How to build CSM/LM rocket

[Pawelk198604]

Let's face the fact's i'm lousy rocket designer, while i can construct space probes that reached Jool and Duna, i can build Mun rocket but i cannot design Apollo style CSM'/LM rocket

PS, does it's possible de-orbit maned capsule with RCS? I never tried, but i want to try

[RawChicken]

There is a how to section for this types of requests.

To de orbit with RCS, make a small lander with lots of RCS and lots of rcs thrusters

Try kerbal engineer to measeure yout twr beforehand

[Rhyunix]

DUDE! How can you not design one is beyond me but that doesn't matter:

This is how to plan ANYmission CSM:

Step 1: What, Where, Why - This is how you draw up your designed stage. Its dead simple! Lets take my example. I'm constructing a lightweight, Mun capable CSM. STOP. Is it going to go on its own or not (look for * for answer) For this, lets say its going with a LM. It needs to have enough fuel for the trip there and back. Its also got a dead weight on its front (most likely ( the LM) You don't need a massive fuel margin, this only slows you down.

How many Crew who's going? Is it a 3- manned, 2 manned, 1 manned, or even more? Use the fuel tanks appropriately.

RCS FUEL IS A DEAD WEIGHTIf your going to re-dock with your craft in orbit, its most likely that unless you have a highly unresponsive LM, you WONT need more than 100 RCS!

Step 2: The craft - This is the easy bit. Lets say were coming as close to Apollo mock-up as possible and were sending three kerbals there. Attach the RCS to the Capsule itself. Then put decoupler. Unless your either taking a remote rover, or your delibrately putting on a probe to use electricity (for the harder people out there) you don't need electricity (for now) Take advanced SAS only.

Step 2 B: The engines - Engines recommended

LV- 45 (TV) - Efficient, Powerful - downside, large, craft wobbles on launch

LV- 30 (NTV) Not so efficient, very powerful - downside ^^

LV- N - Do not use

LV 90 - (TV) Either get ready to wait or use in clusters

Step 3: The LM - The LM is the lightest part of the rocket. A lot of the time, people worry about not getting back because of fuel. If you plan with decent fuel, you will get back In some cases, the LM's have Descent and Ascent Stages. They're heavy, but if you don't feel confident about your success and want an emergency plan + you have lots of time, you could implement one into your design. However, its dead easy to have one without leaving behind a bunch of fuel. Add a decoupler underneath your LM capsule and add RCS and RCS thrusters. They will let you rendezvous with your other spacecraft.

Step 4: Test flights

If you want to be sure that your CM will get to the Mun, do a round-8 flight! Get into orbit using the launcher you've created for the mission, begin burning for the Mun and when you arrive, adjust so that you dip into the Kerbin atmosphere. If you have 1/3 of your fuel left over, you can go for the Landing next time with your LM

That's it hope it helps!

* If your doing it like constellation, you shouldn't need that much fuel

Edited May 28, 2013 by Rhyunix

[Aphox]

I usually use something like that. I just threw that together in a couple minutes. The ascent stage's fuel placement could use some work.

That's how I usually build my CSM/LM things though. Sometimes I launch the lander separate from the CSM.

[Rhyunix]

2 things Aphox

1: how'd you take that picture inside the VAB

2: That's almost identical to my description! Although a few things could change... but You scrambled it together so, you know

A: Could put the fuel tanks inside the pod (its not part clip)

B: No RCS for LM

C: No ladder!

[Aphox]

2 things Aphox

1: how'd you take that picture inside the VAB

2: That's almost identical to my description! Although a few things could change... but You scrambled it together so, you know

A: Could put the fuel tanks inside the pod (its not part clip)

B: No RCS for LM

C: No ladder!

Right, like I said, I just threw it together in a minute. Didn't plan any of the other things.

F1 takes in-game screenshots and puts them under \Screenshots in your install directory. F2 disables the HUD while in flight for more cinematic shots. F3 opens your flight log (thanks, Supernovy), and F4 disables the ship markers in flight, which I think F2 should also do, but hey.

I've built quite a few CSMs and like to model them directly after the Apollo CSM so they end up looking pretty generic. The LM is a bit more difficult in authenticity as you can see. Fitting appropriate amounts of fuel in small areas is nigh impossible in KSP due to the clipping restrictions (I don't like to use part clipping, it feels like cheating). I'm sure with some work I could come up with something better, but it would probably be a little heavier.

This is why I want super thin 3m fuel tanks. Like half the height of the one I put on the LM would be awesome. Just for an ascent module like that.

EDIT: with part clipping enabled I managed to slip a fueltank inside the pod. I was able to get it in without part clipping, but I had to enable to to get the rest of the LM back on.

Also, don't use those lander legs. Took it out for a stability test and this happened:

The ascent stage works very well on Kerbin. Not sure it can circularize Mun, but I bet with the aid of sepratrons on separation, it would.

Another edit: I am just now realizing that using a normal decoupler is a horrible idea, as they only separate from one side.

If you end up using a design like this, remember to use a stack separator, as they separate bi-directionally, clearing up both docking ports for use.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Aphox

[Pawelk198604]

I thinking about constructing lander based on constellation configuration it's seems more easy.

[capi3101]

OP: There's a tutorial on the wiki that covers how to build and fly an Apollo-style mission. Be forewarned that the design is pretty flawed; it telescopes more often than it makes it into space, but it should give you some guidelines to go by.

Quick word on RCS: It may or may not be necessary. If you're landing the whole ship, you probably could get by without RCS if you've got something like a Mk-II lander can for the command pod and the rest of the craft is fairly light (say...15 tonnes or less). More massive and you'll want it. It's a must for both craft if you're going to undock a lander and then send it back to rendezvous. I also can't emphasize enough the usefulness of RCS as an auxiliary thrust source; I returned a craft from Ike last night and if I hadn't had RCS to pull my ship in close enough for aerobraking, it wouldn't have made it back.

[Uberick]

I use this, or variants of this, for most of my landing missions.

http://i.imgur.com/lkdqK7y.jpg' alt='lkdqK7y.jpg'>

The structural wings allow you to use a nuke engine, and also expand the base of support to make it easy to land. I recommend their use even if you use a 909(also an excellent engine). I'd stay away from the radial engines, they have horrible ISP. Effectively, all you have to do it put a docking port on the CM, and then build a LM capable of landing and reattaining orbit, and put a docking port on that too. Flip the LM around and stick it on top of the CM, voila!

[Nobody_1707]

Another edit: I am just now realizing that using a normal decoupler is a horrible idea, as they only separate from one side.

If you end up using a design like this, remember to use a stack separator, as they separate bi-directionally, clearing up both docking ports for use.

Doh! I kept reading its tooltip as saying it splits the rocket in half lengthwise. No wonder I could never get it to work. Why doesn't it just say bi-directional in the description?

[Xeldrak]

You all start with the lander allready attached to the top of your ship? I usually have is stored behind the CSM (apollo style) and have to dock it to the top of my rocket before I can use the CSM-engine.

[Rune]

Oh, quick note, because it happens to the best of us. You can undock from part attached to a docking port with the right click menu. Just in case you have a decoupler stuck between you and the lander docking port.

Rune. Not that I'm talking from personal experience...

[AmpsterMan]

Here are a few pictures that might give you some inspiration. This is to land on Minmus, but it works just as well on Mun

[zanzibar196]

Here is a video on how to make a non-apollo rocket and lander. To enter the lander, drop the ladder, and eva into it. The lander is designed to get back to Kerbin without the main module!

Here is a video showing that yes, it actually does fly...

And here is how to board and switch control to the lander...

Edited May 28, 2013 by zanzibar196

[jbaltus123]

omg so many crafts

[Rhyunix]

Gotta point out before anyone uses the lander leg mk1's, don't use them they will wobble like crazy and can cause your craft to flip out.

As for my lander, i made my ascent engine nestle neatly in the descent stage. The descent engine doesn't have a fuel tank directly above it because that's where the ascent engine is. The fuel tanks are around it and are connected to the engine with fuel lines. Works every time, even on angled orbits.

[TimMartland]

Not sure why you would even need a 2-part lander. I built a large lander that, once put into orbit by the assent stage, could fly to minimus, land, take of again and fly back with 10 per cent of the tank left.

[Rickenbacker]

Another edit: I am just now realizing that using a normal decoupler is a horrible idea, as they only separate from one side.

If you end up using a design like this, remember to use a stack separator, as they separate bi-directionally, clearing up both docking ports for use.

I don't use anything! If it's connected with two docking ports, you can just undock, and you leave no trash floating around in orbit.