N-1 to the Mun

[QF9E]

The objective: Land a Kerbal on the Mun, Soviet style.

While the Soviet Union historically did not succeed in getting their N-1 Moon rocket operational, it ranks as one of the most Kerbal rockets ever flown, with no less than 30 engines on its first stage alone. This challenge invites you to recreate this awesome, yet ill-fated rocket and use it to land a Kerbal on the Mun.

 

Leaderboard:

@borisperrons: 215 points. Outstanding accuracy in all spacecraft, and a decidedly Soviet stoicism in the face of mission failures. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/196418-n-1-to-the-mun/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-3856208

 

 

The mission: The mission consists of two parts:

1. Launch an unmanned Lunokhod rover to the Mun, perform a soft landing and use Lunokhod to find a good landing spot for the crewed landing

2. Launch a Kerballed mission to the Mun, land near Lunokhod, perform surface operations and bring the crew safely back home

 

Requirements:

• Lunokhod must be capable of uncrewed operation, and it must be able to function for at least 2 Munar days. It is allowed to put Lunokhod in hibernation during the Munar nights (as the historical ones did), but it must be capable of reactivation after sunrise.

• The crewed mission must use a Munar orbit rendez-vous, with a separate mothership / re-entry vehicle (LOK) and lander (LK).

 

Challenge Rules:

• Use your own craft

• Document your flights using video and / or pictures. Please show all phases of flight and all maneuvers

• No orbital construction or refueling. There will be exactly two launches, one for Lunokhod, the other for the crewed landing

• Both DLC are permitted, but using them will incur a points penalty.

• Visual mods are permitted

• Mods that add or modify parts are ok but will earn a modded badge. Please don't use unbalanced mods such as those that add engines with unreasonably high ISP or TWR. Mods that add similar parts to the DLC will incur the same penalties as using the DLC.

• Mechjeb, kOS and other autopilot mods are not permitted.

• Radially attached boosters that decouple in flight are not permitted. While the real-life Proton rocket, used to launch Lunokhod, appears to have side mounted boosters, this is not the case: its radially attached tanks are an integral part of the 1st stage.

• No unintended decouplings or destruction of parts, with the exception of parts destroyed on the lower stage during hot-staging.

• Use of propellant transfer or crossfeed is not allowed.

 

Points:

You start with 50 points. Various goals will gain you points, while some circumstances lose you points.

• Use the Making History DLC: -15 points. A DLC is deemed used if you use at least one part of it in one of your craft. If you have the DLC installed but use none of its parts, you do not incur this penalty.

• Use the Breaking Ground DLC: -15 points

• Launch Lunokhod on a rocket that resembles Proton: +10 points.

• Use hot-staging in at least one stage of the Lunokhod launcher: +10 points. Hot-staging means that you ignite the engines of the next stage a few seconds before lower stage burnout, and decouple after ignition. Soviet rocket engineers liked this technique and used it all the time.

• Put Lunokhod on top of the lander: +5 points.

• Make Lunokhod resemble its real-life counterpart: +10 points

• Make Lunokhod "fold up" during the night: +10 points. The real life Lunokhod closed its lid during the night to minimize heat loss.

• Land Lunokhod on the near side and in daylight: +5 points.

• Drive the rover a set distance from the lander:

  • 100-500 meters: 5 points

  • 500-2000 meters: 10 points

  • 2000-5000 meters: 15 points

  • 5000+ meters: 20 points.

• Use the rover to find a suitable landing spot and park it there. To determine the suitability of a landing spot, use the slope angle. The slope angle can be obtained from Kerbal Engineering Redux, where it is called "slope":

  • 0-1 degrees: 20 points

  • 1-2 degrees: 15 points

  • 2-5 degrees: 10 points

  • 5-10 degrees: 5 points

  • 10+ degrees: 0 points.

• Launch the crewed mission with 2 crew on board, one of which will land on the Mun. +5 points

• Launch the crewed mission on a rocket that resembles the N-1. I will take particular note of the number and type of engines used. Historically, the N-1 used the same engines on its 1st and 2nd stage and it used lots of them: +15 points.

• Hot-stage all stages of the crewed mission up to reaching Low Kerbin orbit. You only get these points if you hot-stage at least once (so no single stage to orbit): +15 points

• Fire all stages of the crewed mission up to and including the Trans Munar Injection burn exactly once: +15 points. Soviet rocket engineers favoured simple and rugged designs, foregoing restartable engines whenever possible

• Use a free return trajectory: +15 points

• Have a functioning escape system. This was the only component of the historical N1 that was proven to work, repeatedly – sadly, it had ample opportunity to do so. In order to get the points you must perform successful pad abort and in-flight abort tests: +20 points

• Destroy the launch pad, or at least one KSC building, by crashing the rocket into it during the in-flight abort test. During one N1 test flight, the rocket fell back onto the launch pad, resulting in one of the biggest non-nuclear explosions ever: +5 points.

Spoiler

 

• Launch all crew in the LOK, and transfer crew between the LOK and the LK using EVA: +5 points. The real-life hardware did not include a docking tunnel.

• Don't use the crew's EMU during these EVA. This technology had not been developed at the time: +10 points

• Build the LOK in three parts: an orbital module, and ascent / descent module and a service module: +5 points

• Have the LOK resemble a real-life Soyuz 7K-LOK capsule: +10 points

• Land the LOK descent module on land on Kerbin: +15 points

• Use exactly one drogue chute and one main chute on the LOK: +10 points

• Fire retro-rockets prior to touchdown to land softly (for sufficiently low value of “softly” - Soyuz lands like a brick. If nothing breaks, you're fine): +5 points

• Lose a Kerbal: -50 points per casualty

• Build the LK in two parts, a descent stage and an ascent stage: +15 points

• Have all descent and ascent engines of the LK in the same stage: +10 points

• Land the LK close to Lunokhod. However, having the LK closer than 20 meters to the Lunokhod at any point during the landing is considered unsafe and will incur a penalty:

  • 0 – 20 meters: -20 points

  • 20 - 50 meters: +20 points

  • 50 - 500 meters: +10 points

  • 500 – 5000 meters: +5 points

• Plant a flag on the Mun: +5 points. These points can be scored only once.

• Use the rover to drive your Kerbal to a particularly photogenic or special location on the Mun. The idea is to promote going somewhere interesting, with rugged terrain, but to still find a safe landing spot nearby: +15 points.

• Crash the LK into the Mun (preferably without crew inside) at the end of the mission: +5 points

 

There will be a badge at some point, I'm still working on that. My graphics skills aren't great, so if someone feels inspired to make a badge, pleas get in touch.

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by QF9E
Added leaderboard

[sevenperforce]

A couple of nerdy points. 

Hot staging absolutely still uses a decoupler. Hot staging merely means lighting the upper-stage engine before decoupling. The USA typically had better, more complex vacuum engines and they were worried about debris impingement, so they used separation and ullage motors to decouple, pull the stages apart, and then settle propellants before lighting the upper stage engines. The Soviets, in contrast, put extra shielding on top of their tanks and used open-frame interstages with hollow decouplers so they could light the upper stage engine while the lower stage still had enough residual thrust for propellant settling. Anyone who presses spacebar once to simultaneously decouple the lower stage and activate the upper engine is already hot staging. 

The LK did not have two stages. Rather, the whole stack used a dedicated braking stage to perform almost all cislunar burns. This stage was used to leave free-return and enter lunar orbit, after which point one cosmonaut would spacewalk down the side of the command module and enter the LK. The command module would separate and the braking stage would perform a deorbit burn. That braking stage would remain attached to the LK through descent, zero out its velocity a few hundred meters above the lunar surface, and then separate to crash.

The LK actually had seven engines fed by either two or three turbopumps. The main engine was fixed but throttleable, and provided the ability to hover and descend. It had four small verniers fed from the same turbopump to provide steering. If it failed to light, then two fixed and unthrottleable backup engines, one on either side, would fire for an abort, using RCS for pointing. The LK was capable of making orbit from the lunar surface on either the center engine or the backup engines, but on a nominal ascent all three would fire together. 

So the LK only had one stage. It did, however, have a “landing frame” with legs and a ladder. This was jettisoned on liftoff from the lunar surface to save weight.

 

[QF9E]

Ok, you obviously know much more about N-1 than I do. However, I contest your position that the LK did not have two stages. As you yourself state

5 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

It did, however, have a “landing frame” with legs and a ladder.

This sounds like a stage, at least how a stage is defined in KSP. And that is exactly what I meant. I am aware of the Blok D braking stage, I just did not want to include it in my challenge rules because it would make an already rather specific set of rules even more specific.

I also disagree on this point:

5 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Anyone who presses spacebar once to simultaneously decouple the lower stage and activate the upper engine is already hot staging. 

Most people press the spacebar after lower stage burnout, and that would not constitute hot-staging.

But minor disagreements aside, I going to have to think for a little bit on how to fix this - your comments are obviously valid for the most part. If you have suggestions on how to improve the rules, please let me know.

Edited August 20, 2020 by QF9E
Changed blok E to blok D - I had the stages mixed up

[borisperrons]

I'd like to go deeper into the nerdy points.

 

In KSP, spacebar pressing and simoultaneously decoupling and activating the engine isn't actually hotstaging in my viewpoint.

The soviets (and the americans too, with the Titan II) lighted the upper stage engine while the lower one was still running to have the propellant still settled in the tanks, as @sevenperforce correctly pointed out. But real life engines need some seconds to spool up the turbopumps and start generating thrust, so in KSP world hotstaging would need engine activation and decoupling to be on two different stages.

 

As for the LK, I always heard it to be referred as a one and a half stage design, like the Atlas. Take it as you like, I think that the rules are clear enoigh, as if you want to build a two stage vehicle with only one engine, you'll necessarily end up with a design resembling the LK.

If you want to be specific, say that the LK design would need to drop the landing gear on liftoff from the Mun, IMHO.

 

That being said, is ok if I run this challenge on a 2.5x solar system with some badly necessary mods adding 7.5m parts?

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, QF9E said:

I contest your position that the LK did not have two stages. As you yourself state

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

It did, however, have a “landing frame” with legs and a ladder.

This sounds like a stage, at least how a stage is defined in KSP. And that is exactly what I meant.

Eh, you're right, that's probably just semantics. I was thinking of it more like a fairing -- structural hardware jettisoned when no longer used. I don't call Falcon 9 a "three stage rocket" on account of its fairing.

1 hour ago, QF9E said:

Most people press the spacebar after lower stage burnout, and that would not constitute hot-staging.

Hot staging describes the upper stage being fired to assist with separation, regardless of whether the lower stage is still burning or not. I believe the Proton's second stage fires after the first stage starts to shut down, while the Soyuz upper stage fires two seconds before the core begins shutdown. Both are considered hot staging. Pretty much anything that does not use dedicated separation motors (or, in the case of Falcon 9, a dedicated pusher rod to shove the upper stage away from the interstage) is hot-staged.

5 minutes ago, borisperrons said:

In KSP, spacebar pressing and simoultaneously decoupling and activating the engine isn't actually hotstaging in my viewpoint.

The soviets (and the americans too, with the Titan II) lighted the upper stage engine while the lower one was still running to have the propellant still settled in the tanks, as @sevenperforce correctly pointed out. But real life engines need some seconds to spool up the turbopumps and start generating thrust, so in KSP world hotstaging would need engine activation and decoupling to be on two different stages.

I would say that hot staging is any system where the upper stage engine thrust provides the impulse to physically separate the two stages.

Anyway.

I was going off of memory when I wrote my earlier comment and I must correct myself: the crasher stage was jettisoned at 1-2 km, not a few hundred meters above the surface. Another cool fact: the LK used four "settling motors", weak solid rockets that fired on contact with the lunar surface in order to prevent it from bouncing or tipping if it landed on a hillside.

These are really cool photos:

 

The center engine was able to throttle down to 41% for the hover and landing. The two nozzles on either side are tied to a single turbopump and provide backup/abort. The four nozzles around it are exhaust nozzles from the turbopumps; they provided differential thrust for pointing and fed from either turbopump. The center engine had two clamshells that closed over it on touchdown to prevent debris impingement.

Both turbopumps ignited on liftoff from the lunar surface, and once thrust was verified, the backup was shut down. If there was a thrust shortfall on the center engine, then it would shut down and the LK would proceed to lunar orbit using the backup engine/nozzles.

[QF9E]

21 minutes ago, borisperrons said:

That being said, is ok if I run this challenge on a 2.5x solar system with some badly necessary mods adding 7.5m parts?

Absolutely, go for it! I hadn't really considered doing this in anything but the stock system, but I would be very interested if you'd do it in a 2.5x system.

 

22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I was thinking of it more like a fairing -- structural hardware jettisoned when no longer used. I don't call Falcon 9 a "three stage rocket" on account of its fairing.

Yeah, we are entering a grey area here what is and isn't a stage. I was thinking of an Eve ascent vehicle of mine: I usually decouple things like ladders and parachutes before ascent, but I would not call that a stage. I'm fine with not calling the landing frame a stage, but I wanted to stress in some way the differences between the Apollo Lunar Module and the LK lander. I wouldn't want people to assume that the LK is just a scaled down LM.

34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Hot staging describes the upper stage being fired to assist with separation, regardless of whether the lower stage is still burning or not. I believe the Proton's second stage fires after the first stage starts to shut down, while the Soyuz upper stage fires two seconds before the core begins shutdown. Both are considered hot staging.

My understanding is that the essential feature of hot-staging is that the lower stage assists the upper stage in settling its propellants. I imagine that for Proton, the residual thrust of the engines shutting down is enough to accomplish that. But my point is that most KSP players will stage a few seconds after lower stage burnout, and therefore at a point where the lower stage no longer generates any thrust, and does not help in settling the upper stage propellants. In KSP this is of course irrelevant, but I suspect that that is a recipe for disaster in the real world. Anyway, I'll edit my initial post to describe hot-staging more accurately.

18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

These are really cool photos:

Those are some excellent pictures, thanks for sharing! I realize now that I should have said something like "the LK should have only 1 stage with engines". Although that is not 100% correct either, as you mention the "settling motors" - That's the kind of detail that I would love to see people do in this challenge. It's like the retros and ullage motors on a Saturn V: the KSP Apollo challenge does not mention them, but I found it really cool to add details like that to mine.

[sevenperforce]

On 8/20/2020 at 2:36 PM, QF9E said:

Those are some excellent pictures, thanks for sharing! I realize now that I should have said something like "the LK should have only 1 stage with engines". Although that is not 100% correct either, as you mention the "settling motors" - That's the kind of detail that I would love to see people do in this challenge. It's like the retros and ullage motors on a Saturn V: the KSP Apollo challenge does not mention them, but I found it really cool to add details like that to mine.

I'm looking closely at the LOK-LK design and apparently there was a telescoping boom that the cosmonaut would ride from the orbital module on the LOK down to the access hatch on the LK. I haven't been able to find any photos or diagrams or drawings of it, though. Anyone else come up with anything?

[sevenperforce]

Current progress:

Spoiler

 

[QF9E]

15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I'm looking closely at the LOK-LK design and apparently there was a telescoping boom that the cosmonaut would ride from the orbital module on the LOK down to the access hatch on the LK. I haven't been able to find any photos or diagrams or drawings of it, though. Anyone else come up with anything?

I wasn't aware of that detail, thanks for sharing it! I did some googling but haven't been able to find much. I found this quote from http://www.astronautix.com/s/soyuz7k-lok.html

Quote

After exiting the BO [orbital module] the LK cosmonaut would move to a large telescoping boom mounted on the exterior of the module. This would take him back to the hatch in the outside of the LK shroud.

But that does not add anything of substance. I am looking at this diagram of the LOK:

and I am wondering if the light-grey thingie connecting the descent module and the orbital module on the left hand side of the craft could be the boom in question. At first I thought it was an antenna, pre-deployment, but it seems to me to be too substantial for that.

Same page has some very good pictures of LOK hardware still in existence, but none show a boom, as far as I can see. As an aside: as awesome as it is that this hardware is still extant, it seems to be in a sorry state, which makes me sad.

I also found this pic: https://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/lok-2.jpg

The rod on the bottom picture running the length of the descent module looks sucpiciously like a telescoping boom to me. In which case it isn't much more than a handrail for the cosmonaut to hold onto. The other connection between the two modules (on the bottom of the top picture) seems to be an umbilical of some sort.

 

15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Current progress:

Looking good so far! I love the distinct design aesthetic of Soviet space hardware, and you have done a great job capturing that.

 

Edit: not LOK / LK footage, but I found a documentary on Soyuz 4 / 5, which tested transferring cosmonauts via EVA between two docket soyuz capsules, in preparation for the LOK / LK transfer during a lunar landing. Footage of the transfer itself at 14:11 in the video:

There's also this (animation on the left, mission footage on the right):

Quality is not very good, but, as wikipedia writes about this mission:

Quote

This [minor problems with his spacesuit] distracted Yeliseyev who did not set up the movie camera on the orbital module before exiting the spacecraft. As such, there is no film of the historic EVA, only a poor video transmission.

All this strengthens my belief that the telescopic boom on the LOK wasn't much more than a handhold.

Edit 2: I have found the boom in Asif Siddiqi's book "Sputnik and the Soviet space challenge" but he does not give any details either.

Edited August 22, 2020 by QF9E

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, QF9E said:

I also found this pic: https://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/lok-2.jpg

The rod on the bottom picture running the length of the descent module looks sucpiciously like a telescoping boom to me. In which case it isn't much more than a handrail for the cosmonaut to hold onto.

Yes, I think you are right. I will probably replicate it using simple deployable ladders because I suspect using pistons and ladder sections would be too heavy and too bulky. 

I wonder: what is that shroud that goes part of the way around the base of the flared portion of the service module?

[QF9E]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Yes, I think you are right. I will probably replicate it using simple deployable ladders because I suspect using pistons and ladder sections would be too heavy and too bulky. 

My first thought was to use a piston with a command chair on the end :). I think deployable ladders are the closest approximation that KSP has to offer. Unless there happens to be a mod that makes handrails possible, but I very much doubt it.

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I wonder: what is that shroud that goes part of the way around the base of the flared portion of the service module?

I don't know for sure, but when I was googling this afternoon I came across a description that said its a cover for the fuel cells. Presumably the boxes inside the cover that can be seen in the top view are the fuel cells. However, that begs the question why the fuel cells need such a cover at all.

Edited August 22, 2020 by QF9E

[borisperrons]

12 hours ago, QF9E said:

Edit: not LOK / LK footage, but I found a documentary on Soyuz 4 / 5

Wonderful find! AFAIK, there was no footage of the spacewalk on Soyuz 4/5 because in the hurry of preparation they didn't start the cameras. Very glad to find that it was not the case!

 

4 hours ago, QF9E said:

However, that begs the question why the fuel cells need such a cover at all.

This is a wild guess on my part, but it might be a protection against both micrometeoroid strikes and direct sunlight.

 

On 8/22/2020 at 1:14 AM, sevenperforce said:

Current progress:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Welp, that's a very nice looking 7K-LOK, congrats! I guess I'll have to go back to the drawing board for mine, now I feel aahamed for using the single seat lander can as the orbital module XD

[vyznev]

12 hours ago, QF9E said:

I think deployable ladders are the closest approximation that KSP has to offer. Unless there happens to be a mod that makes handrails possible, but I very much doubt it.

It probably wouldn't be hard to make a purely cosmetic mod to reskin one of the ladders to look like a handrail. Or maybe make it a part variant. (Don't ask me to do it, I've never made a part mod. But it sounds pretty straightforward.) But I also don't see any major issue with just using the stock ladder as it is.

[QF9E]

50 minutes ago, vyznev said:

It probably wouldn't be hard to make a purely cosmetic mod to reskin one of the ladders to look like a handrail. Or maybe make it a part variant. (Don't ask me to do it, I've never made a part mod. But it sounds pretty straightforward.) But I also don't see any major issue with just using the stock ladder as it is.

The biggest issue that I see with such a mod is that it would need new Kerbonaut animations. It would be pretty strange to see a kerbal descending down a pole like it is a ladder. Although I have never written any mod for KSP, so I can't really comment on feasibility. 

Other than that I agree with you - ladders will do fine.

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, QF9E said:

The biggest issue that I see with such a mod is that it would need new Kerbonaut animations. It would be pretty strange to see a kerbal descending down a pole like it is a ladder. Although I have never written any mod for KSP, so I can't really comment on feasibility. 

Other than that I agree with you - ladders will do fine.

I wonder what the spacewalk procedure was. I’m guessing a series of carabiner clips placed on the boom prior to LOK egress, transferred down gradually, and then removed after LK ingress. 

[borisperrons]

Progress of my build: I have an L3 complex which I'm happy with. I could make the Blok D cryogenic with Nertea's mod to better fit the IRL one, but I'll see if that's worth the effort. In any case I will use it for the Lunokhod mission too.

Spoiler

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by borisperrons

[sevenperforce]

22 hours ago, borisperrons said:

Progress of my build: I have an L3 complex which I'm happy with. I could make the Blok D cryogenic with Nertea's mod to better fit the IRL one, but I'll see if that's worth the effort. In any case I will use it for the Lunokhod mission too.

That looks REALLY good.

[sevenperforce]

On 8/22/2020 at 8:53 AM, QF9E said:

I am looking at this diagram of the LOK:

and I am wondering if the light-grey thingie connecting the descent module and the orbital module on the left hand side of the craft could be the boom in question. At first I thought it was an antenna, pre-deployment, but it seems to me to be too substantial for that.

Same page has some very good pictures of LOK hardware still in existence, but none show a boom, as far as I can see. As an aside: as awesome as it is that this hardware is still extant, it seems to be in a sorry state, which makes me sad.

I also found this pic: https://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/lok-2.jpg

The rod on the bottom picture running the length of the descent module looks sucpiciously like a telescoping boom to me. In which case it isn't much more than a handrail for the cosmonaut to hold onto. The other connection between the two modules (on the bottom of the top picture) seems to be an umbilical of some sort.

Edit: not LOK / LK footage, but I found a documentary on Soyuz 4 / 5, which tested transferring cosmonauts via EVA between two docket soyuz capsules, in preparation for the LOK / LK transfer during a lunar landing. Footage of the transfer itself at 14:11 in the video

It's blurry, but it looks like they did use a basic carabiner to transition.

The closer photo looks really really good. That is definitely a telescoping rod...you'd clip a carabiner to it and just slide along it. So in the cutaway, the telescoping rod is actually at the bottom right, not the top left. 

I think I may keep the LK design but rebuild the LOK from scratch to make it look more like this one. Interesting how they had the transfer rails along the top as well. Recall that the LK-LOK never did the "flip and extract" maneuver of the Apollo CSM, so the cosmonaut would have to EVA down across the service module to enter the LK, then would climb along the front/top of the LOK after docking post-sortie.

I wonder what all those spikes are at the transition between the re-entry capsule and the service module.

[sevenperforce]

This uses hella mods but wow is it cool:

 

 

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/22/2020 at 4:39 PM, QF9E said:

My first thought was to use a piston with a command chair on the end :). I think deployable ladders are the closest approximation that KSP has to offer. Unless there happens to be a mod that makes handrails possible, but I very much doubt it.

Nebula EVA Handrails

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 

On 8/22/2020 at 4:39 PM, QF9E said:

My first thought was to use a piston with a command chair on the end :). I think deployable ladders are the closest approximation that KSP has to offer. Unless there happens to be a mod that makes handrails possible, but I very much doubt it.

Nebula EVA Handrails

You can’t get in and out of a command chair from a ladder, but you could potentially put the ladders sideways to translate and produce a different animation. 

[QF9E]

11 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I wonder what all those spikes are at the transition between the re-entry capsule and the service module.

Soyuz 7K-OK (the 1st generation LEO Soyuz on which the 7K-LOK was based) had a similar ring of spikey bits. In this picture it is labeled "long range communications antenna":

[sevenperforce]

7 hours ago, QF9E said:

Soyuz 7K-OK (the 1st generation LEO Soyuz on which the 7K-LOK was based) had a similar ring of spikey bits. In this picture it is labeled "long range communications antenna":

I went back to the drawing board and let's just say I am having entirely too much fun with this.

Spoiler

Fully actuated rotating and extending telescoping boom for crew transfer. It is impossible to EVA from the re-entry module; you must transfer to the orbital module first. There is a vent to dump monopropellant after the drogue deploys. The heat shield is jettisoned after the drogue deploys and there are four solid fueled thrusters underneath it to soften the landing. No reaction wheels on the re-entry module; the thrusters (not shown) are set to provide roll control only in order to steer through the skip re-entry.

[borisperrons]

On 8/23/2020 at 6:17 PM, borisperrons said:

I have an L3 complex which I'm happy with.

That was clearly a blatant lie.

I went back and put an end to the voice in the back of my head that was saying "oi, redo them, they're a bit excrements".
Now I can go ahead and actually go forward with the rest of the bloody rocket without looking back to what I've done.
As a matter of fact, I also have the Block G and Block V done, plus the SAS. I'm starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

All singing, all dancing new 7K-LOK:

Spoiler

 

New spanking brand new LK:

Spoiler

 

[QF9E]

12 hours ago, borisperrons said:

All singing, all dancing new 7K-LOK:

Nice! I like how you incorporated the fuel cell cover. And connecting two of these Soviet style capsules end to end makes for a pretty convincing Soyuz orbital / descent module combo.

12 hours ago, borisperrons said:

New spanking brand new LK:

That looks amazing! I really like the look of those shiny silver spherical fuel tanks. And are those the landing engines with nozzles pointing upwards? Highly detailed model, can't wait to see it fly!