My Jool 5 Attempt.

[Kerbalstar]

Hi. I've started this thread to document my 100% stock Jool 5 attempt! I've tried a few times before, but I've always sort of just given up. This thread is to motivate me to finish! I've just started this game, but, you have my word, that this shall soon become a mission report thread!

Game settings:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Wish me luck!

[roboslacker]

Good luck, and go big.

[Kerbalstar]

22 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Good luck, and go big.

Thanks!

[Kerbalstar]

Tylo lander test results:

Two full tests were run, with 2 partial tests starting from a later point in the simulation. The conclusion was that the vehicle's descent stage is up to the job, but our pilots need more training in order to successfully land the vehicle. A name will be decided upon at a later date.

 

The result of the latest test.

 

The latest design. I have also decided that I will land a rover on every body, in addition to the lander. The rover will remain on the surface, while the lander re-orbits and re-docks with the mothership.

Kerbalstar out!

[Kerbalstar]

Tylo Lander test results:

The design has been updated to version 3, and the Standard Multi-Purpose Rover to version 2. This most recent test has ended in a slight failure, due to the inability of the pilot to land the lander up-right. The self-righting ability of the rover, however, has been proven many times.

The result of the last test.

Kerbalstar out!

[Kerbalstar]

Tylo Lander test results:

This most recent test was a success! The lander landed upright, the rover successfully separated from the lander and landed next to it. Bob Kerman tested the ladder system, boarded the rover, and drove it back to the lander. Only one problem was found, that the lander almost ran out of EC while Bob was on EVA. I plan to add solar panels to remedy this. Any suggestions:

Kerbalstar out!

[Kerbalstar]

Laythe Rover test results:

I modified the rover for Laythe, and it is now also aquatic.

 

 

[roboslacker]

Neat. Are you planning to launch with an Armada or a Mothership?

[Kerbalstar]

3 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Neat. Are you planning to launch with an Armada or a Mothership?

It's a Jool-5 challenge, so I have to use a mothership. Why?

9 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Neat. Are you planning to launch with an Armada or a Mothership?

Thanks!

Update:

This is the current status of all vehicles.

 

 

 

Kerbalstar out!

[Kerbalstar]

Laythe Lander Update:

I am not a very good pilot. I wish that I wasn't trying to do this pure stock because if I wasn't, I could install, say the Trajectories mod, which would really help me out with Laythe. Oh well. Also, the water FX really slows down this machine. Anyway, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here you go:
 

 

Kerbalstar out!

P.S. If anybody has any design or piloting suggestions, let me know!

[septemberWaves]

Typically with Laythe, I'll make sure I'm in a circular orbit (or near enough), quicksave, then do a de-orbit burn to a specific periapsis which I will take note of. Then I'll compare where I land with where I want to land, return to quicksave, and attempt to adjust the position of the de-orbit burn accordingy. Alternatively, if you aim to slightly overshoot a big island and make sure your lander can conduct a partially-propulsive landing (i.e. fire the engines to make sure your trajectory ends up on land) you should be fine. I have other ideas for how I will conduct my next Laythe excursion, but that will be for my Constellation-style challenge so the landers will be somewhat unconventional and not really appropriate for a Jool 5 mission.

[Kerbalstar]

2 hours ago, septemberWaves said:

Typically with Laythe, I'll make sure I'm in a circular orbit (or near enough), quicksave, then do a de-orbit burn to a specific periapsis which I will take note of. Then I'll compare where I land with where I want to land, return to quicksave, and attempt to adjust the position of the de-orbit burn accordingy. Alternatively, if you aim to slightly overshoot a big island and make sure your lander can conduct a partially-propulsive landing (i.e. fire the engines to make sure your trajectory ends up on land) you should be fine. I have other ideas for how I will conduct my next Laythe excursion, but that will be for my Constellation-style challenge so the landers will be somewhat unconventional and not really appropriate for a Jool 5 mission.

Thanks! Yeah, that's sort of what I'm doing for my testing. Launch, Alt-F5, Alt-F12, De-orbit, Alt-F5, etc. Also, this latest version "landed" on land, but the chutes didn't cut. And all the legs blew up. 

[Kerbalstar]

Vall/Pol/Bop Lander Update:

The test was a success! I am only testing this on Vall, because Pol and Bop have lower gravity, and therefore, it should be easier to land on those bodies. I successfully landed and re-orbited the lander, and undocked the rover. I still haven't got Laythe figured out, but having 4/5ths of the moons done vs 1/5th feels pretty good! Also, for those of you who have landed on Laythe before: Is my Laythe lander design good, and I just need to fly it right, or will it not have enough DeltaV to land and re-orbit?

 

 

 

Kerbalstar out!

 

[Ultimate Steve]

Laythe lander advice: If you want it to be a reusable SSTO, I think you're headed in the right direction, although I'd rather go in the plane direction (but that's a matter of preference). However, if you are only going to use the lander once, if I were you I'd go with a multistage conventional design, without jets.

But I think your current design *might* be able to work. The only way to know is to test it!

[septemberWaves]

If you are unsure about delta-v, this might help you. No more need for guesswork.

Personally I am going to try to calculate delta-v requirements manually in my new playthrough (partly because different orbits have different requirements, and partly to practice the calculations because I am a space science student) but that chart should be a good enough approximation for your purposes so long as you include sufficient room for error.

Edited January 17, 2019 by septemberWaves

[Kerbalstar]

On 1/17/2019 at 11:42 AM, Ultimate Steve said:

Laythe lander advice: If you want it to be a reusable SSTO, I think you're headed in the right direction, although I'd rather go in the plane direction (but that's a matter of preference). However, if you are only going to use the lander once, if I were you I'd go with a multistage conventional design, without jets.

But I think your current design *might* be able to work. The only way to know is to test it!

Thanks! You know, I hadn't considered a multi-stage lander, that's a good idea! You're right, I'm ditching the lander before I head home, so I don't need it to work more than once! I can't build planes, so that's why it's a "rocket".

Well, you saw how the test went, so.

On 1/17/2019 at 1:27 PM, septemberWaves said:

If you are unsure about delta-v, this might help you. No more need for guesswork.

Personally I am going to try to calculate delta-v requirements manually in my new playthrough (partly because different orbits have different requirements, and partly to practice the calculations because I am a space science student) but that chart should be a good enough approximation for your purposes so long as you include sufficient room for error.

Thanks! Calculating stuff yourself is always fun! I'm trying to go for a minimum fuel landing, but that might help me for getting back to orbit, which is where I generally run out of fuel. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Kerbalstar
Saw, not say, and how, not who...

[Kerbalstar]

Laythe lander update:

Taking @Ultimate Steve's advice, I've switched my design philosophy for the lander. It is now multistage, non-reuseable, and the rover will land separately. This latest test was a partial failure. The lander landed in the water, but successfully took off. However, it fell short of orbit. I was able to get one of the Kerbals(Jeb) out of the lander, and into a safe orbit, but Bill was doomed. I'm going to make a few changes so that hopefully version 3 will work better!

 

 

 

 

Kerbalstar out!

 

[septemberWaves]

Are your parachutes below your center of mass? If so (and it certainly looks that way), that is likely to cause you issues.

[Kerbalstar]

2 hours ago, septemberWaves said:

Are your parachutes below your center of mass? If so (and it certainly looks that way), that is likely to cause you issues.

Yeah, that's one of the changes I'm going to make.

[Kerbalstar]

Laythe lander update:

This test was a success! The new version has no heat-shielding, so re-entry gets a bit fiery, but it survives just fine, the parachutes lower it softly to the surface (The surface was mostly water in these tests, but I'm aiming for land. The landing will be soft enough, trust me.). It can take off from water, and reach orbit again with a bit of fuel to spare!

 

 

 

Vehicle Name Update:

I've decided upon the names for all the vehicles:

Laythe Lander Rising Tide

Laythe Rover Seven Seas

Tylo Lander Intrepid

Vall/Pol/Bop Lander Voyager

Vall Rover Blue Moon

Bop Rover  Radioactive

Pol Rover Free Fallin'

Tylo Rover Under Pressure

Vall CommSats Valliance 1 and 2

Bop CommSats Defiant 1 & 2

Pol CommSats Kappa Mode 1 & 2

Laythe CommSats 50/50 Chance 1 & 2

Tylo CommSats Never Tell Me The Odds 1 & 2

Space Tug(2.5m) Robinson

Space Tug(1.25m) Cena

Crew Transfer Vehicle Soyuz-ish

Now, for the name of the mothership. I considered a few names for this one. First was Voyager. There have been a lot of great Voyagers throughout history, from Voyager 1 & 2 to Star Trek's Voyager, to @Ultimate Steve's Voyager. I didn't pick that name, because of the fact that it was used so often. So, that name went to the Light Moon Lander. Next, I considered Intrepid, because of the Apollo 12 LM, @Kuzzter's, and @Ultimate Steve's Intrepid's. But, for the same reason as Voyager, I decided not to use it. When I was younger, I used to dream of commanding a Star Trek starship.  I always thought that I would call it the U.S.S. Milky Way. So:

Mothership K.S.S. Milky Way.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Kerbalstar out!

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Kerbalstar
Added Space Tugs Robinsion, Cena, and Crew Transfer Vehicle Soyuz-ish

[septemberWaves]

That is a nice-looking lander. Is that a Skipper engine? I do not see those on landers particularly often.

[Kerbalstar]

4 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

That is a nice-looking lander. Is that a Skipper engine? I do not see those on landers particularly often.

Why thank you! And, yes it is. The Swivel I was using just didn't have the TWR.

[septemberWaves]

You make some interesting decisions with these landers. It has actually been quite some time since I sent a crew to the Jool system; the next time I return will be for my Constellation-style challenge, and I am using Kerbalism for that - that, on top of the fact that the challenge rules necessitate a 4-kerbal ascent vehicle in a fairly restricted amount of space (i.e. launched sideways in a fairing, because of the way Constellation cargo landers are) should make things quite interesting at Laythe.

[Kerbalstar]

17 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

You make some interesting decisions with these landers. It has actually been quite some time since I sent a crew to the Jool system; the next time I return will be for my Constellation-style challenge, and I am using Kerbalism for that - that, on top of the fact that the challenge rules necessitate a 4-kerbal ascent vehicle in a fairly restricted amount of space (i.e. launched sideways in a fairing, because of the way Constellation cargo landers are) should make things quite interesting at Laythe.

Oh, interesting how?

Sounds like fun!

[Kerbalstar]

Here's the K.S.S. Milky Way with all the landers attached. I know that the Intrepid clips into Seven Seas and Voyager (Even though Voyager's position will change, I just got too lazy to attach it via the docking port.) What do you guys, especially those of you who have done Jool-5's, think? ( @Ultimate Steve)

 

 

 

Kerbalstar out!