Recreating the apollo rover

[John FX]

So I`ve been checking out how Apollo did their rover to see if I could reproduce it in KSP. My goal was to change from 4 engines and a rover in the middle to a single engine and a rover somehow around it and so be closer to how they did it in RL. What I found was this.

Which does not seem easy to reproduce and impossible in stock. Anyone got any thoughts?

[RoboRay]

A folding rover is going to be difficult. I just settled for a design that snugs up against the side of the LM and has a small robotic arm to deploy it.

Landing:

Rover deployed:

The descent-stage, with another look at the deployment system:

The arm was three rotary motors that swung the rover out to the side of the LM then pivoted it down to the horizontal position before dropping it onto the ground. The extendable instrument platform on the other side was mainly to balance out the mass of the rover.

And, just for completeness, the LM ascent stage:

Edited August 28, 2013 by RoboRay

[Levelord]

Until Squad implements articulated parts, this would be impossible to reproduce as the documents show it. However, you could make a smallish rover and tack it onto a docking port to the side.

[Johnno]

Apollo LRVs had an electric motor in each wheel and front + rear steering, as such pretty much exactly what you'd get with a stock rover in KSP. You could even disable one of the steering motors to only steer with front or rear wheels. So really, looks and functionwise you can replicate the Apollo LRV pretty well in KSP, here's my version:

The only thing you can't really recreate is the folding of the rover, even then the scale would be off so any lander you have would have to be larger designwise. Also as the Apollo LRV was designed a lot of equipment was mounted onto it after deployment, which also isn't feasible in KSP. I've seen rovers using docking ports so that you have two halves, both driven by a independent probecore to be able to connect. But sizewise that also isn't entirely feasible. I may try to make one that's similar in size to my personal version.

I just attach my rover to the side of my lander, where the LRV would normally have been folded up, but really the difference in scale makes it hard to do better.

[spectrhz]

I saw someone make a rover that was separated in the middle by two docking ports and the halves were stored on either side of the lander. It would then dock together and go about being a rover. Not Apollo, and not folding but it's just about the best your going to able to do in KSP as far as I can tell.

[katateochi]

I made a folding rover for my Apollo mission. I used the Damned Robotics hinges so it could fold.

Here's an album showing the unfolding sequence -

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(or check out my apollo vid - http://youtu.be/LZs63oFmNa0)

The way the DR hinges work means that as it folded parts where clipping into each other and so it kinda defies physics. I also, in an "I don't care about realism, I want speed" moment, bolted twin RCS thrusters to the back of it, making it my fastest, yet most stable rover yet.

Edited August 28, 2013 by katateochi
put album in imgur tags - thanks Johnno

[Johnno]

Here's an album showing the unfolding sequence - http://imgur.com/a/V2xXc (could someone please tell me how to embed an album here!)

You use imgur tags and put in the album name, in the above case V2xXc. So it would be [ imgur]V2xXc[ /imgur].

[katateochi]

You use imgur tags and put in the album name, in the above case V2xXc. So it would be [ imgur]V2xXc[ /imgur].

Thanks!! updated post

[Wayfare]

The Munshine V comes with a rover that is slung under the left-hand side of the Munar Module. I tried all kinds of crazy little payloads to counterbalance it, ended up using a couple of RCS tanks. Tee-hee! At 12 parts and less than half a ton in mass, I've been bringing these little beauties to Duna as well and will probably continue to bring them wherever I go. Because it's easy

Sadly, no folding rovers in stock of course...

[John FX]

I think what I am picking up here is either use damned robotics or leave it unpacked, sling it to the side of the engine and then balance the weight of the rover with `stuff`.

[HeadHunter67]

I think the best counterweight is... another rover! With their propensity for flipping or otherwise breaking, it's helpful to have a spare.

[Brotoro]

I simply made a two-kerbal rover small and light enough to stick on the side of my Apollo lunar module. Because the lower two wheels are under compression against the descent stage of the LM, when the rover is ejected it rotates out and lands on its wheels.

(This one was a ladder-rider version, back before we had control seats.)

Edited August 29, 2013 by Brotoro

[John FX]

I think I will have to go with a micro rover instead of a full apollo replica which is a shame but needs must etc. Looks like they packed it in too well unless I go with Dr again.

[RoboRay]

I think what I am picking up here is either use damned robotics or leave it unpacked, sling it to the side of the engine and then balance the weight of the rover with `stuff`.

Or all of the above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsCI5T7z4pY

I've since improved the design with a less energetic decoupler.

Edited August 30, 2013 by RoboRay

[lazarus1024]

Less than folding rovers, I want actual payload bays at some point where you can load craft in to, so long as they are smaller than the bay size.

Of course that also pushes for 3.5m parts.

But anyway, 1.5 and 2.5m payload bays of roughly lander can and twice and thrice that height options would be cool. So you could store a probe or micro rover inside of a 1.5m bay or a small rover or very small ship inside of a 2.5m bay.

I generally go with side mount rovers. In my experience, so long as I don't land with the rover up slope (if on any kind of slope), then when they fall to the ground they pivot forward slightly. Then I just usually need to back up and it'll fall flat. I just have to remember to load a kerbal in to the seat first (otherwise if it is on even a gentle slope it starts rolling away and I can't catch it! Done that once where it rolled 5km along a gentle slope and then down in to a crater pinwheeling end over end before finally blowing in to bits. Legend...wait for it...dary!)

My Apollo mission is finally coming together again. After the rover incident that I mentioned, the rest of the mission was just full on fail. I landed on too steep a slope. I had forgotten to equip my ship with a reaction control system, so it wouldn't use the RCS to stabalize at all and tipped. I managed to get it flipped upright after collapsing the lander legs and then extending them again. Then I popped the rover and lost it. Then I jetted a kerbal up to the top of a nearby mountain to plant my flag (I had landed on the slope 1,200m from the peak) and on returning came in too fast and crunched my kerbal. It auto switched to my ship since I ploped my kerbal right next to the ladder, I accidently hit the shift button and throttled up and pinwheeled the ship down the slope (mental note, from now on after landing MANUALLY DISABLE THE ENGINE!). I decided, screw it. Kixon will do his speech about the poor stranded kerbal (we are now minus one) and the kerbal in orbit will return in the CSM. I get back to Kerbin, hit the atmosphere and then look at the capsule...I forgot to put parachutes on it. Scratch one more Kerbal.

It was the most epically fail laced mission EVER for me. Most just simply fail for some good reason, like not enough dV, or too little thrust for landing, or the launcher breaks apart, or whatever. This one, just about every step after leaving Kerbin orbit was fail.

Hopefully better luck this time. Rover is redesigned to be a bit better and more durable. LM is vastly redesigned to look a little more Apollo-y, as well as slightly higher dV on the landing stage, better control and slightly wider stance on the landing legs for more stability. The CSM was pretty much fine before, but I do need to remember parachutes this time. I may also assemble the thing so it goes up in one launch. Before I did Kerbin orbit assembly for the CSM and the LM because I didn't want to make a huge launcher for the whole thing, but I may just do that this time. I just have to make sure that the launcher has enough fuel in the 3rd stage to both get LKO and also manage TMI as the CSM design I have probably won't have the dV to do TMI, circularization and TKI later.

Going to be one BIG launcher.

[lajoswinkler]

Interesting thread to see when I've just finished deploying my rover on Mun. I've never designed a rover before.

The screenshot was from one of the several landings (search for anomalies) and I've got only this screenshot where the lander tipped on a slope.

Rover was hooked on the side of the lander. I've included a small RCS tank and two nozzle units so I could separate the rover and then place it correctly on the ground. The separation looked a bit like the one in Brotoro's GIF. Just a small monopropellant push, that's it.

It was not until the Kerbals boarded the seats that I realized the seats are looking straight up, so they were lying on the rover while driving.

[John FX]

I`ve decided to go for it and made a reasonable rover fit inside a reasonable lander. This is what I ended up with so far. Still lots of work needed on the lifter.

[Tw1]

My take on Apollo also went with a side mounted rover, but with a special frame that would direct its deployment.

"Science experiment packs" balanced it.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Tw1

[John FX]

Less than folding rovers, I want actual payload bays at some point where you can load craft in to, so long as they are smaller than the bay size. Of course that also pushes for 3.5m parts. But anyway, 1.5 and 2.5m payload bays of roughly lander can and twice and thrice that height options would be cool. So you could store a probe or micro rover inside of a 1.5m bay or a small rover or very small ship inside of a 2.5m bay. I generally go with side mount rovers. In my experience, so long as I don't land with the rover up slope (if on any kind of slope), then when they fall to the ground they pivot forward slightly. Then I just usually need to back up and it'll fall flat. I just have to remember to load a kerbal in to the seat first (otherwise if it is on even a gentle slope it starts rolling away and I can't catch it! Done that once where it rolled 5km along a gentle slope and then down in to a crater pinwheeling end over end before finally blowing in to bits. Legend...wait for it...dary!) My Apollo mission is finally coming together again. After the rover incident that I mentioned, the rest of the mission was just full on fail. I landed on too steep a slope. I had forgotten to equip my ship with a reaction control system, so it wouldn't use the RCS to stabalize at all and tipped. I managed to get it flipped upright after collapsing the lander legs and then extending them again. Then I popped the rover and lost it. Then I jetted a kerbal up to the top of a nearby mountain to plant my flag (I had landed on the slope 1,200m from the peak) and on returning came in too fast and crunched my kerbal. It auto switched to my ship since I ploped my kerbal right next to the ladder, I accidently hit the shift button and throttled up and pinwheeled the ship down the slope (mental note, from now on after landing MANUALLY DISABLE THE ENGINE!). I decided, screw it. Kixon will do his speech about the poor stranded kerbal (we are now minus one) and the kerbal in orbit will return in the CSM. I get back to Kerbin, hit the atmosphere and then look at the capsule...I forgot to put parachutes on it. Scratch one more Kerbal. It was the most epically fail laced mission EVER for me. Most just simply fail for some good reason, like not enough dV, or too little thrust for landing, or the launcher breaks apart, or whatever. This one, just about every step after leaving Kerbin orbit was fail. Hopefully better luck this time. Rover is redesigned to be a bit better and more durable. LM is vastly redesigned to look a little more Apollo-y, as well as slightly higher dV on the landing stage, better control and slightly wider stance on the landing legs for more stability. The CSM was pretty much fine before, but I do need to remember parachutes this time. I may also assemble the thing so it goes up in one launch. Before I did Kerbin orbit assembly for the CSM and the LM because I didn't want to make a huge launcher for the whole thing, but I may just do that this time. I just have to make sure that the launcher has enough fuel in the 3rd stage to both get LKO and also manage TMI as the CSM design I have probably won't have the dV to do TMI, circularization and TKI later. Going to be one BIG launcher.

I would like that also. I would also accept the concept that things like wheels, antenna, solar panels etc would be folded away in a payload bay so you could have a craft 25% larger than the payload bay and say that parts unfolded etc. I would say a mass limit rather than a size limit would make more sense because those space guys pack it all in very well! They could get jobs as van drivers!