BFR or the SLS/Apollo way for crewed ksp missions.

[Cloakedwand72]

How do you guys or girls decide to do crewed missions in this game or similar do y'all like doing Apollo/SLS style or a all in one BFR style?

[Cavscout74]

 For stock-scale KSP, it's pretty easy to create a lander with launch vehicle that can go from the launch pad to Mun landing  to Kerbin reentry & landing without any docking, rendezvousing or crew transfers.  The only reason I've done an Apollo style mission is because I wanted to do an Apollo style mission.  If you start playing in larger scales or RSS/RO games, that will change.

[Pecan]

My preferred route is dedicated, reusable landers everywhere docking at spacestations with dedicated, reusable never-landing shuttles between them.

[Tyko]

36 minutes ago, Pecan said:

My preferred route is dedicated, reusable landers everywhere docking at spacestations with dedicated, reusable never-landing shuttles between them.

Yep, me too...since parts in KSP don't wear out or fail there's little reason to keep ditching perfectly good hardware after every mission. 

[Snark]

6 hours ago, Cloakedwand72 said:

How do you guys or girls decide to do crewed missions in this game or similar do y'all like doing Apollo/SLS style or a all in one BFR style?

Totally depends on the mission being carried out.

For example, if I'm just planning on going to the Mun and back, there's no need for an Apollo-style mission with docking.  In other words,

3 hours ago, Cavscout74 said:

it's pretty easy to create a lander with launch vehicle that can go from the launch pad to Mun landing  to Kerbin reentry & landing without any docking, rendezvousing or crew transfers.

^ pretty much this.

On the other hand, if my mission is that I want to go to the Mun, and do a lot of biome hopping before returning to Kerbin, then the Apollo-style can be a lot more appealing, mathematically:  leave a big orbiting fuel tank, so that the lander that goes down to the surface can come back up to dock / refuel in between biomes.

Another example where I'm more likely to use an Apollo-style mission is if I'm going to Duna, for example.  Going from Duna orbit down to the surface and back takes a fair amount of dV, and then it also takes quite a bit of dV to go from Duna orbit back to Kerbin, so there's significant value in not lugging my go-back-home-to-Kerbin fuel all the way down to the surface and back.

 

[DDE]

KSP’s reduced dV requirements mean fiewer stages for the same mission, which makes a BFR-to-the-Mun scenario even without refueling a rather trivial affair.

However, I do have a distinct preference for double Lunar Orbit Rendezvous missions (not Apollo-style, closer to what the current Russian program plans) because they’re easily launched on two separate single-stick rockets with a Mainsail first stage.

Edited January 21, 2019 by DDE

[ChickenNugget]

Generally the only time I'll choose to do an apollo style mission is when I'm trying to replicate a real mission, or do some kind of realistic imaginary mission. It also makes a fine challenge, but if you're new to the game then it's usually best to learn with Direct Ascent (or "BFR style" as you put it, which sounds much cooler)

[probe137]

I'd say BFR, as you can use the same rocket multiple times and recover more funds.

[Spricigo]

I suppose that is one of those cases where is ok to post in a old thread.

Anyways, I go mostly with Pecan's idea:

On 12/13/2018 at 7:32 PM, Pecan said:

My preferred route is dedicated, reusable landers everywhere docking at spacestations with dedicated, reusable never-landing shuttles between them.