duna surface, Duna Space Center (Remote Tech 'like'), Mobile Duna Manned Science Teams, & Duna Unmanned Science Thingies.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DBowman

[DBowman]

My Kerbin Launch Vehicle will have 75 ton payload mass, ideally none of that mass would be for a Duna Kerbin Xfer Vehicle or the Kerbin-Duna transfer fuel. A reusable DKXV takes care of part of the problem, using in-situ resources to produce fuel on Duna takes care of the rest.

Like Mars Direct ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct ) we can produce fuel on Duna from Hydrogen brought from Kerbin and CO2 from the Duna atmosphere. On Mars 8 ton of H2 can produce 112 ton of fuel and oxidizer - so not free but a big saving. If a Duna H2O source were available we could arrange free by electrolizing water to H2 and O2. I'll plan on bringing H2 to produce enough fuel & oxidizer on Duna to cover the Duna - Kerbin - Duna transfer cycle.

( I didn't realize Mars Direct called for spinning the Hab and Booster twice a minute on a 150m tether to produce Mars surface 'gravity'! scary

Duna 0.3g

http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

=> 270m @1/min, 68m @ 2/min - hmm something to think about )

It costs 4500m/s to get fuel from KSC to LKO and only 1400 + (700 using nukes) to get it there from Duna (so 'like' 1750m/s correcting for 800 ISP of nukes). Getting the H2 to Duna eats some of that. I haven't worked out the break even on the cost of getting the Duna Resource Processing & Ascent Vehicles to Duna - but I won't need that many and if the program goes 'forever' it's bound to break even before then.

The first (single) fully Duna fueled KDXV would arrive at Kerbin on Earth Day 331, the subsequent 495 Kerbin-Duna would have half the flight fueled for free, the first pair of Duna fueled DKXV would arrive at Kerbin on day 559, day 723 would be the first Kerbin Duna trip with no fuel required from Kerbin. At that point the program is fully established.

So I need a nuke powered DKXV that get itself full of fuel from Duna to Kerbin, aero-capture, then push 75 tons back to Duna, aero-capture, and do a bit of maneuvering. Any leg could be manned so I have to add the 25% deltaV Crew Safety allowance, on an unmanned trip I could either under-fuel it or store any excess/leftover fuel in an LKO fuel dump. For Crew Safety it should have at least 2 nukes, and be able to fly / abort safely with a single engine.

Here is my method to figure out the vehicle: first sketch something to push 75 ton to Duna (1200 + 300 Crew Safety + 100 maneuver = 1600 m/s), rip the payload off & note the new unrealistic deltaV, add 700 + 175 Crew Safety +100 maneuver m/s, tweak the transfer part to meet that new deltaV. That should be able to push the fuel to Kerbin, 100 m/s for maneuvering, connect to a payload, push it back to Duna, 100 m/s for maneuvering.

4 * 360s + 340 fuel will get 1599 m/s @0.22 TWR

rip off the payload => 7569 m/s => I need need 8544 m/s

by just filling all the tanks I got 8544 - ... a co-incidence!

Of course I also forgot to put placeholders for avionics etc. need to add SAS etc => add a 90. So a little over 3/4 of an Orange tank + 4 nukes. The TWR should be okay for KD transfer, even on three engines.

This is pretty finely tuned so when we start pushing kerbals back to Kerbin, or doing 'sample returns' those 'payload' 'units' may have have to carry their own fuel tanks to make up for their extra mass - or I may decide to add more fuel tanks to the KDXV.

Now I need to confirm that aerocapture at Duna and Kerbin don't need heat shields - it makes the vehicles much simpler. I've just started using Deadly Reentry, it's neat how it shows you the temperature of the parts. I've burned a few vehicles reentering Kerbin atmosphere so I guess it's installed and working okay.

Duna AC test entered SOI: 45134 km 976 m/s desire 250 km => 11940 m Pe ( thanks to http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ )

Hit atmos @1600 m/s - peak temp 485 @12000m 3rd can back is cold. The pics are from about 12000 m, close to max heating. Nukes are rated to 4000, tanks to 1400.

So all looks safe for Duna.

Return to Kerbin: entered SOI; 83540 km 864 m/s desire 80 => 32575 m

Well this is a little different! The engines maxed at 1200 deg @ 32 km, first tanks like 850, the rest 'cold'. Solar cells arrays unfolded etc okay after.

For the real flights I'll be less aggressive & take care to tuck things away behind fuel tanks.

Note to self - don't forget all three kinds of antenna; omni, long range, & interplanetary.

Next I want to sketch out the first flight, targeting:

• Crew Safety via unassisted immediate return from LDO and Duna surface.
  
• Crew Safety via life support to cover a missed Kerbin Duna Hohmann transfer.
  
• and as much non Crew Safety as will fit.
  

Edited March 27, 2015 by DBowman

[DBowman]

Since I have 75 ton Launchers I can rely on getting life support to Duna surface elements every transfer - so they need 228 ED (912 KD) on the surface, and and extra 64 ED (256 KD) for the initial transfer.

My original plan was 4 man teams in "Mobile Homes", but TACLS recycling is very heavy and works for 8. My modified plan is 8 man teams in a lumbering "Mobile Home" that can detach a 4 man pressurized rover for 'short term' sorties. The 4 man rover would just carry LS for the 10 'short term' window and then re-dock with the main "Home". The main home would have a water purifier plant etc.

Here a blocking out of the LS needs.

[DBowman]

I wanted to hit some of the scenarios from Nasa's Mars Design Reference Architecture 5 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf thanks vosechu): pressurized sortie rovers with 15 day range (reduced to 10 for challenge compliance), mobile home style operation ( vs their preferred commuter model ). I like the idea of doing the Telecommuter also, give DSC something to do - but I'll look at that after knowing hat the mass budget looks like after manned landings.

I played around with a few stacked designs, and designs with the life support stuff at the center, I decided to go with the classic snake/train. Wheel heights were a bit of a pain, Kerbin testing doesn't help when Duna has 0.3 G and the suspensions are different ( I guess ) between Landing Gear (neater to fit things together & lower power ( 0 ) requirements ) and Ruggadized Wheels. I went with 1 RTG per powered Wheel. That leaves plenty over for LS water purifier etc.

I tested the LS by fast forwarding through 2Y 187D - 'created' 300 units of waste water - I guess food has water in it? If that's all recoverable it's 500 kg of water - not sure what to do with that info. Also note when warping it eats some 'e' - so have 1000 battery to be sure.

After wheel tweaking the rovers now drive okay (if you are careful), RTG means they can drive day and night, crew can get in and out, they have onmi & planetary & interplanetary antenna.

There are a number of options in the case of rover failure. Sortie Rovers can carry 4 crew for 10 days, worst case a Sortie Rover can carry all 8 crew, if 4 are happy to sit on the roof ( I know I would be rather than be left behind), for 5 days - half a circumnavigation of Duna. They can also tow the Life Support Caboose, but would exceed the 'short term/long term' definitions in the challenge.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[DBowman]

The Deeply Duna mission plan calls for all fuel (and oxidizer) to be manufactured on the Duna surface. The Duna Kerbin Xfer Vehicle is designed to be able to leave Duna full and arrive at Kerbin with enough fuel to push 75 ton back to Duna. The first flight will have to lift Kerbin-Duna fuel from Kerbin surface and so only has 47.500 ton left for payload. The goal now it to cram as much as possible into this mass budget.

Duna surface fuel production uses real chemistry as in various Mars mission plans. There are some example reactions here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68797-In-Situ-Resource-Utilization-Useful-Reactions, and here's Dr Robert Zubrin discussing 'Mars Direct - Humans to Mars within the decade'

Fuel and Oxidizer are manufactured by harnessing reactions like:

The Sabatier Reaction: CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O + Energy

Water Electrolysis: 2 H2O + Energy --> 2 H2 + O2

Methane Pyrolysis: CH4 + Energy --> C (solid) + 2 H2

The closest I could find was the Duna Direct mod, which gets the job done in a 'black box' kind of way. It introduces two parts; a Liquid Hydrogen tank and a Sabatier Reactor. Which lets me build this:

you can see the little reactor stuck to the Hydrogen tank. When the reaction is done it will be a big balloon of fuel sitting on seven Rockomax 48-7S. I've stripped off as much extraneous mass as possible.

I did landing tests at my preferred 84 East site, one chute slows it to 21 m/s so I needed only a few seconds of engine at the last minute to land gently. The thing lifts 1728 of 2880 fuel to LDO

issues:

• I can only run the Sabatier reactor up to warp 50 or CO2 goes to 0 and maybe it'll waste H2
  
• The orange tank fuel tweaking in the VAB is very coarse. I could get min 1000 m/s but I need only 90 m/s (if zero safety margin) to de-orbit and land. I'll try TAC Fuel Balancer to see if it's launch time fuel editor can do a better job.
  
• I run with some engines off, both because it's way OP on landing and to test failure modes. It was too torquey, so I had to tighten up the cluster.
  

details and pics here:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

After some refinement it's Kerbin lift / Duna landing mass (including H2) is 5.77 ton, and a replacement 'charge' of H2 masses 0.630 ton. I plan to take two BigSabs and a minimum of one recharge to guarantee a full fuel load to Kerbin, I may take more recharges if I decide to take a BigSab back full of fuel also. So minimum mass spend is 12.17 ton.

34.83 tons left to spend. I've got to setup a satellite communication and scanning constellation, I'll design that next.

[DBowman]

Why a satellite constellation?

• I've toppled a few landers so I want good altitude & slope info at the equator before landing.
  
• For subsequent waves I need altitude & slope data for all Duna.
  
• To do good site selection I need whatever remote sensing I can get.
  
• To run autonomous landers I need an omidirectional constellation.
  
• To send the flag shot back to Kerbin I need interplanetary capability.
  

This means in ScanSat & Remote Tech terms (including contingency redundancy):

• Radar ( 2 )
  
• SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) ( 2 )
  
• Multi SCAN ( 2 )
  
• For controlling rovers & landers: omnidirectional communications constellation ( 5 from tutorials )
  
• an interplanetary connection back to Kerbin. ( 2 )
  
• there is a graviometry one I could fake; two low altitude satellites, one trailing by 250 km doing deep density mapping.
  

Perhaps there are others - suggestions anyone?

From the above that's 13 'core' satellites.

A pretty minimal SAR sat: ion 0.555 ton, 5560 m/s DeltaV.

Ion engine, big xenon, solar array, batteries, 2 omi antennae, a scanner.

If the batteries are not big enough to power scanners during dark time then they would be shut down to leave comms up, they will go over the same terrain in daylight sometime.

If I built them all like this the Satellite Constellation would mass 7.150 ton.

Lets optimize!

The communications first. Remote Tech tutorial on omi network (http://remotetechnologiesgroup.github.io/RemoteTech/tutorials/c16network/) has 4 satellites @ 770 km. Scan Sat SAR scanner has 750 km optimal altitude. If I had 3 satellites they would be at 120 degrees separation. Duna radius is 320 km, so 2*( (750 + 320) * sin 60) = 1854 km between satellites. This is well in range for omi directional antenna. So I can use 3 communications satellites with 1 backup.

Also at 750 km altitude I can piggy back SAR scanner on two of the communication satellites.

Down to 10 satellites.

Radar and Multispectral are content to work at the same altitude, so I can pair them up, 2 satellites rather than four.

Down to 8: 2 comms + 2 (comms + SAR) + 2 (Radar + Multispectral) + 2 interplanetary = 4.44 ton.

The minimal Ion has way more DeltaV than required. A single 'tug' could take them to their orbit and leave it there. They would drift over time, but Flight 2 could bring more tugs to correct them. I expect the first tug would be able to keep essential satellites on station until then.

For robustness we'd have 2 tugs. An ion less sat masses 0.185 t, best case total mass is 8*0.185 + 2* 555 = 2.59 ton saving over 60% of the naive mass.

Here are all the satellites except the interplanetary ones, massing 2.4 ton so probably all up will be 3.0 ton. If I have spare mass (ha!) I'll fake the graviometry pair.

You cannot see some of the coms sats also have medium range directional antenna for talking to the IP sats. There is an ion engine at each end, only one will operate, the other is a backup.

The flight pan for placing the satellites is:

• get the 'stack' into an inclined (more polar the better for scans, 'ok' for comms) 250km orbit
  
• drop a Radar+Multisensor
  
• -dV, wait, +dV will tune the separation - just so they don't scan the same track
  
• drop the second one
  
• Ap to 750 & circularize
  
• drop a com sat
  
• -dV, wait, +dV to tune separation to 120 degrees, take care to match period very well
  
• repeat for 2 more comm sats
  
• Ap high
  
• drop an interplanetary comm sat
  
• -dV, wait, +dV to tune IP sat separation.
  

OK time to mass budget the first flight to:

• get there
  
• scan for sites
  
• land & drive around
  
• supplies until the next transfer arrives from Kerbin
  
• 'bug out' if necessary at the first Kerbin return window and get home (Ancient Duna vampire mummies or funding cuts)
  

47.5 ton budget

- 2 * BigSab + H2 = 12.67 ton

= 34.83 ton

- sats = 3 ton

= 31.83 ton left

- 19.2 mobile home DSC edition

= 12.63 ton left

- 2*DAV (dry+H2) = 6.56 ton

= 6.07 ton left

- 3*cabincrew as return transfer hab + 1 DAV gives space for 8

= about zero

Life Support for the return trip: Large Hex food + 2 regular O2 + Hex Water + Small Water = 80d water + 355d F&O = 1.5 ton

so 1.5 ton over - grrrrrr or 2 ton if use I use the big 16 crew Cabin.

okay a 76 ton launcher fits Hohmann window better, but still 0.5 - 1.0 ton over - I guess it will have to self circularize, it has space for the fuel.

hmm real life water purify plant ? TACLS = 3 ton - too heavy?

http://www.marsjournal.org/contents/2006/0005/files/rapp_mars_2006_0005.pdf says 6 man 500 day non advanced water (water buffer + purify?) "Integrated Water Recovery System" = 4.5 => 6 for 8 crew and "Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal System" as half that = 3 ton. GRRR TACLS seems 'realistic'. Though Kerbals are smaller than us, Zubrin suggested taking smaller astronauts so the life support mass would be lower (or the crew could be more numerous).

Well very very close, just 2% over 'nominal payload', and all the capability I wanted. No doubt something will go wrong putting the 'final version' together.

Edited April 28, 2015 by DBowman

[DBowman]

"Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer the Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune. Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them?"

Okay so 1.0 is out and making lots of noise, I have to ask myself if I should push on in a defuncting 0.9 or re-purpose Deeply Duna for a 1.0 target - even though it seems there are some problems to over come.

Problems that immediately strike me:

• lots of complaints about nukes
  
  • they over heat to use-less-ness.
    
  • LF only - which is good since it's realistic, but bad because it means using different tanks and more fiddly to budget LF and OX.
    

  [*]different atmosphere and re-entry. I'm not sure how it stacks against DRE. Probably it will mean different aero capture properties either way.

  [*]The ISRU mod I was going to use - still work? no I could use the oxidizer for life support?

I cranked up KSP 1.0 to test a 75 ton Kerbin Duna Nuke transfer vehicle.

230 m/s sec into a 1050 m/s burn the engines had to be throttled down a few minutes ago to < 30% so as not to explode

check the acceleration 1/4 what it should be doing, and I only got about 60 m/s before having to throttle back - this would be like flying a 10 tons on 1 ion engine.

This uses my usual construction method of using oct struts to 'radially inline' cluster the engines.

note: oct struts get hot but don't conduct heat to the next thing very well if at all. So good if you want to insulate yourself - but bad if you want to spread the heat out. Likewise docking ports.

So I tried plugging something that could be a heat sink(xenon tank) with some radiators (canards) on the engines and then via oct strut to the fuel:

science fictiony right? especially when the canards try to do attitude control in orbit. But useless....

How about radial attachment points, they are designed to be used like this so maybe squad put heat transfer in:

nope - the engines are just about to explode / throttle back and the fuel is still very cool.

Ok - how about using the fuel as a heat dump directly like it wants by connecting the engine to the fuel tank connection node and then cluster tank and engine units:

Here you can see it just finishing 700 m/s burn. The engines are almost overheating and the fuel is at 1700 degrees - lucky it's not combustible!

I can work with 700 m/s burns - to get to Duna just do two burns on consecutive orbits; 450 & 600 say. The potential idiocy of using fuel as a heat sink up to 1700 degrees bothers me a little, but it balances out the suspicion that the engines are not meant to get so hot so quick anyway.

[DBowman]

I decided to stick with 0.90 for now. 1.x had been thrashing features a bit - like removing heat from nukes...

I put together all the parts for the first flight. As you'd expect it is some 6 tons over weight I have to stick to 76 ton since that lines up so perfectly with the transfer windows. The challenge rules allow the payload to circularize so I'll try that before cutting anything from the payload.

Odd things that came up while 'just putting some chutes things to make them recoverable':

• The first stage wants to lands right back on the pad, but sometimes on the edge or the ramp... so you have to tweak the ascent a little.
  
• MechJeb won't stage if there is any fuel in the stage, even if it's disabled. Staging manually turns of auto pilot.
  
• I needed some legs for the first stage but none are long enough - I-beam to the rescue.
  
• The second stage would land fine in the water, then slowly capsize and explode - I had to split the fuel to make a short fat tank.
  
• I couldn't 'split fuel out' to evenly fill the side tanks on the second stage - so they are built like mini asparagus stages - any one know if there is a neater way to do that?
  
• After leaving the payload in a 80x80 the third stage re-enters fine sitting on it's engine bell, DRE shows it hot but not too hot. Couple of chutes and some landing fuel and this would be 100% re-usable.
  

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I put the payload on the launcher and it hits about 970 parts many of them were not able to be selected in the editor. So it looks like I am going to have to simplify the construction of a few things; e.g. swap out mass-less cubic oct struts for landing legs, use TACLS containers as structure.

Here is the First flight payload 'just stacked on end', with the lifter under it it practically pokes out of the top of the VAB.

[Curiosity7907]

I am having something strange with duna can anyone please tell.

Normaly many versions ago from 0.17 to 0.23.5 or 0.24.2 duna's atmosphere at the top was red then yellow then white that time.But today at the latest version of the game I can't see any color stripes just like previously all I can see is fully black atmosphere with a little white line.