[stock] Kosmo Zero Mk6 (updated)

[Kosmo-not]

Description:

The Kosmo Zero Mk5 is a slight aesthetic improvement over the Mk4. Boasting the improved staging system found on the Mk4, the Mk5 carries the craft to an orbiting altitude of 100km efficiently and economically. The lander was designed to be aesthetically pleasing for those who want to arrive on the Munar surface with style. It comes with two sets of side tanks with the fuel necessary to travel to the moon and land. They can be jettisoned after takeoff from the Mun if necessary. The lander also comes with an RCS abort stage in case of emergencies, giving it a higher than average safety rating.

Liftoff guide:

Since the liftoff and ascent portion of the craft was designed with economics in mind, the fuel budget is quite tight with about 10 seconds worth of full burn to spare. Thus, I am providing an ascent profile to get you up there if you\'re not confident with your piloting skills.

Keep the throttle at full, as you can then reference the clock to see when you have to trigger the next stage. Sit back and pay attention to that clock. You will get through the second stage before reaching 16km. After, follow the altitude and attitude table listed below. The third stage is jettisoned just before reaching 60km. Keep burning until your apoapsis reaches 100km and cut your engines. It should happen shortly after the 5 minute mark. Then it\'s simply thrusting to 2245m/s at apoapsis. Welcome to orbit!

Ascent profile:

16km - 60°

24km - 45°

32km - 30°

40km - 20°

50km - 10°

60km - 0°

Ascent Staging Timetable:

00:25 - SRB separation

01:22 - Jettison of 3 fuel stacks and engines

04:15 - Jettison of other 3 fuel stacks and engines

*Mk6 update*

Kerbal engineers have modified the lifting stage to squeeze out even more fuel efficiency than the Mk 5. Changes to flight plan include initial pitch over at 13km instead of 16km. The second and third stages are now to be jettisoned at 01:43 and 03:45 respectively. Twin parachutes have been added to the lander to assist in a powered landing back on Kerbin.

*new* I finally put together the video I meant to have available when I first posted this ship.

KSP: To the Mun and back!

[ping111]

Your pics don\'t work.

[semininja]

They do for me...

What browser are you using?

[Scruce]

Pictures load fine, running latest version of Mozilla Firefox.

[ping111]

There we go.

[segaprophet]

Interesting lander design - I\'ll have to give this a whirl.

[Darkshadow]

Nice design kosmo, I\'ll have to return the favour and flight test this. (Given that my lander has the same mass as yours, do you mind if I use your lifting stage for mine? I\'ll credit you for it if I upload a design.)

[Kosmo-not]

Nice design kosmo, I\'ll have to return the favour and flight test this. (Given that my lander has the same mass as yours, do you mind if I use your lifting stage for mine? I\'ll credit you for it if I upload a design.)

Yesterday, I was thinking about asking you if I could put your lander on my lifter, lol. Of course you can copy off my lifter design. Currently, I\'m working on the fuel efficiency of the lifter, and I\'ve gotten it to have half a tank left after orbit so far. It\'s quite a balancing act between air resistance, gravity drag, and having enough time to get to speed before you start falling back to Kerbin. I love this game!

[segaprophet]

I\'ve had good results with the Polaris lifter getting into orbit with seven to more than eight tanks left in the second lifter stage. This I believe comes from front loading the propulsion scheme with as much SFBs as possible (if I added one more in the current design it would overheat at a given point and explode), as well as adding a long burning primary lifter stage w/at least 18-27 fuel tanks.

You are welcome to take cues from my lifter design as well, let\'s work together to make Mun and back missions as easy as possible with stock parts! 8)

[Kosmo-not]

I\'ve had good results with the Polaris lifter getting into orbit with seven to more than eight tanks left in the second lifter stage. This I believe comes from front loading the propulsion scheme with as much SFBs as possible (if I added one more in the current design it would overheat at a given point and explode), as well as adding a long burning primary lifter stage w/at least 18-27 fuel tanks.

You are welcome to take cues from my lifter design as well, let\'s work together to make Mun and back missions as easy as possible with stock parts! 8)

Then you should take away 7 tanks from the lifter and add it to the lander or TMI stage. You can make it something that can visit other planets. Otherwise, that\'s just 7 tanks wasted. But, we have our different design philosophies. I\'m an engineering student, so it\'s natural for me to think in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness. I designed my lifter around my lander, and it does a fine job at accomplishing its goal. I know it\'s not the noob-friendliest craft, and that\'s why I provided instructions.

I think it would be fun to have a joint effort in constructing a craft.

[segaprophet]

Then you should take away 7 tanks from the lifter and add it to the lander or TMI stage. You can make it something that can visit other planets. Otherwise, that\'s just 7 tanks wasted. But, we have our different design philosophies. I\'m an engineering student, so it\'s natural for me to think in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness. I designed my lifter around my lander, and it does a fine job at accomplishing its goal. I know it\'s not the noob-friendliest craft, and that\'s why I provided instructions.

I think it would be fun to have a joint effort in constructing a craft.

Well, with most missions, those 7-8 tanks are used for TMI, stabilizing Munar orbit and starting a decent to surface. In most cases, I get to the Mun with too much fuel, and I have to eject the remaining lifter stage with 1-1.5 tanks left in it right before landing (I don\'t think it could land very easily on the lifter stage).

Polaris is a big platform, and it\'s about the opposite of economical when it comes to fuel consumption, it takes 48 SFBs and over 30 liquid fuel tanks to get that 7-8 (plus 2 in the lander stage) into orbit, about a 10 to 1 ratio. The only metric that guided the development was getting as much fuel as possible into orbit. It will be interesting to see how designs scale once managing program budgets is added to the game.

Your lander is really neat looking, I\'ve seen a couple RCS-heavy lander designs, wondering, if you had to abort a Munar landing, could you make Munar orbit again and attempt a shot back to Kerbin on just RCS?

[Kosmo-not]

I\'ve seen a couple RCS-heavy lander designs, wondering, if you had to abort a Munar landing, could you make Munar orbit again and attempt a shot back to Kerbin on just RCS?

Yes, it will get you back to Kerbin. It has about 1400 delta-V. You need around 557 to orbit at 10km + around 300 for TKI, and then a little more for adjusting periapsis for entering atmosphere. Plus, I\'ve tried an abort myself just to be sure.

[RayneCloud]

To think of what we can do with just the new fuel flow system and fuel lines now...

[Darkshadow]

I think it would be fun to have a joint effort in constructing a craft.

They have done community built crafts in the past, but I don\'t think with stock parts.

It could be quite fun to do a join project, though not sure what the objective could be. Oh in the challenge forum they have an uncompleted challenge for landing on all 5 of the large dark grey munar craters and returning. That would be be the ultimate challenge and perhaps something that could be done with Sega\'s huge lifters, Cosmo\'s efficiency and my reliability. Are you up for it?

Also I\'m temped to organise a repository for all the stock designs posted to the forums. At the moment a lot of the craft files are on closette\'s topic but get a bit lost in the pages.

[Kosmo-not]

I say let\'s give it a shot.

[closette]

Hi Kosmo,

I just tried your Mk6 craft, having faithfully followed the previous versions, and got to the Mun and back with plenty of fuel to spare at either end (despite completely messing up the return from the Mun). As always, a very solid, hassle-free and efficient design.

It would be useful for newbies to have a bunch of stock craft collected somewhere. I believe it was suggested in the Spacecraft Exchange a while back but few liked the idea. It might be worth proposing again.

Searching the boards for 'stock' or '100% stock' or even 'vanilla' is what I did, but that\'s not a perfect solution. My concern is that when v0.14 comes out, all our great spacecraft designs will no longer work, and at least will have to be rebuilt, if not re-designed.

[Kosmo-not]

It\'ll be fun redesigning if we have to. I like the challenge.

[Darkshadow]

Here a few results from my flight test, really nice rocket good for orbital manoeuvres, yet to test it with a mun landing, (if I do I might patch on my lander)

[Guest Dorsilfin]

I\'ve gotta say I tried the Mk5, and it was a beautiful craft. EASY to get to the mun, and back with fuel to spare.

I Absolutely loved your fuel line links and staging.. Beautiful way to get every bit out of the weight.

[Rocketscienist]

The rockets are good!

[Kosmo-not]

Added a video in the OP if you want to check it out.

[Seanoog]

Great video Kosmo-not. Especially loved the music playing to it.

As for your craft design, its looks good must test it shortly.

I also briefly played with a lander design simular to yours, with limited success.

Great work with your stock ships.

[timmybananas]

Really love the look of this craft, interesting design on the lander too. I\'m looking forward to testing it

[kernimalcross]

The lander also comes with an RCS abort stage in case of emergencies, giving it a higher than average safety rating.

Scince the average safety rating is -1 I am assuming this has a saftey rating of about 0?

Joke over, how much fuel on average is left after a Munar mission.

[Kosmo-not]

I can\'t remember how much fuel was left. It\'s been quite a while since I\'ve flown it. Less than 1 tank is all I can tell you right now.