Duna Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge

[qzgy]

2 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said:

I'm using Kerbal Planetary Base Systems, as stock base building (in the fashion I like to build) is all but broken due to autostruts on landing legs.

It has a greenhouse (among lots of other modules), supports TAC and 7 other life support mods including kerbalism which I intend to use.  It also gets around the autostrut landing leg / decoupled tractor to move modules issue by having it's own retractable wheel set that doesn't make your base look like wheel/leg spaghetti.

SM

1 hour ago, Death Engineering said:

I'm having a fresh look at Stockalike Station Parts Redux, which is currently reporting good for KSP 1.4.2. In my 1.4.4 build it seems to be working with only that mod installed (of course with the litany of version conflict messages on startup). Going to drop TAC LS into it and test it out...

It includes not only TAC LS friendly greenhouses but a huge array of crew parts.

Thanks for the suggestions. Both look very good and I'll probably use each of them.

Gonna have to update first though I think. Doesn't like my 1.3.0 game.....

[Kerbolitto]

Little question :

 

In order to qualify as "reusable", recovered launch stages must have comprised of at least 50% of the vehicles original lift-off mass (including payload).  Recovery of spent stages can be passive or active but must be demonstrated successfully at least once.

 

How is it possible to recover 50% of the weight on launchpad when more than half of the weight of a lifter is fuel ? Not even mentionning with the actual payload or fairing weight.

Quote

Death Engineering

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[Death Engineering]

2 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

How is it possible to recover 50% of the weight on launchpad when more than half of the weight of a lifter is fuel ? Not even mentionning with the actual payload or fairing weight.

Great question. The rule for reusability is that the recovered stage(s) should have comprised at least 50% of the original liftoff mass, as measured before take off. So for example, if you have a two stage rocket with a booster and a sustainer, to recover the booster stage, that stage on the pad should be at least 50% of the total launch mass (which it should be). 

[Kerbolitto]

6 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Great question. The rule for reusability is that the recovered stage(s) should have comprised at least 50% of the original liftoff mass, as measured before take off. So for example, if you have a two stage rocket with a booster and a sustainer, to recover the booster stage, that stage on the pad should be at least 50% of the total launch mass (which it should be). 

Oh okay I get it ! Sorry I'm not english so I must have missed a little detail in the way I understood it, but anyway I planned to use a fully reusable SSTO rocket so that's why I felt puzzled.. It weights 170t. empty vs +/-1000t. fully loaded.

So, 2 stages design are required ?

Edited July 12, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[michal.don]

After a long, long time, I am again completely devoured by a mission in KSP.... I guess my "engineering mode" is officially on

Stacks of papers with notes on my desk, calculator, spreadsheets, and the first payload designs starting to shape, I guess you know what I'm talking about.....  Thank you for that!

I intend to go for maximum "Outpost Success Rating", while making the architecture look as cool as possible, while using TAC life support, and several other mods which I'll declare when I start actually flying the missions.

I guess the most difficult part will be making footsteps on Duna/Ike in the first transfer window, while simultaneously building and transfering the outpost to Duna in the second one. And, of course, landing all the stuff in one place, Duna's atmosphere is tricky to say the least.

I might start a "mission report" showing various pieces of the infrastructure a bit instead of just sending hundreds of screenshots all at once when I'm done, which would be pretty uncomfortable for you, I guess.

Thanks again for reigniting my obsession,

Michal.don

 

P.S. for all of you here whom I recognize from the Space Shuttle challenge - I'm sorry, but the new mission(s) will probably be delayed a bit.....

[Kerbolitto]

Yeah this is a very well thought challenge, glad to see you on board !

 

6 minutes ago, michal.don said:

I might start a "mission report" showing various pieces of the infrastructure a bit instead of just sending hundreds of screenshots all at once when I'm done, which would be pretty uncomfortable for you, I guess.

 

That's what I was thinking too, about posting some screenshots of say, first 3 years of the mission with a little report at the end of the post .. This might just be far too big in just one post.

I'm ready to launch when I'm clear with the reusability of the SLV and it still feels like I'm hours away to fullfill the whole challenge ! Love It <3

[Death Engineering]

It's great to see interest spinning up!  Some of you I've met before, some of you I'm meeting for the first time. Welcome all..     

It would be neat to have a look at how everyone's development is going. Feel free to use this thread as a pin-up board for your endeavors.  I'll link mission reports along with the OP as well, so drop a note here if you start a MR thread.  As some of the veterans might recall, I had a great time writing up my first play-through of the original challenge, spinning tales about the crew as I went along. Consider it.. encouraged!

 

 

On 7/10/2018 at 2:26 PM, Kerbolitto said:

Another question, command seats are forbidden for suborbital exploration too ?

(As in for surface hoppers..  I've been thinking on it. )

If you look carefully on the EVA suit label, it has the warning "Must be not be used for atmospheric flight!". As with 'Emergency Evac', if a Kerbal is subjected to atmospheric flight (excluding EVA thrusters, jumps, etc.), they suffer 'Over-stressed crew' penalty. Vacuum-only use is fine.

 

2 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

So, 2 stages design are required ?

Nah.

I believe the original 're usability' rule came about as a provision for the concept of re-use, but not to gain any tremendous advantage. As recovering boosters with chutes is reasonably trivial, I expect every SLV will incorporate it in some fashion.

[Kerbolitto]

17 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

I believe the original 're usability' rule came about as a provision for the concept of re-use, but not to gain any tremendous advantage. As recovering boosters with chutes is reasonably trivial, I expect every SLV will incorporate it in some fashion.

Okay cool ! I could have changed my plans but I already modified a trusty design with a 5m. fairing.

 

Little teaser :

Spoiler

Here is a little glimpse of the aft of my outpost, as you can see I'm still crazy with fairing's interstage nodes, this is a real game-changer to me !

I'm focusing a lot on re-usability and reliability (I'm planning multiple vertical docking on Duna). Also, this is the first time that I play with G-limits ON so almost every modules are secured with an Sr. dock 'cause I want to avoid any Noodl-o-tron.

My attempt will hopefully fullfill every achievements, and aiming at lowest mass possible while still looking somewhat cool, instead of trying to max. out mission value. (I lack experience on Eve slingshot or fast transit to Duna).

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[michal.don]

44 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Some of you I've met before, some of you I'm meeting for the first time. Welcome all..     

Thanks for the welcome!

Could I have a few questions?

I'm in the process of designing the SLV, and I wonder how the NPM is determined. Is it the mass of the heaviest payload delivered to LKO (even when there are some "safety" margins in the booster) in all the launches, or is it the mass of the payload the booster is technically capable of delivering to LKO (possibly in expendable mode)? Are fairings considered "payload"? Or is payload just the stuff I keep in LKO (after deorbiting the second stage)? Sorry if I come across as a bit too pedantic, but in this mission every ounce of the payload really counts

(Edit: let me perhaps rephrase a bit... If I say: I want the SLV certified for 30 tons of NPM ,and then I demonstrate it is capable of delivering 30 tons to LKO in reusable mode, and no payload delivered to LKO in all the launches is over 30 tons, is my NPM 30 tons, or does any other factor influence the final NPM? I hope my question is clear enough, if not, I'll try to explain myself better)

Thanks,

Michal.don

Edited July 12, 2018 by michal.don

[Death Engineering]

22 minutes ago, michal.don said:

I'm in the process of designing the SLV, and I wonder how the NPM is determined. Is it the mass of the heaviest payload delivered to LKO (even when there are some "safety" margins in the booster) in all the launches, or is it the mass of the payload the booster is technically capable of delivering to LKO (possibly in expendable mode)? Are fairings considered "payload"? Or is payload just the stuff I keep in LKO (after deorbiting the second stage)? Sorry if I come across as a bit too pedantic, but in this mission every ounce of the payload really counts

Looking forward to your designs, based on your other work should be fun! 

The NPM is maximum non-rocket payload that can be delivered to LKO. Since we're defining LKO as 75-180km, you could say NPM is the maximum payload that can be lofted to a 180km orbit (there are advantages and disadvantages to selecting a higher parking orbit, so that part is up to you).

There are no expendable/non-expendable modes. There is only one SLV configuration.

Payload fairing is not part of NPM, unless it leaves LKO. Any part that leaves LKO is NPM.

I hope that gets 'em all.. LMK. 

[michal.don]

7 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

The NPM is maximum non-rocket payload that can be delivered to LKO. Since we're defining LKO as 75-180km, you could say NPM is the maximum payload that can be lofted to a 180km orbit (there are advantages and disadvantages to selecting a higher parking orbit, so that part is up to you).

There are no expendable/non-expendable modes. There is only one SLV configuration.

Payload fairing is not part of NPM, unless it leaves LKO. Any part that leaves LKO is NPM.

Thanks, I hope I get it now  To the drawing board then, I hope I'll be able to share my progress soon.

 

Michal.don

[qzgy]

2 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

The NPM is maximum non-rocket payload that can be delivered to LKO. Since we're defining LKO as 75-180km, you could say NPM is the maximum payload that can be lofted to a 180km orbit (there are advantages and disadvantages to selecting a higher parking orbit, so that part is up to you).

Hmm question. Say we build a SLV capable of putting 160 or 170 tons into orbit, but we rate it to only carry 150 for piloting margins and stuff and launch no more than 150 tons ever. Is that OK? And also, is this an absolute limit? For example, would launching a 150.02 ton on a SLV with a NPM of 150 be not good? 

[Kerbolitto]

The way I get it, you have your SLV which has a maximum payload rating, and the way you load it is up to you.

Say you got a 50t. max reusable SLV, you can load it with 40t. and wait 40*6 days, or load it with 20t. and wait 20*6 days, is up to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong !

 

edit : Is it possible to transfer remaining fuel from SLV to payload, of course adding this fuel weight into actual payload mass put into orbit ? This would reduce the need to add drop tanks on 300+ parts payload. If we can show the SLV re-usability (with maybe like 2% of its fuel remaining for retroburn on landing) , with a lighter payload we'd have maybe 5-10% of SLV fuel wasted when de-orbiting it.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[Death Engineering]

9 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

edit : Is it possible to transfer remaining fuel from SLV to payload, of course adding this fuel weight into actual payload mass put into orbit ?

There are no fuel transfers from the SLV to payload. However, the payload may contain its own engine and use that to complete orbit insertion, but the payload cannot be deployed until above 70km and must be no more than the NMP.

 

12 hours ago, qzgy said:

Hmm question. Say we build a SLV capable of putting 160 or 170 tons into orbit, but we rate it to only carry 150 for piloting margins and stuff and launch no more than 150 tons ever. Is that OK? And also, is this an absolute limit? For example, would launching a 150.02 ton on a SLV with a NPM of 150 be not good? 

The absolute maximum payload is the NPM. Build in extra delta-v with the SLV to account for errors, but the maximum payload is fixed.

9 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

Say you got a 50t. max reusable SLV, you can load it with 40t. and wait 40*6 days, or load it with 20t. and wait 20*6 days, is up to you.

Not quite. While you do not have to launch up to the maximum payload/NMP, there is no time difference for the number of days each lifter is ready. The minimum days between launches is fixed.

[michal.don]

1 hour ago, Death Engineering said:

The absolute maximum payload is the NPM. Build in extra delta-v with the SLV to account for errors, but the maximum payload is fixed.

Well, I thought I understood the rules, but it seems it's not the case....  

So, since my english is probably not that good, I'll try to ask using a lot of pictures:  (description in the spoiler)

Spoiler

My design (aiming for the reusability category) so far looks like this:

Two stage rocket with SRBs helping with the liftoff

boosters stage, and are recovered via parachutes (no screen of that, sorry, will demonsstrate later)

First stage decouples, second stage fires

boostback burn

landing burn

Booster landed (about 200 m/s of safety margin left)

Meanwhile in space

Second stage with payload in cca 100 x 100 km orbit, margin of cca 400 m/s worth of fuel (will probably reduce that)

Payload of 30,6 t (should have been 31 tons, for the sake of my argument now, let's consider it 31)

Second stage deorbits and burns up in atmosphere to reduce debris in LKO

So, my question is this:

Am I now a happy owner of a SLV of 31 tons of NPM (if any of the actual payloads for the missions isn't heavier than 31 tons), or is that not the case, since the rocket technically could lift a heavier payload if the safety margins were lower?

 

Thanks,

Michal.don

Edited July 13, 2018 by michal.don

[cratercracker]

Here is a patch for your challenge, @Death Engineering!

--------------------------------------------------

100

150

200

---------------------------------------------

It is KerbalX standing on the launchpad, with Duna and Ike shining bright in the night sky.

Sorry, wanted to experiment a little, failed to scale up the words properly.

Edited July 13, 2018 by cratercracker

[Death Engineering]

6 hours ago, cratercracker said:

Here is a patch for your challenge

I like it! Dark but cool. I'll be making custom patch's for each entry, haven't settled on a design. Thanks!

[cratercracker]

6 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

I like it! Dark but cool. I'll be making custom patch's for each entry, haven't settled on a design. Thanks!

If you'll need help with patches, PM me! 

[Tabris]

Are Construction Mods allowed? (ie, Ground Construction)

[Death Engineering]

13 hours ago, Tabris said:

Are Construction Mods allowed? (ie, Ground Construction)

Thanks for your interest, but I'm going have to disallow this one bases on this line from that mod's OP (emp .add.):

"DIY Kit Container, which allows you to “load” any previously created and saved ship inside of it. The container is automatically resized to fit its contents, which are much more compact and weight much less than the original ship." 

Since this challenge is all about mass, I think being able to "fold up" something heavy and make it something light provides too much advantage.

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Death Engineering

[Kerbolitto]

After many hours (days?) spent assembling dozens of parts together to see if it would "weight less" or "look cooler", our team of volunteer qualified engineers declared being ready to show the rest of the world many, many new strange contraptions !

Focused on efficiency, modularity and reliability (safety is a 4 letter-word), these vehicles will hopefully be able to fullfill every requirements proposed by Kelon Erman.

A great destiny awaits every brave Kerbonauts who will put a green foot inside those new habitats, before ringing at Duna's place and stepping on its red doormat.

 

First of all : This brand new SLV, capable of carrying 87.5t. at a 179x179 orbit before landing everywhere, provided it is a flat and dry surface. It requires exactly 525 days to be assembled thanks to our professionnal, in-house parts-stackers.

 

SLV S4 15-3 :

 

S4 15-3  is the latest launcher developped by the VAB's people, it is also their only participation because assembling 43 parts is more than enough for the next 10 years, they said.

It weights 983.67t. with no payload or fairing, it's name stands obviously for SuperFour 15 Nozzles under 3 Bottles.

Here is how it flies :

Spoiler

Take-off :

G-turn :

First phase of circularisation :

Circu at 179x179 :

Payload is 87.56t. someone must have forgot his/her welding stuff ...

De-orbit :

Deceleration : Heat is not an issue with 2 big shields dragging a lot.

Parachutes : They got to be deployed one by one otherwise everything breaks apart !

Final landing :

 

edit : this is all stock, it's also the first time that I use Launch Planner by alexmoon after 1300h of played O_o.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[Tabris]

9 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Thanks for your interest, but I'm going have to disallow this one bases on this line from that mod's OP (emp .add.):

"DIY Kit Container, which allows you to “load” any previously created and saved ship inside of it. The container is automatically resized to fit its contents, which are much more compact and weight much less than the original ship." [sic]

Since this challenge is all about mass, I think being able to "fold up" something heavy and make it something light provides too much advantage.

 

you do still have to "ship" the same amount of mass.

and you skipped the first bit, 
First, you need a simple mining operation already running near the spot where you want to build something. So you need: a Drill, an ISRU, some storage tanks for Ore, Material Kits and any other stuff that you want/need to supply the newly built ship with; a Workshop and, last but not least, kerbal engineers that will build things.

[Death Engineering]

20 minutes ago, Tabris said:

you do still have to "ship" the same amount of mass.

and you skipped the first bit, 
First, you need a simple mining operation already running near the spot where you want to build something. So you need: a Drill, an ISRU, some storage tanks for Ore, Material Kits and any other stuff that you want/need to supply the newly built ship with; a Workshop and, last but not least, kerbal engineers that will build things.

I didn't skip it; ISRU for refueling is implied in the challenge framework already, but it's the manufacturing of vessels is what's on the table. I'll drop the mod into a fresh install and see how it plays.   

[Tabris]

22 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

I didn't skip it; ISRU for refueling is implied in the challenge framework already, but it's the manufacturing of vessels is what's on the table. I'll drop the mod into a fresh install and see how it plays.   

you still have to "ship" the same Mass, it just differs how you get that mass there. Ship it in (container of MaterialKits) or create it on site, (Drills, Smelter, Refinery, Assembly Plant, WorkShop). ( use MKS so my resource chain is LONG).

but thank you for at least having a look.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Tabris

[Kerbolitto]

Yeah but you'd miss the wobbly-part of a low weight assembly with this mod nop ?