Lander Practice

[Sardu]

Saw a tutorial by Scott Manley where he suggested going to Minmus with a lander since the lower gravity makes it a fair bit easier. He's totally right (smart guy that Manley). With the exception of getting a good encounter, but hey I need practice/experience with that as well. Anyhow, I was wondering if there is any real benefit to practicing the lander style landings right on Kerbal? The higher gravity/atmosphere would make it harder, or is the space around Kerbal unique enough (compared to the other planets) that it wouldn't really translate to better skill on other planets?

[superm18]

Practice on no atmosfere moons is good, i would prefere the Mün to Minimus becouse of the higher gravety wich, in my oppinion makes it more real compared to other planets/moons. Practice in an atmosfere just require parachutes and that mens no practice

[Splode]

Practicing on kerbal will crush your spirits. it's just so much harder. Even nasa had this issue: neil armstrong had to eject out of the practice vehicle they built. He landed on the actual moon with no problem!

Don't practice on Kerbin, it'll reduce you to tears.

[Sardu]

So what I'm getting from that is it would be a funny joke if I told a friend thats just starting in KSP that he should practice his landings on Kerbal?

[comham]

If anything, I find minmus landings are harder because the low gravity means if you land with even slightly too much horizontal speed, you'll bounce and tumble like crazy. Elsewhere the higher gravity brings you to a stop.

[Sardu]

I'm going to try on the Mun again this evening, last time I overcorrect way too much and it kept getting away from me. On the upside, when I put the same lander on Minmus I identified some design flaws in my lander that explained why my lander was crashing every time on the Mun. Specifically, I had my landing gear just a bit too high up...so when I was setting down on the Mun it was actually setting down initially on another component making the ship list on landing...Thank God I'm not paying for these ship builds every time

[magnemoe]

If anything, I find minmus landings are harder because the low gravity means if you land with even slightly too much horizontal speed, you'll bounce and tumble like crazy. Elsewhere the higher gravity brings you to a stop.

Horizontal speed of a couple m/s is not an huge issue, its just an problem on small probe landers who tend to rotate to fast making accurate burns hard.

My issue is that I tend to chicken and brake to early.

One benefit of landing on Kerbal is the atmosphere, it also kill horizontal speed for you so you can pretty much leave asas on and just brake.

[azazel1024]

Practicing on kerbal will crush your spirits. it's just so much harder. Even nasa had this issue: neil armstrong had to eject out of the practice vehicle they built. He landed on the actual moon with no problem!

Don't practice on Kerbin, it'll reduce you to tears.

I don't know that I'd say with no problems. Don't get me wrong, he NAILED IT. That said, he also nearly ran out of fuel because he had to pitch up and go long on the landing due to the original landing spot basically being a boulder field. I wouldn't exactly consider that no problem in regards to the landing.

Also his practice on Earth wasn't a complication of the higher gravity, it was a complication of the test vehicle being used to practice landings had a malfunction.

Yes, practicing on Kerbin can be rather disspiriting. That said, if you can do it on Kerbin (without parachutes) then you can do it on almost any planet.

My test for landing vehicles for most planets is launch them direct from the pad, take it up to at least 5,000m and then bring it back down for a parachut-less landing. If I can do that and ge a smooth landing, then I know that the lander is capable of setting down on almost any planet (exception Tylo which would need a lot more dV). This is with no launch vehicle, this is just the internal fuel/engines of the lander itself.

If I know I am putting the lander down on a very low gravity moon or some place I can use parachutes I only make sure I can take the lander up to 2,000m before setting it back down again (without parachutes).

Yes, this means my landers tend to be over built a little, but generally not by a significant amount. Its a valid test for Moho, the Mun, Minimus, Ike, Duna, Kerbin, Dres, Eve and Laythe. Others, dunno. I'd assume so.

If it is a lander with an ascent stage, then I generally go for being able to boost to 5,000m, set back down and then launch my ascent stage and get up to at least 5,000m (Duna I go for 10,000m). I haven't bothered with an ascent stage for Eve or Laythe yet, so I am sure those tests aren't even remotely valid as both need significantly more dV than just climbing to 5/10km on Kerbin.

[Temstar]

Basically, if you can do a powered landing without parachute on Kerbin, you will be able to do powered landings on every body in the Kerbolar system...

...except the dreaded Tylo.

[Daze]

To try my lander usally i use 2 methods:

1)Try it on Kerbin, if it can land on Kerbin it can land anywhere

2)Use HyperEdit to test it directly on the planet/moon

[Tw1]

Use the Mun! It's right there, and is about average gravity when compared to many other bodies.

You'll need more thrust on hever ones.

I have lots of Rovers on the Mun from when I was testing RCS landers for an unmanned Jool mission.

[CalculusWarrior]

To try my lander usally i use 2 methods:

1)Try it on Kerbin, if it can land on Kerbin it can land anywhere

2)Use HyperEdit to test it directly on the planet/moon

I usually use HyperEdit myself, I like to think of it as a 'simulation'