Duna Apollo Style

[Death Engineering]

Duna Apollo Style

Continuing the ideas from Xeldrak's challenge Doing it Apollo style, this challenge tries to capture NASA's post-lunar space program ideas for Mars exploration.

After the Apollo program succeeded in proving that NASA's space hardware was capable of landing and returning to the Moon, interest quickly waned in continuing Moon missions. However, there was interest in going other places like Mars and Venus, but since there were already hundreds of thousands of government and contractor workers constructing Apollo hardware, the idea was to use modified existing hardware originally designed for Moon missions.

Very little was known about the Martian atmosphere, but manned flyby's were considered using modified Apollo hardware. A new kind of nuclear powered rocket engine was also on the drawing board for deep-space missions. That didn't happen. But we can do it Kerbal-style, and make it a landing and return mission!

This challenge is to use Apollo-style mission hardware to achieve NASA's imagined goals to land on and return from the Red Planet, in our case, Duna. Extra points are weighted to use Apollo-style mission profile, in the same way NASA planned to use modified Apollo LM/CSM hardware and an upgraded Saturn 5 launch vehicle.

For this mission, we will extend the original vaccuum-only landing concept of Grumman's LM to include any command pod in KSP.

Provided as part of the challenge is a save game file which is 24hr before an optimal Duna transfer window (day 54 of year 1 in a "fresh start" game). This gives you enough time to get your craft into orbit and prepare for the interplanetary transfer. You do not have to launch in this window, but you cannot launch earlier than this window. This file also includes a pad-light near the launch pad in the event of a night launch. It also gives a good place to 'park' if you wish to time-accelerate to an alternate launch window. It is recommended that you develop your vessel in another save game, or use one you already have, then transfer it over.

Basic mission profile to earn the base of 50 points:

• Non-asparagus, Saturn 5 style launch vehicle: 3 main stages to LKO, no asparagus-style fuel-tank/engine jettisons on ascent to LKO. Solid rocket boosters ARE permitted, as they were being developed for the Space Shuttle, but there is a penalty for making KSC accelerate their development for this mission.
  
• Start with the provided save game persistent file.
  
• Single launch mission. No refueling or constructing the vessel in orbit from multiple lauches.
  
• The Apollo CSM was not capable of doing a 'direct ascent' mission. You must use a separate command module and lander.
  
• Powered descent, parachutes, or a combination will qualify.
  
• All stock flight-parts. No mods which provide improved flight performance or flight assistance (auto-pilot) are allowed.
  
• Return at least one of the Kerbals that started the mission back safely to Kerbin's surface.
  

Addition points for standard mission goals:

• 3-kerbal mission +10
  
• 2-kerbal lander +10
  
• 2-stage lander with separate ascent stage (descent stage stays on Duna) +20
  
• Launch escape system (LES) escape tower +10
  
• Duna lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20
  
• Lander tucked away behind some fairing +5
  
• Perfect landing - no damage to LM +10
  
• Dock with LM's ascent stage prior to leaving Duna's SOI +10
  
• Ascent module de-orbited to burn up in Duna's atmosphere +5
  
• Plant at least one flag +3
  
• Splash-down on Kerbin (water landing) +5
  
• Kerbal fatality -20 each (if any kerbal is left on the Duna surface after the ascent module leaves the surface or the CM leaves Duna orbit, they will die).
  

Flight goals:

• Launch vehicle should avoid using solid-rocket boosters during its ascent. This *does not* include use of Separatrons that are not used for ascent purposes. If you use a SRB for ascent -10
  
• Complete the mission with only chemical rockets (no nukes). The KSC already has a crate of chemical rockets on hand and you get a bonus for not having to accelerate development on the nuclear engine +15
  
• Aerobrake around Duna to achieve orbit +10
  
• Less than 75 days from game start to Duna orbit? Launching when the game saves starts and performing a standard orbital transfer gets you into a Duna orbit 75 days from when the provided save game starts, day 129 in the game. Find a faster way to get into a Duna orbit using another transfer faster and earn +1 point for every day less than 75 days it takes to get to Duna orbit, from the starting point of day 54, where the provided save game starts (calculated by 129 - day when Duna orbit is reached).
  
• Water sample return bonus! Land on either polar icecap AND return a sample to Kerbin (either as part of the kerballed lander or a robotic lander) +10
  

Rover:

• At least one rover on board +5
  
• Rovers can seat at least one Kerbal +5
  
• Additional rovers +3 each
  
• Distance (score for one only and counts only for a kerballed rover)
  • Drive beyond 100 meters of the lander +2
    
  • Drive beyond 2.5 km of the lander +5
    
  • Drive beyond 5km of the lander +10
    
  • Drive beyond 10km of the lander +15
    

Orbital Science goals:

• Deploy orbiting satellite around Duna +5
  
• Deploy orbiting satellite around Ike +10
  
• Duna surface science goals. Each science package must be a powered probecore with at least one scientific instrument.
  • Deploy one science package at landing site (on the LM itself counts, if that part of the LM stays on Duna's surface and remains powered) +5
    
  • Deploy a science package at least 2.5km from the landing site +10 (score first one only)
    
  • Deploy a science package at least 1000m +/- different alititude from LM or any other science package +15 (score first one only)
    
  • Deploy a science package adjacent (within 100m) to any anomoly +10 (score first one only)
    
  • Deploy a science package at least 10km from the landing site +10 (score first one only)
    

Challenge hints:

• Maximum points would be difficult to achieve without a long drive.
  
• Multiple un-kerballed rovers would help.
  
• KSC reports that their telemetry has observed sink holes over 1000m deep.
  

Save game file 24hr before an optimal Duna transfer window: Apollo Style Duna Challenge.zip

There is a theoretical maximum of 283 points in this challenge, if only one rover is brought and there is no bonus for getting to Duna orbit before day 129 in the game.

Good luck, Kerbanauts!

Leaderboard

1. immelman - 349
   
2. Istas - 346
   
3. BlazeFallow - 329
   
4. Chacabuco - 321
   
5. KevinTMC - 320
   
6. Mesklin - 315
   
7. borisperrons - 299
   
8. Patupi - 294
   
9. Xeldrak - 278
   
10. capi3101 - 267
    
11. beelzebub - 257
    
12. Death Engineering - 228
    
13. TTurchan1 - 158
    
14. Synapse - 90
    

Edited January 14, 2014 by Death Engineering
update leaderboard

[Radiokopf]

How should we perform the sample return ? or is landing enough ?

I will try it the next days

[jbaltus123]

i do! i try this next day

[Death Engineering]

How should we perform the sample return ? or is landing enough ?

I will try it the next days

If either a probe or a kerballed lander makes it to either icecap, the sample is captured. If a part of that probe or the kerbal makes it back to KSC, the sample is returned. Note that if you use a probe to capture the sample, that probe can return on its own to Kerbin - it does not need to return with the command module, but it can.

In other words, if you can drop a sample return probe from the main mission craft that can return to Kerbin on its own, then go for it. That would be really cool!

[Death Engineering]

My submission for this mission. Some things went well, some not so much..

Points not earned, or not discounted, in red.

Basic mission profile to earn the base of 50 points

Addition points for standard mission goals:

•3-kerbal mission +10

•2-kerbal lander +10

•2-stage lander with separate ascent stage (descent stage stays on Duna) +20

•Launch escape system (LES) escape tower +10

•Duna lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20

•Lander tucked away behind some fairing +5

•Perfect landing - no damage to LM +10

•Dock with LM's ascent stage prior to leaving Duna's SOI +10

•Ascent module de-orbited to burn up in Duna's atmosphere +5

•Plant at least one flag +3

•Splash-down on Kerbin (water landing) +5

•Kerbal fatality -20 each (if any kerbal is left on the Duna surface after the ascent module leaves the surface or the CM leaves Duna orbit, they will die).

Flight goals:

•Launch vehicle should avoid using solid-rocket boosters during its ascent. This *does not* include use of Separatrons that are not used for ascent purposes. If you use a SRB for ascent -10

•Complete the mission with only chemical rockets (no nukes). The KSC already has a crate of chemical rockets on hand and you get a bonus for not having to accelerate development on the nuclear engine +15

•Aerobrake around Duna to achieve orbit +10

•Less than 75 days from game start to Duna orbit? Launching when the game saves starts and performing a standard orbital transfer gets you into a Duna orbit 75 days from when the provided save game starts, day 129 in the game. Find a faster way to get into a Duna orbit using another transfer faster and earn +1 point for every day less than 75 days it takes to get to Duna orbit, from the starting point of day 54, where the provided save game starts (calculated by 129 - day when Duna orbit is reached).

•Water sample return bonus! Land on either polar icecap AND return a sample to Kerbin (either as part of the kerballed lander or a robotic lander) +10

Rover:

•At least one rover on board +5

•Rovers can seat at least one Kerbal +5

•Additional rovers +3 each

•Distance (score for one only and counts only for a kerballed rover)

•Drive beyond 10km of the lander +15

Orbital Science goals:

•Deploy orbiting satellite around Duna +5

•Deploy orbiting satellite around Ike +10

•Duna surface science goals. Each science package must be a powered probecore with at least one scientific instrument.

•Deploy one science package at landing site (on the LM itself counts, if that part of the LM stays on Duna's surface and remains powered) +5 (destroyed on ignition of ascent stage)

•Deploy a science package at least 2.5km from the landing site +10 (score first one only)

•Deploy a science package at least 1000m +/- different alititude from LM or any other science package +15 (score first one only)

•Deploy a science package adjacent (within 100m) to any anomoly +10 (score first one only)

•Deploy a science package at least 10km from the landing site +10 (score first one only)

Score: 228 points

Mission details:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited July 17, 2013 by Death Engineering

[Xeldrak]

Well, I'll have a look at it, since the challenge is my grandchild so to speak

[Coneshot]

My submission for this mission. Some things went well, some not so much..

~SNIP~

I thoroughly enjoyed that mission report Death Engineering, well put together!

[Justy]

There's nothing wrong with ruling them out for the challenge, but for what it's worth, there's good justification in history for SRBs in Apollo-to-Mars. Large SRBs were well established at the time, and the most realistic Saturn upgrades (ie, none of this "we'll duct-tape four Saturn V's together for a first stage and fly it back to a runway landing" crap) used them. 120 inch SRBs (a little narrower than Shuttle's 146 inch SRBs) were already in use for Titan; strapping four of them on Saturn V would give you 170 tons to orbit (vs. 118 for the Saturn V alone).

Better yet, Aerojet tested their monstrous 260 inch SRB in 1965, and had built the factory to produce them in Florida (because they would be too big to ship!)... but the contract fell through and the factory closed. One of these would entirely replace the first stage on little Saturn IB, or cluster four of them to increase Saturn V's payload beyond 300 TONS (the inconveniently named Saturn V-D). Put fuel tanks on top the SRBs and crossfeed them into the Saturn V's first stage, dropping them at SRB burnout, and payload jumps to over 370 tons (Saturn V/4-260), enough to launch the entire ISS (up to 2009; it's too heavy now) in one launch!

Aerojet was passed over in favour of Thiokol, with their cheaper, multi-segment boosters (Aerojet's were cast in one single giant piece, so no seams). You may remember Thiokol from such press releases as "Shut up, Roger Boisjoly, we don't care if it IS too cold, launch Challenger anyhow, it'll be-- hey, our contract protects us if anything goes wrong, right? Yeah? Great! Like I said, it'll be FINE!"

Edited July 18, 2013 by Justy

[Coneshot]

There's nothing wrong with ruling them out for the challenge, but for what it's worth, there's good justification in history for SRBs in Apollo-to-Mars. Large SRBs were well established at the time, and the most realistic Saturn upgrades (ie, none of this "we'll duct-tape four Saturn V's together for a first stage and fly it back to a runway landing" crap) used them. 120 inch SRBs (a little narrower than Shuttle's 146 inch SRBs) were already in use for Titan; strapping four of them on Saturn V would give you 170 tons to orbit (vs. 118 for the Saturn V alone).

Better yet, Aerojet tested their monstrous 260 inch SRB in 1965, and had built the factory to produce them in Florida (because they would be too big to ship!)... but the contract fell through and the factory closed. One of these would entirely replace the first stage on little Saturn IB, or cluster four of them to increase Saturn V's payload beyond 300 TONS (the inconveniently named Saturn V-D). Put fuel tanks on top the SRBs and crossfeed them into the Saturn V's first stage, dropping them at SRB burnout, and payload jumps to over 370 tons (Saturn V/4-260), enough to launch the entire ISS (up to 2009; it's too heavy now) in one launch!

Aerojet was passed over in favour of Thiokol, with their cheaper, multi-segment boosters (Aerojet's were cast in one single giant piece, so no seams). You may remember Thiokol from such press releases as "Shut up, Roger Boisjoly, we don't care if it IS too cold, launch Challenger anyhow, it'll be-- hey, our contract protects us if anything goes wrong, right? Yeah? Great! Like I said, it'll be FINE!"

Now that you mention it, I recall that the Minuteman missile used solid rocket propellant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

[Death Engineering]

There's nothing wrong with ruling them out for the challenge, but for what it's worth, there's good justification in history for SRBs in Apollo-to-Mars. Large SRBs were well established at the time, and the most realistic Saturn upgrades (ie, none of this "we'll duct-tape four Saturn V's together for a first stage and fly it back to a runway landing" crap) used them. 120 inch SRBs (a little narrower than Shuttle's 146 inch SRBs) were already in use for Titan; strapping four of them on Saturn V would give you 170 tons to orbit (vs. 118 for the Saturn V alone).

Better yet, Aerojet tested their monstrous 260 inch SRB in 1965, and had built the factory to produce them in Florida (because they would be too big to ship!)... but the contract fell through and the factory closed. One of these would entirely replace the first stage on little Saturn IB, or cluster four of them to increase Saturn V's payload beyond 300 TONS (the inconveniently named Saturn V-D). Put fuel tanks on top the SRBs and crossfeed them into the Saturn V's first stage, dropping them at SRB burnout, and payload jumps to over 370 tons (Saturn V/4-260), enough to launch the entire ISS (up to 2009; it's too heavy now) in one launch!

Aerojet was passed over in favour of Thiokol, with their cheaper, multi-segment boosters (Aerojet's were cast in one single giant piece, so no seams). You may remember Thiokol from such press releases as "Shut up, Roger Boisjoly, we don't care if it IS too cold, launch Challenger anyhow, it'll be-- hey, our contract protects us if anything goes wrong, right? Yeah? Great! Like I said, it'll be FINE!"

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to weight SRB's vs not using the nuclear/NERVA engine. As it stands, if you use SRB's and do not use the nuke, you're still +5 net points ahead. Hopefully that's still a balanced approach..?

ps. It was too cold..

[Death Engineering]

I thoroughly enjoyed that mission report Death Engineering, well put together!

Thanks! Trying it again without nukes and more rovers next...

[Xeldrak]

alright, I got the rocket built - now I only need to get this 800+ pieces-thing to Duna...

[Death Engineering]

That looks totally bad-a**!

Is the coupler between the S1-C and the S-2 a "wobble point"?

[Xeldrak]

Actually not so much - there are a few struts between the outer tanks that keep the wobbling in check. The lander assembly (the thing behind the fairings) was much wobblier.

However - biggest problem is my pc - have to launch this beast at ~3 fps

[Xeldrak]

Alright - so by now Jeb and Bob are roaming Duna and doing science stuff. However, my rovers turned out to be rather capricious, so it might still be some time, till I can submit my entry.

Also it's getting late over here....

[Death Engineering]

Good luck with the wayward rovers!

I scaled back the size of my rover so I could carry some robotic ones while keeping the mass still Duna capable with chemical rockets. Not having much luck however..

[Xeldrak]

It's done! However, KSP decided to simply stop doing screenshots halfway through the mission. So you won't see some of the best shots Also, you will have to believe me, that I splashed down on Kerbin...

Anyways - do I get extra points for deploying a science package with a altitude difference of 2000 meters? How about driving 30 km on Duna?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Base: 50

3-kerbal mission +10

2-kerbal lander +10

2-stage lander with separate ascent stage (descent stage stays on Duna) +20

Launch escape system (LES) escape tower +10

Duna lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20

Lander tucked away behind some fairing +5

Perfect landing - no damage to LM +10

Dock with LM's ascent stage prior to leaving Duna's SOI +10

Ascent module de-orbited to burn up in Duna's atmosphere +5

Plant at least one flag +3

Splash-down on Kerbin (water landing) +5

Kerbal fatality -20 each (if any kerbal is left on the Duna surface after the ascent module leaves the surface or the CM leaves Duna orbit, they will die).

Flight goals:

Launch vehicle should avoid using solid-rocket boosters during its ascent. This *does not* include use of Separatrons that are not used for ascent purposes. If you use a SRB for ascent -10

Complete the mission with only chemical rockets (no nukes). The KSC already has a crate of chemical rockets on hand and you get a bonus for not having to accelerate development on the nuclear engine +15

Aerobrake around Duna to achieve orbit +10

Less than 75 days from game start to Duna orbit? Launching when the game saves starts and performing a standard orbital transfer gets you into a Duna orbit 75 days from when the provided save game starts, day 129 in the game. Find a faster way to get into a Duna orbit using another transfer faster and earn +1 point for every day less than 75 days it takes to get to Duna orbit, from the starting point of day 54, where the provided save game starts (calculated by 129 - day when Duna orbit is reached).

Water sample return bonus! Land on either polar icecap AND return a sample to Kerbin (either as part of the kerballed lander or a robotic lander) +10

Rover:

At least one rover on board +5

Rovers can seat at least one Kerbal +5

Additional rovers +3 each

Distance (score for one only and counts only for a kerballed rover)

Drive beyond 100 meters of the lander +2

Drive beyond 2.5 km of the lander +5

Drive beyond 5km of the lander +10

Drive beyond 10km of the lander +15

Orbital Science goals:

Deploy orbiting satellite around Duna +5

Deploy orbiting satellite around Ike +10

Duna surface science goals. Each science package must be a powered probecore with at least one scientific instrument.

Deploy one science package at landing site (on the LM itself counts, if that part of the LM stays on Duna's surface and remains powered) +5

Deploy a science package at least 2.5km from the landing site +10 (score first one only)

Deploy a science package at least 1000m +/- different alititude from LM or any other science package +15 (score first one only)

Deploy a science package adjacent (within 100m) to any anomoly +10 (score first one only)

Deploy a science package at least 10km from the landing site +10 (score first one only)

--------

276 points if I'm not wrong

[Fox62]

Take a look at GusTurbo's Saturn IX, it has to score at least a little.

[Moon Goddess]

• Single launch mission. No refueling or constructing the vessel in orbit from multiple lauches.
  

Why rule out multiple launches? NASA was exploring multiple launches for Gemini moon landing before the apollo program.

[Death Engineering]

Why rule out multiple launches? NASA was exploring multiple launches for Gemini moon landing before the apollo program.

NASA has one VAB, one crawler, and one pad big enough for a Saturn 5. There's only one mission control, one ground support crew, barely enough computer power to support the mission, etc... Basically, trying for accuracy, but you're right about multiple Gemini launches.

However, there was a lot less at stake with those launches. If something went wrong with either of the launches that relied on multiple launches for a successful mission it would have meant cancelling the mission even though one of the launches was perfect. Its also just too complex, which is why NASA developed the Saturn 5 in the first place. Technically, multiple Saturn 1B launches could have made a moonshot.

[Death Engineering]

276 points if I'm not wrong

VERY impressive!

Edited July 21, 2013 by Death Engineering

[Xeldrak]

Thanks I allmost gave up when I realized half of the screenshots were missing

[Death Engineering]

I'd like to see more of the launching/staging to see how it got into orbit.. care to share?

[Xeldrak]

Actually it's not very enthralling, but here we go. I slapped a Mechjeb onto the rocket, so you can see some numbers. Also excuse the picture overload - but I guess you can't read the numbers without full resolution.

At the launchpad, 912.17 tons of explosives Also, only the first three stages are made for "hitting space", the rest of the rocket is operated my mouse. So the other stages are rather messed up

A few seconds after liftoff, 7 Mainsail engines produce 10500 KN of force. TWR at liftoff 1.18

MET 02:03 (reallife about 6 minutes), 3 seconds before staging. TWR 2.25 and it only weighs 475.15 t now

A few seconds after staging - it's time for the 7 Skipper Engines to take over. Dropping the first stage got rid of ~100 tons, TWR is down to 1.28

After spending almost 200 tons of fuel, I got the apoapsis up to 100 km

In a circular orbit at 100km, with ~500 m/s dv left in the second stage. The vessel still has a mass of 162.52 tons. You can also get a good look at the escape tower.

In the actual mission I used the leftover fuel in the second stage for a part of the interplanetary burn and shed it during the maneuver. Without the second stage we are down to "just" 78.01 tons.

Getting rid of the escape tower, wich actually weighs over two tons

Antenna set up, solar pannels deployed - this is the cruise configuration:

Originally I wanted to dock the lander at the nose of the CM for the interplanetary burn, but in this configuration the ship is much wobblier. So I use the lander's ascent engine (Poodle, just like the CM engine) with fuel from the CM. Also the satellites are actually glorified fuel-tanks. The one for Ike needs a few litres of fuel, the one in duna orbit got sucked completely dry before deploying it.

[Justy]

A few seconds after staging - it's time for the 7 Skipper Engines to take over. Dropping the first stage got rid of ~100 tons, TWR is down to 1.28

That, sir, is actually very nice photo.