The little lander challenge: Complete

[Guest]

I think I am one of the only people that make small but not challenging lander designs. And as Doodling Adventures had to end, I thought it would be fun to try this out for the community. Now the problem with all the past challenges I have tried where that I made no example, they where pretty hard, and there was no rewards at all. So I went on to build the little lander challenge. So here we go:

Round 1: Garage landers

Spoiler

Scenario: Your company has been issued to make a lander that can do a simple mission. Land in one place. A contract has been filed that a Simple lander has been suggested. Here is the following you must know about the contract.

MORE COMING SOON

Round 2: Two is better than one

Spoiler

 Scenario: Your latest lander has been quite a successful lander, but trouble arises. Most of the landers submitted could only stay in one place. A contract has been filed that a biome hopper has been suggested. Here is the following you must know about the contract.

1.Your lander must be able to do the following (or you cannot be scored)

-Launch from the KSC, or Desert launch site, doesn't make a big difference for either...

-No part clipping of tanks, landing legs, or other functional stuff (putting engines in structure parts is fine as long they are visible)

-No mods of physics altering, cheats, or hyper-edit

-Land on a moon of a planet and collect science from two or more biomes or/and easter eggs, no rovers

-You must be able to carry two science parts

-You must be able to transmit the science (no separate craft relays allowed)

2. Which places are allowed

Any moon of kerbol or a mod moon of a mod or stock planet. See the scoring terms below.

3. Which places are not allowed

Asteroids, planets, stars, or any planet/moon outside or not of the Kerbol system.*

4. Which biome hopping submissions are not allowed?

Allowed: Biome A --> Biome B --> etc.

Allowed: Biome A --> Easter Egg A --> etc.

Not Allowed: Biome A --> Biome A but somewhere else

Not Allowed: Easter egg --> Same Easter Egg but different structure (ex: Vallhenge)

Allowed: Easter egg --> Same Easter Egg but in different location (ex: Mun Arch to another Mun Arch)

Allowed: Moon A --> Moon B --> etc.

5. Scoring

Your scoring is separated in 4 ways

1. Destination:

Spoiler

First what is the orbital speed:

Fast: above 2100

Medium: in between

Slow: below 600

Distance: the farther you go, more points. be very close to the sun, more points. 

<NOTE THE POINTS ARE SCORED IN BETWEEN>

No Atmosphere: +0 points

Atmosphere 30,000: 10 points

Atmosphere 50,000: 20 points

Atmosphere 70,000: 30 points 

Atmosphere 200,000+: 50 points

The largest destination is what is used for destination scoring points

2. Size:

Spoiler

Small (under 2 meter parts): 15 points

Medium (2 meter parts): 10 points

Large (3 meter parts): 5 points

Huge (5m parts): Penalized - 4 points

3.Cost:

Spoiler

No submission can go over 50,000 funds - recovered funds do not count

Penalty will be -4 points per 1 thousand funds

4. Lander type:

Spoiler

Every Biome/Easter egg you go to is (excludes every moon who's orbital velocity is under 790m/s):

+10 points for 3

+20 points for 4

+35 points for 5

+50 points for 6

+100 points for completing all the moon's biomes, and visiting at least 1 easter egg (if the planet has one)

Every science transmitted after the first two biome hops is 10 points each

Every Easter Egg visited after 1 is 10 points each

____________________________________________________

-Engine doesn't touch the ground: +10 points

-Probe Core doesn't touch the ground: +10 points

-No landing stage: +10 points

-Be able to get to moon orbit to moon surface using one stage : + 20 points

-Aesthetic Launch pad and/or lander (not required for flagship class): +20 points

-Lander goes to multiple celestial bodies: +40 points

 

 

REWARDS:

Round 3: Asteroids, Comets, and Giants oh my!

Spoiler

Scenario:

Your company has recently been more noticed around the spacecraft market. But the giants of SpaceK, Green Origin, and United Kerbal Alliance are more popular. It's time to settle in once and for all a mission that will blow the roof off the Company world. A multi-celestial-body spacecraft. The goal of this flight is to visit Asteroids and Comets. And defeat the giants of yesterday! 

This round is supposed to make it that you push your spacecraft to visit even more space rocks. I hope that you submit your OG submission and then a few days later post a new asteroid/comet that you visit to grow your score.

Your lander spacecraft must accept the following:

-Fly 100% successfully all the way.

-Not use of cheats, physics editing mods, or non-stock parts (DLC allowed)

-RTGs, fuel cells, and relay parts are banned for this round

-No crew or lack of probe core

-No going higher than 85,000 funds

Mission:

Mission is simple. You must fly to an asteroid or comet and then either stop their or fly to another space rock. This time you don't need any science modules but if you want to bring any feel free to. Here is considered a successful asteroid/comet mission.

-Launch on the pad

-Fly to Kerbin orbit (Periapsis and Apoapsis has to be between 70,000-84,000,000)

-Encounter the asteroid/comet

-Attach to the asteroid/comet with either claw piece

-Have some kind of image/video for each step to prove you did this mission

Scoring:

Scoring is separated into 8 areas

1. Penalties: If you broke rules you will lose 10 points for each broken rule. Except for banned part and fund penalties, it's 5 points you lose for each banned part/1,000 funds. You must have a probe or it's a gatecrasher

2. Every space rock you grab will be an additional points. Don't worry if you can't submit all of them in one day. Feel free to submit more flights with your spacecraft. I have tons of xenon leftover that I will be over the month visiting more space rocks. Depending on what rocks you visit will add to your points. 

-Asteroid: 20 points each

-Drestoid: 40 points for first (10 points for each afterwords)

-Comet: 70 points each

-Interstellar comet: 400 points each

3. Bonuses of no xenon over what you visit

If you visit 2 or more asteroids - 20 points

If you visit 2 or more comets - 50 points

If you visit 2 or more interstellar comets (Probably impossible) - 100 points

4. Difficulty:

Easy: 0 points

Fly to an asteroid successfully and no other asteroid visits

Medium: 30 points

Fly to 2 asteroids

Fly to a drestroid and/or multiple asteroids

Fly to a comet

Hard: 50 points

Fly to a comet and multiple asteroids

Fly to a Drestroid and a comet

Flagship: 70 points

Asteroid-Drestroid-Comet mission all in one

At least: 2 asteroids, 1 Comet, and 1 Drestroid

OR

At least:1 interstellar comet (originally 1 comet and 1 interstellar but changed to balance out flagship)

OR

4 Comets

5. Athesics:

Make your spacecraft, rocket, and/or launch pad look nice. Naming your spacecraft and/or creating a flag will also prove to look nice

Max points: 100 points

6. Bonuses:

Community Favorite: 30 points

Highest atheistic score: 30 points (if more than 1 has 100 then no bonus will be given)

Flagship class bonus: 30 points

Land on Kerbin in one piece once mission is over: 30 points

Crash into Jool to prevent contamination in the Kerbol system: 30 points

Collied two asteroids/drestroids together at more than 30 meters per second: 70 points 

Use this as an example of what to submit (images are welcomed)

Look at other submissions so far

REWARDS:

 Round 4: There and back again! - Playable during October!

Spoiler

Scenario: Tragedy struck on a crew mission where an explosion in the spacecraft caused serious injury for the kerbals. The Space Center is grounded for launching any crew until proven safe. But sample returns will help receive more science. So all funding has been cut for the great crew mission to (insert destination.) Funds are limited to suppliers so teaming up helps get more funds available. So team up with your competitors to save the grand mission to (insert destination!!!!)

This round is supposed to help convince you teaming up with another forum user to complete the mission. It can be done alone but you will have limited funding!

Spacecraft rules:

-Cheats are allowed for testing only!

-Be able to successfully fly your whole mission

-You may have the limit to 1 RTG for one user and 2 for two users. Xenon will not be allowed for this round.

-Not use of cheats inflight, physics editing mods, or non-stock parts (DLC allowed)

-No crew or lack of probe core

-No going higher than 100,000 funds solo OR No going higher than 170,000 funds duo

-You are required to land a probe core with all the science returned either in a container or physically

Mission

Mission is pretty basic, Fly to a destination that's allowed, collect science and maybe drill some ore to return. Here is what is considered a successful mission:

single user:

-Launch on the pad (Limit is two)

-Fly to Kerbin orbit (Periapsis and Apoapsis has to be between 70,000-84,000,000)

-Encounter the destination and send a lander to the surface

-Collect X amount of science

-Return to Kerbin (orbiter optional)

-Have some kind of image/video for each step to prove you did this mission

two users:

First user:

-Launch the lander on the pad

-Fly to Kerbin orbit (Periapsis and Apoapsis has to be between 70,000-84,000,000)

-Encounter the destination and send the lander to the surface

-Collect X amount of science

-Return to orbiter

-Have some kind of image/video for each step to prove you did this mission

Second user

-Launch the orbiter on the pad on the pad

-Fly to Kerbin orbit (Periapsis and Apoapsis has to be between 70,000-84,000,000)

-Encounter the destination and orbit (Periapsis and Apoapsis has to be between 10,000 meters above surface/atmosphere to SOI)

-Retrieve science and probe that went to surface

-Return to Kerbin with science and probe intact

-Have some kind of image/video for each step to prove you did this mission

Destination:

Here is allowed destinations:

Ike - Easiest (1 user only Will not count to flagship)

Duna - Easy (Will not count to flagship)

Dres - Medium (1 user only)

Vall - Medium (1 user only)

Eeloo - Intermediate

Moho - Hard

Tylo - Hard

Jool - Hardest (automatic flagship 2 user only)

Eve - Hardest (automatic flagship 2 user only)

If you have a modded planet/moon you want to fly to ask before flying there (Generally most of the larger OPM and some hard planets like @GRS's Arkanus are allowed)

Scoring:

1. Penatlies: If you broke rules you will lose 10 points for each broken rule. Except for banned part and fund penalties, it's 5 points you lose for each banned part/1,000 funds. You must have a probe or it's a gatecrasher

2. Destination (may change): Each destination has a difficulty rating and if you do a modded destination I will rate it's difficulty:

Easy - 20 points (1) or 40 points (2)

Medium - 30 points (1)

Intermediate - 50 points (1) or 70 points (2)

Hard - 70 points (1) or 140 points (2)

3. Spacecraft: Based on what your spacecraft did you get certain amount of points

Lander:

Each science experiment is 10 points for each stored (each expirement can only record science for each biome one time only)

Each Science Jr and Robotic arm survey is 20 points for each stored (same as above and robotic arm can do each surface feature one time only)

If you drilled ore to be returned to kerbin is a 20 points additional

Every 300 units of ore returned to Orbiter is 20 points

Orbiter:

Each science experiment is 10 points for each stored (each expirement can only record science for every region in space one time only)

Every 300 units of ore drilled from the surface of the destination returned is 20 points (must be returned to kerbin in one piece)

4. Athesics: If it's simple/clean/creative than it looks great!

100 points max

5. Difficulty (may change):

Easy (10) - Easy/Medium destination with 4 or less science experiments returned

Medium (20) - Medium/Intermediate destination with 3 science experiments returned

Hard (40) - Intermediate destination with 5 or more science experiments returned

Flagship (50) - Intermediate/hard destination with all sensor science experiments (includes magnetic boom ; excludes Atmospheric science experiment for vacuum destinations)

6. Bonuses (may change):

Flagship bonus - 70

Community favorite - 30

My favorite - 30

Co-op - 300

Look at other submissions so far

REWARDS

High Quality patch is right here for people who complete this challenge. copy and paste this image in your account settings then double click on the image to change it's size. 

 

For the flagship patch. Your name and your lander will be put on a patch (with your favorite color in the background.)

Notice, once the fifth round ends, I will make a patch for people who have participated in all five round of the LLC. It will look cool so it's a no miss!

Flagship Class

round 2:

round 3:

 

Round Participators Patch

ROUND 1 Rankings

Spoiler

Final Rankings ROUND 1:

1. @EveMaster 275 points

2.@AHHans 255 points

3. @mystifeid 205 points

4. @aspacecephalopod 200 points

5. @QF9E 145 points

6. @Space Nerd 130

7. @The Doodling Astronaut 120 points

8. @Laie 100 points

9. @vyznev 80 points

Honorary award

 @QF9E who submitted 3 landers! Nice!

My Favorite

@EveMaster's amazing Tylo cave Lander

Smallest Lander

@QF9E's with a lander stage that drops a few seconds to touchdown

Best images

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 2 Rankings

Spoiler

1. @EveMaster 325 points-  - Flagship level Sarnus system spacecraft. Excellently done in style with a grand tour of Sarnus. (community favorite)

2. @GRS 270 points -  - Flagship level Arkanus spacecraft. The most difficult destination so far submitted. (community favorite and my favorite)

3. @Space Nerd 155 points -  Sometimes we must revist the old moons. That's what he did.

4. @The Doodling Astronaut 125 points - I created a Vall lander able to head to Vallhenge! It was a blast and a pain to land on the top spike

5. @Dirkidirk 115 points - Mun lander and Minmus lander. Minmus lander went to a monolith and another biome. It was a tall lander

Round 3 Rankings

Spoiler

1. @EveMaster 1,155 | Comet Chaser | Flagship

2. @GRS 525 | The Collector | Flagship

3. @The Doodling Astronaut 310 | Cosmic Chaser | Flagship 

4. @Space Nerd 295 | DelV 16k | Flagship

5. @BallistX 270 | Infinity 1 | Flagship

Round 4 Rankings

Spoiler

Round 4 rankings (note each user has a separate score even if they teamed up)

1. @camacju | M | Hard - Honoree Flagship | 1400 points

2. @EveMaster | Eve Trinity | Flagship | 1470 points

3. @Space Nerd | Eve Trinity | Flagship | 1410 points

4. @The Doodling Astronaut | SRB smoker | Flagship | 370 points 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Guest
Updates on the board

[RoninFrog]

Is it just my browser, or are your spoilers having some difficulties?

Also, do recovered funds count towards score?

Edited April 30, 2020 by RoninFrog

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, RoninFrog said:

Is it just my browser, or are your spoilers having some difficulties?

Also, do recovered funds count towards score?

Spoilers did have some difficulties so I had to remove them

They will not count

Edited April 30, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

Finally update with patch

[QF9E]

Fun little challenge, here's one I put together for landing on the Mun using nothing but 62.5 cm parts. I flew it in the fully stock 1.8.1 KSP game without any DLC.

Name: @QF9E

Date of submission: 4/30/2020

Destination: Mun

Type of Submission: images

Image Submission:

Spoiler

As a final remark: Your points system seems to me to be heavily biased towards the Mun. Simply because an interplanetary mission is bound to take longer than 10 days, and that alone gives a penalty of at least 15 points. Only for Moho, and possibly Tylo, could you expect to gain a bit more points than from a Mun landing, although you will have to be quite clever to avoid size and cost penalties for those.

Edited April 30, 2020 by QF9E

[Guest]

6 hours ago, QF9E said:

As a final remark: Your points system seems to me to be heavily biased towards the Mun. Simply because an interplanetary mission is bound to take longer than 10 days, and that alone gives a penalty of at least 15 points. Only for Moho, and possibly Tylo, could you expect to gain a bit more points than from a Mun landing, although you will have to be quite clever to avoid size and cost penalties for those.

It was intentional to be like that. I wanted to make this a mission where going to the Mun and Minmus would be the ones in favor. But missions to Tylo, Moho, and Eeloo would be for people how would love the challenge. That being said, I edited some of the penalties for time

Edited April 30, 2020 by Guest

[QF9E]

Thanks! In the meantime I have made an even tinier Mun lander. Although I did not get video of this one, so I won't use it as a challenge entry. Hopefully it can inspire others to make an even tinier one:

For this one I used KER to time the suicide landing burn. I landed directly from Trans Munar trajectory, without orbit insertion burn to save a bit of fuel.

Edited April 30, 2020 by QF9E

[Guest]

On 4/30/2020 at 9:20 AM, QF9E said:

Thanks! In the meantime I have made an even tinier Mun lander. Although I did not get video of this one, so I won't use it as a challenge entry. Hopefully it can inspire others to make an even tinier one:

For this one I used KER to time the suicide landing burn. I landed directly from Trans Munar trajectory, without orbit insertion burn to save a bit of fuel.

You can still qualify for Honorary lander or my favorite. There will also be a smallest lander reward too. And it's okay to use KER since it doesn't mean you had autopilot.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Guest

[vyznev]

This seemed kind of similar to the Smallest Moon Lander Challenge from November 2018, so I decided to adapt my entry. Basically all I needed to do was add some landing legs (made out of cubic octagonal struts, since they're cheap and lightweight) and a booster stage for getting to LKO:

More screenshots in the album at https://imgur.com/a/0c4hZ2L

Notably, this craft has no reaction wheels or RCS at all, steering with engine gimbals only. That's not nearly as hard as it sounds, except that I made a slight mistake while tweaking the lander and moved the engine closer to the center of mass, which significantly reduced the steering authority I had for landing. (Did I mention this thing also has no SAS?) I still managed to make it to the surface in one piece (at least after a couple of reloads), but if I were to redo this mission, I'd definitely pull the probe core further away from the engine. Or maybe replace it with an OKTO2 so I could use retrograde hold.

Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, this should give me 10 + 5 + 20 + 15  = 50 points for landing on the Mun, plus 15 points for doing it in less than 10 days. I believe this also should count as a small rocket, so that's +5 points, and the cost is well under 40k, so no penalties there. Thus, my total score should be 50 + 15 + 5 = 70 points, i.e. the maximum for a Mun landing. Of course, going to Tylo or Moho could beat that. I might try a Moho mission later…

I think this is also the smallest lander so far. The total launch mass is 10,832 kg, of which the lander weighs 190 kg fueled (the dumpling tank isn't quite full) and 102 kg when dry.

Ps. Craft file here: https://pastebin.com/eMqmMK71

Edited April 30, 2020 by vyznev

[vyznev]

BTW, a few questions and remarks about the scoring:

• I wouldn't mind if the scores for Tylo and Moho were swapped. As it stands, there seems to be no point in going to Tylo, since it takes more time and delta-v and bigger antennas, and it's harder to land there too.
• For that matter, I kind of suspect the scores for bodies with an atmosphere (Eve, Duna, Laythe, Jool) are a bit underrated. For very small landers like this, an atmosphere seems to be almost more of a hindrance than help, since even the smallest heat shields and parachutes in KSP are quite heavy (a tiny heat shield with no ablator weighs 25 kg, while a single Mk16 or Mk2-R chute is 100 kg, i.e. nearly as much as the total dry mass of my Mun lander!).
• I'm not 100% sure I've understood the time scoring exception for the Jool system and Eeloo correctly. Does it just mean that a mission to those planets (and their moons) always gets a time bonus of at least 10 points regardless of the actual mission time? (If so, basically the only destination where you won't be guaranteed at least 10 points for mission time is Duna, since a standard Hohmann transfer to Eve or Moho takes less than 200 days.)
• For that matter, is having multiple science instruments supposed to give any bonus score? It seems like you might've intended that, since there's limit on how many one can have and a footnote that they must all be distinct, but I don't actually see such a bonus listed in the scoring rules. Or am I just missing something?
• Overall, the scoring seems a bit coarse-grained: it's not that hard to max out the score for a given destination (noting that a transfer time of < 10 days to anywhere but Mun or Minmus is basically impossible, and so not worth even considering). Maybe the launch cost penalty of could be changed to something like -1 point for every 1000 funds, with no lower limit?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice challenge in any case. But I feel like fine tuning the scoring a bit more could turn it into a great challenge.

[Guest]

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, vyznev said:

BTW, a few questions and remarks about the scoring:

Ok. Let's shoot

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, vyznev said:

I wouldn't mind if the scores for Tylo and Moho were swapped. As it stands, there seems to be no point in going to Tylo, since it takes more time and delta-v and bigger antennas, and it's harder to land there too.

hmm... I find Moho to be harder than Tylo. But maybe for more players it's the other way around, will consider

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, vyznev said:

For that matter, I kind of suspect the scores for bodies with an atmosphere (Eve, Duna, Laythe, Jool) are a bit underrated. For very small landers like this, an atmosphere seems to be almost more of a hindrance than help, since even the smallest heat shields and parachutes in KSP are quite heavy (a tiny heat shield with no ablator weighs 25 kg, while a single Mk16 or Mk2-R chute is 100 kg, i.e. nearly as much as the total dry mass of my Mun lander!).

Atmospheric landings also don't need propellant. So you trade some and lose some, I find it that the little parachutes will be trade off for fuel. You also might not need a parachute, as demonstrated by my little duna mission.

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, vyznev said:

I'm not 100% sure I've understood the time scoring exception for the Jool system and Eeloo correctly. Does it just mean that a mission to those planets (and their moons) always gets a time bonus of at least 10 points regardless of the actual mission time? (If so, basically the only destination where you won't be guaranteed at least 10 points for mission time is Duna, since a standard Hohmann transfer to Eve or Moho takes less than 200 days.)

You will not get points from time in the hard outer planets/moons. Instead, you will just get 10 points for accomplishing what I think to be a fairly good challenge for most. I hope that clarifies

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, vyznev said:

For that matter, is having multiple science instruments supposed to give any bonus score? It seems like you might've intended that, since there's limit on how many one can have and a footnote that they must all be distinct, but I don't actually see such a bonus listed in the scoring rules. Or am I just missing something?

There is no bonus scoring for multiple science instruments, you are just required to have one in order to participate.

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, vyznev said:

Overall, the scoring seems a bit coarse-grained: it's not that hard to max out the score for a given destination (noting that a transfer time of < 10 days to anywhere but Mun or Minmus is basically impossible, and so not worth even considering). Maybe the launch cost penalty of could be changed to something like -1 point for every 1000 funds, with no lower limit?

I am going to change time penalties to be more interplanetary friendly, but the funds penalty is going to stay as the theme suggests, you don't have a lot of funds in the first place, so it keeps the theme in line and keeps a limit from not just making a gigantic rocket to send a small lander to somewhere.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Guest

[Pds314]

So going interplanetary means you need a long range communicator ON THE LANDER, right? Not just a relay?

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

So going interplanetary means you need a long range communicator ON THE LANDER, right? Not just a relay?

Pretty much yeah. It's only needs to have 1% communication in order to be able to use prelaunched relays

I am going to try to make an Eeloo lander for this comp. to show a good example for hard point scoring

Edited May 1, 2020 by Guest

[Pds314]

"Every cost over 40000 are minus 5 points."
So that means a 4000 point design and a 40000 point design are the same score, right?

[jinnantonix]

6 hours ago, vyznev said:

Notably, this craft has no reaction wheels or RCS at all, steering with engine gimbals only.

Nice one.  I did a whole low cost Jool-5 mission on gimbals alone - it works - I will be following this design strategy for my submission.

I might have a go at Moho and/or Tylo too.

1 hour ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Pretty much yeah. It's only needs to have 1% communication in order to be able to use prelaunched relays

I am going to try to make an Eeloo lander for this comp. to show a good example for hard point scoring

I would have thought that you would need a relay on the delivery, and the lander would have just a Communitron that uses this relay.  Right?  So for example, if going to Tylo include Communitron on the lander, and a RA-100 somewhere nearby as a relay.

[Pds314]

Hmm... Looking into if it's viable to reach Eeloo in less than 200 days. It's seeming like the answer is basically... not with a reasonable amount of battery if you use ion. <400 days is definitely doable though... unless... maybe I can sun dive and get a very cheap boost. But that feels like I'm gonna end up burning too much fuel.

On the other hand... Eve in 10 days seems doable if you can reenter at whatever insane speed... which isn't especially likely.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Pds314

[jinnantonix]

1 hour ago, Pds314 said:

Hmm... Looking into if it's viable to reach Eeloo in less than 200 days. It's seeming like the answer is basically... not with a reasonable amount of battery if you use ion. <400 days is definitely doable though... unless... maybe I can sun dive and get very cheap course adjustments?

Alex Moon's Launch Window Planner will give you reasonable estimates for transit times.  A Hohmann transfer to Eeloo would require over 4 years.

 

[QF9E]

8 hours ago, vyznev said:

I think this is also the smallest lander so far.

Nice one! I am a bit hesitant to go SAS-less as I doubt that my flying skills are up to the challenge.

Quote

The total launch mass is 10,832 kg, of which the lander weighs 190 kg fueled (the dumpling tank isn't quite full) and 102 kg when dry.

Your lander is smaller than mine, but your launcher isn't, by quite some margin. Although I expect you did not optimize your total launch mass (neither did I - I just wanted to prove that it could be done with just 62.5 cm parts).

This does bring me to a question, however. It seems to me that you could optimize your lander to use virtually no fuel at all by means of adding a landing stage that is jettisoned just before touchdown. Or the other way around: I noticed that the fuel tank in my lander (even the dumpling in my second design) has much more delta-v when full than is needed for a Mun landing. So I decided to use it for the Trans Munar Injection burn as well. If initial fuel load of the lander is taken into consideration, I could lower the lander weight by making the launch vehicle larger and using its upper stage for the TMI burn.

I think a fair way to resolve this might be to take the lander mass as it enters the SOI of the body you are going to land on. You could also take the mass of the lander in low orbit around its target body as a baseline, but that depends on the details of this orbit and makes it harder to judge a direct landing, such as I did with my second submission. @The Doodling Astronaut: what are your thoughts on this?

Edited May 1, 2020 by QF9E

[Pds314]

4 hours ago, jinnantonix said:

Alex Moon's Launch Window Planner will give you reasonable estimates for transit times.  A Hohmann transfer to Eeloo would require over 4 years.

 

LOL I'm way past even considering Hohmann for Eeloo. I was doing a much faster trajectory. I was thinking of burning 16k delta-V or so after LKO but before landing. I am using that program to get super aggressive transfers.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Oh... I just made a terrible mistake. RIP fast Tylo probe test...

I forgot to factor in the time to re-charge between burns, and forgot that this would massively increase Delta-V requirements....

Yeah... this is not gonna get to Tylo... in fact... I'm not sure I can avert solar escape...


Yeah... note to self, don't even bother trying to use the Oberth effect for Ions....



 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Pds314

[Pds314]

"5-10 degrees - 10 points (EX:Mountains)"

Uh... sorry what? 5-10 degrees is a rolling plains. Not a mountain.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, jinnantonix said:

I would have thought that you would need a relay on the delivery, and the lander would have just a Communitron that uses this relay.  Right?  So for example, if going to Tylo include Communitron on the lander, and a RA-100 somewhere nearby as a relay.

If the communitron can connect to the KSC without the relay (at least 1%,) you can use the relay. Otherwise you are going to need a better communication

11 hours ago, Pds314 said:

"Every cost over 40000 are minus 5 points."
So that means a 4000 point design and a 40000 point design are the same score, right?

You might have missed "every one thousand funds above 40000 are minus 5 point." So for example if my rocket costs 55,000, then I would lose 60 points (I think I am going to edit that to 1 point loss so it isn't that much of a blow)

8 hours ago, QF9E said:

This does bring me to a question, however. It seems to me that you could optimize your lander to use virtually no fuel at all by means of adding a landing stage that is jettisoned just before touchdown. Or the other way around: I noticed that the fuel tank in my lander (even the dumpling in my second design) has much more delta-v when full than is needed for a Mun landing. So I decided to use it for the Trans Munar Injection burn as well. If initial fuel load of the lander is taken into consideration, I could lower the lander weight by making the launch vehicle larger and using its upper stage for the TMI burn.

I think a fair way to resolve this might be to take the lander mass as it enters the SOI of the body you are going to land on. You could also take the mass of the lander in low orbit around its target body as a baseline, but that depends on the details of this orbit and makes it harder to judge a direct landing, such as I did with my second submission. @The Doodling Astronaut: what are your thoughts on this?

I haven't seen a landing stage in submissions yet, but I find it to be a fair way to do it. As the Surveyor missions did to the moon. But I will favor single stage landers to be on the favorite design list.

2 hours ago, Pds314 said:

"5-10 degrees - 10 points (EX:Mountains)"

Uh... sorry what? 5-10 degrees is a rolling plains. Not a mountain.

Little error, will fix

[QF9E]

I kind of expect this to be a gatecrasher entry, but this lander is VERY light, at only 57 kilogram. And I believe it technically speaking fulfils the challenge, given @The Doodling Astronaut's clarifications regarding landing stages... Aslo, when taken together, the landing stage and the lander are much lighter, at 281 kg, than my earlier submission of 400 kg for the lander.

Name: @QF9E

Date of submission: 5/01/2020

Destination: Mun

Type of Submission: images. See https://imgur.com/a/5fc3b9T for full mission report

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by QF9E

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, QF9E said:

I kind of expect this to be a gatecrasher entry, but this lander is VERY light, at only 57 kilogram. And I believe it technically speaking fulfils the challenge, given @The Doodling Astronaut's clarifications regarding landing stages...

Hmm...

can it preform a science experiment on the surface?

After review I will accept this as a submission, but make sure you calculate your scores and determine which one you want to choose out of your two!

Edit: After considering I will just take the best of your two scores.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Guest

[QF9E]

1 minute ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Hmm...

1.can it preform a science experiment on the surface

2.can it communicate

1. Yes, as you can see in the penultimate picture I included in my full mission report.

2. You can see the antenna sticking out on the left side of the craft in the picture I posted. So yes, it can. And it did: