Is docking required to return from the Mun?

[dryer_lint]

By the way, I don't literally mean "does the game require you to dock", it's just that I've heard about the Apollo missions when they realized that landing with all the return fuel would be too much to carry. Is it the same with KSP? I've been trying to build a Mun rocket that can return the crew, but I suck at docking/rendezvous, at least in Kerbin orbit.

So, in KSP Mun missions, is it possible to just land with all the fuel for the return trip? If so, how hard would this be? Any help is appreciated!

Edited May 23, 2014 by Nikola7007
Thread answered

[Tank Buddy]

Not at all. You can easily create a singe vessel. Even IRL Apollo style wasn't completely necessary, although it worked exceptionally well. Apollo style is best suited for trips to Duna or plantets/moons further away.

This, dubbed the "Toyota Corolla" lander, can get you from the surface of the moon back to Kerbin, given you get it there fully fueled, which shouldn't be that hard.

P.S. I'm not going to pressure you to download mods, but Kerbal Engineer Redux will greatly help you design ships with its Delta V readout.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Tank Buddy

[Othuyeg]

The amount of dV you need to return from Mun is very miniscule. My advise would be to look at someone like Scott Manley who makes absolutely beautiful tutorials.

Observe how he makes his manouvers and you will get very good with basic manouvers.

[dryer_lint]

Ah, ok. Thanks guys!

[Tortoise]

Ofcourse not.

Plus, you can just put a decoupler on your pod and add a parachute, then you'd be fine. You won't even have to worry about weight.

Its just wasting alot of fuel to dock to a space station just to go back into the atmosphere.

[phoenix_ca]

One of the original ideas for manned Moon missions was actually a one-stage vessel that would land the entire thing and take-off again. The reason for the Apollo program using a lander (and that lander splitting in two when it left the Moon) was that it had huge delta-v savings. Less fuel used to land means way, way less fuel required at launch. In KSP, we have the luxury of not having to care about that stuff, we can just strap even more boosters onto our rockets, efficiency be damned.

[Pecan]

Due to the differences in the Kerbal universe and the power/mass of engines and fuel available an 'Apollo' style mission is much harder than a direct return. A one-man (Kerbal) capsule only needs a bit more than 45-units of fuel (a small tank) and one tiny 48-7S to launch from Mun and return to Kerbin. Just remember to put a parachute on top of it!

[Scarecrow88]

Echoing what Pecan said above (he must have seen my design), this little fella is able to return directly to Kerbin from either Minmus or Mun without docking with an orbiting command ship, which is why it is fitted with a parachute.

[NERVAfan]

One of the original ideas for manned Moon missions was actually a one-stage vessel that would land the entire thing and take-off again. The reason for the Apollo program using a lander (and that lander splitting in two when it left the Moon) was that it had huge delta-v savings. Less fuel used to land means way, way less fuel required at launch. In KSP, we have the luxury of not having to care about that stuff, we can just strap even more boosters onto our rockets, efficiency be damned.

Also, in RL an all-in-one setup would require spending fuel to land the heat shield on the moon and lift it back off, but in KSP we don't need those.

Furthermore, the delta v requirements are a lot less in KSP.

EDIT: All mine are direct returns. I started out with something almost exactly like the one Tank Buddy posted above, but I had issues with it tipping over, and now I use a wider lander made with two radially attached FL-T200s with 48-7S engines, and put two landing legs on each tank. The two side tanks/engines are attached with radial decouplers and get jettisoned on the way home.

Edited May 24, 2014 by NERVAfan

[cantab]

As mentioned, a direct ascent Mun landing is entirely viable thanks to the Kerbol system being smaller and thus requiring less delta-V to get around than the real solar system. In fact it's the better option in career mode since you'll get more science for returning the lander.

Even if you do choose a Munar orbit rendezvous, you don't need to dock. Just rendezvous the lander to within a hundred metres or two of the orbiter then EVA the Kerbals over. That's how I've tended to do my early career Mun landings. Don't forget the science!

[technion]

This gets down to the way you want to play.

Personally I think Apollo missions are more fun - and they give you a better learning experience for harder missions. Noone's going to try and land on Tylo without having that lander separate from its transport.

[joekidd1992]

I land with the top and usually have a lot of fuel even after landing on the Mun. Then it is just lifting off out of the Mun's orbit and then maneuvering to get the PE on Kerbin down low enough. I usually drop everything but the pod right before the burn. I've never had any issues except the 2nd stage is a little hard to maneuver to the right position. With a little bit of practice, I was able to move it around well enough.

[Red Iron Crown]

When the Mun was originally added Apollo-style was impossible, because we didn't have persistence or docking yet. Only one active craft meant direct return was the only way to land on the Mun and return.

[Scarecrow88]

This fairly basic design is enough to get a 3 man capsule to the Mun and back with no docking involved. The munar transfer stage has enough fuel to establish the parking orbit at Kerbin, transfer to and establish an orbit at the Mun, and do most of the descent braking to the surface. This leaves the lander with almost all of it's fuel to finalise the descent to the surface and then return to Kerbin.

The lifting stage is jettisoned whilst still sub-orbital at Kerbin, and the Munar transfer stage is jettisoned when sub-orbital at Mun, so no parts are left floating in space as debris.

ETA: Looking back at that design, I have made a small change to make it look slightly better and get rid of the gap between the lander and the insertion stage at the top of the rocket. I replaced the LV909 engine on the lander with 3 of the small Rockomax radial engines attached directly to the fuel tank.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Scarecrow88

[Pecan]

Two Minmus and Mun designs (Long Tom and Fat Sally), and an interplanetary satellite-delivery transfer vehicle:

Javascript is disabled. View full album