Mun and Back - No chutes

[anaximander]

So I\'m currently trying to launch a probe to Mun, land on it, leave the base of the lander behind as a scientific instrument station and return the top half to Kerbin - without the use of parachutes. The lander section weighs around 2.8 tons, and the section to return is 1.9 tons. The base was built using the Probodobodyne kit, and the return module is the Probodobodyne small core and a couple of fuel tanks, with the MechJeb pod version\'s engines and fuel tank around them (great little engines, those). I\'m relatively confident that they should be able to make the trip, although my launch vehicle needs some work; I keep losing all stability towards the end of the gravity turn, tumbling helplessly past the apoapsis, and plummeting back down. Pictures of the vehicle will follow as soon as my internet connection remains stable enough for me to upload them.

Has anyone else tried a no-chutes trip?

[Sean Mirrsen]

A no-chutes landing in atmosphere usually involves wings. It can be done with a good spaceplane design. Without chutes or wings, my Spaceboom rocket series had a pretty good lander thing that could make a powered return and landing, but to my memory, none of the landings were actually successful without deploying the chute. It\'s definitely possible though.

[6677]

I\'ve done plenty of powered landings from kerbin orbit. Not back from the mun though.

Heres an interesting (but possible) flight that can be done. Stock parts.

Default command pod stacked straight onto 4 liquid fuel tanks and the non gimballing engine. No decouplers or parachutes or anything. With some economical fuel usage it is possible to single stage into orbit, have enough fuel to deorbit and still have the fuel to make a decellerating burn just above the surface of kerbin for a landing (I broke the engine and lower fuel tank though). SOmeone on youtube with same craft did it without breaking anything. I think that kinda proves powered landings are possible. From the mun might be hard but not impossible.

[G Addict]

My first Mun lander in 0.15 did this by accident - I forgot to attach a parachute, and realised this at about 10000m above Kerbin\'s surface on the first launch, after landing and returning from the Mun. And proceeded to pull off my first ever powered landing. Boy was I proud of myself. :

[khyron42]

Do it like apollo did their moon landings - Practice the landings before ever going on the trip.

Build a separate saved craft with just your return stage, and put a testing rocket under it with enough oomph to leave you on a suborbital trajectory. Then try landings. Just allow yourself to fall unpowered to about 3-5 km altitude before starting your powered landing efforts.

Once you have a craft and flight profile that can reliably land you from that, on your return trip from the Mun itself, put your Pe at 27-30 km. By the time you re-enter and aerobrake down to 3 km, you\'ll be going at the same speeds you were on your test flights, and the g forces of that re-entry will be minimal so no parts will break off.

[BlazingAngel665]

Very possible, Optimal decent challenge had four people (myself included) return a pod to kerbin sans chutes, wings, winglets etc. just four lander legs and an lv909 engine

[royalkingofgames]

check out winter/white owls youtube channel

[Markus Reese]

I Often can do it with a space plane lander. I have worked with engine landings, but that means hauling around more heavy fuel.

[Majiir]

A powered landing on Kerbin requires surprisingly little fuel if you do it right. The atmosphere slows you down so much that you need at most 20% of a half tank—usually less.

[Bluejayek]

Sidenote: Do not use the \'inline\' cockpit. For whatever reason, it makes steering in atmosphere with the pod ASAS completely impossible: the ship will always just automatically align with with your diretion of flight, which is problematic for slowing down when the direction is straight down.

The majority of my flights, munar and otherwise, are parachuteless. I despise the waste mass that is the decoupler in front of the command pod, and even the mass of the parachute.

A while back I was trying to achieve stable orbit, deorbit, and then safely land a craft that consisted of: Mk1 Pod, halftank, fulltank, lander engine. Orbiting at 70km ispossible, as is deorbiting, and somebody else demonstrated landing is as well. Sadly, I was never able to stick the landing (I dropped the velocity to 0 once, but did it too early so my kerbals free fell that last 100m ), but somebody else demonstrated that this was possible.

Either way, this is the upper stage in most of my rockets, and you can land it with absurdly small ammounts of fuel left. Like, 2kg of fuel in the case above.

[Sean Mirrsen]

It\'s actually possible to make planetfall with the inline cockpit and no chutes, you just need to have a pair of the large swept wings mounted to it. The mass/lift ratio of the whole thing becomes such that you can actually glide quite a ways, and make a sliding landing if you\'re careful enough. You can at least go slow enough to safely splash down, if you can\'t reach land.

[Bluejayek]

It\'s actually possible to make planetfall with the inline cockpit and no chutes, you just need to have a pair of the large swept wings mounted to it. The mass/lift ratio of the whole thing becomes such that you can actually glide quite a ways, and make a sliding landing if you\'re careful enough. You can at least go slow enough to safely splash down, if you can\'t reach land.

I was only usaing the inline cockpit in the first place because it has something like 0.04 less drag then the mark I. Having to add anything to it in order to land completely negates that benefit.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I was only usaing the inline cockpit in the first place because it has something like 0.04 less drag then the mark I. Having to add anything to it in order to land completely negates that benefit.

It also has .25 less mass than the Mk1 cockpit, which is more important than the .04 less drag. (actually, .02 less drag) It is, in general, quite a bit more useful than the Mk1 cockpit, and slightly more useful than the Mk3 cockpit and the standard pod. It also has the best shape of the four standard command pods.

And really, the only thing you need to save any detached command pod is a parachute. But a pair of swept wings on a Mk2 cockpit will allow you to do much more than a parachute will, especially if it\'s the only thing that\'s left of your spacecraft, and you don\'t want to have your crew stranded in the ocean.

[Bluejayek]

My apologies, by mark I pod I was meaning the standard white one. Also, I don\'t use decouplers for pods, it is a waste of 0.8mass on your final stage. Much better to save the 0.1 or less mass of fuel that you need to land it.

[Sean Mirrsen]

A decoupler under the command pod isn\'t a convenience, it\'s a safety feature. When I build my spaceplanes, the larger ones, I always make sure to include some way for the nose section to decouple and deorbit on its own, plus a way for it to land on its own. Sure, it\'s extra mass that\'s never supposed to be used, but it does add an extra layer of difficulty as well as a layer of epicness when you are able to save the crew after a mishap somewhere on a long mission.

Plus, the Mk2 cockpit allows for some truly ridiculous parachuteless landing solutions. Other pods can do it too, but not quite as effectively.