How to find a (relatively) level landing site?

[maddog59]

Minmus and Kerbin are pretty easy, but when I go to the Mun I keep finding myself landing on slopes and/or burning fuel trying to maneuver to a relatively level spot. Is there some technique(s) to determine the slope of an area? I have KER installed, and a resource survey probe in orbit, and have set waypoints for regions that I want to mine, and I'm hoping there's a method I can use to do something similar with terrain.  

[Caerfinon]

4 minutes ago, maddog59 said:

I'm hoping there's a method I can use to do something similar with terrain

KER has a slope readout of the terrain under you. Basically it is the [Angle of the slope]  @ [the heading of the slope downward].  So a readout of "0.0 @ ---" would indicate a flat surface and "2.0 @ 90" would mean a 2 degree slope heading 90 degrees  (or east)

If you are looking for an automated tool, then Throttle Controlled Avionics has a feature in it's landing routines that searches for a flat landing site nearby if the one you've selected is too steep.

[AlexinTokyo]

It's a mod recommendation, but SCANsat (found here) allows you to do altimetry scans which can produce slope maps.  You can use those to find predominantly flat areas. 

[maddog59]

1 hour ago, Caerfinon said:

KER has a slope readout of the terrain under you. Basically it is the [Angle of the slope]  @ [the heading of the slope downward].  So a readout of "0.0 @ ---" would indicate a flat surface and "2.0 @ 90" would mean a 2 degree slope heading 90 degrees  (or east)

If you are looking for an automated tool, then Throttle Controlled Avionics has a feature in it's landing routines that searches for a flat landing site nearby if the one you've selected is too steep.

Right, I should've mentioned that I've got that in my HUD, and I generally use it as I desperately searching for a place to land. But I wasn't sure about the second part of the reading. Thanks for that!  
I'll take a look at the TCA package. Much obliged!

32 minutes ago, AlexinTokyo said:

It's a mod recommendation, but SCANsat (found here) allows you to do altimetry scans which can produce slope maps.  You can use those to find predominantly flat areas. 

I've heard about SCANsat but didn't realize it could be used like that. I'll take a look. Thank you!

[Snark]

9 hours ago, maddog59 said:

Minmus and Kerbin are pretty easy, but when I go to the Mun I keep finding myself landing on slopes and/or burning fuel trying to maneuver to a relatively level spot.

What's your definition of "relatively level"?  I mean, I would call most of the Mun "relatively level" as long as you stay away from crater walls, but maybe you're looking for a much more level surface than I'm used to trying for.

My own solution to this problem is just to design my landers so that they have a low CoM and/or wide "stance", so that they're inherently stable against tipping and can handle a moderate amount of slope without trouble.

[Guest]

For the mun, I try to land inside the centre of a large crater as they tend to be fairly flat (but avoid the mini craters inside the big one).

[Superfluous J]

If you are thinking long term, like setting up a base or something like that, then I'd suggest what I call a Prospector Probe. Make a probe as small as you can and give it a ridiculous amount of fuel, so it has say 10x the fuel needed to land. In Mun's case that'd be somewhere around 5000 m/s, which sounds ridiculous but with tiny probes it's pretty easy. Alternatively, give the probe only 2-5x the m/s to land (1000-3000 say) and send 2-5 of them in one launch, to land at multiple sites.

Treat this probe (or these probes) as throwaway. They have one job: Land at multiple sites so you can see the terrain from ground level and jump around willy nilly until the fuel runs out. If they have to land 5 times who cares? If they run out of fuel who cares? Eventually they'll find a good spot, or you can send another.

Then when they DO find a good spot, just land near them with your real mission.

[swjr-swis]

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I'd suggest what I call a Prospector Probe.

I agree with @Superfluous J. In stock this is pretty much the only way, and even with the suggested mods you still would want to see what the immediate area actually looks like. We don't have actual visualization equipment in our part selection (with all the science instruments and focus, I still find cameras/telescopes a peculiar gap in our instrumentation), so landing a separate probe just to check out the terrain (and giving us a target to aim at) is the indicated way.

SCANsat is nice, but I don't think it can chart terrain in enough detail to be sure one isn't landing in the flat center of a crater with steep walls. A simple slope indicator like KER's certainly can't.

[maddog59]

15 hours ago, Snark said:

What's your definition of "relatively level"?  I mean, I would call most of the Mun "relatively level" as long as you stay away from crater walls, but maybe you're looking for a much more level surface than I'm used to trying for.

My own solution to this problem is just to design my landers so that they have a low CoM and/or wide "stance", so that they're inherently stable against tipping and can handle a moderate amount of slope without trouble.

For me, 'relatively level' would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 - 5 degree slope or less. And I've done the same as you mentioned with most of my vehicles as well (thank you, Thuds! ). Until recently when I discovered the Station Parts Expansion mod which includes some self-leveling parts I was spending a lot of time adding pads and pistons to my bases so I could level them after the fact. But I'd also like to put down some 'Buck Rogers' style ships that stand on their tails and reach majestically into the sky, yearning to be free of the surly bonds of gravity.  

Edited May 20, 2021 by maddog59

[Caerfinon]

6 minutes ago, maddog59 said:

yearning to be free of the surly bonds of gravity.

and touch the slippery tentacles of Kraken....

[swjr-swis]

5 minutes ago, Caerfinon said:

13 minutes ago, maddog59 said:

... the surly bonds of gravity.

... the slippery tentacles of Kraken....

One -kerbal- theory is that those are one and the same...

[maddog59]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

We don't have actual visualization equipment in our part selection (with all the science instruments and focus, I still find cameras/telescopes a peculiar gap in our instrumentation)

I agree; in the words of that late great philosopher/bounty hunter Jubal Early: "Does that seem right to you?" 

[king of nowhere]

On 5/20/2021 at 11:51 AM, Superfluous J said:

 I'd suggest what I call a Prospector Probe. Make a probe as small as you can and give it a ridiculous amount of fuel, so it has say 10x the fuel needed to land. In Mun's case that'd be somewhere around 5000 m/s, which sounds ridiculous but with tiny probes it's pretty easy. Alternatively, give the probe only 2-5x the m/s to land (1000-3000 say) and send 2-5 of them in one launch, to land at multiple sites.

Treat this probe (or these probes) as throwaway. They have one job: Land at multiple sites so you can see the terrain from ground level and jump around willy nilly until the fuel runs out. Eventually they'll find a good spot, or you can send another.

Then when they DO find a good spot, just land near them with your real mission.

wouldn't a rover be more convenient for the same task?

[Hotel26]

On 5/20/2021 at 5:51 PM, Superfluous J said:

Treat this probe (or these probes) as throwaway

Agree totally with this approach (and have specialized in it).  I agree with "throw-away", too.  And point out that if you simply reserve the last 800 m/s to go back to orbit and refuel, you can continue to use such indefinitely, even after establishing your mission beach head.  Such vehicles can be used as personal transportation from one base to another.

14 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

wouldn't a rover be more convenient for the same task?

And what I wrote above is why I eventually gave up completely on rovers (personal choice) as a pitiful waste of time (not to be controversial).  (Bon Voyage would have made a difference, but last time I used it, it did not support RTGs and/or fuel cells(?).)

The only exception for rovers is those that are Mun dune buggies, purely for fun, show-jumping...

"Life is short -- and the universe is infinite."

                                                                             

Where I find the OP's question really relevant, though, is on Kerbin, for atmospheric flight ending in horizontal landings.  I started compiling a small database of likely landing spots and it is quite precious information.  I don't think e.g. SCANsat gives the kind of precision required to find a high-quality permanent airbase.  (I have thought, in the past, about a mod for locating precisely this as you fly over...)

Edited May 21, 2021 by Hotel26

[king of nowhere]

5 minutes ago, Hotel26 said:

The only exception for rovers is those that are Mun dune buggies, purely for fun, show-jumping...

 

is there anything that is not for fun in this game?

i like driving rovers around if i have a purpose for it. if i am trying to minimize the time spent to set up a mun base, then perhaps i am not enjoying setting up a mun base. and i'd probably drop the idea and do some other kind of mission that does not require doing boring stuff.

[Hotel26]

38 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

is there anything that is not for fun in this game?

You have made an excellent -- and totally valid -- point.  No one need justify doing anything they want to do.  Especially while they are having fun doing it.

Hey, I had fun building rovers!  And there's  a science to it, I'll give you that.

Then it became a question of 'opportunity cost': "If I can mine Fun at a rate of 0.001 giggles/second using this rover, or I can mine 2.5 giggles/second doing this other,...?"    You get the point.

(I'm the guy who has a rover stuck about 1/3 of the way West around Kerbin on a circumnavigation and it hasn't moved for ... donkey's years.  It's just not the fastest way to explore, actually, although it has the advantage of you being up-close-and-personal.  That's why I designed a hybrid that was part ground rover and part supersonic.  I didn't use it as much as I thought I was going to, though.)

Edited May 21, 2021 by Hotel26

[Superfluous J]

10 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

wouldn't a rover be more convenient for the same task?

Only if you don't hate driving rovers.

[Mahnarch]

I did build a Jeep™ specifically for this.

About 4 Kerbals wide, plus tires (so, I guess, 6 Kerbals wide) and 8 Kerbals long.

Completely automated and has enough capacity to hold building materials, Science™ and what-nots.

 

It's also got a winch, which is pretty cool.

 

I was going to call it the 'Kerbal Interplanetary Transport Truck', or 'K.I.T.T.' but, then, I got sued by NBC.

[imcute]

make a speedy rover with bigggest wheels(they have high linear velocity)

turn off brakes of the wheels

if u land somewhere and the speed changes,its not going to be a level site.