Apollo 13

[Huojin]

Try now

I think I got it.

Still no cigar.

That\'s another way to look at it

If you cut the landing out, it had bucket loads of fuel to do the job.

You\'ve gotta get the right engines doing the right parts of firing, though! And use the LEM engines to do all the engine stuff from 9,000 km until you get back to Kerbin, because the SM engines are dead.

[Spacecats!]

Well, a successful failure indeed!

My pics speak my words. The only differences are:

• 
  [li]I landed on land[/li]
  [li]I landed in the LM pod[/li]
  [li]The CSM faced the wrong way[/li]
  [li]The CSM Didn\'t turn around and dock[/li]
  [li]The CM and CSM didn\'t go their seperate ways[/li]
  [li]The CSM didn\'t have an engine[/li]

Spoiler for the ease of posting

[imdying]

You\'ve gotta get the right engines doing the right parts of firing, though! And use the LEM engines to do all the engine stuff from 9,000 km until you get back to Kerbin, because the SM engines are dead.

Rest assured, when HarvesteR has time to deliver docking and crew transfer, KGG will hook you up with a revised Kerpollo so you can live out your Apollo mission fantasy 8)

[foamyesque]

Could do what you did in your vid, and simple work up two configs; one that puts the packed LM/CSM stack into TMI, and then another that launches the docked configuration into approximately the same trajectory.

[Huojin]

I don\'t think the SM engine is used during the flight, so we could use Kerpollo Config 1, if that\'s the one where the CSM is facing up but the LEM engine is the one that fires? You could always mess with the staging so they don\'t decouple for a while and so the LEM engine is active instead of the SM engine.

[foamyesque]

Side note: The real life LEM had ~4.7km/s of dV and, on Kerbal scales, could perform the entire mun insertion, landing, and return by its lonesome provided something else put it into orbit.

[Huojin]

Maybe we should scale it all down a bit then... Just a little =P

[Spacecats!]

Well, a successful failure indeed!

My pics speak my words. The only differences are:

• 
  [li]I landed on land[/li]
  [li]I landed in the LM pod[/li]
  [li]The CSM faced the wrong way[/li]
  [li]The CSM Didn\'t turn around and dock[/li]
  [li]The CM and CSM didn\'t go their seperate ways[/li]
  [li]The CSM didn\'t have an engine[/li]

Spoiler for the ease of posting

Psst! I did the challenge! Psst!

[Huojin]

Psst! I did the challenge! Psst!

Yes, yes, nicely done

Did you keep the instrumentation turned off the entire time after your PC+2 burn?

[Spacecats!]

Yes, yes, nicely done

Did you keep the instrumentation turned off the entire time after your PC+2 burn?

Yup

The CSM didn\'t have an engine, but it never used it, anyway. \'Least I don\'t think...

[GoDamitt]

I don\'t think the SM engine is used during the flight, so we could use Kerpollo Config 1, if that\'s the one where the CSM is facing up but the LEM engine is the one that fires? You could always mess with the staging so they don\'t decouple for a while and so the LEM engine is active instead of the SM engine.

I did intend on using Kerpollo to do this challenge.

I messed up the upside down LM descent engine tho somehow, when I fix it in the next update you will be able to use the USD LM descent engine for trajectory adjustments and not the CSM\'s SPS engine.

That way you can launch with an USD LM atop of the command module, and at least do the important part of this challenge properly (LM extraction too splashdown).

Of course when we get docking and moving crew between vehicles I will get rid of the useless USD parts in the Kerpollo pack.