Duna Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge

[Kerbolitto]

10 hours ago, Alchemist said:

Well, I'll just leave this here

 

Awesome SLV !!!

[Kerbolitto]

Chapter 6 is done ! Every required ship is now in orbit. The packaging was even longer than the 1st and 2nd one because I needed to launch so much stuff ..

Because of that I had to limit myself at sending 28 Kerbals to get max points before Y5, could have done better without the weight of DeepSpaceTransit or KerbinSpaceStation .. (and a lighter outpost on SLV 01) ! Hopefully Sr. docks are really sturdy and nothing broke.

 

 

SLV 03 :

Edited August 6, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[Alchemist]

A couple more thoughts on planning...

I have 2 more launches before second window. And the craft I want to launch on launch 4 (second base module) is a bit too heavy - it's already over 40 tons (with 50 tons launcher capacity) without the transfer stage, and I still need to make a few additions. Meaning I will likely have to launch the transfer stage separately. But the craft planned for launch 3 is not that heavy, especially if I don't launch the fuel (there will be more than enough time for the Minmus outpost to deal with that), so here is the perfect opportunity to launch the transfer stage for the base module. And some commsats for Minmus - the tanker needs those for uninterrupted operations

And then there are 3 more launches before third window. Duna station, space bus, a pack of rescue landers, interplanetary shuttle... plenty of things to launch there

11 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

Awesome SLV !!!

Thanks! I'm really quite proud of this development.

In fact, one of the main reasons why I just couldn't pass the opportunity to use it for this challenge is that it was originally created to be a part of something quite similar. I was really thinking of interplanetary infrastructure with high degree of automation - with main hub around Minmus and a 100% reusable crew shuttle to ferry crew and tourists around Kerbin system. So that's where the crew shuttle comes into play - as the first step of this infrastructure (incidentally, I was thinking about refueling it in LKO with tankers based on the same design, similar to how SpaceX BFR would operate - but the shuttle turned out to have just enough delta v without that. And that's before the new engine from MH). And also, depending on payload mass and TWR, the launcher would be used for most other infrastructure elements - with second stage in cases the vessel being launched has no capacity to perform orbital insertion from such suborbital separation (well, at least now I've finished the 2-stage version)

[Kerbolitto]

Chapter 7 is freshly posted, it features the Mothership™ orbiting Duna, the landing of the outpost extension and setting of ComNetWork !

 

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/51-mission-reports/

 

 

Every comment is welcome .

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Some thoughts on my mission planning:

I only intend to use ISRU on Ike (and maybe an asteroid in LKO), so that would mean that my first outbound transfer would have to have all of its fuel launched with it, but I realized that if I launch the Ike miner on with the first transfer vehicle, I can get to an elliptical Minmus or Mun orbit, and refuel the transfer vehicle there, then redock it and travel on to Duna.

Unfortunately that doesn't save as much payload to LKO since there's only a 90m/s difference between Mun intercept and Kerbin escape.

I also intend to have all kerbals take 1-way trips to Duna, except the two needed to head back to Kerbin with the surface sample required for "Early mission prestige." That means I have to get the Duna space station, Positive uplink, and Duna space bus by four years after the first base component (and crew) is launched. That probably means the second transfer window, although I probably will complete  positive uplink by the first window so I can scan Ike for resources.

The Duna space bus has been completed, it can travel from Ike to Duna and back, and also be towed by the mobile base:

It weighs 2.398t dry. Strictly speaking, I could squeeze 510 more kilograms out of it by replacing the landercan with another observation window, but it's a little cheesy already. Here it's pictured next to the ISRU component of the Ike miner "Trade Surplus" and fuel transfer vehicle "Irregular Apocalypse." (I'm naming my ships after Culture ships, like the SpaceX ASDS's)

Which weighs 10.049t dry.

Next are the relay sats, from top to bottom "The Hand Of God 137" (technically not a Culture ship, but from the book series), "You'll Thank Me Later," "Honest Mistake," and "Outstanding Contribution To The Historical Process":

Which are 2.884t wet. The Hand Of God 137 will go to a polar Duna orbit (I may remove the surface scanner from it, since I'm not doing Duna ISRU), You'll Thank Me Later to a polar Ike orbit, and Honest Mistake and Outstanding Contribution To The Historical Process to equatorial Duna orbits.

Finally, a first prototype of the Duna space station, as yet unnamed:

Which is 3.88t. I never intend to have Kerbals visit this, so unless I need it because of a change in architecture, this will not have life support, power, or even a command module.

[Death Engineering]

On 8/4/2018 at 5:03 PM, Alchemist said:

Well, I'll just leave this here

Thoroughly enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing!   

On 8/6/2018 at 3:29 PM, Kerbolitto said:

Every comment is welcome .

Well... they look like insects. That is not a bad thing or insult.  Perhaps it's me.. but the top one should be called "Grasshopper" and the orbiter "Dragonfly".    

 

23 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I also intend to have all kerbals take 1-way trips to Duna, except the two needed to head back to Kerbin with the surface sample required for "Early mission prestige."

Sure, interesting idea. As long as the Kerbals on Duna Year 10 Day 1 are able to safely make it home (are not stranded will have continued life support drops), good plan.

23 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Which is 3.88t. I never intend to have Kerbals visit this, so unless I need it because of a change in architecture, this will not have life support, power, or even a command module.

Hmm.. sounds more like debris.  While technically within the wording of the rules, not in the spirit. I wish I'd noticed earlier that I didn't use the "supports x Kerbals" wording from the Kerbin Space Station also on the Duna Space Station rule, instead of "has room for x kerbals". Not going to change it now though.

23 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

That means I have to get the Duna space station, Positive uplink, and Duna space bus by four years after the first base component (and crew) is launched.

I think that's the winning plan - get those four provisions in place early and avoid all the 'Over-stressed from time away from home' penalties.  

 

[Kerbolitto]

Haha wait until I finish SLV 05 and 06 xD This will be a super-effective contraption, which means it will look like a random sack of parts thrown together between one dozen Sr. docks !

[sturmhauke]

You guys are already on Duna, and I'm still here faffing about with my mod selection.

[Kerbolitto]

Well personnaly I got a lot of free time, and I just finished Constellation Duna mission +/- 1 week before DeathEngineering started this challenge so .. This helped

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

[...]

Sure, interesting idea. As long as the Kerbals on Duna Year 10 Day 1 are able to safely make it home (are not stranded will have continued life support drops), good plan.

I was considering 10-year crew rotations as part of my long term mission architecture. 

2 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

Hmm.. sounds more like debris.  While technically within the wording of the rules, not in the spirit. I wish I'd noticed earlier that I didn't use the "supports x Kerbals" wording from the Kerbin Space Station also on the Duna Space Station rule, instead of "has room for x kerbals". Not going to change it now though.

Maybe I'll change it, I tend to aggressively min-max this kind of thing, to the point of the absurd. Power, control, and 30 days of supplies for 3 kerbals wouldn't really be that much extra mass, and it'd make more contingencies possible.

By the way, how long does the Kerbin space station need to support 4 kerbals for? And can the crew shuttle launch supplies?

2 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

I think that's the winning plan - get those four provisions in place early and avoid all the 'Over-stressed from time away from home' penalties.  

Hopefully.  

About the Backup Plan achievement: do I need that for all kerbals at the base for the entire time, or just for all kerbals on Duna on year 10? For example, would I score that if I send the backup DAV on the 4th window?

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

You guys are already on Duna, and I'm still here faffing about with my mod selection.

I'm still designing ships, and I probably spent more time picking mods and making spreadsheets than designing.  

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

You guys are already on Duna, and I'm still here faffing about with my mod selection.

Me too! Haven't even finished my planning phase, character selection/creation process, craft design, mission planning, logistics planning, etc. etc. But I'll start writing and as my story progresses so will everything else (I hope)

[Death Engineering]

1 hour ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I was considering 10-year crew rotations as part of my long term mission architecture. 

Heh far out.

1 hour ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

By the way, how long does the Kerbin space station need to support 4 kerbals for? And can the crew shuttle launch supplies?

Sticking with the flavour of the original challenge which specifies that "..every [module] contains enough supply for short missions" (defined as 10 days), I think that is an achievable expectation. I'd even say at minimum "some amount plus enough to sustain any crew visiting the station". That way, is isn't "none" and if it never gets visited, no resupply trucks need call.

Shuttles are crew only.

 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

4 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Heh far out.

Sticking with the flavour of the original challenge which specifies that "..every [module] contains enough supply for short missions" (defined as 10 days), I think that is an achievable expectation. I'd even say at minimum "some amount plus enough to sustain any crew visiting the station". That way, is isn't "none" and if it never gets visited, no resupply trucks need call.

Shuttles are crew only.

Alright, thanks.

[Kerbolitto]

Phew, after many hours testing the "structural integrity" of what could whistand a rolling outpost, I've complete the designs of SLV 04 & 05 ! One clue : 80

[Kerbolitto]

Chapter 8 is over, I've managed to send 2 Kerbals on their way home before Year5 after a very, very nuclear injection : D

 

 

 

You can see Duna in this picture, if you guessed the little pixel on top of the antenna you were right !

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Closed loop USI + PBS life support for 5 kerbals in one 8.336t package:

EDIT: Minus, of course, wheels, landing equipment, etc.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Mad Rocket Scientist

[Kerbolitto]

Those parts are really beautifull

[hoioh]

5 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Closed loop USI + PBS life support for 5 kerbals in one 8.336t package:

-Snip-

EDIT: Minus, of course, wheels, landing equipment, etc.

 

That is WAY lighter than my closed loop TAC solution! Are you keeping in mind that for 5 kerbals you need space for 10? Otherwise, what's the point for closed loop?

[Laie]

Talking about life support, I see that Nils277 appears to have written his own converter code. Does it play nice with TAC, work in the background and so on?

And, while I'm asking questions, what's the idea behind "backup plan"? It seems to imply a barebone contraption that will frighten everyone when used, and, well, I don't see how or why. I plan to develop a permanent base, after all. All-out evacuation may be a valid consideration in the early years, fledgling colony and all that. But rather than a single-use novelty launcher, I'd rather bring one more LV than strictly necessary. I guess that will be alright.

But how about later? Once I have 200 people on the ground, do I need 200 seats on LVs, ready to take off at the drop of a hat? And where are they supposed to go? Will I also need a 200-person crew capacity on orbit, plus food to last until the next launch window?

I have similar thoughts about requiring rover seats for everyone, or putting a city on wheels -- but those can safely be ignored at the cost of a few bonus points. However, In order to have a permanent outpost I need a Backup Plan, and I wonder what is necessary to provide it.

[Kerbolitto]

I think that this is more of a "realistic" constraint that will require you to adjust more precisely what, and how many modules you can stuff in your SLV, and to limit the number of kerbals you can send to Duna. But that's just my guess !

I agree that backup plan & rovers put lots of strain in payload mass and on the CPU because it's a lot of parts..

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

6 hours ago, hoioh said:

That is WAY lighter than my closed loop TAC solution! Are you keeping in mind that for 5 kerbals you need space for 10? Otherwise, what's the point for closed loop?

It's probably lighter because of PBS slightly breaking USI's balance. The water purifier raises the recycling cap to 82% with only .7t for the part and .9t for the water drill, and the closest USI part only raises the cap to 79%, and weighs 3.75t. The algae farm, which allows for closing the loop, is only .5t, plus .25t for a small ore drill, and .9t for a water drill that's already needed for the water purifier. (I just realized now that the water drill may not work on Duna. I may be going back to the drawing board. EDIT: Water does exist on Duna, but only at the poles)

But it does have space for 10 kerbals:

Surprisingly, the PBS Mk1 planetary hab is much better than the Mk2. The Mk2 carries 133% of the Mk1's crew, but weighs 237% of the Mk1. It carries slightly more supplies and EC, but storage of those isn't a concern. It has a better USI habitation value, but I'm using 2x space instead of USI's system.

As to the point of closed loop: simplicity and mission robustness. It may ultimately be lighter to launch launch life support, but with the goal of very long term presence or even full colonization, it's worth getting this working early. However, I may trim bits off and only close the loop on the next window, that way I only require supplies for a little over 2 years, when the closed loop part will arrive.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Mad Rocket Scientist

[Alchemist]

47 minutes ago, Laie said:

Talking about life support, I see that Nils277 appears to have written his own converter code. Does it play nice with TAC, work in the background and so on?

PBS works nicely with TAC-LS and the converters are mostly based on stock anyway. However I have to note that both have identical off-screen behavior for converters inherited from stock ISRU. Meaning, the conversion quickly catches up on loading. Therefore, if you rely on reprocessing some waste products (now that's something TAC-LS does with offloaded vessels in real time - both supply consumption and waste generation), you better ensure you have the capacity to store those for whatever time periods you intend to leave the base unattended, or those will get wasted (not to mention the capacity for life support resources themselves, even if you are planning on 100% generating them on-site)

58 minutes ago, Laie said:

And, while I'm asking questions, what's the idea behind "backup plan"? It seems to imply a barebone contraption that will frighten everyone when used, and, well, I don't see how or why. I plan to develop a permanent base, after all. All-out evacuation may be a valid consideration in the early years, fledgling colony and all that. But rather than a single-use novelty launcher, I'd rather bring one more LV than strictly necessary. I guess that will be alright.

But how about later? Once I have 200 people on the ground, do I need 200 seats on LVs, ready to take off at the drop of a hat? And where are they supposed to go? Will I also need a 200-person crew capacity on orbit, plus food to last until the next launch window? 

If I understand it correctly, the rule implies that as the alternative way of transportation to whatever interplanetary craft you have in case the primary ascent vehicle is lost or otherwise unavailable. Everything else, including some lore for why and how it is useful is up to you. My own concept is a bunch of small landers that can also be used in case some part (be it a rover-module on independent mission or the space-bus having issues on landing) of the crew is stuck in a damaged vehicle with failing life support and the space bus is incapable of responding quickly enough (it would take too long to refuel or it is the problem itself) - to evac the crew from there either to orbital infrastructure or to the main base.
And as for getting the entire crew out of the base ans then waiting for the window in orbit - yeah, unless you have a huge stockpile up there, in most cases it would be more plausible to try surviving on the ground with the backup vessel and whatever left of the base.

However, there is a place where some clarification is needed for a potentially reusable backup solution as the base grows - in what time frame getting the entire crew out of there is required? Do we have to be able to provide seats for everybody at once or is it OK that the backup vehicles can replace the bare minimum crew shipping capacity for normally getting the crew to the interplanetary shuttle (which won't probably be able to get the entire crew back at once anyway)?

[sturmhauke]

I would argue that for the backup plan to count for the final score, it needs to be able to evac the maximum number of kerbals present on the surface at any point during the mission. That might allow for multiple trips if it can be done without any kerbals dying from lack of supplies or whatever.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Hmm, maybe I should switch to TAC-LS. It looks much more complex, so it seems like it would be unfair to not use it.

1 minute ago, sturmhauke said:

I would argue that for the backup plan to count for the final score, it needs to be able to evac the maximum number of kerbals present on the surface at any point during the mission. That might allow for multiple trips if it can be done without any kerbals dying from lack of supplies or whatever.

But what about the early mission prestige kerbals? The backup plan description specifically talks about an outpost.

[sturmhauke]

53 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

But what about the early mission prestige kerbals? The backup plan description specifically talks about an outpost.

Then it only counts for kerbals present from the time the backup plan is first implemented. Besides, I'd think you would normally have more kerbals on Duna at the end of the mission than at the start, in which case it's a moot point.

But we'll have to see what @Death Engineering says.