Kerbin Collaborative Space Station

[Ultimate Steve]

So, I did a test assembly. THIS IS NOT THE LAYOUT YOU HAVE TO USE, BUT YOU SHOULD PLAN A LAYOUT. DO NOT BLINDLY ACCEPT THIS, THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE AND NOT INSTRUCTIONS OR A PLAN.

Some of you are probably looking at that 400k price tag and are feeling quite alarmed. Slow down a minute, I'll explain.

The base price of all of the modules that have been sent in is 250k. I added in the bare minimum of parts required to meet the science and power requirements (2 labs, only 1 is necessary but 2 appear to be planned, instruments, and solar panels) and that was about another 50k. The visiting transfer vehicles were another 100k although 2/3 of them are reusable so the actual cost is lower. I am, however, missing the SSTO, so that needs to be factored in.

In reality the station cost is ~250k, I'll get into launch vehicles in a minute.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT YOUR PLAN IT IS ME MESSING AROUND DO NOT ADOPT THIS AS YOUR PLAN MAKE YOUR OWN PLAN AND IF YOU COME UP WITH THE SAME THING THEN THAT'S FINE BUT MAKE AN EFFORT TO TALK IT OUT

I made three major changes while experimenting around.

1. Remove the central EVA module as there are two of them, the other one is cheaper, and @Johnster_Space_Program has proposed three modules, so removing the EVA module would bring him under the limit.
2. Removed the science greebles from the second EVA module and shifted all of the science experiments to the science module (might not work as the mass limit on the lifter might be reached)
3. Switched out the 10 docking port node for the 6 port one (2.5m-1.25m) to save cost, and so that the angled docking ports wouldn't be troublesome to dock with or interfere with the station
4. Removed one of the hab modules. Currently, there are three, Rover's, at 30k and 12 seats, the tourist one by swjr-swis, 18k and 17 seats, and the spinning module, 49k and 43 seats (!). There is also the core with 8 seats, the return vehicle with 5 seats (might not count?), the EVA module with 1 seat (also might not count) and the cupola with another one seat. This brings the station's total capacity to at least 79 and I'm probably forgetting something. If we have four researchers on board, that's 71 seats left, which equates to 17.75 tourists (rounding up to 18) which means a total crew of 22. That's four crew vehicles worth of crew. You would be lucky to have 4 open normal size docking ports without another docking node, so one of the modules should go, I'll leave the decision to you.
5. There are three Cupolas on the station, only one is needed, although in my test assembly I only got rid of one.

I'm not going to post the picture of my altered design, but it's around 300k funds with transfer vehicles, 215k without. I'll do launch vehicle math in a bit.

11 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

There are more than enough solar panels, but FYI the best design I came up with to allow lots of 2.5m required 4 (i think) of @Alienwall's docking piers. If you are able to find a way around that, that would be good, because I don't know if the rules allow multiple docking piers to be launched.

I guess that's correct. I never specified an amount of solar panels, but the design above is alarmingly short on them. I managed to use only one docking pier in both of my test designs, but I had to get creative and alter one or two docking port sizes on the modules.

Also

565 Parts

Not everyone has a beast PC, and this number may be trimmed, and it's with 3/4 visiting craft, but trimming part count will also trim cost in most cases, so if some modules are going to be redesigned, it would be best if they are part count conscious.

I'll be back with lifter math.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Ultimate Steve

[Barzon]

I am away from my KSP computer at the moment, but you can reduce the part count by removing the backup RCS tanks on my Dream Chaser. They are clipped into the  nosecone, and are attached to jr. docking ports visible in the cargo bay. Removing those reduces the part count by 6, which doesn't seem like a lot, but we need to get the part count as low as possible, like you said @Ultimate Steve

[Ultimate Steve]

First off, this is assuming all of the proposed modules launch, which not all of them will. Second of all, this includes the lifters for the test flights of the crew and cargo vehicles, minus the SSTO, as that doesn't need a lifter.

Also, I goofed. There is no reason to use the Z-1 besides a grounding, as it is more expensive and less capable than Lyra.

One Kerbal XM, 77k

Two Muon 6's, 66k

Four Lyras, 60k

Seven Sky IIIs, 301k (!)

Zero Z-1s, 0k

One Sky IIIA,  47k, for the DreamChaser. Note, I mentally switched the CRV from a Sky IIIA to a Sky III as with good enough piloting, it should be able to reach orbit as it is only 0.3-ish tons over weight. If not, it can use its engines.

Plus 15k for Sky IIIA Development

Plus 30k for Sky III Man Rating

Plus 30k for three custom fairings

Plus the launch costs for 2 science modules, assuming two Muon 6's that's an additional 66k

Is a total of 692,000 funds. 

Dreamchaser is 25k in expendable cost plus (48/3) 16k in cost with reusability for a total of 41k per flight without the launch vehicle. I recommend switching the vernors for RCS as vernors are really expensive. Also, the solar panels on Dreamchaser currently outpower the rest of the station if I am estimating correctly. It has 7 seats.

The fuel tug is about 18k and can take up to 8 tons of cargo to the station if fuel is cargo, but actually a bit less because it needs some of that fuel to rendezvous and dock, so maybe 6-ish tons? 7? 5?

According to the spreadsheet, Wisp is 22k per launch. I believe it has 6 seats.

The other cargo vehicle, the GRA C-1000 can take 1.2 tons of cargo up on a Muon 6 (which it is currently listed on) but more if it's on a heavier launch vehicle. It has some RCS fuel on board, though, that can also count as cargo, so it might get an extra 3 tons from that, although some of it will have to be used for docking, so maybe 1-2 tons. It is reusable, so rounding up, 5k per flight.

The vehicle test flights are 86k.

The fully assembled station (with 3 hab modules, the spinny one, the tourist one, and the cheaper of the two rover designs, just one of the docking nodes, and the minimum science equipment) comes out to 283,000 if I am not mistaken.

 

The total, launch vehicles, test flights, and station hardware is currently sitting at 1,061,000 funds. This is against the budget of 600,000 funds. If my math is correct, cost needs to be reduced by ~43.45%. I think some optimization is definitely needed. If you cannot make it work I will help you out, but do not rely on that potential bailout.

I may update the spreadsheet later, but I'm all mathed out and I still have calculus homework to do. Best of luck, guys! The station is looking way bigger than I thought it would ever get, and the cost is rising proportionally. The challenge I created assumed a much lower user turnout. So, again, don't rely on the bailout, but one is probably coming assuming you make an effort to reduce cost.

Hey, at least it isn't as over budget as the JWST!

[VA7NFH]

Looking great! I'll work on my module tonight or tomorrow and try to bring the costs down. Also, the core is only 12.5 tons and the Sky III it's launching on can handle 16 tons. If it's ok with @Johnster_Space_Program I could launch his cupola module on top (maybe removing the fuel tank) and that would save us some money.

Edited March 27, 2019 by VA7NFH

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Either of the builds of @Rover 6428's hab module https://www.dropbox.com/s/8v4n0fvlygy8imv/Rover6428-HabModule.craft?dl=0 by @swjr-swis or https://www.dropbox.com/s/pa2o79434brtfih/Rover 6428 Hab Module.craft?dl=0 by @Johnster_Space_Program

If the choice is to go with this overall design for one of the hab modules, might as well pick Johnster's. Although in my opinion, the can design costs too much for the capacity and function it offers. So I guess my actual suggestion is to not use either one of these, but you guys make your decision.

 

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

• @swjr-swis's habitation module design https://www.dropbox.com/s/hts7cysi7ikqv6z/Rover6428-HabModule1.craft?dl=0 which currently has the DLC RCS tanks. Also, @swjr-swis are you planning on participating or just putting the module out there for us to use? Either way it would be great if you could remove the tanks, but I can do that if you want me to.
• @swjr-swis's Cupola/Habitation/Tourist module https://www.dropbox.com/s/s9rufm1yi1fuf3q/Rover6428-TouristModule1.craft?dl=0

These were just examples really on what can be done at less cost, but like I said, feel free to use them as is if you wish. I did go and retouch them to remove the DLC tanks and uploaded them to the following links (under different names):

KCSS-Hab-1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfe6adjc5zlmgza/KCSS-Hab-1.craft?dl=0

KCSS-SpaceBnB-1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0iqztdb6xp0hjq/KCSS-SpaceBnB-1.craft?dl=0

Both can be lifted comfortably together to a 125km orbit by the Kerbal XM, with a custom fairing. Which means the tug on the Hab-1 is superfluous and can optionally be left out, to save mass, parts, and cost. And since the SpaceBnB already includes a cupola, there really isn't need for a separate module for that - more funds saved. That still leaves a good bit of payload room to take up on that same flight, to make the most of it. A core module perhaps, to make the station operational from the very first launch? At least for tourism, which could start making some money while finishing the station.

 

As for participating: I don't think I'm needed. I'm also having some scheduling issues due to workload. I think I'll watch this unfold. But I make no promises that I won't do this as an individual challenge.

[Dman Revolution]

@Ultimate Steve

So after reading through it seems like you guys are still looking for another crew vehicle?

I got this hanging around if you want it:

 

This is actually a slightly older version. The newer one has about 3.1twr on the LES, carries 5 crew, has more realistically placed rcs, and uses some clipped linear rcs in the trunk for propulsion on orbit. Weighs about 14t in total, so if launched on one of the larger LVs it could lift 3t or more as unpressurized cargo in its trunk. Doesn't technically have a spare set of chutes, but it has 3 in total and can land at <7m/s with or without fuel in the LES. **Technically** the actual capsule could be reused as the trunk and Capsule are essentially 2 separate crafts, and 90% of the vehicle's complexity is in the Capsule, not the trunk.

 

Also, Idk if its really related but I also got a shuttle w/ stock arm too if we wanted to add that to this challenge at a later date. (Shuttle Mir Vibes?)

(And one more beauty shot for effect)

Edited March 27, 2019 by Dman Revolution

[Rover 6428]

good news and bad news:

good news: someone is already assigned to do the solar array stuff. Its @MSA but since he hasn't visited in a while, we may have to do it ourselves.

bad news: The minimum until I will get my hands on my computer is t-5 days. But as soon as I recover from the jet lag, I will design my modules and upload them!!!

Until then, I can only offer moral support

Edited March 27, 2019 by Rover 6428

[fulgur]

The Wisp SSTO is pretty bad at the moment and barely makes orbit. So I am trying to improve it. I will probably do that when I haven't so much REVISION to do.

[Johnster_Space_Program]

Like @Ultimate Steve said earlier, I can remove the EVA  module.

[GRS]

Maybe i can start doing my part in Friday or Thursday, About that "Coin" shaped Cupolla Module, maybe some extra modules if that's fine, i can go big but i can still go small if i wish...

[VA7NFH]

Another thing that I don't think we've considered is the altitude. I'd say 120km because that's what the payload ratings are for.

[Dman Revolution]

21 hours ago, Dman Revolution said:

@Ultimate Steve

So after reading through it seems like you guys are still looking for another crew vehicle?

I got this hanging around if you want it:

 

This is actually a slightly older version. The newer one has about 3.1twr on the LES, carries 5 crew, has more realistically placed rcs, and uses some clipped linear rcs in the trunk for propulsion on orbit. Weighs about 14t in total, so if launched on one of the larger LVs it could lift 3t or more as unpressurized cargo in its trunk. Doesn't technically have a spare set of chutes, but it has 3 in total and can land at <7m/s with or without fuel in the LES. **Technically** the actual capsule could be reused as the trunk and Capsule are essentially 2 separate crafts, and 90% of the vehicle's complexity is in the Capsule, not the trunk.

 

Also, Idk if its really related but I also got a shuttle w/ stock arm too if we wanted to add that to this challenge at a later date. (Shuttle Mir Vibes?)

(And one more beauty shot for effect)

@Ultimate Steve

Not trying to spam, I just don't know if tag notifications go through when a post it edited

[Ultimate Steve]

9 minutes ago, Dman Revolution said:

Not trying to spam, I just don't know if tag notifications go through when a post it edited

Sorry I've been so busy, but we do already have 2 crew vehicles and 2 cargo vehicles, I believe. One of the constraints for this challenge is that each payload must ride on one of the existing launch vehicles, so that pretty much means no shuttle. The Dragon looks to have many aesthetic parts and doesn't look to be too cost effective, which is a major consideration for this challenge.

Not to diss your craft, though. Both of them look insanely cool! I think that's one of the best, if not the best stock Dragon 2 rendition I've ever seen. And the shuttle with the robotic arm, how did you manage that? Your craft look amazing, but I don't think they are quite right for this challenge. If you haven't, though, I would post them in the spacecraft exchange, they look cool!

[Dman Revolution]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

 

Hey, thanks for the quick reply!

I had a feeling that the shuttle was a no go, but I thought I might at least leave the door open for you guys lol.

 

As for the Dragon 2, like I said in the original post, it is *technically* reusable since everything except the in oms fuel and the solar panels, but thats all a moot point seeing as you guys are all set.

Looks real good, thats why I was hoping to hop in lol

[Ultimate Steve]

Just now, Dman Revolution said:

Hey, thanks for the quick reply!

I had a feeling that the shuttle was a no go, but I thought I might at least leave the door open for you guys lol.

 

As for the Dragon 2, like I said in the original post, it is *technically* reusable since everything except the in oms fuel and the solar panels, but thats all a moot point seeing as you guys are all set.

Looks real good, thats why I was hoping to hop in lol

If you're still interested in doing something, one of the participants in this challenge has created a similar, simplified version of this challenge, but for a Mun base. It should be somewhere on the first page of the challenges section.

[Dman Revolution]

13 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

If you're still interested in doing something, one of the participants in this challenge has created a similar, simplified version of this challenge, but for a Mun base. It should be somewhere on the first page of the challenges section.

I appreciate the info, but honestly I only have a few craft that are fully self sustained deep space vehicles, so I wouldn't be too into that lol.

Most of the stuff I do is in LKO, I even have a 250t ssto plane that uses a stock gantry to reintegrate payload, including a reusable upperstage.

@Ultimate Steve

Heck, I just remembered...

If you guys want an arm for the station, I got one. It can snake its way around on jr docking ports. I don't have any pics rn, but if yall are interested I can take a look at posting some

Edited March 28, 2019 by Dman Revolution

[Rover 6428]

I think MSA abandoned us... Who wants to design a solar module?

[VA7NFH]

I can do it

[Barzon]

OK. I look forward to it.

Though before you start, @Ultimate Steve how much EC do you think the station needs?

[Rover 6428]

I don't think we need RTGs, but some big solar arrays would be nice.

[Barzon]

i  think just 1 or 2 sets of gigantors would do. then we can also cut down costs be removing some solar panels from the rest of the station.

[Johnster_Space_Program]

alright, sounds good. I think by next week we my be able to start construction

[VA7NFH]

Ok, I'm going to start in a few minutes

[Barzon]

Good Luck. Try to keep it as cheap as possible.

[MSA]

Sorry. I was on a holiday with my family and couldn't check the forums. So what do I need to do?