The Ultimate Jool 5 Challenge - 1.0 to 1.3

[Planetace]

2 hours ago, Wadusher0 said:

That much deltaV is massively overkill for something like this!  Especially if you've got mining gear. I have a craft with mining gear and less than half of that in orbit, which can barely get to Bop to refuel, and even that potentially has enough to do this mission. Also, is that 10 km/s on the runway or in orbit?

You may have problems getting off of Tylo. The nuclear engines give far too little to be useful in that regard. Also, how are you planning to get that into orbit? I don't see any jet engines, so you're not SSTOing that from Laythe any time soon unless you add loads of rapiers.

Have you tested that in a sandbox save? If you haven't unlocked the rapier - and considering the cupola cockpit I wouldn't be surprised if this is your career save - that's where you'll want to fly that behemoth.

This beast is a mothership, it has tylo landers seperate from itself for simplicity. The 2 smaller vessels on top are laythe landers (which are accidental SSTO's BTW.) It doesn't have mining gear, but I am planning the mission...

the 10km/s of delta v are in orbit. This thing weighs 2000 tons and its TWR of 0.12 ain't gonna get it off kerbin...

But I know something that will get it to orbit, something that is an SSTO. I can pull 2000 tons to orbit easy, with a Gaia...

Also, this is sandbox, I am aiming for a level three...

Edited May 9, 2017 by Planetace

[Wadusher0]

13 minutes ago, Galacticvoyager said:

This beast is a mothership, it has tylo landers seperate from itself for simplicity. The 2 smaller vessels on top are laythe landers (which are accidental SSTO's BTW.) It doesn't have mining gear, but I am planning the mission...

the 10km/s of delta v are in orbit. This thing weighs 2000 tons and its TWR of 0.12 ain't gonna get it off kerbin...

But I know something that will...

Oh, well in that case you definitely have the fuel for a jool 5.  

Though if it doesn't have mining gear, what are the radiators for? Re-entry control?

I am very much looking forward to that mission.  

Edited May 9, 2017 by Wadusher0

[Skylon]

Could someone point me to an attempt that used Kerbalism? I imagine it would incredibly difficult, due to the need for life support, radiation problems and mission time limitations

[sdj64]

16 hours ago, Galacticvoyager said:

Is this fine?

The mothership itself looks awesome! and the clipping is not bad in the couple of places I can see.  Watch for clipping in your Tylo lander? (the one in the right side cargo bay near the dish) and you'll be all set.  10k dv is enough for a mothership that doesn't use ISRU.

 

6 hours ago, Skylon said:

Could someone point me to an attempt that used Kerbalism? I imagine it would incredibly difficult, due to the need for life support, radiation problems and mission time limitations

I'm not aware that anyone did.  If someone was successful I probably would have made a note in the description on the leaderboard.   A search for "life support" in the OP brings up only one entry: EBAO in 1.0.4.  Unfortunately the link in the OP is broken but I found the post for you.  He used USI life support, which is much less complicated, and his craft was an all-in-one SSTO.

 

[Planetace]

8 hours ago, Wadusher0 said:

Oh, well in that case you definitely have the fuel for a jool 5.  

Though if it doesn't have mining gear, what are the radiators for? Re-entry control?

I am very much looking forward to that mission.  

Thats good to know!

The mothership uses a large amount of nuclear engines, the radiators are there to discard unwanted heat produced during the long, long burns that the mothership will do for the mission. Besides, if I reenter a planets atmosphere with the fragile radiators, they will just fall apart

1 hour ago, sdj64 said:

The mothership itself looks awesome! and the clipping is not bad in the couple of places I can see.  Watch for clipping in your Tylo lander? (the one in the right side cargo bay near the dish) and you'll be all set.  10k dv is enough for a mothership that doesn't use ISRU.

I am planning on discarding the tylo landers so I can put a couple of "laythe" landers inside, which would be upgrade versions of what you see (don't worry, I'll check my clipping ). The laythe landers are incredibly powerful, with nearly 4 km/s of delta V, requiring that it's that amount as kerbal engineer says (their TWR is 1.12 in kerbin Gravity, so they don't just have the delta V due to highly efficient, but weak engines.)

Thats definitely good to know that without ISRU, 10 km/s of delta V is enough. This is because I am not a very good pilot when it comes to gravity assists, I have only did 1 other interplanetary ship with a proper mission and though put into it (and no cheating.) Rather than me strapping a whole bunch of stuff together with a satellite and then throwing it off to another planet, of which halfway through I turn on infinite fuel because I wanna see pretty places. This will be my secondary interplanetary (or third, if an eve window is earlier, this IS my kolonization save, so it's not a seperate JOOL 5 save. Don't worry, I'm not docking with space stations in Jool orbit, I don't have any. I'd like to think this is some elaborate crazy theme that the board though up at supernovae industries to explore Joel's moons quickly and efficiently.) in my entire playthrough of the game. So wish me the best of luck, and may the kraken be with you and me!

Edited May 9, 2017 by Planetace

[Skylon]

4 hours ago, sdj64 said:

I'm not aware that anyone did.  If someone was successful I probably would have made a note in the description on the leaderboard.   A search for "life support" in the OP brings up only one entry: EBAO in 1.0.4.  Unfortunately the link in the OP is broken but I found the post for you.  He used USI life support, which is much less complicated, and his craft was an all-in-one SSTO.

 

Sounds like it is a challenge to me. I guess I will have to try it first without kerbalism... is DeepFreeze (or whatever it is called) allowed? Seems like the only easy way to do it, without a high energy transfer...

Ive begun planning but I don't think I understand the scope of one of these missions yet...I still plan to do it realistically, with okay/good looking craft...

[Wadusher0]

7 hours ago, Skylon said:

Is DeepFreeze (or whatever it is called) allowed? Seems like the only easy way to do it, without a high energy transfer...

DeepFreeze should be fine. You can consider it an extension to various life support mods and since all life support is usable here, there shouldn't be any problems with it. In fact, that's why I'm using it on my own Jool 5 trip.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Wadusher0

[Calvingamr]

Ok.... @sdj64 today, on my way to Jool I had a reconfiguration of my ship planned, dropping my saddletank and docking my crew return capsules, previously docked to my sidetanks. Anyways, undocking the first of the two capsules I suddenly notice symmetry messed up and placed both of my tanks+engines on one side, basically clipping them into eachother. As the other capsule is perfectly fine I wanted to ask if it is fine to continue the mission as planned, to scrap it or to just undock the return capsule and get a new one upon reentering Kerbin SOI.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Calvingamr

[sdj64]

On 5/9/2017 at 1:35 PM, Skylon said:

Sounds like it is a challenge to me. I guess I will have to try it first without kerbalism... is DeepFreeze (or whatever it is called) allowed? Seems like the only easy way to do it, without a high energy transfer...

Ive begun planning but I don't think I understand the scope of one of these missions yet...I still plan to do it realistically, with okay/good looking craft...

Yes, Deep Freeze is fine, it doesn't add anything that would give an advantage over a stock game.

 

8 hours ago, Calvingamr said:

Ok.... @sdj64 today, on my way to Jool I had a reconfiguration of my ship planned, dropping my saddletank and docking my crew return capsules, previously docked to my sidetanks. Anyways, undocking the first of the two capsules I suddenly notice symmetry messed up and placed both of my tanks+engines on one side, basically clipping them into eachother. As the other capsule is perfectly fine I wanted to ask if it is fine to continue the mission as planned, to scrap it or to just undock the return capsule and get a new one upon reentering Kerbin SOI.

Is this a bug?  If it is, you can hyperedit another capsule to replace it.  If your mission can continue and finish successfully despite the broken capsule, that would be cool to see too.  Your choice.

[dozerman]

@Calvingamr

 

I'm not the one going through what you're going through, but I think it would be awesome to see a return swing by kerbin to save the mission. Victory against all odds!

[Calvingamr]

@dozerman @sdj64 I don't need the capsule until Kebin SOI entry and Crew return, so I could exchange it in Kerbin SOI, it does not affect the stay at Jool. So I think I'll just leave the capsule, continue with one and on Kerbin SOI reentry I'll launch up another ship to get the crew back.

I just asked because I didn't want to continue a mission with clipped parts.

Edit: I'll send you pictures later

Edited May 17, 2017 by Calvingamr

[Skylon]

My mission has entered planning stage: 

Spoiler

The craft will use nuclear engines, though I will need practise with them as I am not used to low TWR crafts and doing multiple burns to maximise Oberth effect.

It will use multiple launches, lots of them.

There will be a command section, gravity wheel section with DeepFreeze pods, a utility section (Life support, a hub for docking etc.), multiple fuel sections, landers (of course) and an engine section.

The engine section will have ISRU capability and be able to land with varying amounts of fuel tanks stuck on top depending on gravity. For heavy landing a command pod will be docked to this, after which it will land, refuel on the surface, and return. The engine section can act as a tug as well, though I may need to add an adapter for smaller docking ports.

The flight plan will use lots of refuelling:

1. The ship will be assembled in a 200km orbit
2. The crew will come up last in an SSTO which can be used on Laythe
3. Ejection to Minmus/Mun with multiple burns
4. Mun can be used to gravity assist to Minmus, or for refuelling there.
5. The ship will refuel at minmus
6. The ship will then drop its periapsis and coast to ejection burn for maximum Oberth effect
7. The ship will burn for Jool
8. The kerbals are put into hibernation with DeepFreeze
9. On entering Jool's SOI, the kerbals are woken up
10. The ship will use a Tylo assist to put its apoapsis/periapsis near Bop or Pol, or Vall if the surface is not flat enough elsewhere.
11. The ship will refuel using the engine section, possibly taking fuel sections with it.
12. The ship will go to Laythe, where the SSTO used for Kerbin ascent will go down to the surface and return. It should have plenty of liquid fuel for flying to an island nearby. If the ISP is not too bad, the nuclear engine section could land as a backup
13. The ship now travels to Tylo, and the descent stage is left on the surface, while the upper stage isn't reused. Alternatively, the engine section could land as mentioned before.
14. The ship goes to Vall where the Tylo lander upper stage is used for landing and ascent, again with the engine section as backup
15. The ship visits Bop, and the upper stage lands again.
16. The ship visits Pol, where it refuels and the upper stage or engine section lands.
17. The ship lowers its periapsis and burns for Kerbin, on a trajectory to use a Mun assist to capture some of the way into orbit
18. The kerbals are put into hibernation
19. The ship is controlled remotely to make a correction burn
20. The kerbals are woken up on Kerbin SOI entrance
21. The ship completes orbit high up ready for reuse, and the SSTO takes the crew back to the surface, with multiple aerobrakes if necessary, and using most of the remaining fuel.
22. Heroes are welcomed home and reunited with their families.
23. The end.

 

 

[dozerman]

@Skylon

 

Looks like I'm not the only one planning on using Life Support and Deep Freeze. The race is on!

Spoiler

You'll probably win. I'm taking forever to get going.

 

 

[Skylon]

2 minutes ago, dozerman said:

@Skylon

 

Looks like I'm not the only one planning on using Life Support and Deep Freeze. The race is on!

  Hide contents

You'll probably win. I'm taking forever to get going.

 

 

Don't worry. So will I, with the other things I'm doing, in KSP and in real life

[Xyphos]

I have a question about the "no clipping" rule; the image below shows a stack separator attached to the ion engine, but it's offset to conceal the engine inside it's hollow cavity, due to the fact that the ion engine doesn't have a stock shroud/fairing. would this be allowed?

 

 

 

 

also, is it okay to clip the LV-N inside the hollow structural fuselage? I'm confused on this one because the engine is a functioning part, but the fuselage isn't and is an exception to the rule; I need it clipped like this because stock LV-N doesn't allow surface attachment for the fuel tanks.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Xyphos

[Nefrums]

 

4 hours ago, Xyphos said:

I need it clipped like this because stock LV-N doesn't allow surface attachment for the fuel tanks.

You could just attach the fuel taks to the part above the LV-N and offset them down.

 

[Crazy-Engineer]

Can I use these mods? Im tryna do it SpaceX style 

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/138871-13-kre-kerbal-reusability-expansion/

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/157214-13-flight-manager-for-reusable-stages-fmrs-now-with-recoverycontroller-integration/

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/104535-112-magic-smoke-industries-infernal-robotics-202/

Edited June 3, 2017 by Crazy-Engineer

[qzgy]

That clipping rule is a bit worrysome...

Is this craft OK?

Spoiler

The wings do have fuel in them....

[sdj64]

On 5/24/2017 at 0:08 AM, Xyphos said:

I have a question about the "no clipping" rule; the image below shows a stack separator attached to the ion engine, but it's offset to conceal the engine inside it's hollow cavity, due to the fact that the ion engine doesn't have a stock shroud/fairing. would this be allowed?

also, is it okay to clip the LV-N inside the hollow structural fuselage? I'm confused on this one because the engine is a functioning part, but the fuselage isn't and is an exception to the rule; I need it clipped like this because stock LV-N doesn't allow surface attachment for the fuel tanks.

Those are both alright, the outer parts are hollow and you aren't overlapping "functional parts" over each other as the rule says.

 

On 6/3/2017 at 0:01 PM, Crazy-Engineer said:

Can I use these mods? Im tryna do it SpaceX style 

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/138871-13-kre-kerbal-reusability-expansion/

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/157214-13-flight-manager-for-reusable-stages-fmrs-now-with-recoverycontroller-integration/

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/104535-112-magic-smoke-industries-infernal-robotics-202/

Yes, all good to go.

 

18 hours ago, qzgy said:

That clipping rule is a bit worrysome...

Is this craft OK?

  Hide contents

The wings do have fuel in them....

Those 3 fuel tanks horizontally in the cargo bay are clipped, maybe offset the center one up to make room? Also maybe the engines near the body could be but I can't tell from that angle. Otherwise it's good.

[JacobJHC]

@sdj64  I know there is a Level 1 Low Mass subchallenge but might I suggest a level 1 low cost challenge? The idea being to make it as cheap as possible. I am going to do another Jool 5 sometime later. I am going to aim for the price instead of mass this time. Just a suggestion.

[qzgy]

34 minutes ago, sdj64 said:

Those 3 fuel tanks horizontally in the cargo bay are clipped, maybe offset the center one up to make room? Also maybe the engines near the body could be but I can't tell from that angle. Otherwise it's good.

Ok, so like this?

And those back engines look like this. Don't think it would be a problem, right?

[sdj64]

On 6/4/2017 at 9:55 PM, qzgy said:

Ok, so like this?

And those back engines look like this. Don't think it would be a problem, right?

Now the vector engines in the cargo bay are clipping the fuel tanks. Also yes the rapiers are clipped too, keep the whole circles from intersecting each other.

Edited June 8, 2017 by sdj64

[something]

So the rules state that clipping functional parts into each other is a no go but clipping structural parts is go. Now, while these are theoretically engine parts that do clip, it is pretty obvious it's just the structural polygons of the engines that do clip, while the functional polygons do not clip. Furthermore, clipping isn't used in this case to save space in order to put this vessel into a cargo bay (show the cargo bay to me, that contains this vessel) or to gain an otherwise undesired advantage - it's just for the better looks of the aft section.

Oh and just for the records: The boosters used for the launch of this vessel didn't need to be detached. So this theoretically might be launched as an SSTO ....

Edited June 8, 2017 by something

[foobar]

All my mods are broken, so I decided to do my first stock Jool 5...

Single launch, 1 kerbal, $264K, 452 tons at launch. Mods used: KER, BetterBurnTime.

[zeta function]

Here is my level 2 entry. This is my first form challenge and imgur album, so sorry if it takes a while to go through the 300 pictures.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Yqjj3uhKILNGJuNGpneGRqdnM/view?usp=sharing craft file $697,269 and 2,132.596 tons

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Yqjj3uhKILOEVaVFVocE9LQ3c/view?usp=sharing refuel-er craft file $173,953 and 492.533

Basically I parked a mother ship in tylo orbit. I had a laythe lander and 4 universal landers for Vall, tylo, bop, and pol.

I needed the refueling mission for my laythe lander.

 I used KER, transfer window planer, better time warp. I had mechjeb but it wasn't used. (stock entry)

Laythe and tylo used the most quicksaves.