The Incredible Double Mun Double Kerbin Landing Challenge

[Der Anfang]

1 hour ago, EvermoreAlpaca said:

Would you consider a separate leaderboard for a passenger mission rendition of this?

What do you mean a passenger rendition? Like, using passenger capsules and such?

Why, is it a genuine question or are you making a suggestion?

[EvermoreAlpaca]

I thought it might be fun to do this challenge, but instead of going for low mass, to see how many passengers I can take on a <700 ton launch weight.  So I'm suggesting and genuinely asking if you can add a seperate category.   

Edited September 26, 2016 by EvermoreAlpaca

[ManEatingApe]

@Mesklin I see your 4 Kerbals, and raise you another 3...  

Presenting the So Much for Subtlety 

7 Kerbals, 49.683 tons, snack space increased to 317 kilograms.

 

The Dawn makes an excellent (if unconventional) nosecone. The bluntness helps deflect the heat and its large bulk soaks up the rest.

The ion engine was used when time was not critical, for example slowly raising PE from LKO to Mun intercept in a sequence of small kicks, or circularizing once in Mun orbit.

For capture and landing burns the nuke was used.

There were enough crew for some basic ASCII Kerbal art!

    

(There is also a flag in each photo if you squint carefully)

Full adventure here

Edited September 28, 2016 by ManEatingApe

[EvermoreAlpaca]

Because I'm bad at following directions I designed for maximum passengers instead of low mass.  I brought along 17 mk3 passenger modules, for a total of 272 passengers.  I kept it under the 700 tons originally specified, and recovered all parts that were launched.

launch mass is 644.995 tons.  I ask that this entry not be scored as this is not a low-mass attempt.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by EvermoreAlpaca

[ManEatingApe]

11 hours ago, EvermoreAlpaca said:

I brought along 17 mk3 passenger modules, for a total of 272 passengers. 

What, no group photo? 

 

Love this entry, I'm impressed that you got airborne, let alone how manoeuvrable it is. Keeping the orientation of the Rapier parts correct when docking was pretty sweet as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by ManEatingApe

[EvermoreAlpaca]

1 hour ago, ManEatingApe said:

What, no group photo? 

 

Love this entry, I'm impressed that you got airborne, let alone how manoeuvrable it is. Keeping the orientation of the Rapier parts correct when docking was pretty sweet as well.

Thanks mate!   This thing was actually significantly easier to fly than some other SSTOs that I have made.  Maneuvers in atmosphere were not limited by stability or control surface area, but by the point at which the large docking ports would give up and the RAPIER modules would rip off. 

I'm curious about your use of the dawn as a nosecone.  What velocity were you able to reach on air breathing engines?  And was the limiting factor thrust or heat?

 

[ManEatingApe]

48 minutes ago, EvermoreAlpaca said:

I'm curious about your use of the dawn as a nosecone.  What velocity were you able to reach on air breathing engines?  And was the limiting factor thrust or heat?

Heat, definitely heat. The Dawn is draggy, but much less draggy than some of the alternatives, say a shielded docking port.

There's enough heat resistance to make it relatively forgiving, but it's still possible to destroy with too shallow an ascent.

However, it's streamlined enough that you can extract the full potential of a Rapier (~1600 m/s)

[Der Anfang]

18 hours ago, EvermoreAlpaca said:

Because I'm bad at following directions I designed for maximum passengers instead of low mass.  I brought along 17 mk3 passenger modules, for a total of 272 passengers.  I kept it under the 700 tons originally specified, and recovered all parts that were launched.

launch mass is 644.995 tons.  I ask that this entry not be scored as this is not a low-mass attempt.

 

Holy crap, that's really awesome. Alright, I won't bother scoring it, but I still think it deserves an honourable mention. Is that alright with you?? I have to say that large SSTOs are a pain in the neck, and I can tell a lot of heart and effort went into this!

 

I can see now why you want a seperate category just for the number of Kerbals. I'll definitely consider that... it might actually be a good idea.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Der Anfang

[Der Anfang]

I've updated the scoreboard, everyone. Apologies for the long delay.

Please, keep the entries coming! I love what we have so far.

[zeta function]

On 10/4/2016 at 8:41 PM, EvermoreAlpaca said:

Because I'm bad at following directions I designed for maximum passengers instead of low mass.  I brought along 17 mk3 passenger modules, for a total of 272 passengers.  I kept it under the 700 tons originally specified, and recovered all parts that were launched.

launch mass is 644.995 tons.  I ask that this entry not be scored as this is not a low-mass attempt.

 

This would have such a large score (+50% multiplier per kerbal, so 1.5^272 times other stuff); the scoring system should be changed to stuff*number of kerbals.

Edited June 12, 2017 by zeta function
To make a point about the scoring system.

[sevenperforce]

I know this is an old challenge but I think I'm going to go ahead and attempt it. I assume it is all right to bring crew in any pressurized modules; they don't HAVE to be in cockpits or command modules, right?

[Der Anfang]

On 6/15/2017 at 7:40 AM, sevenperforce said:

I know this is an old challenge but I think I'm going to go ahead and attempt it. I assume it is all right to bring crew in any pressurized modules; they don't HAVE to be in cockpits or command modules, right?

No they do not. Wow, I am so so sorry for the late reply. I forgot about this forum and I have just been extremely busy with other things. But if you have not already attempted this, yeah you don't NEED command pods.

[medicdude]

Are you allowed to undock a secondary launch vehicle at the launchpad for later use? I totally think I can do less than 50 tons rockets only, using lots of rendezvous. As long as I don't have to lug this secondary launcher into orbit.

I might still be able to do it with orbiting the second launcher, but its going to be design heavy.

[Der Anfang]

4 hours ago, medicdude said:

Are you allowed to undock a secondary launch vehicle at the launchpad for later use? I totally think I can do less than 50 tons rockets only, using lots of rendezvous. As long as I don't have to lug this secondary launcher into orbit.

I might still be able to do it with orbiting the second launcher, but its going to be design heavy.

Only one full deployment out of the VAB/SPH. You are using whatever you deploy after that, and you may use it as you see fit. If you somehow launch two or more vehicles in a single deployment, that will still count toward the total weight of the entire craft.

[medicdude]

27 minutes ago, Der Anfang said:

Only one full deployment out of the VAB/SPH. You are using whatever you deploy after that, and you may use it as you see fit. If you somehow launch two or more vehicles in a single deployment, that will still count toward the total weight of the entire craft.

Nice, I'm totally doing this then, Mk1 Lander Cans to the max. And I won't be using any of those silly airbreathing engines either, real kerbals burn rocket fuel.

[medicdude]

So I have a design ready that uses 3 lander cans A,B,C.  A&B go to the mun together, A is the mun lander which uses spark engine to land and return with FLT200 tank approx 65 liquid fuel, and I have enough spare fuel on the transit over to do that landing at least 3 times (which would be enough to go to minmus on the third one). B is the return to orbit lander that has just enough fuel to pull away from mun orbit and return to kerbin. C is the secondary launcher can that take off from launchpad and gets into mun orbit and docks back up with A for the second and third landings, and then would return to Kerbin for the final descent. I still have about 7 tons to spare (43 tons right now) for design changes or extra fuel in here.

My only remaining hurdle is getting a precise re-entry with B so I can get get back inside the C-return vessel. I know I can use mods to do this, but it would be really neat if I could math out the ideal return path on stock using just transit time to periapsis as a baseline for re-entry timing. If anyone has any suggestions or experience in doing precision re-entry landings, I would very much appreciate it.

Edited November 12, 2017 by medicdude