[Career]: Mun exploration is... huh.... expensive.

[0x7be]

Hello.

I've managed to get to Mun exploration contract. By using moslty reusable designs up to this point I've managed to save up some 250k of funds.

Now I want to go to the Mun. Mun contract offers 100k of funds as reward, but my Mun rocket designs easily beat 100k cost threshold thus making whole thing unprofittable.

How do you manage to get finaces under control when it goes beyond Kerbin?

If you have good and cheap Mun rocket designs you've used to beat this contract - feel free to share

Thanks in advance.

[McFarnsworth]

Use solid fuel boosters instead of liquid ones, they're cheaper.

Land as much of your craft back at KSC as you can, you'll recover those costs.

Try to include a few part tests in the mission to increase profitability.

Ideally you'll want to build an SSTO that lifts your payload (transfer stage/command module + lander) to orbit, then land the SSTO back at KSC.

Do the same for the rest of the craft once you've done the mission. It's entirely possible to recover 100% of the parts this way and your only cost will have been fuel.

If you can show us your rocket, we might be able to suggest some more specific improvements for you.

[KingPhantom]

i often had money problems in the new carrer mode. but i managed it to the mun. my rocket wasnt that cheap but i get a lot of money out of that.

yesterday i packed some 2 and 3 star "part test" missions in kerbin orbit (the heaviest engine and engine cluster with the atomic engines, 2 tiny engines and some radial decouplers). i managed an orbit and changed the height an the PE or AP to spare fuel. i was able to do every test (except the decoupler... this one failed) and brought all back except the cluster engines and 5 orange tanks.... i landet the rocket next to the KSP (only with luck)

i made it with this single mission from 300k to 3million funds... don't know how but now i'm a rich kerbal

[DBT85]

I went to the Mun yesterday and got 650 science in crew reports, EVA reports and two soil samples in a ship that cost 40,000. Not reusable.

A pic of my vessel

http://i.imgur.com/LoFCn7E.jpg

[0x7be]

I went to the Mun yesterday and got 650 science in crew reports, EVA reports and two soil samples in a ship that cost 40,000. Not reusable.

A pic of my vessel

http://i.imgur.com/LoFCn7E.jpg

Thanks!

Few questions:

1. What engines are fitted to Munar lander? Are side-attached tanks on lander have engines beneath them?

2. What science program did you perform? Multiple landings, EVA reports from different locations, etc.

[Sky_walker]

100k?!

Wow, looks like you have some serious problem with overengineering.

My lander with all the science equipment onboard and enough fuel to do 3 landings and return back home is ~80k. When I made my first flight in it to the Mun having barely any science gear onboard - it was around 40k. Seriously - simplify your design, don't use large radius parts, use some solid rocket boosters, and perhaps most importantly: Don't try to make it reusable. It's a waste of time and money. You'll be much better off building smaller and cheaper disposable ship quickly stomping that mission than spending hours in an attempt to build low cost reusable vessel that will do the same for 3 times the initial price and 10 times the time spent.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Sky_walker

[KingPhantom]

in the old carrer mode i often used a big tank with the 120 thurst radial engines (the white aerodynamic ones ). but with funds it's difficult. for my mun missions i used a main tank with one 909 engine and radial mounted 3 to 4 droppable tanks. like in the picture of DBT85. but my problem is that i will bring the landing gear back. so i have to put that near the center. because of this my lander can only land on really FLAT SPOTS

[KingPhantom]

100k?!

Wow, looks like you have some serious problem with overengineering.

My lander with all the science equipment onboard and enough fuel to do 3 landings and return back home is ~80k. When I made my first flight in it to the Mun having barely any science gear onboard - it was around 40k. Seriously - simplify your design, don't use large radius parts, use some solid rocket boosters, and perhaps most importantly: Don't try to make it reusable. It's a waste of time and money. You'll be much better off building smaller and cheaper disposable ship quickly stomping that mission than spending hours in an attempt to build low cost reusable vessel that will do the same for 3 times the initial price and 10 times the time spent.

thats my learning too with 0.24. i used booster and aditional lifter engines with paracutes. but if they landed unmanned and without a probe correctly on the ground they disappeared... so i wasn't able to recover them in the tracking station... now i save the cost of paracutes. i just drop the s**t off... i only try to get back the whole lander module and not just the capsule. i often manage to save some fuel for breaking burns before touchdown. thats the best way for me.

[Sky_walker]

Thanks!

Few questions:

1. What engines are fitted to Munar lander? Are side-attached tanks on lander have engines beneath them?

2. What science program did you perform? Multiple landings, EVA reports from different locations, etc.

1. I used LV-909. Just one. And 2 disposable side-attached tanks (when landed I transferred fuel from them to the core and ejected both to make my ship lighter while at the same time - it's shorter what makes landing much easier).

2. In my first flight I did 2 landings (I like to play it safe) with EVA report when landed, then on surface, surface sample, Goo, and Science Jr. (I had just one Sc.Jr. and 4 Goos)

Key is not to be too greedy.

i only try to get back the whole lander module and not just the capsule.

Yea, that's what I did too, but my lander on return was relatively small - just 3 fuel tanks, engine, landing struts, 4 goos, Science Jr and a capsule with 2 chutes.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Sky_walker

[KingPhantom]

Yea, that's what I did too, but my lander on return was relatively small - just 3 fuel tanks, engine, landing struts, 4 goos, Science Jr and a capsule with 2 chutes.

same here. check the funds. it's not that cheap and makes sense to bring it back (i also have batteries on it).

[Sirrobert]

thats my learning too with 0.24. i used booster and aditional lifter engines with paracutes. but if they landed unmanned and without a probe correctly on the ground they disappeared... so i wasn't able to recover them in the tracking station... now i save the cost of paracutes. i just drop the s**t off... i only try to get back the whole lander module and not just the capsule. i often manage to save some fuel for breaking burns before touchdown. thats the best way for me.

Probe doesn't matter

If it's not inside the 2,5km bubble around the ship you currently control, it will be put on rails. And if it's on rails while lower than 23km(?) it will get deleted

[0x7be]

100k?!

Wow, looks like you have some serious problem with overengineering.

My lander with all the science equipment onboard and enough fuel to do 3 landings and return back home is ~80k. When I made my first flight in it to the Mun having barely any science gear onboard - it was around 40k. Seriously - simplify your design, don't use large radius parts, use some solid rocket boosters, and perhaps most importantly: Don't try to make it reusable. It's a waste of time and money. You'll be much better off building smaller and cheaper disposable ship quickly stomping that mission than spending hours in an attempt to build low cost reusable vessel that will do the same for 3 times the initial price and 10 times the time spent.

I tried to add a lot of chutes for recovering.

[DBT85]

Thanks!

Few questions:

1. What engines are fitted to Munar lander? Are side-attached tanks on lander have engines beneath them?

2. What science program did you perform? Multiple landings, EVA reports from different locations, etc.

No problem at all.

The engine for the lander is just a single LV-909. The tanks on the sides hold fuel which I have to pump into the centre to use, as at the time yesterday I didn't have fuel lines. Can make landings bit of a pain as the centre of mass is off once you start pumping fuel. Fuel lines do make life much easier!

As for the science, my own mission parameters were to not take any instruments or goo pods as they are so heavy. I only performed Crew Reports, EVA reports and 2 surface samples from the two landing sites. I tried a third but didn't quite have enough fuel to take off again! The Mun has many biomes (map here) so as you fly over them in orbit you can do new EVA reports for each one. Remember that you need to store your EVA report before you can do a new one!

I use Kerbal Engineer to help with my VAB builds, but it also shows what biome you are currently in/over as well as which one you are going to land (crash) into.

[Kerbart]

Mk-I capsule, less than a handfull of FLT-800's, a handful of engines and some auxilery equipment (parachute, moar struts, landing gear)... That really shouldn't cost that much.

[0x7be]

Mk-I capsule, less than a handfull of FLT-800's, a handful of engines and some auxilery equipment (parachute, moar struts, landing gear)... That really shouldn't cost that much.

I designed a little bit more advanced lander with Science Jr, antennae, solar panels, Goo. It packs some 2.5 km/s of delta-v.

To get it to the Mun I've built rocket, that got totally:

1. 12 BACC SRB

2. 15 LV-T45

3. 25 FL-T800

And some other sutff.

Plus a lots of chutes for DebRefund.

It hit 150k cost limit with major share of it due to lots of chutes.

Edited July 23, 2014 by 0x7be

[SRV Ron]

Has to be way overengineered. This made Mun and Minmus with ease.

Many of the contracts will get you science points as their reward. Design low cost test ships that will do the job. Once you have unlocked enough science points to get the right tech needed for the Mun contract, you will be able to build a low cost ship that will complete the mission.

[Superfluous J]

Don't go to Mun to do a contract.

Go to Mun to do 3 contracts, and do 3 more on the way and 1 on the way back. Also do a ton of while there (and on the way and as you come back).

[Kryxal]

My current Mun lander costs 14k ... capsule, T400+LV-909, 2*T800+LV-T30, 2*S1 SRB on a bi-coupler. It gets the job done ... just!

[Clockwork_werewolf]

1: SRB's are your friend. Lots of SRB's. Once you have a apoapsis of 70k or over then is the only time to use liquid engines to efficiently get your periapsis up.

2: Liquid engines are expensive only use the minimum you need and in the top stages of your rocket. One Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster costs 700, that gets you 850 fuel, 315 thrust but a bad ISP. One LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine costs 850, and gets you no fuel. It's bonus is it can be turned off and has a better ISP.

2: If you aren't flying it, it will not be recovered. This is a bit of an over simplification but assume this is true and you will not have any problems. Parachute do nothing, probe cores do nothing for recovery. Landed objects are fine but only if you landed them.

3: Watch the number of separators you use. One stack decoupler costs 400, one RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster costs 325. A one to one ration is wasting more than half your money. Use one separator, attach a booster below then as many boosters around that one booster as you need. Struts cost 42 each and you might need them anyway whether you use one decoupler or 4. for this reason avoid using more than 2 radial decouplers if you can help it.

4: Make the top part of your lander as light as you can. Need 3 landing legs but put on 6 for safety? Test it on Kerbin, if you only need 3 on Kerbin you defiantly only need 3 on the Mun (1/6 gravity and all that). Worried your parachute will not be good enough on return? Test them on Kerbin. Worried your engines will not land you on the Mun? Test them on Kerbin, if you lift off they have all the power you could need for the Mun. If they lift off fast on Kerbin you have to many so cut out one or two.

5: I attach wings and a jet engine to every returning lander. It lets me land them at KSP runway for the full 100% return value. It does add more cost though so it's swings and roundabouts.

On a side note I'm now playing with everything set to 8 times the cost. Using module manager and

@PART[*]:FINAL

{

@cost *= 8

}

I've got into orbit with 170k and now need to get to the Mun. This is hard when a singe booster costs 5600 and a decoupler costs 3200. I even attached on decoupler upside down so I get to retrieve it on return.

[0x7be]

1: SRB's are your friend. Lots of SRB's. Once you have a apoapsis of 70k or over then is the only time to use liquid engines to efficiently get your periapsis up.

2: Liquid engines are expensive only use the minimum you need and in the top stages of your rocket. One Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster costs 700, that gets you 850 fuel, 315 thrust but a bad ISP. One LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine costs 850, and gets you no fuel. It's bonus is it can be turned off and has a better ISP.

2: If you aren't flying it, it will not be recovered. This is a bit of an over simplification but assume this is true and you will not have any problems. Parachute do nothing, probe cores do nothing for recovery. Landed objects are fine but only if you landed them.

3: Watch the number of separators you use. One stack decoupler costs 400, one RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster costs 325. A one to one ration is wasting more than half your money. Use one separator, attach a booster below then as many boosters around that one booster as you need. Struts cost 42 each and you might need them anyway whether you use one decoupler or 4. for this reason avoid using more than 2 radial decouplers if you can help it.

4: Make the top part of your lander as light as you can. Need 3 landing legs but put on 6 for safety? Test it on Kerbin, if you only need 3 on Kerbin you defiantly only need 3 on the Mun (1/6 gravity and all that). Worried your parachute will not be good enough on return? Test them on Kerbin. Worried your engines will not land you on the Mun? Test them on Kerbin, if you lift off they have all the power you could need for the Mun. If they lift off fast on Kerbin you have to many so cut out one or two.

5: I attach wings and a jet engine to every returning lander. It lets me land them at KSP runway for the full 100% return value. It does add more cost though so it's swings and roundabouts.

On a side note I'm now playing with everything set to 8 times the cost. Using module manager and

@PART[*]:FINAL

{

@cost *= 8

}

I've got into orbit with 170k and now need to get to the Mun. This is hard when a singe booster costs 5600 and a decoupler costs 3200. I even attached on decoupler upside down so I get to retrieve it on return.

Very good points indeed. I will look into reducing mass of lander.

[KingPhantom]

so it doesnt matter if i try to save some debris? it will dissappear anyway? i saw that but i was not sure if it's really so. so you really don't care about the decoupled stuff.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

Anything not landed that is more than 2.5k away from the object you are flying and below 23k into Kerbin atmosphere is deleted.

All landed objects are treated as safe but you can only land them while in control of them.

2.5k is the physics bubble, anything outside this is "on rails" meaning it follows a simple orbit even if going though atmosphere. Objects you are not near can go though high atmosphere and never slow down.

At 23k into the atmopshere the game desides there is no way an object would be able to get out again with the drag and deletes it as if it crashed in the planet.

so you really don't care about the decoupled stuff.

I care about it but there is nothing I can do to save it. I try to build with the discarded parts costing the least I can. You can build single stage to orbit craft to stop the loss of debris but they tend to have awful cargo to size/cost ratio's. You can also try a two stage launch. Go straight up with the first stage and when past 23k detach the second stage which then burns sideways to get orbit all before the first stage drops below 23k again. Once the second stage has a stable orbit and before the first drops below 23k you switch back to the first stage and land it back at KSC. This approach is hard but not impossible (managed 1 out of 3 tries) and only requires very basic technology unlike the SSTO's (did it with only basic rocketry).

[Yarrula]

This was my work horse for several Mun and Minmus trips. It's overengineered to hell and back, since I just guessed on the dV requirements (no mods) the first time and never bother to adjust after the first flight. It can rescue a kerbal from orbit, then perform a full science test at the destination before returning. The first stage is all SRBs, the second is a mailsail. Neither is recovered.

The majority of the expense comes from the science instruments:

2 x Mat Lab

2 x Goo

1 x Each of Temp, Barometer, Gravoli, Seismic.

Even with all that, it just passes the 100K mark. With the Rescue contract, any Mun contract, plus the recovery of the lander portion anywhere on Kerbal, I can't lose money with the thing. Which is good, since I have a habit of lobbing expensive bases that serve no real purpose to various moons, just for the hell of it.

[magnemoe]

Low tech Mun lander, it uses 4 srb as first stage then three T30 with cross feed.

The forward stack is drop tank for transfer+ goo and material lab for high above kerbin and near and close to Mun.

Could have used more srb here.

My minmus lander, landed in all biomes. uses the same drop tank system as the mun lander.

skipper main stage retun to spaceport. Core of lander with all the science instruments cost 55000. core is around 17000 as I remember, reaction wheel probe power and mechjeb adds to cost.

[Idrryl]

As several people have pointed out, you should not look into making things reusable. Adding 'chutes and whatnot increases the cost so much that it's cheaper to just make a disposable rocket. It's why the Shuttle Program was closed, it cost too much money.