Duna Permanent Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge

[sturmstiger]

You have just been appointed as the Deputy Administrator of KSC for Missions to Duna and Other Celestial Bodies which Start with "D" (DAKSCMDOCBSD for short). Your first (and currently the only) job is to implement the President's Vision of "establishing the first continuously-crewed outpost on the surface of Duna" by the end of Day 500. And on your first meeting with the Deputy Administrator for Rocketry, you have been informed that for maximum production & launch efficiency, all your space launches would use the exact same type of launch vehicle (of your choice). Much to your relieve, Jeb is excluded from the mission planning process this time, so you can actually design the missions while considering factors such as efficiency, scientific value, safety & robustness, rather than things Jeb care about, e.g., "really fast", "massive" & "huge explosions".

Rationale

Unlike most challenges in which you build a single craft or fly a single mission, this one asks you to build multiple types of spacecrafts, design an efficient, robust and sustainable mission architecture, and (optionally) execute your own, long term mission. You'll have unlimited access to all stock parts and mods of your liking, but will be constrained by availability of launch vehicles, planetary transfer windows, support of your crew during long missions, plus a few additional rules considered by real-life crewed mission architects. The challenge is inspired by the various manned Mars mission designs I read in the last few months, e.g., NASA's Mars DRA3 & DRA5, Austere Human Mission to Mars, Mars Direct, Mars to Stay, Mars for Less & Ready for Mars, etc.

Basic Requirement

To qualify as an entry, you must describe a plan to land a minimal crew of 4 Kerbals on Duna before Day 500, and that they and their replacement crews will keep your Duna outpost(s) continuously occupied. Post pictures and brief descriptions of your (single) launch vehicle, each type of your spacecrafts & payloads as they reach LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit), Duna transfer burn of any docked spacecrafts, Duna surface modules during their EDL (entry, descent & landing), and your Duna outpost at various stages of completion. You'll also post a schedule/plan of your launches & other mission components until day 500 (and optionally until Day 1000). Your entry should also follow the rules below.

Rules

Launch Vehicle

1. A single type of launch vehicle is used for all launches from Kerbin. We call the maximum mass of inert payload it can send to your circular Low Kerbin Parking Orbit (or 75km if you don't use Kerbin parking orbit) the launch vehicle's Nominal Capacity. Remains of your launch vehicle that got into orbit is not considered payload.

2. Rockets need time to build & prepare for launch, and more powerful rockets tend to take more time. Thus the the minimal interval between any two launches is the rocket's Nominal Capacity * 2 Days. For example my R140 "Bob" rocket can lift 17.5 tons max to 75km LKO, so every two launches must be at least 17.5 * 2 = 35 days apart. Note that your actual payload CAN be heavier than the rockets Nominal Capacity if it has its own propulsion for the LKO circularization burn (e.g. the launch vehicle should at least be able to put the payload above 70km).

[ADDED 06/02]- Reusable launch vehicle bonus, as suggested by Andellmere & NeilC: If spent stages which can be safely recovered (e.g. no part destroyed on landing / splashdown) originally contained more than 50% of launch vehicle's lift-off weight, your launch interval will be 1.5 times (rather than 2 times) Nominal Capacity. Obviously if parts experience high re-entry heat (e.g. has visible re-entry effects) it is considered burnt in atmosphere.

3. You already have one launch vehicle built and is ready to launch on Day 10 (no matter how powerful your it is).

4. Crew shuttle: we assume your space agency has already developed a cheap & reliable method to shuttle crews between KSC and LKO, for example SSTO space-plane, "space cannon", etc. Thus any mission with the sole purpose of transferring crew between KSC and LKO is considered "free" and are not restricted by Rule 1, 2 & 3.

Long-term Crewed Missions

5. Any space or Duna surface mission longer than ~10 days are considered long-term missions. For example, transfers between KSC & LKO and betwen Duna surface & LDO, orbital rendezvous & docking, and short drives around Duna outposts are generally short, while flights between Kerbin & Duna, stays in Duna surface habitats & surface expeditions are long term missions.

6. Any long-term crewed mission must provide long-term hab space, which is modeled as twice the crew capacity of pods & cockpits. For example, while a Hitchhiker Pod can holds 4 Kerbals for short missions, it can only provide long-term hab space for 2; 3-man and 2-man pods can only hold 1 for long missions and the 1-man pods can't be used as long-term hab space. All long term missions must be done by at least 2 kerbals. Rescue / contingency missions may ignore this rule.

7. While every pod / cockpit contains enough supply for short missions, long-term crewed missions require additional life support supplies. Every Kerbal consumes 1 unit of supply each day, and with stock parts you can designate any (rocket, RCS & jet) fuel tank as supply storage, which carries units of supply equal to its fuel capacity. For example the 1.125 ton FL-T200 tank can carry 90 units of supply, while the 0.55 ton FL-R25 tank carries 100 units - clearly RCS & jet fuel tanks are better for this purpose. Tanks designated as supply storage cannot have its contents consumed as fuel.

Re-entry & Aerocapture

8. Spacecrafts must have some form of "heat shield" to survive re-entry or aerocapture that generated Re-entry Effects visuals. "Heat shield" are otherwise useless parts which prevent the Re-entry Effect "hot-plasma" from hitting other parts of your spacecraft. Mk1 & Mk1-2 pods, all cockpits, Mk2 & Mk3 fuselage and fuselage adapters are considered safe from re-entry heat due to their shapes or visible TPS tiles.

Nuclear (NERVA) Engines

9. KSC was given greenlight to use NERVA engines under the condition that they cannot be fired in Kerbin & Duna atmosphere, and they cannot be disposed by burning up in Kerbin & Duna atmosphere.

Mods

10. Please identify any mod you use. Please refrain from using mod parts with performance far superior than stock. Quantum Struts & similar mods is strongly discouraged because building non-wobbly spacecrafts with smart structural designs is part of the challenge. You may also use life-support mods and re-entry damage mods to substitute Rule 5, 7 & 8.

[Added 07/30] Extraplanetary Launchpad and other extra-Kerbin / orbital construction mods are prohibited. All parts must be launched from KSC.

Scoring

Unlike most challenges with a single ranking system, each entry will receive 4 primary scores & a "achievements" score.

Primary Scores

Mission Value: this is defined as the total number of days all your kerbals spent on Duna surface. You'll receive an Early Missions score (Day 1 until Day 500), and Sustained Missions Score (Day 1 to Day 1000). For example if until Day 500 you had 2 kerbals each spending 300 days on Duna, your Early Missions Value will be 600.

Mission Efficiency: this is defined as your Mission Value divided by Nominal Initial Mass to LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit), where the Nominal Initial Mass to LKO is your launch vehicle's Nominal Payload Capacity (see Rule 1) times total number of launches. Again it has a 500-Day Early Missions score and 1000-Day Sustained Missions score. Thus if you used 10 launches of a 20-ton-to-LKO rocket during the first 500 days for the mission above, your Early Missions Efficiency will be 600 / (20 * 10) = 3.

One-way Ticket Penalty: every crew should return to KSC no longer than 1000 days after they left, or your scores will suffer a 50% deduction.

"Achievement" Score

[ADDED 06/02]You are encouraged but not required to describe how your plan satisfies the requirement of each achievement you claim. However be ready to explain if people question whether you can satisfy the requirement.

Mission Execution:

1 - You've actually flown every non-identical mission in your plan in the first 500 Days.

2 - You've actually flown every non-identical mission in your plan in the first 1000 Days.

3 - You've actually flown every mission planned for the first 1000 Days. You'll also receive Mission Execution 3[ADDED 06/02] if achieved at least Mission Execution 1 and also posted a Mission Report here or elsewhere in the forum. [ADDED 06/02]A Mission Report should describe how the mission were actually executed, besides how your plan is supposed to work (which is required for every entry).

Crew Mobility:

1 - More than 50% of your crew have access to a seat in a rover during their surface mission.

2 - Everyone of your crew has access to a seat in a rover during their surface mission.

Base Mobility:

1 - More than 50% of your landed Duna surface modules are land mobile (self-powered or towed).

2 - More than 75% of your landed Duna surface modules are land mobile.

3 - All your landed Duna surface modules are land mobile.

Crew Safety:

1 - Your crew is survivable (e.g. able to eventually get back to KSC alive) in case of total loss of any single non-crewed spacecraft / base module.

2 - Besides 1, your crew is also survivable in case of one-engine failure (or loss of mobility for a rover) of the vehicle currently carrying the crew, or piloting error of that craft that resulted a loss of 20% of available deltaV, during any part of your mission.

Mission Robustness:

1 - Any single launch failure will not prevent you from accomplishing your Primary Mission Objective, e.g., the challenge entry requirement. We assume the lost payload can be rebuilt and readied before the next launch window. You can (and probably likely need to) adjust your plan.

2 - Besides 1, total loss of any single spacecraft or Duna surface module / vehicle at any part of your mission will not prevent you from accomplishing your Primary Mission Objective.

Useful Information

Kerbin - Duna Hohmann Transfer Windows:

Every ~228 days from Kerbin, first on Day 55.

Every ~228 days from Duna, first on Day 39.

Flight time of Kerbin - Duna Hohmann Transfers: ~64 days

DeltaV Requirements for Hohmann Transfers:

LKO (125km) to Duna SOI ~1200 m/s

LDO (100km) to Kerbin SOI ~700 m/s

[ADDED 06/02]Launch Window Planner by Alexmun

ENTRIES (listed by time of complete entry)

1. sturmstiger: von Kerman Duna Outpost

Until Day 0500: 15 Launches, 262.5 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 588, Efficiency = 2.24

Until Day 1000: 26 Launches, 455 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 3724, Efficiency = 8.18

Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 2, Crew Safety 2, Mission Robustness 1(?), Achievements Score = 7

Mods: MechJeb, Protractor, KW Rocketry (for launch vehicle & fairings only).

2. syhrus: Project Fatum

Until Day 0500: 19 Launches, 323 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 846, Efficiency = 2.619

Until Day 1000: 19 Launches, 323 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 5322, Efficiency = 16.477

Achievements Score = ?

Mods: Kethane Mod?

3. NeilC: Duna InSitu

Until Day 0500: 11 Launches, 330 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 7332 Efficiency = 22.22

Until Day 1000: 22 Launches, 660 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 43,932 Efficiency = 66.56

Mission Execution 0, Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 2, Crew Safety 0, Mission Robustness 2, Achievements Score = 6

Mods: Kethane, IonCross, MechJeb, KW Rocketry, Empty Fuel Tanks,

4. Patupi: Project Archimedes

Until Day 0500: 12 launches, 336 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 2144, Efficiency = 6.38

Until Day 1000: 24 Launches, 672 tons NUMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 23,128 Efficiency = 34.4

Mission Execution 3, Crew Mobility 0, Base Mobility 3, Crew Safety 2, Mission Robustness 2, Achievement Score = 10

5. Speeding Mullet: Duna Navigator

Until Day 0500: 11 Launches, 338 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 882 Efficiency = 2.61

Until Day 1000: 26 Launches, 676 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 6336 Efficiency = 9.37

Mission Execution 3, Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 2, Crew Safety 1, Mission Robustness 2, Achievements Score = 10

6. Death Engineering

Until Day 0500: 7 Launches, 378 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 1208 Efficiency = 3.2

Until Day 1000: 13 Launches, 702 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 4837 Efficiency = 8.6

Mission Execution 3 (Great mission report!), Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 0, Crew Safety 0, Mission Robustness 2, Achievements Score = 7

7. Raptor831: Intrepid Mission to Duna

Until Day 0500: 11 Launches, 330 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 612 Efficiency = 1.85

Until Day 1000: 22 Launches, 660 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 3796 Efficiency = 5.75

Mission Execution 3, Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 0, Crew Safety 1, Mission Robustness 2, Achievements Score = 8

Note: Raptor831 claimed Mission Execution 2, but 3 is awarded as detailed mission report is provided.

Mods: MechJeb, KW Rocketry, NovaPunch, AEIS, B9 Aerospace, KSPX, Kethane, Procedural Fairings, Fusty’s Station Parts, Kerbal Attachment System

Mission Report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/46209-Intrepid-Mission-to-Duna-Duna-Permanent-Architecture-Challenge-Pic-Heavy

8. KeithStone:

[Place-holder. Challenge requirement met. Need data for scoreboard.]

9. ThreeMartiniLaunch: Destination Duna

Until Day 0500: 7 Launches, 175 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 0, Efficiency = 0.00

Until Day 1000: 15 Launches, 375 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 664, Efficiency = 1.77

Mission Execution 3, Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 0, Crew Safety 1, Mission Robustness 1(?), Achievements Score = 7

Mods: MechJeb, KAS

Mission Report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43135-Destination-Duna

10. Borisperrons:

[Place-holder. Challenge requirement met. Need data for scoreboard.]

11. Death Engineering's 2nd Entry: Duna Space Program

Until Day 0500: 14 launches, 336 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 888 Efficiency = 2.64

Until Day 1000: 14 launches, 336 tons NIMLKO, Sustained Mission Value = 2154 Efficiency = 6.41

Mission Execution: 3, Crew Mobility: 2, Base Mobility: 0, Crew Safety: 2, Mission Robustness: 2, Achievements Score = 9

Note: Death Engineering claimed Mission Execution 1, but 3 is awarded as detailed mission report is provided.

12. Kelmoir:

Until Day 0500: 15 launches, 345 tons NIMLKO, Early Mission Value = 882 Efficiency = 2.55

Until Day 1000: TBD

Mission Execution 1, Crew Mobility 2, Base Mobility 3, Crew Safety 1, Mission Robustness 1, Achievements Score = 8

13. kookoo_gr: Kapricorn One

[Place-holder. Challenge requirement met. Need data for scoreboard.]

Mods: Procedural Fairings, Mechjeb, ISAMapSat

Mission Report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/46342-Kapricorn-One?highlight=kapricorn

14. Borisperrons: DUMAS MKII

[Place-holder. Challenge requirement met. Need data for scoreboard.]

Mission Report: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65308-DUMAS-Duna-Permanent-Outpost-Mission-Architecture-Challenge-Report

Ranking

Early Mission Value

1. 7322 (Duna InSitu - NeilC)

2. 2144 (Project Archimedes - Patupi)

3. 1208 (Death Engineering)

4. 888 (Duna Space Program - Death Engineering)

5. 882 (Duna Navigator - Speeding Mullet)

6. 882 (- Kelmoir)

7. 846 (Project Fatum - syhrus)

8. 612 (Intrepid Mission to Duna - Raptor831)

9. 588 (von Kerman Duna Outpost - sturmstiger)

10.0 (Destination Duna - ThreeMartiniLaunch)

Early Mission Efficiency

1. 22.22 (Duna InSitu - NeilC)

2. 6.38 (Project Archimedes - Patupi)

3. 3.2 (Death Engineering)

4. 2.64 (Duna Space Program - Death Engineering)

5. 2.619 (Project Fatum - syhrus)

6. 2.61 (Duna Navigator - Speeding Mullet)

7. 2.55 (- Kelmoir)

8. 2.24 (von Kerman Duna Outpost - sturmstiger)

9. 1.85 (Intrepid Mission to Duna - Raptor831)

10 0 (Destination Duna - ThreeMartiniLaunch)

Sustained Mission Value

1. 43,932 (Duna InSitu - NeilC)

2. 6336 (Duna Navigator - Speeding Mullet)

3. 5322 (Project Fatum - syhrus)

4. 4837 (Death Engineering)

5. 3796 (Intrepid Mission to Duna - Raptor831)

6. 3724 (von Kerman Duna Outpost - sturmstiger)

7. 2154 (Duna Space Program - Death Engineering)

8. 664 (Destination Duna - ThreeMartiniLaunch)

Sustained Mission Efficiency

1. 66.56 (Duna InSitu - NeilC)

2. 16.477 (Project Fatum - syhrus)

3. 9.37 (Duna Navigator - Speeding Mullet)

4. 8.6 (Death Engineering)

5. 8.18 (von Kerman Duna Outpost - sturmstiger)

6. 6.41 (Duna Space Program - Death Engineering)

7. 5.75 (Intrepid Mission to Duna - Raptor831)

8. 1.77 (Destination Duna - ThreeMartiniLaunch)

Achievement Score

1. 10 (Project Archimedes - Patupi)

1. 10 (Duna Navigator - Speeding Mullet)

2. 9 (Duna Space Program - Death Engineering)

3. 8 (Intrepid Mission to Duna - Raptor831)

3. 8 (- Kelmoir)

4. 7 (von Kerman Duna Outpost - sturmstiger)

4. 7 (Death Engineering)

4. 7 (Destination Duna - ThreeMartiniLaunch)

5. 6 (Duna InSitu - NeilC)

All Entries incl. WIP (listed by time of first post)

[uPDATED 01/12/2013]

1. NeilC: Mission Concepts, Schedule and Designs of all hardware elements. Second completed entry!

2. Wait, Was That Important?: Mission Concept, Lifter Design

3. ThreeMartiniLaunch (was misanthropia66): Completed challenge with a unique "just fly it apprach". Also made great videos documenting the missions.

4. Rex_Reach: Mobile Hab Design [iNACTIVE?]

5. Justy: Mission Concepts from 2 Kermunists design teams. Also great stories from the Kermunists! [iNACTIVE?]

6. Highlad + FallingIntoBlack: Mission Concept & Schedule, designs of lifter and most (all?) modules.

7. meyst: reusable lifter design, Duna Mobile Habitat and resupply module designs. Some very interesting designs! Also studied feasibility of Duna Cycler.

8. TheBobWiley: Mission Concept, Lifter, Interplanetary Tug, Interplanetary Service & Hab, and DDAV design and testing.

9. Speeding Mullet: Mission Concepts & Schedule, plus designs for the RLV, IPTSP, DAVSP, HSM, KDSSDEV, KDCMSSDEV, KDCHLRDEV and KDSSSMSDEV. Completed entry.

10.vidboi: Mission Concepts & Schedule, Launch Vehicle, Phase 1 & 2 (until ~Day 280) spacecrafts & payloads designs [iNACTIVE?]

11.Syhrus: Mission Concepts, Schedule and Designs of all hardware elements. First completed entry! Also looking at alternate plans.

12.Swifty: Missions launched but all images of the missions were lost. Plan & schedule were recovered though.

13.Death Engineering: Missions schedule, plus rigorous testing of various missions hardware. Flew all Phase 1 missions and are well into Phase 2. Completed entry.

14.Patupi: Mission Concepts and schedule, design of Lifter / Launcher, and designs of payloads. 3rd completed entry.

15.Psycho529: At LV testing phase.

16.GabrielG.A.B.Fonseca: Completed lifter, DTV, Hab & Supply Module and Descent / Ascent Vehicle (aka DAVE) design.

17.KeithStone: Mission Concepts & Schedule, design of all crafts / modules for first 500 days. Complete entry? Needs data for scoreboard.

18.IronGremlin: Design of LV and spacecrafts / mission modules.

19.Borkless: Mission concept and schedule.

20.Ratpor831: Mission Concepts, Schedule and Designs of all hardware elements. Completed entry.

21.kookoo_gr: Design of launcher, spacecrafts & mission modules. Completed entry.

22.Donziboy2: Landing system testing.

23.Huehue: Concept / schedule for a "Strive to Stay" type mission.

24.MathigNihilcehk: Some mission concept. Also found a bunch of "loopholes" in the challenge rules.

25.Death Engineering's 2nd Entry: Completed. A "time-space glitch" caused problems after Day 500, but all Kerbals were safe thanks to the safety features.

26.borisperrons: Concepts & Schedule, design for all LV, crafts and modules. Started flying missions. Complete entry but needs data for scoreboard.

27.Weegee: Designs of LV and some crafts / modules. Already sent probes and Kethane miner to Duna. Save lost, working on 2nd attempt.

28.Kelmoir: Mission Concepts, Schedule and Designs of all hardware elements. Completed entry.

29.theBlind: Concepts, partial schedule, design of some crafts / modules. Re-designing some modules.

30.BlazingAngel665: Designs of LV and some crafts / modules. Partial schedule.

31.borisperrons' 2nd Entry: Concepts & Schedule, design for all LV, crafts and modules. Started flying missions. Complete entry

32.YarTheBug: LV Design.

Edited January 12, 2014 by sturmstiger

[trippytripp]

Definitely a challenge i'm up for. But it's 3am , so i'm going to try this as soon as i'm up in the morning.

[sturmstiger]

Outpost during Crewed Mission 1. From left to right, a supply station, 3 Mobile Surface Habitats docked with Descent & Expedition Vehicle (DEV) 1, Shepfel, Willer, Geofgard and Ferbo Kerman, DEV2, and Ascent Vehicle. Not pictured: another supply station.

Outpost & Mission Concepts

The von Kerman Duna Outpost is being developed by crewed missions sent every 228 days starting from the Kerbin-Duna Hohmann Transfer Window on Day 283. 4 Kerbals are sent in each mission, which lasts 500~510 days from KSC to KSC and includes a ~370 day Duna surface stay.

All Kerbin launches use the R140 "Bob" rocket, capable of sending ~17.5 tons to 75km LKO. Duna outpost modules & supplies are docked in LKO with NERVA-powered Inter-Planetary Tugs (IPT) for Duna transfer at each Hohmann transfer window. After delivering payloads to low Duna orbit, the interplanetary tugs will return to Kerbin orbit for refuel and reuse. SSTO space-planes will shuttle the 4 Kerbals of each mission to and from Duna Transfer Habitat (DTH) in LKO, where they will stay during their trips to and from Duna. The DTH will also be refueled & resupplied in LKO for reuse.

In each of the initial two missions Kerbals dock their Transfer Habitat with the 2 Descent & Expedition Vehicles (DEV) in Duna orbit, and rides them for Duna descent. The DEVs would then provide long range surface mobility and the can tug other landed modules to the outpost Main Site & Expedition Sites. Each of 2 missions would also deliver to Duna surface 3 Mobile Surface Habitat (MSH) modules, 2 of which are long-term hab spaces and the other configured primarily as lab space. Thus the initial two missions would complete the construction of von Kerman Duna Outpost infrastructure, consisting of 4 DEVs and 6 MSH. In each subsequent crewed mission, Kerbals would instead descent in a single Descent Hab and wait for the their friends already on Duna to tug it (with DEVs) to the outpost. Each of these later missions would also deliver a Science & Service Payload (SSP), which will vary in content from to mission. Every mission would deliver (more than) enough supply for the 4 Kerbals during their 370 surface stay, as well as a Ascent Vehicle (AVS) in which the Kerbal would ascent to Duna orbit and dock with the DTH for their trip home.

Common Components:

Launch Vehicle: the R140 "Bob" expandable launch vehicle is a simple rocket made up with a single 2.5m core stage and 4x1.25m strap on boosters. It is capable of sending a payload of 17.5ton to 75km LKO and the core stage can de-orbit itself to burn up in atmosphere.

R140 "Bob" on launch pad.

Dual-use Shroud: the 2.5m payload shroud is used not only to protect the payload during launch, but also as a heat shield during Duna aerocapture & re-entry for payload that lands in Duna.

Testing of thermal protection with Dual-use Shroud in Kerbin atmosphere.

Maneuver & Descent Service Module (MDSM): all payloads which land in Duna (with the exception of DEVs) are attached to a MDSM, which is used for attitude control, power, communication, orbital maneuver & docking, and Duna de-orbiting & deceleration (with drogue chutes).

Testing of MDSM (the stack decoupler and attaches parts) in LKO.

Launched Outpost Modules & Payloads:

AVS - Ascent Vehicle & Supplies

This payload is delivered by Interplanetary Tugs to Duna orbit and will separate into an Ascent Vehicle (AV) and a supply station (750 units of supplies) shortly before landing. The AVS is always the first to land in each mission and will be the Primary Site of the mission. At the end of each mission's surface stay the 4 Kerbals ride the Ascent Vehicle to Duna orbit and dock with Duna Transfer Habitat. The AV then undocks, de-orbits and either lands again or intentionally crashes on Duna surface.

DDH - Departure & Descent Habitat

From missions after the first two, the Duna Transfer Habitat will dock with a DDH in LKO prior to departure. The DDH consists of a fuel tank for their Duna Transfer burn, and a Descent Habitat in which the 4 Kerbals will descent to surface. The Descent Habitat can be towed by the Expedition Vehicle and contains 750 units of supplies. Unlike other surface components the Descent Habitat does not use the Dual Purpose Shroud but instead uses its own blunt heat shield for re-entry thermal protection.

DDP - Duna Departure Package

This payload consists of two identical departure packages. In each of the two first missions, the Duna Transfer Habitat will dock with one of the departure packages, which provides fuel for the Duna Transfer and 320 units of contingency supply. The departure package will be discarded and burnt during DTH's Duna aerocapture. Accordingly to the plan the DDP is launched only once in the entire program.

DEV - Descent & Expedition Vehicle

One of the proudest product of Kerbin engineering, the DEV is a highly capable surface vehicle. It has a large pressurized crew cabin for 3 Kerbals (including long-term hab space for 1) and a large science, service, supply (max 240 units) & storage compartment to support long surface expeditions. When towing Mobile Surface Habitats & additional supplies, it permits almost unlimited range and endurance. Driving performance is excellent, with its 6 wheels in a suspended chassis providing great all-terrain performance - turning is stable at speed up to 30m/s and on steep slopes. It can tow up to 3 Mobile Surface Habitats while maintaining satisfactory speed & maneuverability. With thermal tiles on its underside, it is used as the Duna descent vehicle for Kerbals in the first two missions. It is both lightweight enough for 2 to bundled together for launch by one R140 (two small rocket engines on the mounting truss are used for LKO circalization burn) , and sturdy enough for for launch without payload fairing.

DTH - Duna Transfer Habitat

Kerbals goes to Duna and return to Kerbin in Duna Transfer Habitats. It's a utilitarian design consisting of long-term hab space for 4 Kerbals, a storage compartment containing 750 units of supplies, and a propulsion section with 2 NERVA engines and a Rockmax X200-8 fuel tank. When docked with either a Duna Departure Package or a Departure & Descent Habitat, it will have ~2000m/s deltaV left after arriving in Duna orbit when only ~700 is needed for Kerbin return with Hohmann transfer. This redundant deltaV allows off-window, high speed emergency departures from Duna, and will usually still have enough deltaV to shed excessive speed in high energy returns, to ensure Kerbin aerocapture heat is within safe limit. 3 DTHs are built for the program which are refueled and reused after their return to LKO.

IPT - Inter-Planetary Tug

The Interplanetary Tug share the same NERVA propulsion section as the Duna Transfer Habitat. It docks with its payload in LKO, sends it to Duna orbit, and returns to LKO for refuel and reused. Like DTH, for all current payloads it also has highly redundant deltaV for off-window, high-energy Kerbin returns. A small heat shield protects it during Duna & Kerbin aerocapture. 5 IPTs are built for the program.

KOR - Kerbin Orbital Resupplier

This cheap & simple spacecraft is used to refuel DTHs and IPTs in LKO before their next missions. It carriers mostly fuel for NERVA engines, plus some RCS fuel and supplies. It uses a regular LV-909 chemical engine for LKO circalization & orbital maneuvers. The KORs are deorbited and burnt in Kerbin atmosphere after transfer all fuel and supplies.

MSH - Mobile Surface Habitats

One R140 launch and a IPT will send a payload of 3 Mobile Surface Habitat modules and a 400-unit supply tank to Duna Orbit, in each of the first 2 missions. The payload is encapsulated in the Dual-Use Shroud and will use the Maneuver & Descent Service Module to de-orbit & decelerate. For the final 1km of descent, it will discard the MDSM, deploy its wheels, deploy its own parachutes, and separate from a the supply tank for the landing. Two of the MSH modules are configured as 2-Kerbal Long-Term Hab Space, while the last is configured as lab space. Each MSH module is self-contained units with solar panels, two docks, an airlock, and wheels for towing by the DEVs.

SSP - Science & Service Payload

For each mission after the first two, a mission-specific Science & Service Payload will be sent to Duna surface. It will typically contain some supplies for the mission (in addition to the 1500 units delivered with AVS & DDH), scientific equipment depending on discoveries from previous missions, additional hab or lab spaces, or anything else considered useful for the mission. Note that SSP is not required for mission crew's survival & return. The picture shows a nominal SSP made up with two MSH modules, one configured as lab space and the other also containing 750 units of supply.

SSTO Spaceplane

The reliable 3-Kerbal Kerbin Orbital Shuttle like the one pictured below is used to shuttle crews from KSC to Duna Transfer Habitat, and then back to KSC at the of the mission.

Some additional pictures from simulated Mission 1:

Launch of Duna Transfer Habitat (DTH-a)

R140 booster separation

Descent & Exploration Vehicles docked with Interplanetary Tug

The Maneuver & Descent Service Module is used to precisely de-orbit Ascent Vehicle & Supplies

Deployment of MDSM drugue chutes & discarding Dual-Use Shroud after reaching sub-sonic speeds

Descent of AVS

AVS payload separated to Ascent Vehicle and the Supply Station shortly before landing

Mobile Surface Habitats, protected by Dual-Use Shroud, enters Duna atmosphere

Mobile Surface Habitats landed. The supply tanks survived landing even though landing legs failed to deploy.

Duna atmospheric entry of Descent & Expedition Vehicle 1.

Geofgard & Ferbo carefully perform a soft landing in DEV1 using two small deceleration engines.

DEV1 arrives near the MSH modules after a half-hour driver that covered 30 kilometers.

Geofgard inspects the vehicle after DEV1 docks with the MSH modules.

DEV1 tows the MSH modules to the AVS, which is at the Primary Site of the mission.

DEV2, still attached to the truss & engines, shortly before(?) de-orbiting burn.

DEV2 overshoots the the Primary Site.

Group picture of the Kerbals taken shortly after DEV2 pulls into the Primary Site.

Mission Schedule

Crewed Mission Schedule

Mission 1: Duna Transfer on D283, Duna Descent before D353, Duna Departure at D723, Kerbin Arrival before D793.

Mission 2: Duna Transfer on D511, Duna Descent before D581, Duna Departure at D951, Kerbin Arrival before D1021.

Simply add 228 days to each of the dates for subsequent missions. Each crewed surface mission has a 142+ day overlap with the next. Thus for over 2/3 of the time there will be 8 Kerbals on Duna.

Launch & Transfer Schedule

5 InterPlanetary Tugs are designated DTHa to DTHe and 3 Duna Transfer Habitats are designated DTHa to DTHc. Other payloads are numbered according the crewed mission #.

35 days between each launch of the 17.5ton R140-Bob rocket. 228 days bewteen each Duna transfer starting from Day 55 and 228 days between each Kerbin transfer starting from Day 267. I gave 70 days for Kerbin-Duna transfer + Duna descent, and Duna-Kerbin transfers (optimal Hohmann transfers generally takes ~63 days).

010 ^ AVS1 Launch

045 ^ IPTa Launch

055 > AVS1+IPTa Duna Transfer

080 ^ DEV1 Launch

115 ^ IPTb Launch

125 ] AVS1+IPTa Duna Arrival & Descent

150 ^ MSH1 Launch

185 ^ IPTc Launch

220 ^ DDP Launch

255 ^ DTHa Launch

267 < IPTa Kerbin Transfer

283 > DEV1+IPTb, MSH1+IPTc, DTHa+DDP/1 Duna Transfer

290 ^ AVS2 Launch

325 ^ KOR1 Launch (to refuel IPTa)

337 [ IPTa Kerbin Arrival

353 ] DEV1+IPTb, MSH1+IPTc, DTHa+DDP/0 Duna Arrival & Descent

360 ^ DEV2 Launch

395 ^ IPTd Launch

430 ^ MSH2 Launch

465 ^ IPTe Launch

495 < IPTb, IPTc Kerbin Transfer

500 ^ DTHb Launch

511 > AVS2+IPTa, DEV2+IPTd, MSH2+IPTe, DTHb+DDP/2 Duna Transfer

535 ^ AVS3 Launch

565 [ IPTb, IPTc Kerbin Arrival

580 ^ SSP3 Launch

581 ] AVS2+IPTa, DEV2+IPTd, MSH2+IPTe, DTHb+DDP/2 Duna Arrival & Descent

615 ^ KOR2/1 Launch (refuels IPTb & IPTc)

650 ^ KOR2/2 Launch (refuels IPTb & IPTc, likely not needed)

685 ^ DDH3 Launch

720 ^ DTHc Launch

723 < IPTa, IPTd, IPTe, DTHa Kerbin Transfer

739 > AVS3+IPTb, SSP3+IPTc, DTHc+DDH3 Duna Transfer

755 ^ AVS4 Launch

790 ^ SSP4 Launch

793 [ IPTa, IPTd, IPTe, DTHa Kerbin Arrival (Crew 1 home!)

825 ^ DDH4 Launch

860 ^ KOR3/1 Launch (refuels IPTd, IPTe)

895 ^ KOR3/2 Launch (refuels & resupplies DTHa)

930 ? No launch scheduled

951 < IPTb, IPTc, DTHb Kerbin Transfer

965 ? No launch scheduled

967 > AVS4+IPTd, SSP4+IPTe, DTHa+DDH4 Duna Transfer

Every subsequent crewed mission takes 5 launches, or just 3 if not delivering an optional Science & Service Payload.

Edited May 25, 2013 by sturmstiger

[SmallChange]

Wow sturmstiger!

I wish all the challenges were this well thought out/laid out! I look forward to seeing the entries!

[Bioman222]

I miss spoilers.

[sturmstiger]

So while you are (hopefully ) busy designing your mission architecture & spacecrafts, I'll share a few aspects of my design that I'm not happy about. I'd be happy to hear your opinion on how I can improve these in my design or how your design does better in these aspects:

1. The launch schedule in the first 800 days are extremely tight, thus any launch failure would need large changes in the plan to meet the basic mission requirement. And given the large number of launches in this plan, a failure is quite possible.

2. Many launched components spend a lot of time in orbit waiting for the launch window. This is really bad for fuel, because I'm using Nuclear Thermal Rocket engines, and in this universe liquid hydrogen is the ideal fuel for NTR, but is really difficult to store for long periods.

3. Commonality & modularity is one of my design goals, but I think it could be done better. For example the Duna Departure Package is built & launched only once.

A few other things to think about:

1. Since the challenge doesn't limit mods, it would be interesting to see if any design uses ISRU (In-Situ Resource Utilization), such the getting fuel with the Kethane mod.

2. An important restriction I placed on my payloads (except the DEVs) is that they must all fit in the KW Rocketry 2.5m Expanded Payload Fairing. That's not required by the challenge (there is no payload fairing in stock), but if you aim for a more "realistic" entry, consider limit your payload to a "reasonable" diameter, for example no wider than the diameter of 3 orange-tanks. Again that's not a requirement.

3. How would your design permit exploration of multiple locations? How do you provide access to both equatorial areas and polar areas? How do you explore really steep valleys, craters and mountains? In my design a capable (in terms of range & rough terrain capability) vehicle is used to tow mobile habs during expeditions, but what about say a "hopping" capable lander / hab or other concepts? If your design can explore multiple distant locations, it's fair to award it high "base mobility" / "crew mobility" points even if you don't use traditional rovers concept.

Feel free to post your ideas or progress here even if your entry is not ready yet! Also feedback on the rules / scoring system is welcome.

Edited May 27, 2013 by sturmstiger

[NeilC]

Very interested in this, will get right to work.

Is there any chance you could loosen or re-think the time-to-launch penalty in the scoring? I see why you've done that and I agree with the premise, but I think in its current form it's pretty much enforcing designs that look a lot like yours. The problem is we only have 39d before we need to go to Duna the first time - kinda unrealistically short, IMHO, but it's out of our control. To get 2 launches to Duna in the first window, the lifter payload must be 19t or less - roughly the size of your design. Going smaller you have trouble fitting in all the hab space and supplies you need for transfer in a single vehicle, and/or fitting just the nuke engines and fuel you need for IPT- I'm sure you ran into this. You could build a huge 80+ton lifter and launch your whole first flight in one go... but then you'd have to wait half a year for your next launch, which I think is unrealistic.

Can you maybe set this launch delay based on lifter characteristics instead of payload characteristics? Number of parts or stages or engines in the lifter, perhaps? Maybe get really advanced with it and define "modules", so if you use 8 identical asparagus stages with 15 parts each, that could be 15 days (or 7.5? Need to balance) spent building those boosters - but it's in parallel! So if my central sustainer was 20 parts, it would be the longest-lead item and define my launch delay - I could add 5 parts to the asparagi without impacting launch times, and could only benefit from removing 5 from the sustainer.

That way we could design a particularly efficient lifter (by whatever metric) geared to quick launches, instead of having to set our single payload size based on only having 39 days from "go" to duna window.

Edited May 27, 2013 by NeilC

[Andellmere]

Very interested in this, will get right to work.

Is there any chance you could loosen or re-think the time-to-launch penalty in the scoring? I see why you've done that and I agree with the premise, but I think in its current form it's pretty much enforcing designs that look a lot like yours. The problem is we only have 39d before we need to go to Duna the first time - kinda unrealistically short, IMHO, but it's out of our control. To get 2 launches to Duna in the first window, the lifter payload must be 19t or less - roughly the size of your design. Going smaller you have trouble fitting in all the hab space and supplies you need for transfer in a single vehicle, and/or fitting just the nuke engines and fuel you need for IPT- I'm sure you ran into this. You could build a huge 80+ton lifter and launch your whole first flight in one go... but then you'd have to wait half a year for your next launch, which I think is unrealistic.

Can you maybe set this launch delay based on lifter characteristics instead of payload characteristics? Number of parts or stages or engines in the lifter, perhaps? Maybe get really advanced with it and define "modules", so if you use 8 identical asparagus stages with 15 parts each, that could be 15 days (or 7.5? Need to balance) spent building those boosters - but it's in parallel! So if my central sustainer was 20 parts, it would be the longest-lead item and define my launch delay - I could add 5 parts to the asparagi without impacting launch times, and could only benefit from removing 5 from the sustainer.

That way we could design a particularly efficient lifter (by whatever metric) geared to quick launches, instead of having to set our single payload size based on only having 39 days from "go" to duna window.

Although I like the way you're modifying the rules, I have what is perhaps a more interesting idea: If the stages you eject are recoverable (i.e. you put parachutes on them and they would have descended slow enough to be picked up), or your entire launcher is reusable(other than fuel, obviously) you get a bonus because their is no need to recreate the launcher as it's just out of fuel. Of course, you'd want to bring your ship back close to KSC as time could be tacked on to the delay for retrieval.

So, if you have a 15 ton lifter that is one-way you have to wait 30 days. If you have a 60 ton lifter that can be brought safely back to Kerbin, you have to wait X days(where 'x' is a number equating to the time it takes to retrieve the lifter, transport it back, and refuel)

Hopefully, sturmstiger will see these and at least consider it.

Another thing: Sturmstiger, would you consider the use of cryopods for long term habitats? This mod makes excellent cryopods with some modification. Obviously, you'd need some kind of penalty, some kind of electricity use most probably.

I'm waiting for Ioncross Life Support to update as with that and Kethane my Duna base will be self-sufficient. So, you've got plenty of time to answer.

[sturmstiger]

Very interested in this, will get right to work.

Looking forward to see your design!

Is there any chance you could loosen or re-think the time-to-launch penalty in the scoring? I see why you've done that and I agree with the premise, but I think in its current form it's pretty much enforcing designs that look a lot like yours. The problem is we only have 39d before we need to go to Duna the first time - kinda unrealistically short, IMHO, but it's out of our control. To get 2 launches to Duna in the first window, the lifter payload must be 19t or less - roughly the size of your design. Going smaller you have trouble fitting in all the hab space and supplies you need for transfer in a single vehicle, and/or fitting just the nuke engines you need for IPT- I'm sure you ran into this. You could build a huge 80+ton lifter and launch your whole first flight in one go... but then you'd have to wait half a year for your next launch, which I think is unrealistic.

The first Kerbin to Duna transfer window is on Day 55, so you actually have 45 days for the second launch, e.g. two 22.5 ton payloads can be launched before the first Duna transfer window. And another way to think about this is to just ignore the first window and plan according to the Day 283 window. Also, the "window" is just the time for a optimal Hohmann transfer - you can launch off-window if you're willing to pay the extra deltaV. Higher energy transfers may also make the transfer time quite a bit shorter. IRL the high arrival speed from such transfers may make aerocapture / direct re-entry more violent, and you're definitely encouraged to consider propulsively shedding some speed before such aerocapture / re-entry, especially for the Kerbin return, but that's not required.

Also earthly heavy lifters do have very low launch rate - the SLS for example has a planned launched rate of 1 per year, Saturn V launched about twice per year at the peak of Apollo program.

Can you maybe set this launch delay based on lifter characteristics instead of payload characteristics? Number of parts or stages or engines in the lifter, perhaps? Maybe get really advanced with it and define "modules", so if you use 8 identical asparagus stages with 15 parts each, that could be 15 days (or 7.5? Need to balance) spent building those boosters - but it's in parallel! So if my central sustainer was 20 parts, it would be the longest-lead item and define my launch delay - I could add 5 parts to the asparagi without impacting launch times, and could only benefit from removing 5 from the sustainer.

That way we could design a particularly efficient lifter (by whatever metric) geared to quick launches, instead of having to set our single payload size based on only having 39 days from "go" to duna window.

I agree that launch rate based purely on LKO capability may be somewhat arbitrary, but that one is easiest I can think of while being able to more or less correlating to launch rate of rockets in real life. Also the goal of this challenge was not really designing efficient lifters.

So...I'd say give it a try with the current rules - it's should not be that restrictive.

[sturmstiger]

Although I like the way you're modifying the rules, I have what is perhaps a more interesting idea: If the stages you eject are recoverable (i.e. you put parachutes on them and they would have descended slow enough to be picked up), or your entire launcher is reusable(other than fuel, obviously) you get a bonus because their is no need to recreate the launcher as it's just out of fuel. Of course, you'd want to bring your ship back close to KSC as time could be tacked on to the delay for retrieval.

So, if you have a 15 ton lifter that is one-way you have to wait 30 days. If you have a 60 ton lifter that can be brought safely back to Kerbin, you have to wait X days(where 'x' is a number equating to the time it takes to retrieve the lifter, transport it back, and refuel)

Hopefully, sturmstiger will see these and at least consider it.

Re-usable launcher can certainly make launch intervals shorter. So how about the following addition to Rule 2:

If spent stages which can be safely recovered (e.g. no part destroyed on landing / splashdown) originally contained more than 50% of launch vehicle's lift-off weight, your launch interval will be 1.5 times (rather than 2 times) Nominal Capacity. Obviously if parts experience high re-entry heat (e.g. has visible re-entry effects) it is considered burnt in atmosphere.

I could also instead just create another "achievement" score on re-usability, which IMO may be a better idea.

But again the focus of the challenge is not designing lifters but how to utilize them.

Another thing: Sturmstiger, would you consider the use of cryopods for long term habitats? This mod makes excellent cryopods with some modification. Obviously, you'd need some kind of penalty, some kind of electricity use most probably.

I'm waiting for Ioncross Life Support to update as with that and Kethane my Duna base will be self-sufficient. So, you've got plenty of time to answer.

But those are coffins!. If you can make them look like cyropods, sure, but only for the space transits, which is quite short anyways. For Duna surface mission, no, your Kerbals are there to do science not sleeping in pod.

Edited May 27, 2013 by sturmstiger

[Wait- Was That Important?]

I definitely want to try this challenge! I know the first entry did it with only 17.5 tons to LKO, but I don't think I could do what I'm planning to do with less than 35 tons per launch, considering that I force myself to not use NERVA's on anything other than manned interplanetary ships.

I even have a main base, mining base, outpost, crew rover, return vehicle, interplanetary ship, Duna station, and Service vehicle. Now all that remains is to launch them!

Also, extra question: I use a rocket- based launch vehicle for crew transfer rather than a SSTO, courtesy of my terrible piloting skills. Does that count as a launch vehicle or crew transfer vehicle (considering that I'm not using it as the cargo LV)? Kind of like Constellation had the Ares I for launching the crew vehicles and the Ares V for launching the large payloads.

[sturmstiger]

I definitely want to try this challenge! I know the first entry did it with only 17.5 tons to LKO, but I don't think I could do what I'm planning to do with less than 35 tons per launch, considering that I force myself to not use NERVA's on anything other than manned interplanetary ships.

I even have a main base, mining base, outpost, crew rover, return vehicle, interplanetary ship, Duna station, and Service vehicle. Now all that remains is to launch them!

Awesome! Looking forward to see them!

Also, extra question: I use a rocket- based launch vehicle for crew transfer rather than a SSTO, courtesy of my terrible piloting skills. Does that count as a launch vehicle or crew transfer vehicle (considering that I'm not using it as the cargo LV)? Kind of like Constellation had the Ares I for launching the crew vehicles and the Ares V for launching the large payloads.

Anything you use for kerbin surface <-> LKO crew transfer is considered "free" and not counting towards your launch rate. So it doesn't matter if it's spaceplane or rocket. I would love to see if someone actually do a Constellation-like approach for some mission elements.

[NeilC]

I like your re-useable idea a lot, but I'd really like to see the delay being based on lifter stats instead of payload stats. If the delay doesn't depend on anything about the lifter except the bottom line, there's not much interesting design to do. Maybe we can combine our two ideas, and get an even stronger emphasis on modularity. Something like:

- each lifter module takes (#parts*0.5 + #engines*5) days to build. Identical modules can be built in parallel.

- each re-used lifter module takes (#engines)*2 days to refurb and refuel, +1 day to recover if it isn't brought down in sight of KSC, +2 days additional if it isn't in the same hemisphere. Identical modules can be refurbed in parallel.

- You have a build team and a refurb team, so only one build and one refurb can be happening at a time.

- Payloads are exempt from all of the above, they're always considered ready to go.

Sturmstiger, what do you think?

Edited May 27, 2013 by NeilC

[NeilC]

So how about the following addition to Rule 2:

If spent stages which can be safely recovered (e.g. no part destroyed on landing / splashdown) originally contained more than 50% of launch vehicle's lift-off weight, your launch interval will be 1.5 times (rather than 2 times) Nominal Capacity. Obviously if parts experience high re-entry heat (e.g. has visible re-entry effects) it is considered burnt in atmosphere.

I like it! Can you clarify on this made-up example: I have a 6-way symmetric asparagus design with a central sustainer. At launch, 6xbooster weighs ~60% of the launch vehicle mass (not inc. payload). All 6 boosters return via parachute. Sustainer makes orbit and experiences re-entry.

Do I get the bonus?

And, do I get the bonus for these variations:

a) 6xbooster weighs only 40% of lifter launch mass

6xbooster weighs only 40% of lifter launch mass, but I add a heatshield to the sustainer so it can withstand re-entry

[NeilC]

The first Kerbin to Duna transfer window is on Day 55, so you actually have 45 days for the second launch, e.g. two 22.5 ton payloads can be launched before the first Duna transfer window.

<...>

So...I'd say give it a try with the current rules - it's should not be that restrictive.

Ah, I had missed the the implications of your 10-day rule on my first reading. Thanks for the clarification! I'll give it a try with the current rules, plus whatever re-usability clause you decide to put in.

[vincespeedmk2]

This is an awesome challenge. I will definitely be attempting as soon as possible. Can I post my mission plan on this thread, when I do one that is.

[sturmstiger]

I like it! Can you clarify on this made-up example: I have a 6-way symmetric asparagus design with a central sustainer. At launch, 6xbooster weighs ~60% of the launch vehicle mass (not inc. payload). All 6 boosters return via parachute. Sustainer makes orbit and experiences re-entry.

Do I get the bonus?

Yes.

And, do I get the bonus for these variations:

a) 6xbooster weighs only 40% of lifter launch mass

6xbooster weighs only 40% of lifter launch mass, but I add a heatshield to the sustainer so it can withstand re-entry

No. Variation A does not make the 50% mark (I don't want to make rules too complicated by considering various other percentages of reuse). No for variation B because it's hard to properly protect something as large as a launch vehicle booster for re-entry and may not be worth it as upper-stage are generally designed to be lightweight while thermal protection (IRL) would add lots of weight. Also only lower stages would likely to land / splashdown close to KSC making them easy to recover. The current rule is designed to give bonus to something like the space shuttle which reuses the SRBs and Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy which should eventually permit recovering the lower stage.

This is an awesome challenge. I will definitely be attempting as soon as possible. Can I post my mission plan on this thread, when I do one that is.

Sure. Either post here or on the Mission Reports board if you like and provide a link to your post.

[Zutha]

I haven't done this challenge, but I did a similar private challenge that matches this mostly (may be not the time frame). All stock.

The craft 6 part craft. Body, Tower, 3 part research base and ike moon lander.

Landed and built

Took 13 tries to get to duna as fuel is quite limited. But done it

Full screenshots here:

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Zey/screenshots/

[sturmstiger]

I haven't done this challenge, but I did a similar private challenge that matches this mostly (may be not the time frame). All stock.

That's a cool looking base. Though it seemed quite different from what this particular challenge is asking for, which is a sustainable plan.

What's the (Kerbin) lift-off weight of the whole stack? And do your Kerbals ever go back to Kerbin? From the pictures it looks like a one-way, "Duna-to-Stay" mission.

[NeilC]

I'm working on this... here's a preview:

That's a mobile hab with a towable Duna ascent vehicle, in testing at KSC. I still need to design an interplanetary tug and a couple other things that the picture only hints at...

[Wait- Was That Important?]

My plan so far entails a launcher with 21.5 tons to LKO. Unlike the OP and several others in this challenge, I'm forgoing the extra difficulty of building wheeled bases and docking them (mainly because stationary bases hold more appeal for me- wheeled bases just look like funny cars to me).

I'm using more per launch than the first entry mainly because, unlike OP, I'm doing direct-to-Duna packages. That means that in one launch I've got all the materials needed to fly the payload to Duna and land it there. Even though my overall tonnage to Duna is lower than OP's 17.5 tons (mine has about 9 tons), it only takes one launch. Despite being slightly less efficient overall (0.42 tons/day for me versus OP's 0.5 tons/day), it should hopefully get a better efficiency as it requires less launches.

The current plan is thus:

2x launches of a long-term two-man base with propulsion and landing equipment

1x launch of a propulsion/ crew section of a Duna venture/ return ship (I hope it has enough dV to put the lander there one way)

1x launch of a Duna crew lander/ return vehicle

At the same time, I'll launch two crew vehicles to fully crew the ship and all should be good.

Since the two bases are fully self- sufficient, they'll be launched on day 10 and day 56, respectively, and should be able to make the first Duna encounter.

The ship will take one launch (I hope!) and will be launched on day 99, and crewed over the next few days.

The lander will then be launched on day 142 and docked and the ship will depart at the next available Duna window on day 283.

Depending on the dV requirements, the lander should be able to take dual two-man rovers with it.

Nominal Mass to LKO: Approx. 86 tons

Launches: Four

Kerbals: Four

Launch Schedule: base one at day 10, base two at day 56, ship at day 99, lander at day 142 (potential for 3 more launches before departure)

Mission Schedule: depart Kerbin on day 283, arrive and land at Duna on day 347, minimal ascent window at day 495 (return at day 559), nominal ascent window at day 951 (return at day 1015, with possible fudging of the Hohmann transfers to get it below 1000)

Mission Execution: 3

Crew Mobility: 2 (or 0)

Base Mobility: 0

Crew Safety: 2 (all crewed rockets have escape towers, all crewed ships are escapable and the lander works as a return vessel if the ship breaks)

Mission Robustness: 2 (room for three replacement launches)

Achievement Score: 9

Mission Value: 592 (4 kerbals @ 148 days minimal/ early mission), 2416 (4 kerbals @ 604 days nominal)

Efficiency: 28.1

You'd better worry OP! If all goes according to plan I may have you beat.

Here's the LV I'm using, with the extended fairing to cover the bases/ skycrane/ Kerbin departure stage

[NeilC]

I look forward to seeing how you're going to fit a planetary transfer and landing stage as well as the requisite hab space and supplies into your 21-ton budget! I'm having trouble keeping my mass low enough to get 2 kerbals to Duna in the first launch window, let alone 4.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

I look forward to seeing how you're going to fit a planetary transfer and landing stage as well as the requisite hab space and supplies into your 21-ton budget! I'm having trouble keeping my mass low enough to get 2 kerbals to Duna in the first launch window, let alone 4.

The trick is to make the bases small. Each base only weighs about 6.5 tons with all batteries, panels, legs, and other equipment (it's a single hitchhiker with some fluff stuck on it, really), has 2.5 tons of skycrane/ headshield on it, and 12.5 tons of propulsion equipment.

I'm also shooting for the second launch window on day 283 to bring the crew to Duna, whereas only the two bases will go on the first window.

I'm making a separate manned ship to bring the Kerbals to Duna, as I usually do. Instead of pushing bases this time it's moving the lander, but it's the same principle. My only fear is that the lander, which weighs as much as the ship, will be too much for the ship to push there one way and still have enough fuel to get back. I'm hoping that it won't be that bad, and at the same time that the lander will have some extra fuel I can transfer after ascending (probably, as it has 2500 m/s of dV for what should be, at most, a 1500 m/s dV ascent). I technically wouldn't even need the ship to move the Kerbals, being able to move two at a time in the bases themselves, but for the sake of realism I won't stuff the Kerbals in the bases before they land.

I'll post pictures of all the stuff later!

Edited May 30, 2013 by Wait, Was That Important?

[sturmstiger]

The current plan is thus:

2x launches of a long-term two-man base with propulsion and landing equipment

1x launch of a propulsion/ crew section of a Duna venture/ return ship (I hope it has enough dV to put the lander there one way)

1x launch of a Duna crew lander/ return vehicle

Looking forward to see your pictures & other details! Since you're going for a Mission Execution 3, I'll wait until you ran the missions before I update the scoreboard.

Efficiency score of 28.1 is really high! My minimal follow-on missions which just rotates & supplies the crew would have a efficiency score of 370 * 4 / (17.5 * 3) = 28.2, but you have achieved that with your first mission!

One question: how many launches do you need for each follow-on mission? 4 or fewer? Note that to satisfy the "continuous presence" requirement, you'll need to get your second crew arrive on Duna before the departure of your first crew, so there will be more than 4 launches in the first 1000 days. That will lower your efficiency score but it will most likely still beat mine.

Also note that for Crew Safety 2, your crew return vehicle should have 120% of minimal required deltaV to account for potential piloting error for the return trip from Duna.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

Looking forward to see your pictures & other details! Since you're going for a Mission Execution 3, I'll wait until you ran the missions before I update the scoreboard.

Efficiency score of 28.1 is really high! My minimal follow-on missions which just rotates & supplies the crew would have a efficiency score of 370 * 4 / (17.5 * 3) = 28.2, but you have achieved that with your first mission!

One question: how many launches do you need for each follow-on mission? 4 or fewer? Note that to satisfy the "continuous presence" requirement, you'll need to get your second crew arrive on Duna before the departure of your first crew, so there will be more than 4 launches in the first 1000 days. That will lower your efficiency score but it will most likely still beat mine.

Also note that for Crew Safety 2, your crew return vehicle should have 120% of minimal required deltaV to account for potential piloting error for the return trip from Duna.

1.) As the delivery of a two-man base takes only one launch, I can do quite a bit with a small amount of launches.

2.) Hopefully, I'll get together a Mission Report of the entire thing. The Nominal plan of mine, essentially, doubles everything I plan to do- I'm waiting until I accomplish the Minimal plan first though!

3.) Launch, delivery, and landing of a base takes one launch, and the base can technically carry two crew while in transit (though it feels kinda cheaty to do it that way). I was actually planning on having all the crews stay on until they take off and just flying the two ships back simultaneously (or as closely as possible), so I can have up to 8 kerbals on Duna if I carry out the full Nominal plan. My problem is that delivering a lander/ ascent vehicle takes two launches, so regardless of how many Kerbals I want to bring to Duna I need two launches for the ship and lander/ ascent vehicle alone.

Because I use direct-to-Duna launches for the most part, instead of your compound payload+tug style, my initial score is very high for a low initial investment, but long term you'd beat me as the minimum requirements for me are almost the same as my maximum capacity for infrastructure (minimum= 3 launches, maximum= 5 launches for one plan) meaning that my resupply missions are pretty much the same size as my original mission.

4.) The dV requirement isn't a big deal for me: the lander/ ascent vehicle has something along the lines of twice the dV needed to ascend and a Launch Escape Mechanism (I'm really screwed if I need it however) and the ship should have at least 1.2x the minimal dV to get to Duna and back, even if I lug the lander/ ascent vehicle there one way.

I'm going to get all the pictures and things tomorrow, most likely. Minor engineering issues still exist in the bases and landers (courtesy of KSP's wonderfully titchy physics) so I'll get those worked out on Kerbin first- this isn't my first rodeo, so to say.