Duna Permanent Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge

[sturmstiger]

We are seeing some great progress since the last update, including the completed entry from NeilC, schedule & payload designs from Patupi, and even more rocket testing from Death Engineering! We also have TheBobWiley declaring he's back in the game, and GabrielG.A.B.Fonseca's first update.

Regarding which mods are considered "cheaty - my primary criteria are:

(1) Do they provide parts which are significantly superior than their stock counterparts?

(2) Are they "realistic"? This is relative to current and near-future (by 2030s) human space technology.

For example, an Ion engine in the tens Kilonewton ranges would be considered cheaty because they are far superior in thrust than the stock Ion engine. It is also far more powerful than current or near future human Ion engines. MechJeb, including its informational and autopiloting features are certainly well within current space technology. Automated attitude is available from the even first satellite launches. Every feature it provides is also possible with manual piloting. So MechJeb is not considered cheaty. Kethane and Ioncross Life Support are also on the allowed list: In-Situ production of rocket fuel and oxygen / water from Mars are definitely possible with current / near future technology. They are also used by several existing entries already.

[Patupi]

That was the main reason I didn't use the Ion drives and Hybrid Ion drives from the IonHybridElectric mod. Their scaled parts (RTGs, solar panels, Xenon tanks and batteries) are pretty good, but their ion drives are more powerful than the stock ones. Not overly so, but for this game I assumed that was out. Besides, Ion takes so long to accelerate and without Quantum struts the ship wobbles a lot under physical time warp on acceleration. I really don't want to have sit here and babysit a drive for half an hour to an hour for the exit burn!

Out of interest, you mentioned Extraplanetary Launchpads before. Do you consider that 'Cheaty' now? My personal thoughts would be no, but limit how fast they can produce parts. IE set a tonnage per day allowance (Minus fuel). If someone builds a 40 ton ship, you should wait, say, 20 days before actually constructing it to simulate construction time. Actually, since fuel would be supplied via kethane a 1:1 ratio (1 ton takes 1 day) might be better. The fuel used in construction comes from the ship building it so shouldn't be taken into account on construction times.

I might (once I finish this mammoth enterprise) consider doing it over with ELP just to see how it works. (if I can stomach doing this whole thing twice! It's going to be a challenge that's for sure!)

Also, got the Odyssey Habitat Lander done. Weighs in at 25.03tons and is stackable. The engines are just for de-orbit burn, not really for re-entry, though they can be used to soften landings. So they can run on six, or even four of the engines if one or more fails. I'm hoping with Drogue and main chutes it should be enough to land this fairly softly, even in Duna's light atmosphere. Might be adding in a skycrane to lift this back to orbit if necessary, or just to a new landing site further than the wheels can take it.

Note the Habitat has enough RTGs to supply it normally, but rover acceleration on wheels drains batteries. On cruise, just tapping 'w' to keep it at speed seems fine.

Odyssey Habitat Lander with gear up:

Bobrie Kerman jumping for joy outside the Odyssey lander with gear down.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Patupi

[ThreeMartiniLaunch]

Remember me? I launched that first mission forgetting to feed my Kerbals.

Well I'm back with a completely re-engineered approach.

I'm still going to be documenting missions as I complete them rather than plan an entire mission architecture up front, but I'm taking a whole different approach.

I'll be setting up Kethane mining operations both on the Mun and on Ike. This will probably take me significant time and I really don't expect to score well, but the challenge has inspired me to perform this ongoing mission.

I'll be documenting my progress here as well as on YouTube.

I'd appreciate feed back as time goes by. Good, bad, whatever. I just want to know if I'm wasting my time keeping everyone informed.

Thank you, sturmstiger, for this awesome challenge. And thanks to everyone else for inspiration.

ThreeMartiniLaunch

(BTW, is it possible to change my forum handle?)

[Patupi]

Welcome back Misanthropia66 and best of luck in the challenge! I'm afraid I have no clue whether you can change your name. I'm assuming you can cancel your account and make a new one... but then you'd lose all your current posts. Check in your profile pages and see if something is possible.

[NeilC]

Misanthropia66, may I suggest you choose Minmus as your Kerbin-system Kethane depot? I've put resource extraction operations on both moons, but Minmus' lower escape velocity means you can build much smaller and more efficient kethane tankers. The more fuel you have to waste each trip getting back to orbit, the less efficient your operation. Also, being fully refueled at Minmus' orbit means you need less dV to get anywhere outside Kerbin - it's a fairly big difference to the dV required for a Duna IPT.

Just a suggestion!

[KeithStone]

I suppose I should actually toss my name in the hat since I've been working on this challenge for well over a month. Three save wipes later (two on purpose and one update) and I think I've decided on a scheme.

My only problems with the ironcross mod is (which i ran with for my first attempt at this mission) is that oxygen is not consumed when you arent actively controling the vessel, and the amount of oxygen you have available in the crew tank is kinda rediculous. I think i like the idea of supplies better, since kerbals will need not only food and water, but tools, games, musical instruments, and whatnots.

Once I finish a few more tests on my landing module and transfer stage I'll take and post pics of my mission archetecture and vehicles.

Great challenge by the way!

[ThreeMartiniLaunch]

Misanthropia66, may I suggest you choose Minmus as your Kerbin-system Kethane depot? I've put resource extraction operations on both moons, but Minmus' lower escape velocity means you can build much smaller and more efficient kethane tankers. The more fuel you have to waste each trip getting back to orbit, the less efficient your operation. Also, being fully refueled at Minmus' orbit means you need less dV to get anywhere outside Kerbin - it's a fairly big difference to the dV required for a Duna IPT.

Just a suggestion!

You may indeed suggest Minmus. I had not considered it.

My orbital scanner has scanned the entire equatorial region of the Mun and probably has enough delta-v to get to Minmus. The remaining lander certainly does. The lander on the Munar surface probably does as well.

Let me run some simulations. I may change the locus of my Kethane mining operation.

Thank you for the suggestion.

[TheBobWiley]

Actually made some progress today and I felt like sharing it. Behold the invincible suspension system of my DEV (duna exploration vehicle).

[Patupi]

I'd also say Minmus is better, not least because of all the flat territory! It's easier to set up mining so rovers can 'dock' and transfer fuel, and also easier to land. I had trouble with Extraplanetary Launch pad mod till I went to Minmus. Easier to set the pad up level there.

[Death Engineering]

Further mission reports located here.

[sturmstiger]

I have added NeilC's entry to the leaderboard. The mission value and efficiency scores are an order of magnitude higher than the second place. Congratulations, NeilC!

Besides using Kethane, Ioncross life support and the reusable LV bonus, which seemed common amount current entries, NeilC made several unusual design decisions to achieve such high score:

1. Launching most payloads almost "dry" (w/ empty fuel tanks) and getting fuel from a Kethane extractor from Minmus in Kerbin orbit.

2. Housing (most) early crews in the habitats designed for Duna surface operations during their flight to Duna.

3. Sending the first crews to Duna without any existing habitation infrastructure or any means to return.

These design decisions are perfectly legit according to the rules and are also technically feasible. However, it creates a situation where designs which do use them would unlikely get a higher mission value or efficiency score. Because I (and I guess most people) would like to see highly varied architectures in this challenge, I would encourage people to think about not only designs to achieve very high scores, but also designs with potentially lower mission value or efficiency scores, but are innovative or "good" in some other ways. At some point we could probably start a poll for people to vote for their favorite designs, so things not easily reflected in the scores can also be judged.

[NeilC]

Thanks sturmstiger!

I'm a sucker for high scores and I definitely min/maxed this mission plan to achieve extreme score and efficiency, with a result that only Jeb would be proud of (or be likely to agree to!).

I wouldn't suggest that this mission is one that any Earthbound space agency would sign on for. Even Mars One's one-way ticket plans for more redundancy than I built in for its first crews. But as long as we're dealing with little green digital men, my motto is "MOAR KERBALS ON DUNA!"

I'd like to see a poll at some point. From reading what's in the works, I don't think my plan is the "best" by any means - just the highest-scoring. For instance some of you are doing crazy things like wasting launches on "science packages" and "extra hab space" to give your kerbals something to DO on Duna besides drive around. I'd probably vote for one of those.

Cheers all, and good luck with your mission designs. This challenge has been the most fun I've had so far in KSP, and I'll be watching to see what the rest of you come up with.

Edited July 29, 2013 by NeilC

[Patupi]

If I'd gone for EPL mod to build ships and equipment on site I'd have built a refueling outpost too I think. I'm still considering something like that as a second attempt at this. Maybe a base on Minmus, base on Ike to build the hardware to go down to Duna. Something like that definitely needs some regulation though. As it stands EPL can build instantly, just like the VAB. Yes, you'd be limited by how much you can mine, but that doesn't limit you by much.

[NeilC]

As long as you're abiding by the launch timing rules of this challenge for EPL as well as KSC launches, I don't think EPL + Kethane on Minmus gives any advantage over just Kethane on Minmus. Sure, your Minmus lifter would be way way smaller than your Kerbin lifter, but so what? Payload mass determines your launch timings, and that's independent of launch location or lifter design. Launching payloads dry from Kerbin, or launching them dry from Minmus is the same thing.

[Syhrus]

As long as you're abiding by the launch timing rules of this challenge for EPL as well as KSC launches, I don't think EPL + Kethane on Minmus gives any advantage over just Kethane on Minmus. Sure, your Minmus lifter would be way way smaller than your Kerbin lifter, but so what? Payload mass determines your launch timings, and that's independent of launch location or lifter design. Launching payloads dry from Kerbin, or launching them dry from Minmus is the same thing.

The only problem with that plan is that the rules say you can only use 1 lifter for all your launches. So your Minmus lifter will be your Kerbin lifter. And if you're planning to fly a launchpad out the Minmus you're going to need a massive nominal capacity. The launch pad on its own weighs 5 tonnes. Then a furnace will add another 15 tonnes. Plus any scanning and drilling equipment and you're looking at upwards of 25 Tonnes before you even have engines for Minmus transfer. You'd probably be looking at a 60-day turnaround at minimum, which kind of ruins the point of going somewhere with less gravity.

Although, all that aside, I did just realise that using the same lifter you could probably transfer to Duna from Minmus, so perhaps you've hit the nail on the head here. Best of luck installing it! (also please tell me how you did it because mine never works when I try to install it)

[Swifty]

A way of getting around the designed payload requirement is to design your rocket to have a huge TWR on all stages. It thus becomes relatively simple to put massive oversized loads onto your rocket and as long as the standard rocket can get it out of the atmosphere (pure vertical ascent) it's not really cheating. My design I launched several 90tn payloads (Inter planetary transfer vehicles) on my 57tn design payload rocket

[Patupi]

Honestly for EPL I was going to not use lifters from Minmus at all. The actual interplanetary ships would be built on the surface. Heck, you can use RCS to get off that little rock! That was why I thought there needed some limitation in construction speed. Even if it is the same '2xtonnage in days' then you'd get way more built, simply as you could build a lot of it locally at Duna (or Ike), and you could build them empty, then fuel via Kethane, and no lifters or Interplanetary drives needed. I'd also limit it to no Kerbals 'built'. I know, sounds silly, but you really can build crewed ships via this mod, which is a bit silly from a tiny ship with a EPL 'pad' that builds the new vessel. I'd say you have to ship Kerbals from Kerbin, and something to limit it somehow in time to build. Once you get a Pad to Duna your construction would escalate enormously otherwise.

[NeilC]

Yeah, I would call EPL "cheaty" then.

Without even discussing crew transfer, using in-situ resources to make fuel, O2 and grow food is a far cry from having a manufacturing base to make rocket components from raw materials. 15 tonnes for a "furnace" that lets you refine all materials necessary for everything from rocket bells to electrical wiring to semiconductors to ceramic heatshield tiles? Not to mention the precision machining and other processes needed to form thousands of different materials into the right shape. That's a joke. You need a massive industrial complex for that kind of production.

[Death Engineering]

Posted the Death Engineering Mission Entry 4 - "We have reached Duna! Now how do we get home?"

Documents mission to date of two kerbals on Duna and two in orbit.

[Syhrus]

I agree with Neil. Although the rules didn't really take into account this sort of situation. I guess it's up to the OP regarding that.

[sturmstiger]

I agree with Neil. Although the rules didn't really take into account this sort of situation. I guess it's up to the OP regarding that.

Sounds reasonable. Since nobody is using EPL yet I added a klause to Rule 10 to ban it. All parts must be launched from KSC.

My only problems with the ironcross mod is (which i ran with for my first attempt at this mission) is that oxygen is not consumed when you arent actively controling the vessel, and the amount of oxygen you have available in the crew tank is kinda rediculous. I think i like the idea of supplies better, since kerbals will need not only food and water, but tools, games, musical instruments, and whatnots.

You are more than welcome to make your design more realistic than required by the rules. Thus you can use either the "stock" supply rule, a life support mod, or some combination of them, for example, a relaxed "stock" supply rule (say 0.5 units of supply per Kerbal per day when you use Ioncross to generate oxygen). If we consider the challenge as a simulation of the initial manned Mars missions in 2030s timeframe, a regenerative oxygen supply system would be quite possible, but a greenhouse system that produces enough food for crew would seem unlikely. Considering such factors may not help the scores, but people including me would appreciate this added realism.

Edited July 30, 2013 by sturmstiger

[Hogdriver]

Hey there, awesome challange!

Can i use Ferram Aerospace Research?

[sturmstiger]

Hey there, awesome challange!

Can i use Ferram Aerospace Research?

Yes. I don't think FAR affects this challenge much.

[Patupi]

As far as Ioncross goes, yeah, it's a little overpowered, but not hugely. I was adding in some supplies as well mainly as backup, assuming Ioncross handled support but added in some other stuff to handle emergencies (or for Jeb to get his Petite Fois and those little cakes with the silver balls on). The station will have supplies, and the Regular ships that shuttle back and forth will, everything else won't (perhaps a separate drop near the habitats in case of emergency). As far as it not updating when you're not in the ship, that's a recurring theme in mods. It's hard to handle things happening when you aren't in control. I'm sure they'll figure it out sooner or later.

I understand about EPL, though personally I'd have preferred to have just limited it the way KSC launches are to regulate speed of construction, but fair enough. It is pretty powerful as it stands... though actually landing one of those pads and the assorted equipment that goes with it is a challenge.

Right now I've just been going through the crew launch vessel and having difficulty. Me and space planes don't go well together. I've recently managed to get my design skills up enough to make a good plane that handles well full or dry, but making it SSTO is tricky. I've done one Kerbal SSTOs but I really didn't want to ferry them up one at a time! So I tried to build a three person space plane and got a pretty good one. Stable on launch, a little slow on climb on jets, but it made it up to 23,000m fairly well and then the rockets burned well up to orbit. Even managed to dock OK too. Landing... well, the less said about that the better! Safe to say it imbalanced once the rocket fuel was used up and I guess the center of mass was behind the center of lift... it didn't make it. I tried redesign a few times, and things got gradually worse.

In the end I gave up and went for an SSTO rocket. Got a good one, single stage, carrying 4 Kerbals up, nice control and landed well too.... but was too many parts. When it got near any orbital stuff it lagged too much. So I went for totally re-usable two stage one. Smaller versions of the BHL's parachuting boosters basically. For re-entry I had a nice idea, use a rotatatron to spin a heat shield with holes in it so you could burn engines, then spin the shield so it protected them on re-entry.... didn't work. Even with careful strutting the top and bottom of the rotatatron it flopped like mad! I guess the joint of the bearing itself is very weak. Though it didn't actually come off. Did a very funny dance on the bottom of the rocket though!

In the end I did the same as the BHL. Uprate the fuel tankage and save some for re-entry to slow to avoid re-entry effects. Works better on the Crew transport than on the BHL actually. No flares at all. I don't have pictures to hand right now but I'll get some later.

[ThreeMartiniLaunch]

Duna has changed!

And not just in appearance (which is awesome, BTW).

I've flown dozens if not hundreds of Duna missions. I've always aerobraked at 12.5km. I have never seen flame effects and have always been put into an orbit inside of Ike's orbit.

Since 0.21, aerobraking at 12.5km causes the flame effects. Further, it does not put me into an orbit. I suspect I'll also get flame effects when I go to land.

Thus, I would like a little more guidance on heat shielding. Is there a weight requirement? Does the shielding have to go anywhere in particular? Most of the ships I've seen in this thread have the heat shields near the front of the craft. In my experience, ships tend to turn retrograde while in atmosphere. It doesn't seem like the heat shielding would do anything.

Anyway, advice on this would be appreciated.

Thanks