Duna Permanent Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge

[NeilC]

I've started a mission report thread for my submission here.

So far I've got the lifter and the first payload complete and documented. You got your wish, sturmstiger, I'm using Kethane to try and set the efficiency record.

The second payload is planned out and the mass is right, but I'm having some aerodynamic difficulties due to extreme length. KW Rocketry just updated to 20.2, so I'm going to try out some of their fairings, maybe take a page out of your book Sturmstiger.

I'm having a lot of fun with this, there will be more updates soon!

Edited June 2, 2013 by NeilC
Payload 1 is done!

[Amianoob]

Thanks for a great challenge I will be starting wrk on it immidiately.

[meyst]

sturmstiger, can you clarify for us definitively (and add it to the rules) how reusable launches are going to be handled? 25% bonus for launch cycles, special achievement score, some other system, don't have any bearing, etc.

It is very important for us all to know before people who want to take advantage of using it become committed to a 25% launch cycle bonus to meet mission schedules.

While I am still planning my missions to Duna, I feel it is important to know. I need to know if I need a reusable launch system to utilize the overall early mission tonnage advantage doing so may provide.

Building a reusable lifter is beyond my 'big dumb rocket' building skills. Assuming reusable launch systems become an added launch cycle or achievement bonus, I want to know what kind of hit if any I would take by using a lifter built by someone else. In specific, placing a request for tender, for a rocket that meets my requirements to the rocket builders and utilizing the best one.

[meyst]

Just occurred to me that one could use requests for tender to acquire all the hardware. Kind of like a real space agency? Would that fit inside the spirit of this challenge?

One would need a very good idea of the mission one wants to run and the requirements of each piece of hardware to do the overall mission before putting out the requests. Could be interesting to run it that way. I think the people who regularly add to the spacecraft exchange would be very interested in coming up with hardware that would be utilized and show the craft building skills they have.

[NeilC]

meyst, I suggest you try your hand at a re-usable lifter! It's not very hard, really you just need to add parachutes to your boosters and make sure they're at least half the launch mass. I went totally overboard on mine and designed something that required a good deal of tweaking but you needn't go 80% re-usable, just 50%.

[sturmstiger]

sturmstiger, can you clarify for us definitively (and add it to the rules) how reusable launches are going to be handled? 25% bonus for launch cycles, special achievement score, some other system, don't have any bearing, etc.

It is very important for us all to know before people who want to take advantage of using it become committed to a 25% launch cycle bonus to meet mission schedules.

While I am still planning my missions to Duna, I feel it is important to know. I need to know if I need a reusable launch system to utilize the overall early mission tonnage advantage doing so may provide.

Building a reusable lifter is beyond my 'big dumb rocket' building skills. Assuming reusable launch systems become an added launch cycle or achievement bonus, I want to know what kind of hit if any I would take by using a lifter built by someone else. In specific, placing a request for tender, for a rocket that meets my requirements to the rocket builders and utilizing the best one.

I have added the launch vehicle re-usability bonus to the rules and added some clarifications to a few other rules. These are marked with [06/02] and are in Italic. Don't feel obliged to make them re-usable though, because in the end the efficiency scores will not really be affected.

It's fine to request for tenders for your hardware - it's a cool idea that fits the overall "realistic" theme of this challenge. Just make sure the everyone involved in the design was mentioned in the submission.

[Highlad]

Wow, I may just give this a shot. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this.

[ThreeMartiniLaunch]

I may join this challenge.

But, know this.

I'm usually hammered. I'm totally amateur. My ships are jury rigged. I fly seat of the pants. Point, shoot, pray.

I suck at landing. I suck at docking.

However, for reasons I will not detail here, I've flown well over a hundred missions to Duna. I can pull a perfect 12.5km aerobraking injection from a billion meters out finishing within 0.3 degrees inclination from the equator. Pretty much in my sleep at this point.

I can't land two things within 50km of each other (and I've got a hundred missions to prove it), but I can get anything I want to Duna in any orbit I want.

So, here's my plan (what little of it there is).

100 ton launch vehicle.

Here's mission one:

.craft file available upon request.

From left to right:

Delivery / Return Vehicle (DRV). Fully fifty of the one hundred tons. Four LV-N's and a lot of fuel. I hope it's enough.

Research / Habitat Module. Enough room for 14 Kerbins (well, 7 considering the rules....) I'm only bringing 6 on this mission. Note the two under mounted rovers. Each has two seats.

Shuttle. Can take six Kerbins to orbit for emergency evacuation. I'm hoping the DRV will have enough fuel left to tow it back to Kerbin. You'll note a third under mounted rover.

The rest of the mission plan? I have none.

We'll see how mission 1 goes. I've got 200 days to decide on mission 2.

My thoughts?

Mission 1 is tight. I have a feeling I'll come up a bit short on fuel. But, if I can almost get all the stuff I need for a permanent presence for six Kerbins to Duna, I can certainly get all the stuff I need for four.

I eject for Duna tomorrow (after a martini or two).

If there is any interest, I'll keep you posted.

Wish me luck.

b.

Edited June 4, 2013 by ThreeMartiniLaunch

[sturmstiger]

I eject for Duna tomorrow (after a martini or two).

...

Wish me luck.

b.

Wait!!! Don't leave for Duna yet! You might have forgotten something:

Rules

...

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.

...

Are you designating any fuel tank as consumables? Without them your six Kerbals will die ofasphyxiation, thirst, hunger, or toothache (they consume lots of toothpaste everyday).

Also remember that while you can post each mission as you fly them, it will not become a completed entry until you planned (or launched without planning) all missions to keep Duna continuously inhabited until at least Day 500, and showed that (1) your mission architecture can keep Duna continuously inhabited indefinitely, and (2) (unless you wish to suffer the massive "one-way trip" score penalty) your first crew will get back to Kerbin before Day 1000.

Best of luck!

[Highlad]

hey, I have a question. If we are to use Kethane, that would supply us with fuel but can that fuel then be designated as supplies or will we have to fly them in from kerbin?

[ThreeMartiniLaunch]

Are you designating any fuel tank as consumables? Without them your six Kerbals will die ofasphyxiation, thirst, hunger, or toothache (they consume lots of toothpaste everyday).

Cripes! How could I miss that rule...

I assume that starts with the ejection burn from Kerbin orbit?

Well, I guess this mission will be the "feasibility simulation." I'm not sure it can make the trip. My goal is to deliver 50 tons of actual payload each trip with enough fuel to bring the DRV back home.

My redesign will probably be a four man complete mission package then. No way I can put hundreds of days of supplies for six Kerbals on this ship.

Also remember that while you can post each mission as you fly them, it will not become a completed entry until you planned (or launched without planning) all missions to keep Duna continuously inhabited until at least Day 500, and showed that (1) your mission architecture can keep Duna continuously inhabited indefinitely, and (2) (unless you wish to suffer the massive "one-way trip" score penalty) your first crew will get back to Kerbin before Day 1000.

This much I knew. I don't think I'll have a problem keeping Duna continuously inhabited. And the delivery vehicle and lander should be able to get the Kerbals back home in an emergency. Regular missions will have normal accommodations for crew transfers.

If it works out, I'll post each mission as I fly and include a summary similar to the mission plan you posted in your second post.

Oh well. I'll launch the simulation tonight, but it's back to the drawing board for the actual mission. It won't be launching today.

Best of luck!

Thanks! I'm gonna need it.

[Rex_Reach]

Kerbin testing has garnered support for self-propelled habs. The next steps are hauling four of these to Duna (and landing them) and designing a crew vehicle capable of returning all twelve Kerbals safely.

[Highlad]

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

Im just planing all my launches, does this initial craft have to be the same as our general launcher or can it be as big as we like. Also, if it can be big, how would its nominal capacity affect the 'nominal capacity' that is used in scoring?

[Justy]

The Union of Kermunist States triumphantly announces its participation in the race to establish a permanent kerbed scientific base on the red planet Duna!

Government officials are evaluating two competing mission architectures to decide which will propel the nation to its inevitable success.

The Kermichev State Research and Energy Drink Production Space Center (makers of such fine 'health supplements' as Enerkiya and 5-Bol Energy, neither of which has been proven to cause heart failure!) proposes a mission centered on a 20t NIMLKO* expendable heavy launch vehicle, an NTR-powered tug with sufficient delta-V for a one-way trip, a descent/ascent vehicle capable of refueling the tug in a single launch, and ISRU equipment (kethane drill & converter) on an ultralight unpressurized rover, all launched in time for the early departure window. The decadent and lazy may wait for the window at day 283; kermunists have work to do, and depart at day 59. This first crew, though small, will inspire us with their application of kermunist dedication and hard work without which any such mission is impossible** as they prepare the landing site for the larger and better equipped expeditions to follow.

Kermichev's proposal is the most detailed so far, and expects science returns in excess of 2100, with an efficiency of over 15, in the early mission. Extended mission plans predict over 11,000 kerb-days of science and an efficiency of nearly 30!

The Kerbolyov Special Camper Van Design Bureau counters with a novel TSTO MLV with reusable*** liquid rocket boosters. The preliminary design is capable of placing a payload of 18t into LKO and returning to a precision guided powered landing at the launch site for refurbishment. However, approximately one third of launches will instead involve the upper stage refueling from kethane deposits on Minimus so it can serve as the propulsion stage to Duna. This skillful triumph of kermunist ingenuity multiplies the effect of launches! An internal competition**** will decide between a vehicle with fuel capacity for a round trip, one requiring resupply from landing on Duna, or one resupplying from landing on Ike. Assuming the same lander and rover payloads to Kermichev's, the science returns should be similar, but the efficiency score will be truly impressive. Thus far the launcher has proven more interesting to the People's Army Strategic Force than to the Space Exploration Committee. Still, Kerbolyov assures his ambitious plan is not only well reasoned, but lays the groundwork for kerbed explorations of every rocky planet and moon in the entire system.

This effort will be of service to all the peoples of Kerbin by providing an undeniable demonstration of what they can achieve by adopting the superior kermunist science, industry and way of life! We apply ourselves fully to this goal!

* Pursuant to Rule 1, the UKS Bureau of Standards defines its parking and assembly orbit at 100km +/- 2.5%.

** Partly because mission controllers will delay resupply landers in their holding orbits until satisfied.

*** On an unrelated note, if you have a fishing trawler capable of towing a six ton barge that totally isn't a rocket worth billions of kerbles, the People's Navy has a case of vodka for YOU!

**** The competition is an 'Aussie rules' curling brier, where the 'house' is actually the opposing team's leader's home, and the 'hog line' is his living room window. The 'Ike resupply' team seemed unbeatable since the other teams couldn't throw rocks into his 11th floor apartment, but in the 5th end the others remembered they work at a rocket factory, and the Ike team is now trailing by six points and two calls to the local volunteer fire/rescue.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Justy
Added more propag-- er, valuable facts!

[sturmstiger]

hey, I have a question. If we are to use Kethane, that would supply us with fuel but can that fuel then be designated as supplies or will we have to fly them in from kerbin?

No. Tanks of fuel are just a convenient stock-part representation of life support supplies / commensurable. Supplies cannot be converted from or to fuel.

Im just planing all my launches, does this initial craft have to be the same as our general launcher or can it be as big as we like. Also, if it can be big, how would its nominal capacity affect the 'nominal capacity' that is used in scoring?

The initial launcher is also just one of your general launchers. Rule 3 basically says your first launch is on Day 10 (or later if you wish).

[sturmstiger]

Kerbin testing has garnered support for self-propelled habs. The next steps are hauling four of these to Duna (and landing them) and designing a crew vehicle capable of returning all twelve Kerbals safely.

These mobiles habs look awesome! It looks like each hab is carrying a good amount of supplies and can attach to other in several directions. Looking forward to see your outpost!

The landing legs clipping through rover wheels seemed a bit weird though.

The Union of Kermunist States triumphantly announces its participation in the race to establish a permanent kerbed scientific base on the red planet Duna!

Now that's a real Race to Duna we have here, with not one but two proposals from the Kermunists! And predicted mission efficiency of 15 & 30!

Is InSitu generation of Vodka part of the plan from either team?

Edited June 5, 2013 by sturmstiger

[Justy]

Is InSitu generation of Vodka part of the plan from either team?

Again, the plans differ. Kermichev says our brave kerbonauts deserve better than the poor quality vodka one would expect from a still crammed onto a spacecraft and running offworld from local materials... they deserve something like a refreshing Lemon Diet Enerkiya, sweetened with liquid propellium and available at your local neighbourhood State Food Store or Kerb Stop!

Kerbolyov accuses Kermichev of defeatism (and even worse, capitalism!). Kermunist science, he says, can make vodka good enough for anyone, anytime, anywhere, from anything. And if Kermichev says it can't be done, then Kerbolyov must do it just to prove him wrong.

But most importantly, the State Space Exploration Committee fears that by replacing most of the supplies that would otherwise be needed to support the mission, ISRU vodka production would be seen as cheating by the rest of Kerbin, so both teams are forbidden from pursuing it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Justy

[Rex_Reach]

snip

The six man pods weren't quite long enough to separate them with any reasonable stability, and they still can't corner above 15m/s, but I'll try to see if I can shift the legs inward (possibly off the side docking ports?). I need to change the overall plan as well, seeing as with a 100 ton lifter to heft the 12-man Kerbin Return Vehicle to LKO, my mission schedule is going to get ridiculous. I think I'm going to use your idea, where each crew brings their own habitat and supplies then returns in a parked orbital vehicle.

EDIT: New ascent vehicle and tugs designed. Launching at 60 day intervals, I can make the Day 283 window with about a month to spare.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Rex_Reach

[Rogstin]

Question about use of Kerbal life support mods. Example, the Ioncross crew support plugin adds O2 and CO2, which can be exchanged and gathered, those are fine in place of supply rules?

It eliminates the need to plan to bring in supplies, but adds the need to launch, send, and land the equipment for collect and processing, is that the trade off reasoning for allowing substitution?

I assume that this only eliminates the supply cost, not the habitation space requirement.

Love the idea, begin mission plan tomorrow morning.

[sturmstiger]

Question about use of Kerbal life support mods. Example, the Ioncross crew support plugin adds O2 and CO2, which can be exchanged and gathered, those are fine in place of supply rules?

It eliminates the need to plan to bring in supplies, but adds the need to launch, send, and land the equipment for collect and processing, is that the trade off reasoning for allowing substitution?

I assume that this only eliminates the supply cost, not the habitation space requirement.

Love the idea, begin mission plan tomorrow morning.

You're completely right with your assumptions. I was hoping that the additional equipment mass when using life support mods would balance out the stock supply mass. But I haven't checked whether that is actually the case for current life support mods such as Ioncross.

By permitting all mods, there is always the possibility that they would give a large advantage over stock. Thus I asked mission designers to "refrain from using mod parts with performance far superior than stock". It's not a rule and is not enforceable, but anyone who relies on overpowered / "unrealistic" parts rather than innovating mission architecture & spacecraft design to get high scores is completely missing the point of the challenge.

To answer your question, you can use Ioncross mod to replace the supply rule, but not the long term hab space requirement. Looking forward to see your entry!

[Highlad]

Got my timetable ready! I have been working with FallingIntoBlack, he is coming up with a suitable launcher and i have been working on this! The Kethane mod is being used fyi

[FallingIntoBlack]

Indeed, Highlad.

[meyst]

Looks like a good plan to me Highlad. My plans are coming along much slower than I would like due to working too much.

I also have another question.

Are the shielded clamp o tron and photovoltaic panels(When not deployed) atmospheric entry rated?

[sturmstiger]

Got my timetable ready! I have been working with FallingIntoBlack, he is coming up with a suitable launcher and i have been working on this! The Kethane mod is being used fyi

Plans looks good. So you send are sending 8-Kerbal crews every 2 windows? Looking forward to see your launcher, spacecrafts and modules!

Looks like a good plan to me Highlad. My plans are coming along much slower than I would like due to working too much.

I also have another question.

Are the shielded clamp o tron and photovoltaic panels(When not deployed) atmospheric entry rated?

Yes they are. If a part look like shielded / hardened, consider it suitable for reentry.

[sturmstiger]

I'll be on vacation on Minmus until the 17th, launching tomorrow. As you surely know there is no interweb access on Minmus, so I won't be able to update the leaderboard for any completed entry. But please still keep posting your entries / progress reports! I'll update the leaderboard when I (hopefully )come back.

If you think there's anything unclear about rules, just use your judgement: if it feels "realistic", it's most likely okay / allowed; if even you feels it's a bit "cheaty", don't use it in your plan! That's it!