Apollo 13 challenge

Robonoise · September 19, 2019

You might have heard of the successful failure, Apollo 13. And kerbals definitely know how to crash, so I challenge you to recreate the Apollo 13 mission.

How it works:

Before Apollo 13 could happen, Apollo 11 had to happen! So before you begin the challenge, you have to make your rocket, then land on the mun to prove you can make it in the first place. Apollo 13 had several problems. For starters, during ascent, a stage 1 engine shut off before the other 4. So one of your engines should shut off before the rest in the upper atmosphere. During the actual mission, there was an explosion when the astronauts were on their way to the moon, so you must plot a course to the moon before your problem. The astronauts used the moon as a slingshot to Earth, so you should too. As well as this, you can only use your lunar module’s engines, not your service module’s engine.

Rules:

1. Must use stock parts only

2. Must have CM, LM, and SM (capsule, lander, engine for capsule+fuel).

3. No fuel transfers.

4. No mods that might affect gameplay or cheats.

5. All burns after explosion must be performed with the lunar module.

6. Astronauts must return within 10 days of launch, like the real crew.

7. Your kerbals must be in the LM at all times except before the explosion and during re-entry.

8. After the explosion, SAS is not allowed as the astronauts did not have much control over their ship

Good luck!

Extra credit:

1. Use realism overhaul.

2. Shut down battery’s and power cells in CM after explosion.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Robonoise

kspnerd122 · December 11, 2019

i feel that the lm rule is dumb as it does not even have enough space

Zeiss Ikon · December 17, 2019

On 12/11/2019 at 6:58 PM, kspnerd122 said:

i feel that the lm rule is dumb as it does not even have enough space

And you're pretty much correct. During most of the Apollo 13 flight, one astronaut had to remain in the CM, because there wasn't room for all three in the LM. The LM, however, had working air circulation and (after they adapted the lithium carbonate cartridges from the CM) scrubbers, while the CM did not, while it was powered down. @Robonoise, if you want to make it a little more challenging, you could require that the CSM batteries and/or fuel cells be locked out after the explosion, to be unlocked only during preparation for reentry.

For extra credits, the challenge could be done in Realism Overhaul...

splatn't™ · December 17, 2019

1 hour ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

For extra credits, the challenge could be done in Realism Overhaul...

oh no

Robonoise · December 17, 2019

On 12/11/2019 at 4:58 PM, kspnerd122 said:

i feel that the lm rule is dumb as it does not even have enough space

It plays a big role in the challenge as all burns were performed by it.

2 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

. @Robonoise, if you want to make it a little more challenging, you could require that the CSM batteries and/or fuel cells be locked out after the explosion, to be unlocked only during preparation for reentry.

For extra credits, the challenge could be done in Realism Overhaul...

I’ll add both for extra credit.

QF9E · December 17, 2019

@Robonoise I suspect you may be missing the point. Your challenge seems to have two requirements that are at odds with each other: On the one hand you are aiming for historical accuracy, which would require a 2-man LM. On the other hand you stipulate that the entire crew should move over to the LM after the explosion. This would mean a 3-man LM. Both of these cannot be true at the same time.

Therefore, can you please clarify the required crew capacity of the LM?

Robonoise · December 18, 2019

17 hours ago, QF9E said:

@Robonoise I suspect you may be missing the point. Your challenge seems to have two requirements that are at odds with each other: On the one hand you are aiming for historical accuracy, which would require a 2-man LM. On the other hand you stipulate that the entire crew should move over to the LM after the explosion. This would mean a 3-man LM. Both of these cannot be true at the same time.

Therefore, can you please clarify the required crew capacity of the LM?

You aren’t required to build a replica of the Saturn V nor use the Muner Excursion Module from Making History. You can, and are encouraged to, build your own rocket with a three kerbal crew capacity. So, sorry if I’m being a little stubborn about this, you must keep the 3 kerbal crew in the LM at all times. Also, the LM was a tight fit, but still held 3 crewmen during the mission after the explosion. So it should hold 3 crew after the explosion.

purpleivan · December 18, 2019

21 hours ago, Robonoise said:

You aren’t required to build a replica of the Saturn V nor use the Muner Excursion Module from Making History. You can, and are encouraged to, build your own rocket with a three kerbal crew capacity. So, sorry if I’m being a little stubborn about this, you must keep the 3 kerbal crew in the LM at all times. Also, the LM was a tight fit, but still held 3 crewmen during the mission after the explosion. So it should hold 3 crew after the explosion.

Not certain if I agree on the "must keep the 3 kerbal crew in the LM at all times", as this requires a larger than necessary LM, than needed for landing a crew of 2 on the Mun. The real LM was only designed for a 2 person crew (with the mass that entails), so not requiring a proportionately heavier LM for its use by a crew of three. In KSP, we'd don't have to option to just squeeze another kerbal in, we'd have to design the LM to have 3 kerbal capacity at launch.

Not that this is a big issue (Mk2 lander can with a MK1 stacked on top would do the trick), but it seems wrong when attempting a realistic recreation. Might be beter to require a 3 kerbal CM, but only have to fly a 2 kerbal crew and so only requiring a 2 kerbal LM.

BTW... not just idle nit picking, as I'm thinking of giving this challenge a go, as it will give me a reason to head back to the Mun for the first time since the surface overhaul.

Edited December 18, 2019 by purpleivan

Robonoise · December 19, 2019

4 hours ago, purpleivan said:

Not certain if I agree on the "must keep the 3 kerbal crew in the LM at all times", as this requires a larger than necessary LM, than needed for landing a crew of 2 on the Mun. The real LM was only designed for a 2 person crew (with the mass that entails), so not requiring a proportionately heavier LM for its use by a crew of three. In KSP, we'd don't have to option to just squeeze another kerbal in, we'd have to design the LM to have 3 kerbal capacity at launch.

Not that this is a big issue (Mk2 lander can with a MK1 stacked on top would do the trick), but it seems wrong when attempting a realistic recreation. Might be beter to require a 3 kerbal CM, but only have to fly a 2 kerbal crew and so only requiring a 2 kerbal LM.

BTW... not just idle nit picking, as I'm thinking of giving this challenge a go, as it will give me a reason to head back to the Mun for the first time since the surface overhaul.

Tip: I would allow you to put an external command seat in a mk 2 lander to “add space”.
Also, good to hear your thinking about taking on the challenge!

purpleivan · December 22, 2019

Argh... built my vehicle for this challenge only to find that the fuel flow for the SM-25 is completely broken. At first I though it was some mistake I'd made, but after searching around, it seems it's a known issue.

Not a big problem as I can replace the SM-25 with other parts, but still frustrating.

I've added my issues with this to an existing enty on the bug tracker (bug was entered 11 months ago).

purpleivan · December 24, 2019

I completed the two flights for an entry to this challenge yesterday and have written up the first of these in Mission Reports.

The report on the 1st flight took a bit longer to write up than I expected, and as I have a plane to catch, I'll be leaving the report on the 2nd flight (the sequel in which bad luck strikes) once I'm back home, so probably on the 30th.