Doing it Gemini Style - An Alternate History Mun Mission

[JEF_300]

Ejection Seat Test

http://imgur.com/a/N7Fi5

[JEF_300]

So, just a quick update, I put the save I was using in a version of the 1.1 prerelease that promptly broke, so I won't have this out until 1.1 proper releases 

On a brighter note, Jet engine horizontal landing test: http://m.imgur.com/a/gdlUJ

[Death Engineering]

On 4/10/2016 at 9:39 AM, JEF_300 said:

So, just a quick update, I put the save I was using in a version of the 1.1 prerelease that promptly broke, so I won't have this out until 1.1 proper releases 

On a brighter note, Jet engine horizontal landing test: http://m.imgur.com/a/gdlUJ

Those are encouraging images.. I'd like to see a video of that flying. <hint hint..>

[Death Engineering]

Could this really have worked?

Since I was a young rocket enthusiast building model rockets and plastic rocket models in my parent's basement, I've always had a strong interest in the Gemini missions and the "what could have been" ideas sprung from my hero Jim Chamberlin's brilliant mind.

In this challenge entry, three launches landed two Kerbs on the Mun using open cockpit landers near a pre-landed Gemini Direct Ascent lander which was used for the return to Kerbin leg of the mission. The Gemini crafts and Atlas lifters are thanks to the T.R.A.I.L.S. Gemini parts and include the modded "ejection seat" functionality for independent emergency recovery with the crew on their own chutes, matching the Gemini fighter jet style ejection seats. 

Narrowly missed coming down near a Mun arch but couldn't get there with the direct ascent Gemini "Rescue" lander sent ahead of the crew. Both crew came down in their own open cockpit lander less then 20m from their return to Kerbin lander and returned safely to Kerbin without incident, other than a staging glitch which nearly destroyed the descent stage when the crew lifted off the surface.

 

Base Score:

• Using a mission profile of 1-2 launches and a two-Kerbal crew, orbit both Kerbals around the Mun and return the crew to Kerbin. (+20)

Mission:

• Earth Orbit Rendezvous (+5): Using two launches to low Kerbin orbit, dock two spacecraft. Once docked, send the docked spacecraft to Munar orbit.
• Landing prestige: One Kerbal on the Mun (+7). Second Kerbal on the Mun (+4).

Capsule:

• We're done with that (+3): Detachable support module (Jettison from command module before Kerbin landing at least three of:RCS cells, electrical systems, lighting, legs, retro package)
• Just in case (+3): Launch Escape System present

Lifters:

• Is that a Titan II? (+2): At least one of the rockets uses a two-engine cluster first stage and a single engine second stage.
• Wow, A Titan III!(+3): At least one of the rockets earns 'Is that a Titan II?' and has two strap on SRB's on the first stage.
• Saturn S-3? That's your full-size (+5): At least one rocket uses a 3 engine first stage and a 4 engine second stage.
• 2x: That's no bull (+2): Trans Munar injection booster is a two-engine cluster, like the Centaur kicker stage.

Lander:

• On your space bike (+4): At least one open cockpit lander
• Dropping some weight (+3): At least one of the primary or backup Munar surface return vessels leaves behind its Munar descent stage.
• Making it count (+2): Earn 'Dropping some weight' and have a powered probe core on the discarded descent stage. Must remain powered at least until the crew lands on Kerbin.
• Since we're there (+2): If used, the backup Munar surface return vehicle earns 'Dropping some weight' and 'Making it count'.

Recovery:

• Welcome home (+10): Both crew return to Kerbin
• We can take it (+3): Be able to safely return to Kerbin on water or land without damage.

Crazy 60's Details:

• We are outta here (+3): The Launch Escape System ejects both crew in their own separate crafts. The Gemini had fighter jet style ejection seats.
• Easy Rider (+3): Using open cockpit landers ('On your space bike'), land both Kerbal crew members on the Mun independently.
• We have a reservation (+7): Land a crew on the Mun within 10km of a previously landed empty spacecraft. Must completely perform Munar ascent to Kerbin landing, or dock with a return-capable vessel in Mun orbit.

Total: 93

Read all about it..

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Death Engineering

[Martian Emigrant]

Hey Guys.

Thank you for the challenge.

I learned quite a bit about things that used to be and could have been.

Here is my version. A Munar excursion.

The inspiration:

 

 

The album: http://imgur.com/a/cSv6k Mostly in order if you start from the bottom.

I wanted to send Valentina but there was no such thing as a woman in the space program back when. Unless you know about the Mercury 13. But they never got to fly.

So it's Jeb, Air-Force, Ronwell, Navy.

I started with two rockets on two launch pads. Hard to get a good shot of them as they are quite a way away.

The lunar lander is at the top of the "Agena".

After a stable orbit is confirmed the "Advanced Gemini" (Or is it Centaur?) take-off for a rendezvous. In this case It's the 3 Kerbal capsule on a modified version of my Kerpolo moon rocket.

Hotdog!

The orbit was achieved (Thanks to Mechjeb) within 1 kilometer of the Agena.

Capture of the Lander and ditching of the Agena.

Moon Mun here we come.

One mid-course correction followed by braking onto a 15km orbit.

Ronwell did an EVA, inspected is craft and boarded.

He separated under Jeb's watchful eyes.

Ascent.

After achieving a stable orbit Jeb went to retrieve is bud.

A small step for man a 100 meter flight for Ronwell.

Normal return.

 

Thanks again. The best bit (For me) was working on the lander.

 

ME

Edited January 18, 2017 by Martian Emigrant

[Death Engineering]

8 hours ago, Martian Emigrant said:

 

Hey Guys.

Thank you for the challenge.

I learned quite a bit about things that used to be and could have been.

Here is my version. A Munar excursion.

 

Great mission! Interesting lander - I'd never seen putting a Kerb' inside one of those structural parts.   Love the "Great Gazoo" flag lol!

I'd not seen this pic before which is a slightly different configuration than I used for the 'open cockpit' lander version. Thanks for posting it!

 

Please correct me if I missed anything:

• Primary mission objective (+20)
• Earth Orbit Rendezvous (+5): Using two launches to low Kerbin orbit, dock two spacecraft. Once docked, send the docked spacecraft to Munar orbit.
• Landing prestige: One Kerbal on the Mun (+7)
• We're done with that (+3): Detachable support module
• Is that a Titan II? (+2): At least one of the rockets uses a two-engine cluster first stage and a single engine cluster second stage.
• That's no bull (+2): Trans Munar injection booster is a two-engine cluster, like the Centaur kicker stage.
• On your space bike (+4): At least one open cockpit lander
• Welcome home (+10): Both crew return to Kerbin
• We can take it (+3): Be able to safely return to Kerbin on water or land without damage.
   

Total: 56

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Death Engineering

[septemberWaves]

Would there be some score bonus for doing this in a scaled-up version of the Kerbol system? Its a very interesting mission profile, I think I'll try it out in 4x scale (planets and orbits at 4x scale, atmospheres at 1.4x scale).

[septemberWaves]

I have a normal Gemini mimic optimized for 4x scale Kerbin. I made a post in the "What did you do in KSP today?" thread documenting some of the testing. It's not yet compatible with the demands of this mission, but I will be expanding upon the same sort of design to mimic the lunar program suggested for the Gemini spacecraft.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 9/2/2013 at 4:00 AM, Xeldrak said:

Hm - I'll might have a try on this one. Sadly there is no two-man capsule.

There is, look at the K-2  command pod.  Single part mod I'm maintaining

[Death Engineering]

4 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

 

Would there be some score bonus for doing this in a scaled-up version of the Kerbol system? Its a very interesting mission profile, I think I'll try it out in 4x scale (planets and orbits at 4x scale, atmospheres at 1.4x scale).

 

Hmm.. How about a multiplier like this?

Score = Total Points x KerbinScale^√2

So for 4x, you would multiply whatever your score is by 7.10

[septemberWaves]

23 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Score = Total Points x KerbinScale^√2

So for 4x, you would multiply whatever your score is by 7.10

That seems like a bit of an excessive multiplier, and would mean that any entries in a scaled-up version of the system would easily dominate the leaderboards despite the extra engineering challenges not being quite as significant as one might expect. I've been playing with scaled-up versions of the Kerbol system quite a lot lately, and I don't think such a significant score multiplier is fair for the additional difficulty.

Perhaps to ensure that things are still relatively competitive, the score multiplier should be something else. Alternatively I might suggest a separate leaderboard for entries with differently-scaled planets, but I don't know how many people would even do the challenge with such a variation. Plus, it might be a bit difficult to judge because the KScale mods aren't updated so I had to rescale the system by manually configuring Sigma Dimensions. This lets atmosphere heights be changed independently as well as the planetary radii and orbit sizes.

I think perhaps a good way of scoring challenge entries with scaled-up versions of the stock system would perhaps use an equation like this:

(Total Points)x∜(Planet Radii and Orbit Radii Scale Factor)x(Atmosphere Scale Factor)x√(1/2)

This assumes that the planets' radii and the orbital altitudes are multiplied by the same number, but usually that is the case for upscaled systems. I used the 4th root of that scale factor because it is the square root of the increase in required delta-v, which seems like a reasonable multiplier. It also takes into account the added difficulty of escaping a higher atmosphere. My atmosphere scale factor is 1.4 with the configs I'm currently using, and reaching orbit around a 98km atmosphere takes more delta-v than reaching orbit around the stock atmosphere. Finally, everything is multiplied by the square root of 1/2 (approximately 0.71) to keep things more in line with normal scores.

Using such a system, my entry would use the equation: (Total Points)x(∜4)x(1.4)x√(1/2). So for example, a score of 70 would become 98. Obviously it doesn't need to be this exact equation, but I think it's probably fairly obvious how something like this would make entries in a scaled-up system a lot more balanced with ones at a stock scale. By comparison, the method you suggested would turn a score of 70 into a score of about 497, which I don't think reflects the increase in engineering difficulties presented by a 4x scale system.

Edited January 19, 2017 by eloquentJane

[septemberWaves]

Update: I conducted a mission to Mun orbit and back using the Captor 2 spacecraft. Details here.

Scoring:

• Direct Ascent (+4)
• Happy Together (+3)
• We're Done With That (+3)
• Just In Case (+3)
• Wow, A Titan III! (+3)
• Welcome Home (+10)
• We Can Take It (+3) [from experience with that particular capsule I can confirm that a 5.5m/s impact speed is safe for a water landing as well as on land; I'm sure this will be demonstrated in future missions]
• We Are Outta Here (+3)

I don't know whether the Primary Objective (+20) means a landing or just an orbit, that detail is not particularly clear, but the Direct Ascent parameter seems to imply that a landing isn't exactly required for that. In any case, I'll be doing landings in future, but this mission was only an orbital one, mainly to test out the technology.

With the points I am certain about, that makes a base score of 32, or 52 if the Primary Objective parameter is satisfied by a mere orbital mission. This is of course without modification for the scaled-up Kerbol system that I've been working with.

[Death Engineering]

7 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

I don't know whether the Primary Objective (+20) means a landing or just an orbit

You are exactly correct, "Primary Objective" or base points for the challenge is Munar orbit, not a landing. 

I like the formula you posted, too. I'll play with it some if work is slow today and see if it is "fair" to blend alternate scale results with 1:1 planetary system scale entries or drop them into a separate table.

 

[michal.don]

To make your scoring issue a bit more coplicated, I humbly present my Gemini Lunar mission recreated in RSS/RO

The setup for the mission was as follows:

Because the Gemini spacecraft were already well tested and considered reliable, the board of directors decided to scrap the Apollo program and stick with the known Gemini capsule. Although there were voices that suggested a separate spacecraft for landing on the Moon, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was an untested concept and generally considered too dangerous, so it was decided that the ship will be assebmled in LEO. Because the most influential member of the board (known as "The Mad Scientist") has limited the number of launches to two, the Titan boosters were not enough for the job. Luckily, a modified Saturn V booster developed for the cancelled Apollo program had a great lifting capacity, the mission was hard, but possible.

The first launch brought a transfer stage and the descent stage for the Moon landing to LEO, the second launch on a modified Titan booster launched the crew in a Gemini pod and an ascent stage and docked to the first craft.

A few pictures that I like the most, the rest can be found in the linked imgur album:

The crew on the Moon, the giant spacecraft behind them

The second stage of the Gemini I craft

We have a liftoff!

The rest:

http://imgur.com/a/OJiQl

Score:

+20 (the main mission objective completed)

+5  (Earth Orbit Rendezvous)

+11 (Landing prestige, both pilots on the Moon)

+3  (Happy together, both pilots in the pod for the whole time)

+3  (We're done with that, the service module containing the fuel cells, consumables and RSC jettisoned before reentry)

+3  (Just in case, LES present)

+2 (Is that a Titan II?, two engine first stage, one engine second stage)

+3  (Wow, A Titan III, two SRBs on the first stage)

+6 (Won't Apollo miss that Saturn V? A 5-engine first stage, 5-engine second stage, although I'm not sure it counts because of the SRBs)

+2 (That's no bull, two-engine transfer stage)

+3 (Dropping some weight, descent stage left on the Moon)

+10 (Welcome home, both pilots safely landed on Earth)

+3 (We can take it, splashed down without damage)

 

That adds to 74 points (68 in case the SRBs disqualify the lauch vehicle as Saturn V)

 

The mission was played with the Realism Overhaul suite of mods in the full sized Real Solar system.

Thanks for yet another great challenge, I had a great time.

Michal.don

 

 

 

[septemberWaves]

4 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

You are exactly correct, "Primary Objective" or base points for the challenge is Munar orbit, not a landing. 

I like the formula you posted, too. I'll play with it some if work is slow today and see if it is "fair" to blend alternate scale results with 1:1 planetary system scale entries or drop them into a separate table.

Okay, so my base score is 52 points for this first mission.

That formula was just an example of a way that might be practical for balancing attempts in a scaled-up system compared to attempts at stock scale. Honestly I think it might be better to have a separate leaderboard for such attempts though. I think there probably should be some way of finding a score multiplier based on the scale increase as well, but it would probably difficult to find a system to balance it in with the regular leaderboard that everyone will be satisfied with.

[septemberWaves]

I have another entry, with a landing this time.

Scoring:

• Primary Objective (+20)
• Earth Orbit Rendezvous (+5)
• Landing Prestige (+7)
• We're Done With That (+3)
• Just In Case (+3)
• Is That A Titan II? (+2)
• Wow, A Titan III! (+3)
• That's No Bull (+2)
• On Your Space Bike (+4)
• Welcome Home (+10)
• We Can Take It (+3)
• We Are Outta Here (+3)

This means that the total base score is 65.

[Death Engineering]

On 1/20/2017 at 8:31 AM, michal.don said:

To make your scoring issue a bit more coplicated, I humbly present my Gemini Lunar mission recreated in RSS/RO

 Great mission and write up. Your Saturn V with SRB's checks out. Call it the Saturn V MLV.

 

On 1/20/2017 at 10:10 AM, eloquentJane said:

Okay, so my base score is 52 points for this first mission.

 

On 1/21/2017 at 11:20 AM, eloquentJane said:

I have another entry, with a landing this time.

Very nice, EJ!   Still haven't come up with a scoring system I like but interim leaderboard updated for the latest entries.

 

[Xeldrak]

I has been over three years? My god.....

Time for a second entry:

>>> ALBUM <<<

I used Kerbal engineer for the numbers it provides but I still claim stock, since I used only stock parts.

• Munar Orbit Rendezvous (+6)
• Landing prestige: One Kerbal on the Mun (+7)
• Landing prestige: Second Kerbal on the Mun (+4).
• Happy together (+3)
• We're done with that (+3)
• Just in case (+3)
• Saturn S-3? That's your full-size (+5)
• Won't Apollo miss that Saturn 5? (+6)
• On your space bike (+4)
• Dropping some weight (+3)
• Making it count (+2)
• Welcome home (+10)
• We can take it (+3)
• Landing gear down (+5)
• Primary mission objective (+20)

--------------------------------------------------

84 points

 

By the way:  what happened? Nowadays you have to sort your imgur-album by hand? In my days we did this by clicking a single button! And the forum doesn't even support embedding imgur albums? Things are supposed to improve...not degrade....

Edited January 25, 2017 by Xeldrak

[Death Engineering]

17 hours ago, Xeldrak said:

I has been over three years? My god.....

Time for a second entry:

Welcome back to the challenge, Xeldrak! Yes it has been a long time since this was first posted, longer even since your original challenge (which seems absent?). Love the winglets and landing mode  

And yeah, Imgur isn't really great anymore and doesn't work on this forum. 

[Xeldrak]

The "doing it apollo style" challenge can still be found. But the forum-transfer severely mutilated it. 

 

Yes, the landing mode was...adventurous. Tests were not allways succesfull  But this time it worked on the first try.

[septemberWaves]

Testing a new lander...

[Death Engineering]

WOW! Accuracy o'plenty!

[septemberWaves]

8 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

WOW! Accuracy o'plenty!

I'm not really sure how accurate it is, I just saw the picture on the front page of this thread, downloaded USI core for the kontainers (I don't usually use USI but the kontainers are incredible), and made something which looked as close to a kerbalized version of that lander as possible. I don't really know the intended mission profile for it so my version might not be particularly accurate, and it's also launched on my equivalent of the Saturn IB, which also makes me question its accuracy. I'm glad you like the design though in any case; I'm extremely pleased with how it turned out and I'm going to start using the USI kontainers a lot more with non-atmospheric designs.

Edited January 30, 2017 by eloquentJane

[septemberWaves]

Okay, I've uploaded the mission report for my Mun landing with the Captor 3 spacecraft.

 

Scoring:

• Primary Objective (+20)
• Earth Orbit Rendezvous (+5)
• Landing Prestige (+11)
• Happy Together (+3)
• Just In Case (+3)
• Wow, A Titan III! (+3)
• That Looks Like A Saturn 1B! (+4)
• That's No Bull (+2)
• Dropping Some Weight (+3)
• Welcome Home (+10)
• We Can Take It (+3)
• We Are Outta Here (+3)

Total: 70

[Death Engineering]

Decided to unearth this challenge from '13 to have another look at it with the new KSP parts more suited to Gemini-style missions. Also took the opportunity to clean up some of the wording and fix the broken links and expand on the research links. Since some of the previous interest in the challenge threw the definition of the "Joint Landing: Munar Orbit Rendezvous" into question, I've also added some background on why I included the two types of rendezvous missions in the rules.

Updated links and added content:

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gemini#Lunar_landing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family)

Gemini

Gemini LOR

Gemini: Lunar Gemini

Gemini Lunar Lander

Gemini LORV

Gemini Lunar Surface Rescue Spacecraft

Gemini Lunar Surface Survival Shelter

 

Further info on the Gemini Joint "LOR" style missions:

A long time ago, on a PC platform far far away, "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space" provided hours of enjoyable, if not frustrating, space program management. Ruthlessly hard, this game still spawned user-supported updates and now a full release into freeware by the original developers. In this game, players had choices on what hardware could be used for a manned lunar landing mission. In order to balance the game-play, the developers took some license with reality.

In one of those cases, they hypothesized a dual launch profile with a lander on one package and the crew on another. The player could also choose between a cheaper, but less powerful, lunar "kicker" and a more capable one. The less-powerful kicker could only boost the crew module or the lander to lunar orbit. Once around the Moon, the crew would rendezvous with the pre-launched lander and proceed as normal.

This type of "LOR" is referred to in the game as "Joint Lunar Landing: Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" and differs from Apollo-style LOR in that there are two launches required to get the hardware around the Moon. It is up to the player to decide whether to rendezvous with the lander in Earth orbit or Lunar orbit before commencing with the landing.

Seen below are some BARIS mission planning screens for the lunar landing profiles, as seen by engineers of the late 50's and 60's. Mission steps can be followed alphabetically. In other words, "A" is launch, "B' orbital insertion, "C" could be docking or trans-lunar injection, etc.

On the "Joint" missions, take note of the two launches from Earth and when they occur in the mission. It is much easier to view the actual interactive game screen, so I encourage anyone curious to check out "Race into Space".

 

Historical Manned Lunar Landing

 

Direct Ascent Lunar Landing

 

Joint Lunar Landing: Earth-orbit rendezvous

 

Joint Lunar Landing: Lunar Orbit Rendezvous

Edited December 26, 2019 by Death Engineering