Munar surface explorer (Rover? VTOL?) - craft design brainstorming

[Sophistry]

Hello chaps and chapesses, I want to go on a Easter egg/interesting feature hunting trip on the Mun, but I'm stumped as to what kind of craft to use. I'm also toying with the idea of using the occasion as an excuse for trying my hand at establishing a permanent base (to support the operation). However, I'm unsure if it'd be useful enough to be worth it - I like my vanity projects to have at least a little real utility, if only because it gives me more excuses to visit the folly

As I see it, I have two options, a VTOL or a rover. Or maybe a hideously over engineered mash up of the two. I'm looking to bounce some ideas around to hopefully spark some inspiration.

The advantages of the VTOL - although it'd essentially be a low-flying lander - would be I can cover ground more quickly, and surface topography wouldn't slow or hinder me, although because I'd be looking out for interesting features to examine, I wouldn't want to go too fast, which relates to the main disadvantage I see: such a craft would rely on finite resources, and the relative slowness (my sub-orbital hops would have to relatively slow and low) and repeated landings would mean I run the risk of running out of fuel and leaving my craft an expensive bit of junk. Even with a supporting base/fuel dump, I'd have to keep returning to refuel, and the base would probably require many supply runs.

With a rover, the resource problem is solved: as long as I have some solar panels, my rover's range is effectively infinite. The problem then arises that rovers are, compared to a low-flying spacecraft, rather slow to cover ground. Also that mountain which to the VTOL would just mean a slight course adjustment means a long detour or a risky climb. Also, I hear that you have to rebind keys or something to prevent flipping, or use docking mode: is there anything basic about KSP rovers I really need to know before I try one?

If I tried a mash-up of both, would I need legs as well as wheels? That is to say, are wheels tough enough to land on? While using it, what should the ratio of flying to driving be etc?

I'd probably want to make it a manned mission, so I have a kerbonaut on hand to fix landing legs or wheels, but beyond that I'm not even sure of what size of craft to use in each case; part of me is considering trying more of a "mobile base" approach with a rover, and this would probably be the scenario where making it a VTOL as well would probably work. However, would a small rover be less likely to suffer damage? What are the pros/cons of each wheel type?

As you can see, while I consider myself a pretty competent player, this is not an area I have much experience with, so any help would be appreciated.

Side note: it's a career save but I've unlocked all parts. Spending payload tonnage on science equipment would be nice to fill out the archives completely, but not essential. Also I run stock.

[robopilot99]

Rovers are slow. A mission like this would take hours. I would personally go with the VTOL because it's so much faster. For a solution to the fuel delima you could either use ion engines. Or create an orbital refueling station.

[demian_travis]

I build a rather nice station. A Mk1-2 Command Pod with a docking port, a storage container, a lab, lots of rcs fuel, batteries, solar pannels... Then, I built a really simple lander with a FL-T400 Fuel Tank, a small lander can, a docking port, sciency sciency stuff and rcs. I dock the lander to the station, refuel it and go down to the moon, grab all the science I can from a biome, go back up and repeat ad infinitum. I am currently building a second station around Mün. That is how the station looks like. There is more crew on it, in fact. It can house up to 10 kerbals. I plan to add one of those "cubes" where you can plug more docking ports so I can send refueling ships, have an escape pod and a pair of PPD-12 Cupola Modules and some bigger solar panels for extra lighting.

[G'th]

If you can do precision landings (or close to it) rovers would be fun for the Mun becuase there's certain spots with several Biomes all very close together.

Minmus, you'd be better of with a VTOL. Not only will it be faster, but less of a pain.

[Sophistry]

I don't mind a long mission; this is more of a little side-project to provide a change of pace while I work on the infrastructure-building for a big mission to Jool I'm planning; as such it won't all be happening in one go, I'll be going back and forth. Science is also kind of a secondary goal; the capability to (relatively) quickly visually survey the Mun's surface, but very thoroughly, is what I'm after

I've done a little experiment, and the tiny unmanned ion-power craft I sent as a proof-of-concept over didn't have a high enough TWR: while of course it flew, I found myself having to concentrate more on making lots of small course corrections to keep myself up, and when I spotted something that I wanted to land next to, I couldn't kill my velocity quick enough and flew quite a way past it. I could have flown lower and slower, but I was trying to maximise the amount of time I spent visually scanning the surface. And as for the orbital fuel depot, I'd want to build a surface facility instead; partly because the Jool mission prep involves a lot of orbital RVing, and again I want a change of pace, but mostly because I don't think I can explore properly at orbital altitude and velocity. A landed base would also give me a good reference point for me to work out what I've explored and what I haven't.

Cool station Demian_Travis

Indeed I can land precisesly, G'th . a VTOL would indeed make more sense on Minmus, as I wouldn't need to travel nearly as fast to keep in the air.

Thanks for the ideas so far

[O-Doc]

I've built pretty much what you've described. It's a lander/rover which I call the Loafer. I use it to check out base sites and discover easter eggs. It's just a 200 unit tank of gas with a rocket on the back. I use landing gear instead of landing legs because they just work better. Landing gear is very robust and it doesn't matter if you are carrying horizontal velocity on landing which, makes for some great Dukes of Hazard style landings.

You'll find the craft file in my catalogue bundle.

[DrMonte]

I like rovers. Here is one of mine undestroyables after drop test at ~30m/s. (Features: 4 seats, sun optional, somersault capable, Kerbal safe, can't be destroyed by own drive | mass centered, two connection points available)

Edited April 29, 2014 by DrMonte

[LordFjord]

How about a VTOL with landing gear? Something with steerable landing gear of course and some type of engine (maybe Ion?) to make it drive around really fast.

The landing gear are very very durable, you could reach quite high speeds on Mun. The terrain would offer opportunity for nice and far jumps. In flight, you can switch to "VTOL mode", make it land again, then repeat.

If the vessel is light enough, it could maybe be entirely Ion Powered.

Could be an effective and fun way to cross large distances on Mun. Driving a classic rover for hours ain't that much fun.

Just quicksave from time to time

[bsalis]

Rovers are slow.

Agree. My advice is don't use a rover. You know what would be a really cool way to do this Mun mission?

Ion engine powered hover bike!

With the recent buff, and masslessness for the smaller batteries and surface mount solar panels. You can build a sweet ride to scoot about with. Just plonk down a whole mess of fuel on the surface or orbit to fill it up and go explore like a Sir.

Edited April 29, 2014 by bsalis

[Kasuha]

Rovers are slow but don't need fuel. VTOLs are fast but need fuel. In my opinion, you need both. Engines and fuel to get you moving fast, ballistic or even orbital, and rover wheels to cover shorter distances after you land.

[flipmcf]

I used the orbital refueling station to gain a lot of science on career mode, but your obviously limited in this fashion. It did work tho - quite well.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Red Iron Crown]

Combining lander and rover is the way to go (rander? lover?). The newly buffed ions work well on Mun landers and let you carry lots of dV for multiple hops. Put some rover wheels on it and you've got a long duration Munar explorer.

[Psykikk]

why not do a combination ?

a lander which also carries a rover....

so you can hop around the surface from biome to biome , then do close area exploration with the rover.

if you attach the rover via docking ports it can be reattached (if height is aligned right)

also: if you might consider adding a mod, try of Kethane. With the addition of that mod,you would be able to build a mission-setup that is

almost 100% self-sufficient (if you find kethane that is)

[cantab]

Probably simpler with one craft. Landing on wheels should be reasonable, if not then add some legs too.

An interesting idea might be to combine ion engines for hovering with RCS for translation. Keep the craft level, set the ion thrust to minimise your vertical speed and use the RCS to give you some horizontal speed. Periodically tweak the ion thrust as you burn off RCS fuel and xenon. You can easily cruise about without worrying about hitting the ground (aside from running into hills).

[FREEFALL1984]

Agree. My advice is don't use a rover. You know what would be a really cool way to do this Mun mission?

Ion engine powered hover bike!

With the recent buff, and masslessness for the smaller batteries and surface mount solar panels. You can build a sweet ride to scoot about with. Just plonk down a whole mess of fuel on the surface or orbit to fill it up and go explore like a Sir.

That does sound like an awful lot of fun, tonight I think I shall build one

[Kasuha]

One downside of ion propulsion is the dark side. Although with a few NUKs you can just mount enough batteries to get you to orbit and wait a while till they recharge.

I guess I'll try something with a nuclear engine, though. And aircraft landing gear to allow horizontal takeoff/landing. That might be fun.

[Baythan]

Agree. My advice is don't use a rover. You know what would be a really cool way to do this Mun mission?

Ion engine powered hover bike!

With the recent buff, and masslessness for the smaller batteries and surface mount solar panels. You can build a sweet ride to scoot about with. Just plonk down a whole mess of fuel on the surface or orbit to fill it up and go explore like a Sir.

Those Ion powered hoverbikes look awesome. Now I want one.

Edit:

As far as traversing the Mun, I'd try for a VTOL with wheels myself, because rovers are slow and can't climb crater walls very well.

I'm still designing my Mun rover, but the idea is to have a stable setup that can use engines to push it both forward and up so it can roll around at high speeds for the most part but also 'jump' over ridges. Potential Kerbal deathtrap? yes.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Baythan

[Mesklin]

You are really do not need two ion engines for Mun, one is more then enough. See my ion "Dragonfly" for Dune

[Tw1]

Combining lander and rover is the way to go (rander? lover?).

Lover. Definitely.

[Sophistry]

Thanks for the responses; seeing some very interesting ideas

Well I had a go at building a large lander/rover/mobile first structure for a base, but for some reason the thing won't move; the wheels just spin and nothing happens ): There is sufficient ground clearance and the brake isn't on, so I'm confused!

I think what I'm going to do is (if I can get it to work) use the Land-base-rover-thing to find a good base building site and/or an interesting feature to build next to, then muck around building a base, and drop in a variety of different transport solutions like ion bikes, rovers of various sizes, ultra-low orbit spacecraft etc. That way I have a fleet of options to use and discover what I like best to use. On this basis I think the base might end up being a 'proving ground' for various surface-exploration craft, which would be cool .

Edited April 30, 2014 by Sophistry

[Red Iron Crown]

Well I had a go at building a large lander/rover/mobile first structure for a base, but for some reason the thing won't move; the wheels just spin and nothing happens ): There is sufficient ground clearance and the brake isn't on, so I'm confused!

Got a picture of it? It really helps figure out what's going on.

[cantab]

Some wheels turning opposite ways to others? Too much mass for too little wheel?

[Sophistry]

Got a picture of it? It really helps figure out what's going on.

This is just the rover component; currently the VTOL part which I detached is more of a really beefy skycrane.

Here we are:

Some wheels turning opposite ways to others? Too much mass for too little wheel?

I don't think it's either of these, as I've experimented with using the skycrane to take almost all the weight off of the wheels and it still doesn't move. And all the wheels seem to be turning in the same direction.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Sophistry

[Red Iron Crown]

Your wheels appear to be mounted 90 degrees from the normal orientation. Try remounting them with the orientation shown here.

[Sophistry]

Your wheels appear to be mounted 90 degrees from the normal orientation. Try remounting them with the orientation shown here.

...

Ahem

Quietly removes all evidence of my 'slight design flaw'

Oh look at that, it works now!