Constellation Mission Packs Discussion Thread!

[Servo]

14 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

So what if it's a blatant rip-off of every other lander I've seen here? All the landers are essentially rip-offs of each other already!

Do't bother chastising me about those radiator ramps, they're just an experiment and probably won't be on the final version unless they work well.

We're all just ripping off Nasa anyway...

Looks great! Hope the part count doesn't get too prohibitive too quickly.

[pTrevTrevs]

1 hour ago, Servo said:

We're all just ripping off Nasa anyway...

Looks great! Hope the part count doesn't get too prohibitive too quickly.

I estimate that I could probably work with up to 500 parts on each lander. The part count on the Cargo Lander should climb too much more, since I only have to add the Ascent Vehicle (It is supposed to go on the Cargo Lander, right?) and the outer covering for some parts. I don't think the Crew Lander will have quite as many parts though, because all the detachable stuff (except for a secon SPR I'm considering adding to the Crew Lander) is on the Cargo ship. The two landers will be based on the same frame though, which is already over a hundred parts on its own...

Brief Update: I replaced the radiator ramps with tried and trusted airbrakes (looks like my attempt at originality crashed and burned). I also tested the deployment of the SPR and robotic rover (called DIPS, right?) on Kerbin because I forgot to install Hyperedit. SPR deploys fine, DIPS... doesn't. If I can't get it to work I may to what I did with th SPR and mount it on a plate that just falls down from the lander.

Edited June 5, 2016 by pTrevTrevs

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

I estimate that I could probably work with up to 500 parts on each lander. The part count on the Cargo Lander should climb too much more, since I only have to add the Ascent Vehicle (It is supposed to go on the Cargo Lander, right?) and the outer covering for some parts. I don't think the Crew Lander will have quite as many parts though, because all the detachable stuff (except for a secon SPR I'm considering adding to the Crew Lander) is on the Cargo ship. The two landers will be based on the same frame though, which is already over a hundred parts on its own...

Brief Update: I replaced the radiator ramps with tried and trusted airbrakes (looks like my attempt at originality crashed and burned). I also tested the deployment of the SPR and robotic rover (called DIPS, right?) on Kerbin because I forgot to install Hyperedit. SPR deploys fine, DIPS... doesn't. If I can't get it to work I may to what I did with th SPR and mount it on a plate that just falls down from the lander.

Yup, ascent in the cargo lander and the hab lander has a covered central section.  DIPS is the power cart that can supplement the SPR for unlimited range and can also tow the FSPS away from the lander.

 I am using a slightly different looking FSPS that can actually mine and refuel the ascent craft so you have to work to return home when on the surface.

[pTrevTrevs]

17 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

 I am using a slightly different looking FSPS that can actually mine and refuel the ascent craft so you have to work to return home when on the surface.

Is it worth it to not keep the ascent stage's fuel tanks full though? I don't think I'm going o need very much fuel to land the ship, especially if I make use of parachutes and a suicide burn. I would like to use an ISRU but I doubt it would pay off.

How much DeltaV does it take to get into orbit around Duna and rendezvous with the DTV anyway? If the number is low enough it would be feasible and simpler to just take the fuel with me instead of mining for it.

[Servo]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

Is it worth it to not keep the ascent stage's fuel tanks full though? I don't think I'm going o need very much fuel to land the ship, especially if I make use of parachutes and a suicide burn. I would like to use an ISRU but I doubt it would pay off.

How much DeltaV does it take to get into orbit around Duna and rendezvous with the DTV anyway? If the number is low enough it would be feasible and simpler to just take the fuel with me instead of mining for it.

The Constellation style MAV would have been launched fully fueled. The fuel is much lighter than the ISRU equipment would be, so it's not really worth it.

I think the number for duna to orbit/rendezvous is roughly 1700.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

Is it worth it to not keep the ascent stage's fuel tanks full though? I don't think I'm going o need very much fuel to land the ship, especially if I make use of parachutes and a suicide burn. I would like to use an ISRU but I doubt it would pay off.

How much DeltaV does it take to get into orbit around Duna and rendezvous with the DTV anyway? If the number is low enough it would be feasible and simpler to just take the fuel with me instead of mining for it.

Yeah you can do it any way you like man. 90% of the tanks on mine will be full already. After propulsive landing after the chutes are cut you will have used most of the fuel and the ascent vehicle needs every tank filled to be sure to make orbit on mine. ISRU just gives you something to do on the surface and is more like the real proposed ascent lander. I am not sure of the exact dv required as it will vary depending on your DTV orbit. You will just need to do some testing.

 I have balanced the ISRU/FSPS to give you choices about how to manage the power usage of the rovers/lander/ISRU and ore processors. It requires thought and planning to manage.

Just now, Servo said:

The Constellation style MAV would have been launched fully fueled.

This is not true. The MAV was to use ISRU on the surface before the crew arrive in the hab lander.

[pTrevTrevs]

2 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Yeah you can do it any way you like man. 90% of the tanks on mine will be full already. After propulsive landing after the chutes are cut you will have used most of the fuel and the ascent vehicle needs every tank filled to be sure to make orbit on mine. ISRU just gives you something to do on the surface and is more like the real proposed ascent lander. I am not sure of the exact dv required as it will vary depending on your DTV orbit. You will just need to do some testing.

 I have balanced the ISRU/FSPS to give you choices about how to manage the power usage of the rovers/lander/ISRU and ore processors. It requires thought and planning to manage.

How do you plan to move the fuel created in th ISRU to the ascent tanks if the two are separate? Are you going to shuttle it over with the SPR or DIPS?

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

How do you plan to move the fuel created in th ISRU to the ascent tanks if the two are separate? Are you going to shuttle it over with the SPR or DIPS?

This I will not reveal. There are many ways to do it and figuring it out is half the fun!

Here is one example showing that the MAV will have used ISRU as its tanks would be empty, look at step 5:

 

The FSPS on the cargo lander IS the ISRU.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Majorjim

[Servo]

Well... I screwed up. Clipped ports are difficult to make work.

Also... Crew transfer is a PITA in the current version. I can't seem to get it to work consistently.

[pTrevTrevs]

After a few hours of work and many, many loops of remove kebab, the Cargo Lander's preliminary build is complete. I need to test the rover deployments, lander system, and ascent vehicle at least once, then I need to encase it in its aeroshell and put it on an Ares V for the trip to Duna.

I came very close to my self-imposed limit of 500 parts and encroached upon my mas limit of 70 metric tons, but the lander is within all its preset parameters, including the ability to fit neatly within a 3.75 meter fairing.

Now to strip everything off except the frame and convert it to the Crew Lander!

[Majorjim!]

3 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

the Cargo Lander's preliminary build is complete.

Looking good dude!

 Give ISRU a think though. Without it the FSPS has no function and looking at your lander I think there would be space for all the bits.

 

 

[pTrevTrevs]

8 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Looking good dude!

 Give ISRU a think though. Without it the FSPS has no function and looking at your lander I think there would be space for all the bits.

 

 

I dont think my first release will have an ISRU, although I might overhaul the pack later to allow it to carry the necessary equipment. I would have to redesign the ascent vehicle to not have so many separate fuel tanks to aid in the refueling.

Right now I just want to finish this pack and finally cross "send Kerbals to another planet" off my KSP To-do list. I can worry more about things that are decidedly unnecessary later on.

[Majorjim!]

50 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

I dont think my first release will have an ISRU, although I might overhaul the pack later to allow it to carry the necessary equipment. I would have to redesign the ascent vehicle to not have so many separate fuel tanks to aid in the refueling.

Right now I just want to finish this pack and finally cross "send Kerbals to another planet" off my KSP To-do list. I can worry more about things that are decidedly unnecessary later on.

I understand that mate but going on what you said, making a constellation pack is about far more than just sending Kerbals to another planet. It's about recreating the proposed mission and a big part of that mission is ISRU. It is very far from unnecessary. The lander performs a propulsive landing. The chutes are there simply to help it separate from the aeroshell.

that uses a lot of fuel that the ISRU FSPS would then replenish for the ascent vehicle. Without it the FSPS is unnecessary. 

Im being pedantic I know but this is the constellation recreation thread!  

[Servo]

4 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

I*snip*

I didn't realize the landers would use ISRU. I'll edit mine accordingly, though it'll be tough.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Servo said:

I didn't realize the landers would use ISRU. I'll edit mine accordingly, though it'll be tough.

I have read through a 15 page NASA study on the DRA 5.0/constellation mission. It detailed all the proposed power systems for each vehicle and how it would work together. In it it detailed the FSPS and how it would refuel the ascent vehicle as it was not possible to have enough fuel on-board for the powered descent and the subsequent ascent.

[pTrevTrevs]

As for the space on board my lander, I guess I could possibly modify my FSPS and DIPS to carry an ISRU, a drill, ore tanks, and fuel tanks as well as a docking port or claw to connect to the lander, but it would be a squeeze. All the space above the bays for the SPR and DIPS contains the lander's monopropellant tanks, batteries, probe core, SAS, etc. Also I used about a million toroidal fuel tanks for the ascent stage, so I would have to replace all those with a smaller number of larger fuel tanks to make refueling less tedious, but then it would ruin the cool gold foil appearance of the ascent stage.

Long story short, I'm just going to build everything they way I've been going and then retrofit it to support an ISRU.

EDIT: Testing on Duna has revealed what I'm going to assume is the "soil erosion" bug, although in a much more potent and annoying state.

I couldn't get the DIPS and FSPS out of their bay in the back on the lander without them rolling off their track or bottoming out once they reached the airbrake ramp, so I replaced it with a simple drop pad like the SPR has. Unfortunately, when I drop the DIPS, the lander starts spinning around for some reason. In this case it was fast enough to tip the rover over, *overstress* (Come on, just tell us its the Kraken resurrected or something, we don't need this sugarcoated.) one of the landing legs, break apart the radiator panels, and destroy something else which I have been unable to identify.

Another image shows that the lander also spins when the SPR is deployed. (I believe this the same test as the previous image, which would mean that the SPR causes the lander to spin in the opposite direction as the DIPS). This screenshot was taken roughly 3 or 4 seconds after the SPR was deployed, and the rover has not moved from its drop point (as you can see, the plate is still underneath it).

I'm going to fool around a little more and see if I can avoid the spinning by releasing both rovers at the same time, if I can't maybe I'll go finish the DTV and wait for 1.1.3 before finishing the landers.

Edited June 6, 2016 by pTrevTrevs

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, pTrevTrevs said:

As for the space on board my lander, I guess I could possibly modify my FSPS and DIPS to carry an ISRU, a drill, ore tanks, and fuel tanks as well as a docking port or claw to connect to the lander, but it would be a squeeze. All the space above the bays for the SPR and DIPS contains the lander's monopropellant tanks, batteries, probe core, SAS, etc. Also I used about a million toroidal fuel tanks for the ascent stage, so I would have to replace all those with a smaller number of larger fuel tanks to make refueling less tedious, but then it would ruin the cool gold foil appearance of the ascent stage.

Long story short, I'm just going to build everything they way I've been going and then retrofit it to support an ISRU.

EDIT: Testing on Duna has revealed what I'm going to assume is the "soil erosion" bug, although in a much more potent and annoying state.

I couldn't get the DIPS and FSPS out of their bay in the back on the lander without them rolling off their track or bottoming out once they reached the airbrake ramp, so I replaced it with a simple drop pad like the SPR has. Unfortunately, when I drop the DIPS, the lander starts spinning around for some reason. In this case it was fast enough to tip the rover over, *overstress* (Come on, just tell us its the Kraken resurrected or something, we don't need this sugarcoated.) one of the landing legs, break apart the radiator panels, and destroy something else which I have been unable to identify.

 

Another image shows that the lander also spins when the SPR is deployed. (I believe this the same test as the previous image, which would mean that the SPR causes the lander to spin in the opposite direction as the DIPS). This screenshot was taken roughly 3 or 4 seconds after the SPR was deployed, and the rover has not moved from its drop point (as you can see, the plate is still underneath it).

I'm going to fool around a little more and see if I can avoid the spinning by releasing both rovers at the same time, if I can't maybe I'll go finish the DTV and wait for 1.1.3 before finishing the landers.

I feel your pain man. And yeah adding ISRU has meant my landers are wider than 3.75m. Ho hum.

 Keep testing man, these issues are annoying but fixable.

 

[pTrevTrevs]

2 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

I feel your pain man. And yeah adding ISRU has meant my landers are wider than 3.75m. Ho hum.

 Keep testing man, these issues are annoying but fixable.

 

what about the newer ISRU that's only about 1.25 meters (or was it 0.625?). I know you would have to wait longer to refine the ore, but when you're going to be stuck on the surface of Duna for hundreds of days, I think you will be able to afford the wait.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

18 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

After a few hours of work and many, many loops of remove kebab, the Cargo Lander's preliminary build is complete. I need to test the rover deployments, lander system, and ascent vehicle at least once, then I need to encase it in its aeroshell and put it on an Ares V for the trip to Duna.

[...]

I came very close to my self-imposed limit of 500 parts and encroached upon my mas limit of 70 metric tons, but the lander is within all its preset parameters, including the ability to fit neatly within a 3.75 meter fairing.

Now to strip everything off except the frame and convert it to the Crew Lander!

Looks great!  I can't wait to see what you do for an aeroshell.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

what about the newer ISRU that's only about 1.25 meters (or was it 0.625?). I know you would have to wait longer to refine the ore, but when you're going to be stuck on the surface of Duna for hundreds of days, I think you will be able to afford the wait.

That is what I have used in my lander. It is not as slow as you might think given a suitable ore content in the landing zone.

[pTrevTrevs]

1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

That is what I have used in my lander. It is not as slow as you might think given a suitable ore content in the landing zone.

So why is it larger than 3.75 meters? Are you reverting to the Puritan belief that part clipping in excess (or part clipping at all, really) is an evil sin or is there just so much equipment that it exceeds 3.75m no matter what you do to it?

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

So why is it larger than 3.75 meters? Are you reverting to the Puritan belief that part clipping in excess (or part clipping at all, really) is an evil sin or is there just so much equipment that it exceeds 3.75m no matter what you do to it?

The issue is one of scale. It is impossible to make everything to perfect scale with the proposed craft. KSP parts are not like that.

I started by making the frame of the two landers. it was based on an interim design I had made but designed to look a lot more like the actual landers. I didn't actually test to see if it was 3.75m until I made the aeroshell and saw that it was bigger. Being fairly large meant I had enough space for everything in its proper place though, except the SPR which is facing forwards not sideways.

[pTrevTrevs]

Just now, Majorjim said:

The issue is one of scale. It is impossible to make everything to perfect scale with the proposed craft. KSP parts are not like that.

I started by making the frame of the two landers. it was based on an interim design I had made but designed to look a lot more like the actual landers. I didn't actually test to see if it was 3.75m until I made the aeroshell and saw that it was bigger. Being fairly large meant I had enough space for everything in its proper place though, except the SPR which is facing forwards not sideways.

Ah, I see. When i built the frame for my lander I put a 3.75 meter fairing base right behind it and a 2.5 meter fuel tank inside it, so it would be big enough to accommodate 2.5 meter parts (mainly for the crew lander), but also small enough to fit in the 3.75 meter fairing.

Speaking of the crew lander, I have a prototype to share. I experienced soil erosion with this one too, but it didn't get bad until I sent the test pilot on EVA to make sure the exit hatch and ladder worked fine. Since i don't have to detach anything from this one I'm not quite as worried about the bug affecting this lander, but I still want it to stop. Come on, I put legs on it with the expectation that they would help it stay still!

[Raptor9]

23 hours ago, Majorjim said:

The FSPS on the cargo lander IS the ISRU.

4 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I have read through a 15 page NASA study on the DRA 5.0/constellation mission. It detailed all the proposed power systems for each vehicle and how it would work together. In it it detailed the FSPS and how it would refuel the ascent vehicle as it was not possible to have enough fuel on-board for the powered descent and the subsequent ascent.

I've read a lot of the same source material, I'm fairly certain the FSPS powered the ISRU to fuel the MAV.  The FSPS was a separate system than the ISRU on the cargo lander. The FSPS (Fission Surface Power System) was basically a wheeled platform carrying a small nuclear reactor with radiators and a power cable that would unwind as it was driven a good distance away from the lander.  If you're looking at this video at 3:00, you will see the DIPS Power Cart (Dynamic Isotope Power System, a robotic rover powered by an RTG-type power system), that pulls the FSPS to a safe distance from the cargo lander while trailing the power cable behind.

@Majorjim If this is what you meant and I'm splitting hairs, I apologize.  Just figured I'd offer my two cents.

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Raptor9

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

I've read a lot of the same source material, I'm fairly certain the FSPS powered the ISRU to fuel the MAV.  The FSPS was a separate system than the ISRU on the cargo lander. The FSPS (Fission Surface Power System) was basically a wheeled platform carrying a small nuclear reactor with radiators and a power cable that would unwind as it was driven a good distance away from the lander.  If you're looking at this video at 3:00, you will see the DIPS Power Cart (Dynamic Isotope Power System, a robotic rover powered by an RTG-type power system), that pulls the FSPS to a safe distance from the cargo lander while trailing the power cable behind.

@Majorjim If this is what you meant and I'm splitting hairs, I apologize.  Just figured I'd offer my two cents.

 

Yes that is what I meant. The FSPS is required for the ISRU. I was trying to enforce the practical need for the FSPS.

 No need to apologise mate.