BSC - Two-stage Lander - We have a WINNER!

[Flixxbeatz]

my entry: The Pangolin. Made it back in 0.20, that's why it still has ASAS in it.

Houses 2 kerbals (or 3, if one has a death wish). And it's HUGE.

Features:

-Viewing platform underneath (for 1st person landing attempts).

-Wide base to prevent tipping.

-Easy to control.

-Suited for interplanetary landings (after a few modifications).

-Lander part carries more than enough fuel needed.

Drawbacks:

-Carries a small amount of kerbals for its size.

-Borderline part count.

-May require refueling in-between.

-Needs basic + intermediate skills (docking, nodes) to operate effectively.

[Xeldrak]

@SkyRender You've been added

@Flixxbeatz A .craft file is required, or did I miss the link?

[gtrx]

@OP : Can you clear up a little confusion I'm having...Is the entire craft supposed to have 2 stages or is just the lander part that has to be in two stages only...?cuz I've got the entire craft in 2 stages.

[Rhomphaia]

@OP : Can you clear up a little confusion I'm having...Is the entire craft supposed to have 2 stages or is just the lander part that has to be in two stages only...?cuz I've got the entire craft in 2 stages.

The lander is supposed to be in two stages. A decent stage that lands on the surface then remains behind; and an ascent stage that returns to orbit.

[Flixxbeatz]

@Flixxbeatz A .craft file is required, or did I miss the link?

Oh sorry, will try to rebuild it in 0.21, since it's pretty much outdated already. Might as well put a new and improved one...

[gtrx]

The lander is supposed to be in two stages. A decent stage that lands on the surface then remains behind; and an ascent stage that returns to orbit.

so my entry is quite stupid then...and its not on the latest version either...was that a requirement ?

[Xeldrak]

@gtrx The lander is supposed to have two stages. One for decent, one for ascent. Like the Apollo LM. You were never asked to build a complete Rocket, just the lander.

Well, I didn't add latest version into the rules, because I never considered that there might be people still using old versions. It would be really nice...

@Flixxbeatz Yeah, rebuild it and be so kind to consider the "things to consider" section...

Edited September 1, 2013 by Xeldrak

[MiniMatt]

@Xeldrac - hiyas, sorry about that, please go ahead with the first page entry then

[gtrx]

@gtrx The lander is supposed to have two stages. One for decent, one for ascent. Like the Apollo LM. You were never asked to build a complete Rocket, just the lander.Well, I didn't add latest version into the rules, because I never considered that there might be people still using old versions. It would be really nice...@Flixxbeatz Yeah, rebuild it and be so kind to consider the "things to consider" section...

I don't think there's enough time now left for me to make a proper entry....so when's the next challenge coming up?

[Xeldrak]

Well I think in about a week - I'm don't have a very strict schedule.

[AmpsterMan]

NOO! Did I miss this one too? Argh...

[Xeldrak]

nah...you still got time. God, these timezone make me all dizzy....

I started this post at 30th August 2013, 15:04 Mountain Time. That was ~41 hours ago - so you guys still have ~55 hours left.....

Seriously, could we set the forum time to UTC?

Edited September 1, 2013 by Xeldrak

[searlefm]

I agree complacently Xeldrak why cant international sight use GMT/UTC where its timezone 0 it makes it so much easier to work with,

and are we not supposed to do a 2 stage lander designed to randevu with a command module in luna orbit nor just a full return vehicle as the second is much easier.

Also tntristan12 how much heavy is it, whats it's Delta-V as you'r lander looks good and is much smaller than mine (see page 2) i just hope its worth useing.

[gtrx]

Can you remove my entry....? I want to send a new proper one...previous one makes no sense...I'm installing the latest version, will make a new one on that.

[Ekku Zakku]

Oh man, YES, I've been wanting to do one of these challenges since I saw the last one, gonna start working now XD

[antbin]

Here's a try: The Kerbamari Duomancy.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Design concepts I tried to show:

• "Wide" construction through surface mounting. The main fuel tanks for the upper stage are surface mounted on cubic struts, as are the RCS tanks.
  
• Discreet fuel routing.
  
• Using several symmetry types in one craft - 2x for the upper stage fuel, 4x for RCS thrusters, 3x for RCS tanks and the lower stage.
  
• Unobstructed IVA view and landing lights
  
• Appropriate TWR for moons - one engine per stage (LV909 / 48-7S).
  

It has roughly 1000 dV in each stage - more than enough for a comfortable landing on the Mun, and enough for Eeloo with a decent pilot. Weight is 5 tons for the full craft, and TWR is 2-3 on the Mun.

Action groups:

1. Toggle solar panels
   
2. Toggle ladder
   
3. Extend comms antennas
   

Weaknesses:

• TWR is unfortunately <1 on Kerbin, so newer players may not have patience to build a launcher to try it in space.
  
• Medium landing legs seem to be glitchy / excessively flexy, so I had to use the big legs. They look oversized.
  
• Ladders with a concave shape (L-shaped) are difficult to build - Kerbals have big heads, and get stuck. Hence the twisty ladder shape.
  

.craft file (includes launch vehicle) EDIT: Changed to this entry instead!

Edited September 4, 2013 by antbin

[Giggleplex777]

After going through more than 10 designs, I just can't make a two stage lander that I'm satisfied with.

I guess I'll sit this one out.

[Ekku Zakku]

Meanwhile, I've come up with a very interesting and unique design that I'm really excited about, although it's not without its own hurdles. I'm still trying to sort out some small annoyances while also trying to get it into a flyable state; it's a very difficult design to work around.

[AmpsterMan]

After going through more than 10 designs, I just can't make a two stage lander that I'm satisfied with.

I guess I'll sit this one out.

Yeah, I find these two stage landers very difficult to do. Especially when I feel like they don't actually add to efficiency some times . Still, I got one that I feel is good to post so I will be doing so in a bit.

[SkyRender]

Yeah, I find these two stage landers very difficult to do. Especially when I feel like they don't actually add to efficiency some times . Still, I got one that I feel is good to post so I will be doing so in a bit.

This is pretty much why the Llama has its left-behind lower half serve a purpose after the lander can has departed. I mean really, if it's going to be left behind anyway, it might as well be useful, right?

[AmpsterMan]

This is pretty much why the Llama has its left-behind lower half serve a purpose after the lander can has departed. I mean really, if it's going to be left behind anyway, it might as well be useful, right?

I made mine modular because for the purpose of this challenge it needs to be simple and show off some things that can be done with different parts without being overwhelming. But, since I do see myself as and advanced user, I wanted something that could bring some more things along. Therefore, the vehicle can have some extra add-ons. I plan on having a rover, science package, and a Kerbal Transport Vehicle.

[Ekku Zakku]

Below is a preview of my submission (I won't get to finish it until tomorrow, my girlfriend really wants to Skype right now and watch Doctor Who lol). I just need to put some solar panels on and maybe a battery or two, and sort out the rest of what needs to be sorted so I know it'll fly when other people use it. The ascent stage doesn't have much fuel, because it's so hard to fit it under the command pods due to the design. More details on that when I submit it tomorrow XD

[Xeldrak]

@gtrx Well, you wrote yourself that your lander does not really fit description of the challenge. You still got time, why not build a new one that ahs a chance of winning

A quick update, since there seems to be some confusion over the time left: At the time I'm writing this, you still have ~37 hours left

Edited September 2, 2013 by Xeldrak

[Syhrus]

Here's my entry for the 2-Stage Lander:

I went with a stacked approach similar to the Apollo landers. It has enough dV for a very bad landing, but I think I skimped out on the launch stage a little (it had enough to circularize at 10km on Mun, but nothing else).

To be honest there's not much you can improve on with this one. The actual stock craft could pass as an entry for this round

EDIT: Craft file: http://www./?9emoc7fh3rcjqwh

[Xeldrak]

Ah, well, I decided to take part in the Challenge myself once again, since I had a good idea (I think) while walking the dog.

I present you the ChemRock Columbidae Lander:

It's a small, one man lander that weighs only 8.16 tons. Remembering my first landings, I made this thing STURDY - it can land with 20 m/s without breaking of parts (allthough it will bounce around). I've even landed it on the mÜn with 30 m/s, although at this speed it's a gamble. With a total dV of ~3250 m/s it can land from a insane 100 km orbit around the Mün und reach this orbit again with it ascend stage. So there is quite a lot of wiggle room is every way. It'd call it a mix between the Apollo LM and the LK Lander - although leaning heavily to the russian side.

It's also outfittet with a fully functional RCS system, landing lights and solar pannels.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(MechJeb not included in .craft file)

Statistics

Parts: 54

Mass descent stage: 5.43 t

Mass ascent stage: 2.73 t

Combined mass: 8.16 t

Descent propulsion: 4x Rockomax 48-7S

Ascent propulsion: 4x Sepratron I / 1x LV-909

dV: 3245 m/s (vac)

Get your ChemRock Columbidae Lander here!