Back to the Mun Cheaply

[Halsfury]

It's been 40 years since kerpollo and plans to return to the moons of kerbin have begun, there is however, a slight catch;

There is no money, in fact there is significant government debt and a recession, this has prompted engineers to design a smaller payload for lunar operations, your job is to provide the launch vehicle in order to get to the mun and minmus again with a minimum of expense and with a maximum of frame rates.

RULES:

1) Cost is determined by part count, this challenge is all about designing a rocket which is accessible to players with older computers which can land on the mun and return

2) Some mods are permitted but must be specified, you may use all mods connected with guidance

3) You are only allowed one non-guidance related mod out of the following; KSPX, KW rocketry, and NovaPunch in your design

4) If you choose to post a craft file, the published craft should not include any guidance mods though you may recommend them (this is so that it is accessible to the most players)

5) You may choose to add to but not take away from the provided craft file (unless you specify what you did and why in which case you are restricted only by the current arrangement of the engines in the stack)

6) Craft will be judged based on part count and performance of intended objectives

SCORING:

1) The best score possible is 0 since each part added is = 1 point

2) once you have landed on a body (and returned to kerbin) with your design you get a point reduction as follows

Mun -10

Minmus - 15

Ike - 20

Gilly - 17

Moho - 40

Pol - 30

Bop - 32

Duna - 45

Dres - 45

Vall - 50

Eeloo - 60

The ones I haven't listed are impossible with my lander design on the basis of either not enough Dv or high surface gravity (Parachutes will also be helpful on Duna)

IMPORTANT: You are allowed to dock with and use an interplanetary stage which has been brought up in a second launch so long as the part count on the docked part is no more than 20 (not that hard really)

Craft File:

http://www./view/?9lvmnt5e6w66ewz

[skykooler]

If this is about cost...why not use the actual cost of parts in the VAB as a scoring method?

[numerobis]

My guess: because part count actually matters (for frame rate), whereas part cost is completely irrelevant yet.

(PS: my guess is partly based on the OP explaining why part count is the criterion...)

[Halsfury]

Yes

This is a design challenge focused towards providing the lowest part count, most accessible, Apollo style mission to anywhere

Idea is based on the new Orion program, which is supposed to go back to the moon and to mars

Since the biggest challenge in KSP is landing on other celestial bodies my attempt here is to create a scenario where the community works together to make a design which everyone can agree is the best

I intend to take the crafts submitted, including those modular interplanetary stages and find the best designs based on the above point system while using the standardized Orion payload of my design

I've spent a year or so perfecting the payload which I use for many things, and the above craft is what I have arrived at to give to the community

The actual rocket which I use has shifted about in terms of shape and size significantly but nothing is really as good as the payload so I give this challenge to the community in order to finalize a design.

[SmallChange]

Regarding part cost, the prices listed in the game currently are pretty arbitrary. For instance, a Hitchhiker pod costs almost as much as 5 Mainsails (which cost the same per engine as a Mark 55 radial engine).

Heck, for the price of 1 ion engine, you can make a 2 COMPLETE and functional small manned rockets. I think those prices are there just so there is a number figure in the box...

[Ninety-Three]

Is there a rule on how far our launcher has to get the payload before separating, or is it just "Land that payload on another body and get it back, using as few extra launcher parts as possible"?

[Halsfury]

There is no rule about how far your launcher has to take the payload, I designed it to follow a typical Apollo mission plan,

What I've designed so far is really designed for when you get there, (where ever there is)

I used KE redux to find that the CM with the service module attached only has about 1500m/s Dv

the LM by itself has a descent stage of 1600 m/s Dv and the engine can generate about .5 g's

the ascent stage has about 1300 m/s D/v and can generate 1 g of thrust

It has wide fuel margins for orbital operations but this was a choice for safety/versatility,

Also the way it is I think that it can land on all the places which I've listed, Vall and Moho may be a stretch for the LM however just Dv wise

[Ninety-Three]

I'm not familiar with the Apollo mission plan, but since I ditched the stage with landing legs before I had my Minmus intercept, I'm pretty sure I didn't follow it. That said, I did manage to get to Minmus and back with a 10-part launcher. Score: -5 (0)

A full accounting of my trip can be found here. I managed to make the 920 dV return trip on just 240 m/s thanks to Munar assists. I'm not sure if that's an impressive number or not, but I'm sure proud. I made a slight change to the launcher, giving triplicate symmetry to the ladder and probe core because I'm OCD about center of mass, and then switching the generator over to symmetrical solar panels. The overall weight got slightly larger, so it seems like a fair modification.

Doing a trip to Minmus is actually easier than the Mun: It's only slightly more dV to reach the SOI, and way less to land due to the lower gravity. You might want to swap their point values to reflect this.

Edited to add: This was done completely stock. I'm morbidly curious as to how an autopilot mod would handle that wobblemonster.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Ninety-Three

[Halsfury]

Was that all one engine block? or asparagus or something?

Wikipedia has a picture gallery of an apollo type mission here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

it's listed under Lunar Mission Profile

[Ninety-Three]

That's six orange fuel tanks, three mainsails, and a decoupler. No asparagus staging there, can't afford the parts! It took the payload to within 100 m/s of Kerbin orbit.

[Halsfury]

Don't get stressed about the parts so much, your score for a 10 part launcher would actually be including the cost of the payload

Since minmus gives -15 and the payload is 74 the total on the pad is 84 it is a 69 part rocket plus scoring, imagine if you used 2 radial decouplers and 2 fuel lines and it sent you to the Mun then your design would get the benefit of the negative 10 points from a mun landing as well as the -15 from minmus,

I didn't intend for players to be actually able to reach zero easily besides there are a lot of planets to visit

[Ninety-Three]

Oh, we can get points for multiple landings? Sign me up for a 0 point trip to the Jool system then.

If we dock with something in orbit, do we pay the part count for just the orbital stage, or do we also get points for its launcher? And, are we allowed only one docking, or several?

Edited May 14, 2013 by Ninety-Three

[sturmstiger]

If this is about cost...why not use the actual cost of parts in the VAB as a scoring method?

I like the idea of scoring that takes in to account part counts. Besides the practical benefit of fewer parts work better on older computers, in real world fewer parts often means fewer things that may fail, e.g., increased reliability, and reduced development & production costs. Before the forum crash there were a good number of challenges on accomplishing a task with fewest parts, but lately the trend (for example on spacecraft exchange) seemed to be massive inefficient designs with many hundred parts.

Also, for fairness sake, I suggest separate scoreboard for stock only designs (perhaps allowing piloting/infomation mod) vs. designs using mod engines, tanks etc, because some of them are quite a bit more powerful / efficient than stock parts.

[Halsfury]

@Ninety-Three

So long as whatever you attach in orbit is less than 20 parts it is fine, the launcher which you decide to use will probably be parts efficient since it is only a transfer tug but the launcher is exempt from the part count rules

As a reference I did a mission to Ike in preparation for Duna where I made an interplanetary tug with the KSPX 2m nerva and a 1/2 orange tank.

I launched my apollo craft into KLO and then docked the nerva tug, then I used the lunar transfer engine which I brought with the original mission to send me into Sun SOI and used the nerva to make the Duna intercept after I left Kerbin

[Halsfury]

Hi

Design Update on the payload: It has been decided that the Service module (the final stage with the command pod attached to the top) can be altered in a few ways

1) the 2.5m ASAS can be replaced with the 1.5m version mounted directly above the engine and below the low profile rockomax adapter

2) All the RCS ports can be moved around on the CM service module but not on the lander, note that their number (4 RCS blocks) may not change

3) The docking port on top of the CM can be replaced with the covered docking port if you do not include a LES (Launch Escape System)

4) The number of Parachutes can be reduced to 2 from their current number of 3