Most efficent Mun landing!

[Drunkrobot]

Hello! This is my first entry into the challenges sub-forum, so excuse any noobishness I may radiate. :l

Go into "scenarios" in the main menu. There would be one called "Mun Orbit". In that scenario you will find a Command module/Munar module duo in a 35km by 32km orbit around the Mun.

Your challenge is to get the Munar module from orbit to the surface:

Like so.

You have to do it with as little fuel as possible. Post how much fual you used, against how much there is in the ship, and the percentage resulting from that, along with a screenshot to back up your score.

It would be rude to post this challenge without doing it myself, so here is my score:

If you bring your attention to the top-right, there is 302 units of fuel, out of a capacity of 450. That gives me a score of 67.1%.

NOTE: You cannot use the command module's fuel and/or engines for anything. The lander has to be detached before you can do any burning. No slowing down using the CM.

EDIT: The wonderful fellow below this post pointed out that you should probably explain exactly how you landed. We want this to be a learning experience as well as a friendly competition. My landing technique can be best explained by this video. (TRY NOT TO WATCH SO YOU CAN COMPARE YOUR CURRUNT TECHNIQUE WITH THIS ONE.)

You CANNOT break any parts during the "lithobraking" stage of the landing.

Leader board:

1st: Johnno-74.9%

2nd: Francesco-73.8%

3rd: Kosmo-not-73.1%

4th: Coneshot.72.7%

5th: metaphor-70.9%

6th: Raptor831-70.6%

7th: Drunkrobot-67.1%

Edited July 18, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[Mr Shifty]

Good challenge! Simple, quick, and direct. I will try this evening. You might want to ask folks to explain how they did it.

[Drunkrobot]

Thanks, I'll make a quick edit to the OP.

[metaphor]

319/450, or 70.9%. I first burned retrograde at apoapsis to get my periapsis around 2 km. Then about 1 min before peripasis started burning retrograde to kill speed. Watch vertical speed and go up a little bit from the retrograde marker on the navball if the vertical speed gets too high. And then the final touchdown was just following the retrograde marker to the ground. Could have probably done better using MechJeb's suicide burn timer.

This is a nice challenge. There's a lot of take-off challenges, but not many landing ones.

edit: I just watched the previous video. It's a really nice tutorial, and I did almost the same as the video, except this lander has much higher TWR and therefore you can keep it closer to the retrograde marker.

Edited July 16, 2013 by metaphor

[Drunkrobot]

Well, already I'm knocked from first place! Putting in a leader board.

[Johnno]

I've seen the video before and know the landing style in theory, but haven't used it before as I prefer safe/slow/pinpoint landings. Took me a few tries to get the hang of it, no crashes just too careful landings resulting in just over or under 300 fuel left.

But I managed to score well after a few tries. 322 liquid fuel left or 71.5%

[Francesco]

raising the bar juuust a little more... 327/450:

I set my periapsis at 2 km, chose an elevated landing area (not the bottom of a crater) to spend less fuel; I started the braking burn at 2 km, but I came in too long, and landed by the edge of a small crater at ~900m of altitude.

I guess if someone was to land on a higher area, he could spend even less fuel.

gallery: http://francesc0.minus.com/mbvEwt3Iivaz8F

[SkyRender]

I would do this challenge, but unfortunately, the landing legs fly off due to Kraken assault the moment I load that scenario...

[Johnno]

raising the bar juuust a little more... 327/450

I was so close, but at least it was an improvement on my own entry after several more tries; 327/450 as well. 72.66% (edit: well technically 72.7% if you wanna round up)

[Drunkrobot]

For know, 1st place is a tie. Keep it up!

[Johnno]

*wipes sweat and exhales* Did it. Some lithobraking may have taken place. 329/450, 73.1%

PS: Great challenge Drunkrobot, very fun and educational.

[Drunkrobot]

And the crowd goes wild!

[Raptor831]

I'll throw my hat in. 318/450 = 70.6%

[Francesco]

some lithobraking later...

[metaphor]

Wow that's impressive. From my calculations, if you're left with 332 fuel, that means you used 599 m/s delta-v. Considering it takes 20 m/s to get your periapsis down to 2km and you're going about 578 m/s at your periapsis, the minimum possible delta-v to stop is about 598 m/s. But the lander is very robust and can survive a 15 m/s crash so I guess that helps a little.

[Kosmo-not]

Since I saw the video here, I felt obligated to attempt this myself.

73.1% with a soft landing.

[Johnno]

I gave it a few more tries today but couldn't successfully increase my score. So I think I might've reached my limit, congratulations on 322 Francesco, was a fun back and forth there between us for a bit. Settling for second place isn't so bad when tied with Kosmo-not.

Thanks again Drunkrobot, great challenge and bonus points for using an existing scenario (I honestly hadn't even looked at them, just been sandboxin').

[Francesco]

thanks Johnno, altough I have to state that more than my landing skills, it was lithobraking that saved fuel

I didn't intentionally do that, though - I just happened to be travelling at some 40 m/s during the final approach, too close to the surface: those landing legs are pretty stiff, so they absorbed the impact(s) without damage.

anyway, I agree, good job in creating this challenge: I would be curious to see what else we can come up with, using the existing scenarios and training missions. maybe something involving the mostly unknown Kerbal XX?

[Johnno]

I would be curious to see what else we can come up with, using the existing scenarios and training missions. maybe something involving the mostly unknown Kerbal XX?

Made me go look.

Most efficient Ike landing then?

Actually, scratch that, it'd be bit tedious to redo it from start. How about most efficient transfer from Duna to Ike into a specified orbit? I was pondering inclinations as well but that'd be hard to judge.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Johnno

[Flixxbeatz]

Could've been more "efficient" if I've decoupled the extra stage much closer to the surface

[Coneshot]

327/450 is.. um.. 72.66% ..er I think.. my math is rusty.... landed intact, but taking off may be interesting:

[Johnno]

There's enough pod torque that if you pull up the landing legs you can actually turn upright onto the engine and then deploy the legs. I may have *cough* been in a similar situation a few times.

[Coneshot]

There's enough pod torque that if you pull up the landing legs you can actually turn upright onto the engine and then deploy the legs. I may have *cough* been in a similar situation a few times.

Hey! waddaya know! it worked! thx Johnno!

[Johnno]

I blame Coneshot, I had to go for a few more tries.

Behold! 336 fuel left, 74.7% I know, I know, not a flawless landing, however I only lost a landing leg, everything else is fine; docking port, engine and fuel tanks/lines, I'd personally call it a success but up to you guys if you want to allow it.

[Drunkrobot]

...well. That is a very impressive score, but unfortunately, I can't allow it. Personally, I wouldn't consider any activity a success if I lost a leg while doing it.