(OLD) The Ultimate Jool-5 Challenge:land Kerbals on all moons and return in one big mission

[SSSPutnik]

SSSPutnik, it is very impressive piece of space technology. Good luck in your journey.

Thanks Mesklin, I *may* be going through Chelyabinsk at the end of the year, hoping to do part of the trans-siberian railway!

But, may only get as far as Moscow maybe. Depends on funds. I have been to Moscow before, other than that, closest to Russia was northern Mongolia

[SSSPutnik]

Good work Mobjack, can you post a well lit pic of your lander? Tylo landers intrigue me.

[Ziv]

SSSPutnik: Wow, impressive design! What does the "Hydroponics" do? Is this from the LLL design? And I'm sorry but Kethane is not allowed for this Challenge, it is a very different gameplay style. The JOOL-5 is a traditional Deep Space Exploration mission where you have to plan a very well optimized ship which carries all the stuff there and back, ideally without refueling. But otherwise I like the Kethane mod too and I'd like to see what you come up with, so keep it up and show us how you progress! And I will put your name and the pictures for this mission on the main page too! By the way I'm thinking about putting there a Kethane version too.

Playing KSP on the Trans-Siberian express?!? WOW, what a life-feeling! Cool! I'll be jealaous of you!

Mobjack: Hm, the clockwise orbit is a nice idea!! Congratulations for landing on Tylo, you have done the most difficult part of the mission! Does your lander has 6500 dV without staging? If yes, that's very impressive!

Edited January 22, 2014 by Ziv

[SSSPutnik]

Ziv, no Kethane mining will take place at all, just scanning, is that OK? (Ie exploratory only).

The hydroponics looks pretty and keeps Kerbals from developing scurvy

All the odd looking parts are LLL. I used stock engines on the main ship. The landers use LLL nukes but the specs are scaled so no cheat parts at all.

It turns like a pig

Edited January 22, 2014 by SSSPutnik

[Mobjack]

Ziv, SSSPutnik,

My lander had 5 stages, although stage 3 where I dropped excess tanks didn't happen because I needed the landing legs .

I really had about 3150 m/s to land, but I did it in about 2800. One thing I did that helped was having a good TWR from two LV45 engines. With Tylo you want to fall fast, but also stop fast. I imagine it would be much more difficult using nuclear rockets.

I did use a nuclear tug to get the lander in low orbit. My first strategy was to try using an eccentric orbit, but that required using another 700 m/s dV which I didn't have.

Looking at the pics, I do see that my TWR is rather low for my return, so I don't know if I can make it to Vall in one go. I might need to send help to pick it up. Also did I really need 300 kg of parachutes? Next time I would do some things differently.

Overall my strategy of using lots of small landers is working out well. The main problem is the initial ship was clunky as hell, but as it breaks apart, it becomes rather elegant. I will compile some albums of my journey when I have the chance, but here is how the Tylo lander looked like:

[Ziv]

Ziv, no Kethane mining will take place at all, just scanning, is that OK? (Ie exploratory only).

The hydroponics looks pretty and keeps Kerbals from developing scurvy

All the odd looking parts are LLL. I used stock engines on the main ship. The landers use LLL nukes but the specs are scaled so no cheat parts at all.

It turns like a pig

Hm, but bringing all the Kethane stuff without mining doesn't really make sense... yeah, that greenhouse looks good!! Hm, what are the mass/thrust/isp for the LLL nukes what you use in the lander?

Mobjack: wow, that's a lot of deltaV!! Yeah, I really love to go small for the last stages too. Hm, there you have those two small fuel tanks on the side of the science stuff and one small engine, and that gives you 5338 m/s?? Or does KER mess up something?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Ziv

[Mobjack]

Ziv,

5338 m/s is the total dV. That small stage is 1531 m/s. It would be 1772 m/s, if I didn't have parachutes.

[SSSPutnik]

Its just 4 tiny kethane scanner probes.

I'll post stats tomorrow, bed time here.

[Mobjack]

Hm, but bringing all the Kethane stuff without mining doesn't really make sense... yeah, that greenhouse looks good!! Hm, what are the mass/thrust/isp for the LLL nukes what you use in the lander?

I would be concerned about the physical size of the nuke engines. For me, one of the biggest constraints for making nuclear landers is that the LV-N engine is too big to fit under the landing legs.

Even if the specs are scaled, a smaller size that can be used with a MK1 lander would be an advantage over stock.

[SSSPutnik]

You can fit LV-N on small lander by building them high up and sticking legs onto fuel tanks which you hang low. It also uses chemical rockets as the TWR of the nukes is too low to land on Tylo otherwise. (Tried, crashed every time).

If people are not happy, then no problem with not getting an official entry.

I'll post details tomorrow.

[Ziv]

Mobjack is right, size matters too. Yes, you can fit the LV-Ns high up and put the legs low, but this is what this challenge is all about: making good planning and engineering (and a good flight) for a very hard mission. If an LV-N equivalent engine is small and can be placed easily then that can be a big advantage... (even NovaPunch has a small radial LV-N which is easy to place too), so I can't put this mission into the official entries, but especially because of the Kethane. And this challenge is about trying to send a cost effective all-moon-in-one mission after a big Budget Cut at KSC, and so to prove the Kerbal leaders that the Space Program worth the money!

But otherwise I really like your ambitious mission and the creativity in it so I will definitely put this on the challenge wall! And keep us updated too!!

Edited January 22, 2014 by Ziv

[Ziv]

I've downloaded LLL and checked the engines. Their mass/thrust/isp is about balanced but their smaller size, their ElectricCharging capability and especially their 1.5 - 3 degrees Vectoring Range makes them too advantageous against the stock parts. One big problem with the stock Nuke is that there's no VectoringRange in it so you have to bring RCS/S.A.S.

Beside this I like the LLL mod, many parts look fantastic!

Edited January 23, 2014 by Ziv

[Mobjack]

You can fit LV-N on small lander by building them high up and sticking legs onto fuel tanks which you hang low. It also uses chemical rockets as the TWR of the nukes is too low to land on Tylo otherwise. (Tried, crashed every time).

If people are not happy, then no problem with not getting an official entry.

I'll post details tomorrow.

You can build a LV-N on a MK1 lander, but it requires a bigger lander and the solution is rather hackish. If there was an LV-N half the size, then I can build a lander about half the size.

In my opinion, using modded parts goes against the spirit of the challenge.

Even if everything is perfectly balanced, part of the fun is just seeing how others hacked together the same imperfect parts in finding a solution to the challenge. When I see a heavily modded entry, I just can't relate to the ship. I can't admire the clever usage of the stock parts to overcome the constraints of the game or get ideas for my next adventure.

[kookoo_gr]

I am starting this challenge for the Jeb level. So far i have launched the drive unit along with an extra tank. The ship is named Jool 5 (yeah i know very original name)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[jacobgong]

You can build a LV-N on a MK1 lander, but it requires a bigger lander and the solution is rather hackish. If there was an LV-N half the size, then I can build a lander about half the size.

In my opinion, using modded parts goes against the spirit of the challenge.

Even if everything is perfectly balanced, part of the fun is just seeing how others hacked together the same imperfect parts in finding a solution to the challenge. When I see a heavily modded entry, I just can't relate to the ship. I can't admire the clever usage of the stock parts to overcome the constraints of the game or get ideas for my next adventure.

because you can't just install the same mods and build an even better ship?

[Alpheratz]

Hello all,

This is my very first challenge, hope you like it!

- Game version: 0.23

- Mods: MechJeb2, Warp unlocker, TAC fuel balancer

- Two launches were needed. The first was the unfueled ship, and then there was the refueling mission. Masses were 1027t and 1034t, respectively

- No refueling missions were needed after the main ship left Kerbin

- I did not bring the Hitchhiker Storage Container because it doesn't have the best mass/cerw ratio.

- No additional stuff was brought, although I could have done it; there was lots of fuel left at the end of the mission.

- Delta-V calculations were all messed-up, probably because of the docking ports that weren't in the right direction

The next time I try this, i'll build some ridiculously huge rocket to bring everything in Kerbin orbit on a single launch!

Please do tell me if you find something not optimal in my design! I certainly wish to better myself on my next attempt! (Ok, the 8 nuclear engines at the back of the ship are too much )

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Mobjack]

because you can't just install the same mods and build an even better ship?

If mods mean you can build a better ship, then that definitely goes against the spirit of the challenge.

I didn't mind SSSPutnik's other entry because it looks like the design could of been done stock, but would have liked it more if it had some big ugly orange tanks, making it a true kerbalesque rocket.

[SSSPutnik]

I've downloaded LLL and checked the engines. Their mass/thrust/isp is about balanced but their smaller size, their ElectricCharging capability and especially their 1.5 - 3 degrees Vectoring Range makes them too advantageous against the stock parts. One big problem with the stock Nuke is that there's no VectoringRange in it so you have to bring RCS/S.A.S. Beside this I like the LLL mod, lot of parts look fantastic!

Haha I forgot it had vectoring and put SAS on lander too.

No worries about official entry as I've already got level 1 so that's fine.

Mission going ahead anyway, I want to see how it all performs.

[Mr.Rocket]

I'm probably going to enter this challenge, going for 3rd level. I will use a few mods though: Kerbal engineer redux, Void (another info mod), kerbal crew manifest, kerbal alarm clock, and then kerb paint, because might as well go in style. For parts, the jool going ship is almost all stock, will have KAS struts to hold it together. The launchers have some AIES aerospace parts, and some mega struts and larger SRBs from a stock-alike pact, so nothing too cheaty. I just needed to better strut my stuff . So far, i've just gotten the main engine part into orbit, it was probably the biggest thing i've ever launched. There is a separate ship for return that i've yet to dock. I have a lander for Tylo, on for Laythe, and one for Vall, Bop, and Pol, so three landers all-together. I can provide the links to the mods if you want.

Oh, and the payload for the first launch was 310 tons

Here are some pictures of the main engine section:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited January 22, 2014 by Mr.Rocket

[jacobgong]

don't know if I have enough fuel, but if I do it should be the lightest contender.

[SSSPutnik]

Sorry, Ziv, can you reconsider the Kethane scanner rule?

1) It doesn't make the mission easier, harder in fact.

2) Given already accomplished the mission, its incentive to go back and do more. (Kerbal scientists discover Kethane and hope the discovery of Kethane in the Jool system will make future missions cheaper etc). I don't see how it varies from say taking a scansat.

3) My second mission, already underway, has Kethane scanners

[SSSPutnik]

Please do tell me if you find something not optimal in my design! I certainly wish to better myself on my next attempt! (Ok, the 8 nuclear engines at the back of the ship are too much )

http://imgur.com/a/UBk1X

I really like the modular engine approach, just wondering though... Could you have made the main engines detachable and remote controllable rather than lugging extra one's along? (ie pinch your main engines for your lander!)

[Alpheratz]

Like that? It would make sense Oh, and if anyone could give me a reliable lifter to put 200t onto orbit, I'd appreciate! I am struggling with structural integrity...

Edited January 23, 2014 by Alpheratz

[SSSPutnik]

Yeah like that. Nice design man.

I have such a lifter, but it uses KW rocketry.

What's the issue exactly? You should be able to launch that in 2-3 launches if you use docking ports?

[Mr.Rocket]

Like that? It would make sense Oh, and if anyone could give me a reliable lifter to put 200t onto orbit, I'd appreciate! I am struggling with structural integrity...

I don't think i could give you mine, as it has mods and is custom for the ship, but i have ideas for you. You have the perfect four fuel tanks right smack dab in the middle of you ship. build the launcher around it like a pancake. As long as you don't have FAR, it should work well. This is what i mean:

Javascript is disabled. View full album