Show me your stock Duna landers

[TerminalV]

So I have been to Duna once way back in version 0.21. It was a pretty sketchy craft and took several attempts to get the landing and take-off on Duna right without crashing. Now in 0.90 I am cranking in Career mode (Moderate) trying to get enough cash to unlock the final upgrade to the R&D center so I can unlock the final level of the tech tree. I have sent a probe to orbit Duna and Ike. I am starting to plan a Kerbal mission to Duna and was hoping you guys might share some of your Duna lander craft designs with me. I plan on a two launch approach with a command module and lander rendezvousing in Kerbin orbit and then out to Duna for the landing. Figured I would leave the lander in Duna orbit for future use when I return to Kerbin. I am playing a completely stock version of KSP with no mods.

Any and all suggestions, advice or designs would be appreciated!

Edited January 7, 2015 by TerminalV

[Liowen]

This was the first one I used back in .21, but it still works even today. I do not have a picture of the tug anywhere, but that can be made to whatever you think is good (I have done both probe tugs and three man mission as well). It is far from pretty but it is functional.

The generators can be swapped out for solar panels, this was done in sandbox so I had access to all the parts to build it this way. You could make it without those, the shielded docking port, and the little I beam pieces though and it still would work. With a few extra chutes you can take science jr's and goo with you as well.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Liowen

[peachoftree]

Don't use nukes, their TWR makes them terrible for landers anywhere. You hardly need any delta-v for the landing if you load up the lander with tons of parachutes and only use your engines for the final part of your descent. Your lander should look like a munar lander, beefed up by about 50%. To pick a landing site, go into the debug menu (left alt + f12) and choose somewhere with an intersection between a few biomes and hop between them (only do this if you have the fuel and remember you can repack parachutes if you bring and engineer along with you).

I know you said stock, but I would seriously recommend getting kerbal engineer because it allows you to see TWR's for every body (you should aim for around 2.0 (on its target body) for a lander) as well as your delta-v for every stage. I can hardly play the game without it.

If you include a science lab as well as a large-ish fuel depot on your command module, you can do multiple "orbital hops" to reset your experiments and refuel.

Last thing, If you leave your kerbals in orbit with the lander and send it fuel from kerbin every launch window, you can reuse your lander and won't have to send crew out when you send fuel every launch window or so. Pay for the fuel by doing local contracts in the kerbin system between launch windows. Basically set up a system where you get your money from kerbin and your science from duna.

Sorry for the cluttered post, this is just a collection of things I do in my career save that I thought of in no particular order.

[Starwhip]

I have lost my Duna lander to the sands of time.

But here's the gist:

Step 1: Gravity slingshot around Duna to Ike.

Step 2: Thrust retrograde at Ike periapsis and enter Ike orbit.

Step 3: Land on Ike with LV-N.

Step 4: Takeoff from Ike with LV-N.

Step 5: Transfer to Duna. Periapsis in atmosphere.

Step 6: Land on Duna with parachutes and LV-N.

Step 7: Take off from Duna with dual RT-10's for high-altitude insertion, LV-N to circularize.

Step 8: Wait for about 9 months (Overexaggeration, I know.)

Step 9: Return to Kerbin.

[ArmchairGravy]

I don't have a Duna screenshot handy, but here it is on Ike. This docks to a drive module with LV-N's. I hit Ike, then Duna, then bring it on home. This gets me down and back from everything except Tylo and Eve with a full creel of science.

[Jouni]

Don't use nukes, their TWR makes them terrible for landers anywhere. You hardly need any delta-v for the landing if you load up the lander with tons of parachutes and only use your engines for the final part of your descent.

Nuclear engines are the best general-purpose lander engines in the game. Their TWR is good enough for up to Tylo, while their high Isp saves a lot of fuel. Best of all, you probably already have nuclear engines in the ship, so you don't have to waste fuel for hauling separate lander engines to some faraway planet. Just leave additional fuel tanks and other unnecessary modules in orbit, and land using only the core of the ship.

Of course, high-TWR landers are easier and more fun to fly, and new designs tend to be more interesting than old ships, so conventional engines still have a place in landers. This was my latest Duna lander:

It's from a game with FAR and DRE, but it should work in stock as well. This is another lander from a few patches ago:

[Renegrade]

Been a while since I've done a stock Duna landing (I've become fairly attached to Ven's part revamp, and it's rare for me to be non-FAR).

I did do a pure-stock land-everywhere-and-return campaign back in 0.24 though:

A two-stage skipper launcher puts her into Kerbin orbit, and then a fuel tank attached to the docking port at the top brings 'er to Duna. Once there, she's in landing form:

Delta-V: 2,925

TWR(Duna): 3.63->7.80

Mass: 9,355 kg

Parachutes: Four radials

The parachutes aren't enough for soft landing, but they absorb 90% of the delta-v cost of braking, with the engines activating at the very end to reduce speed below 3. The lander waits for a launch window for a direct interception with the station "imaginatively" named Duna 1, returns, has all science gathered and sent back via a crew transfer vehicle.

The triple science kit lets me get a full sweep of science in a single landing: one single-shot unit for high and low atmosphere, and one more for the surface. The multi-use modules get high atmosphere in the way in, and low atmosphere on the way out (collecting the science after landing). I could have used three sets of atmospheric reusable modules since they're #lolmassless, but they DO cost money.

Here's a Ven+FAR edition of a modern lander:

2966 d-v / 3.05->6.62 twr / 5,565 kg / two nosecone chutes

It's built for multiple landings with refurbishment at the station (especially because of the biomes), so it lacks the one-pass science kit. There's a QUBE core underneath the (not visible) shielded docking port at the top, allowing an Engineer to fly and repack chutes (for safety; could have used a pilot with an engineer on the station, but that means ascending with inoperative chutes, not good if something goes wrong). It would have used 48-7S engines instead, but there's no way of putting 1.5 engines on something~

Note that there is some clipping going on there, I already paid the 50 funds cheating fine so it's all good

[Sof]

Nuclear engines are the best general-purpose lander engines in the game. Their TWR is good enough for up to Tylo, while their high Isp saves a lot of fuel. Best of all, you probably already have nuclear engines in the ship, so you don't have to waste fuel for hauling separate lander engines to some faraway planet. Just leave additional fuel tanks and other unnecessary modules in orbit, and land using only the core of the ship.

Nuclear engines are long specifically so that landers are difficult to make with them. You can't put them directly beneath your lander so you need to stick them on the side. This then means you'll need more than 1 to compensate for the symmetry issues.

They're also really heavy. If you really want to conserve delta V, just drag along a lander with a smaller yet more powerful engine(s), and use 1 nuclear engine for the transfer stage.

The amount of fuel you'll need to get to and from orbit around most places is quite low anyway, and you'll save a bunch not having to hoist that extra 6.75 tons up from Kerbin and through interplanetary space.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Sof

[problemecium]

A little out of date because it was made in 0.24, but it should still work:

It was actually originally designed and used as a Mun lander (as pictured), but with the aid of the two side parachutes it can land on Duna and save its fuel for the ascent - one merely has to give the throttle a little nudge just before touchdown.

Edited January 6, 2015 by parameciumkid

[Jouni]

Nuclear engines are long specifically so that landers are difficult to make with them. You can't put them directly beneath your lander so you need to stick them on the side. This then means you'll need more than 1 to compensate for the symmetry issues.

Placing engines beneath the lander is a bad idea anyway, as it raises the center of mass higher than necessary. Radial engines or radially attached fuel tanks are a better choice.

They're also really heavy. If you really want to conserve delta V, just drag along a lander with a smaller yet more powerful engine(s), and use 1 nuclear engine for the transfer stage.

My typical interplanetary ships have 4 nuclear engines, as Kerbin TWR below 0.2 tends to make transfer burns boring, inaccurate, and inefficient. Smaller ships such as fuel tankers without any payload might work with just 2 engines.

[a2soup]

With spaceships, and especially with landers, simpler is usually better. Also, consider alternatives to wobbly traditional landing legs. Here is a simple, legless, and very stable Duna lander than can additionally perform all of the upper atmosphere, flying, and landed science on Duna in a single landing:

It comes with parachutes on the upper science module, but needs a little bit of thrust to slow down to safe landing speeds at the end. This is a good general design principle for Duna landers-- a few parachutes are very useful for slowing down and killing horizontal velocity, but don't try to get to touchdown speed on parachutes alone. Use engines in the last 10-20 meters, just make sure not to slow down too much or you will lose your chutes!

For this lander, you jetpack up and take the science from the upper science module, undock it, and knock it off to save weight for ascent. With that done, this lander makes orbit with lots of ∆v to spare. Once in orbit, it uses its RCS capabilities (monopropellant in the command pod) to re-dock to the ideally nuke-powered transfer stage for the return trip.

Let me know if you have any more questions, either about this particular lander or about general principles of Duna landing/ascent!

Edited January 6, 2015 by a2soup

[TerminalV]

Lots of cool designs, Thanks guys! Keep them coming! I will be sure to post pictures of my successful Duna Mission.

[Renegrade]

Nuclear engines are long specifically so that landers are difficult to make with them. You can't put them directly beneath your lander so you need to stick them on the side. This then means you'll need more than 1 to compensate for the symmetry issues.

Actually, you can kinda wrap your lander around an LV-N. I built some experimentals back in the day that did exactly that .. would be even easier now with the widgets or gadgets (improved editor thingies)... The resulting lander is tall, spindly, delicate, and slow at the helm, but it does work....suckily.

Whether or not this is competitive with a conventional design depends on the destination too.

There's a Dres all-in-one lander, from that same 0.24-stock-land-everywhere game. Since Dres only had three science areas of interest (high space, low space, surface) back then, it only had to land once, so I wrapped it around an LV-N and called it a day. (The landing gear and science pods are jettisoned for return to Kerbin)

Nowadays, it would only have one of each type of science, and would look more like parameciumkid's D/Luna lander with conventional engines, and rely on a heavy science-lab station. Since Dres is, afterall, an angry space potato.

The science lab/station could use nukes, but I'm more likely to throw skippers on and call it a 58-second-burn day.

A little out of date because it was made in 0.24, but it should still work:

http://i.imgur.com/mP1x1rY.png

It was actually originally designed and used as a Mun lander (as pictured), but with the aid of the two side parachutes it can land on Duna and save its fuel for the ascent - one merely has to give the throttle a little nudge just before touchdown.

Wow, that's a small lander. What's the mass there? 1650kg? 1750?

By the way.. is that a thrust plate from Procedural Fairings on the bottom? Or the small RGU? The former is a bit less than stock

With spaceships, and especially with landers, simpler is usually better. Also, consider alternatives to wobbly traditional landing legs. Here is a simple, legless, and very stable Duna lander than can additionally perform all of the upper atmosphere, flying, and landed science on Duna in a single landing:

That's a .. very different design. It looks interesting, but it doesn't seem to be re-usable though, which strikes me as odd, given that Duna now has multiple biomes...

Placing engines beneath the lander is a bad idea anyway, as it raises the center of mass higher than necessary. Radial engines or radially attached fuel tanks are a better choice.

Okay, that type of lander is pretty much automatically worse - you're probably looking at something that probably has a dry mass higher than my Tylo lander's wet mass... and definitely 100%-for-sure heavier than my modern Duna lander.. You're talking about nearly five tons of engine! This goes double if you're going to hit more than one biome too...

[Stratzenblitz75]

My Duna Lander. Its basically a tower of junk strapped on top of a lander.

Duna's gravity is fairly weak so you don't need much power to land/orbit. This lander has a mass of about 4 tons (full) and is powered by a single Rockomax 48-7S but it still has enough TWR to land (with parachutes), and reach orbit without ditching anything.

[Jouni]

Okay, that type of lander is pretty much automatically worse - you're probably looking at something that probably has a dry mass higher than my Tylo lander's wet mass... and definitely 100%-for-sure heavier than my modern Duna lander.. You're talking about nearly five tons of engine! This goes double if you're going to hit more than one biome too...

4.5 tonnes of engines isn't that much, as almost all manned landers have payloads larger than that.

We all have our standards for reasonable designs. Otherwise we wouldn't be launching any kind of command pods at all, as the command seat makes all of them obsolete. My standards of reasonability say that one-kerbal pods are only suitable for short-term missions, while interplanetary missions require a crew of 3+, at least two kerbals in the lander, and 2-3x more living space than strictly necessary. A small lander might be built around a Mk1-2 command pod or a Mk2 lander can, a medium lander would add a hitchhiker, while a large lander would also include a laboratory.

[SkyRender]

This Duna lander, creatively named Duna Lander, is pretty solid. It lets you take 2 Kerbals down to the surface and back, and has about 1820m/s dV in total. You do need a small burst of engine power to keep speed below 6m/s when landing, but other than that, it practically lands itself. And best of all, it's 100% reusable; just refill the fuel in orbit!

[Remkeau]

For my first Duna lander back in 0.23 I actually took the hard approach with an SSTO powered by two 909's. The SSTO part was Duna exclusive, I will add. Also comes with a docking port in the back.

This was built before I fully grasped the concept of how to land in thin atmospheres, and resulted in swift deaths for Bob very often before finally landing safely

[StrandedonEarth]

Another general-purpose lander that can land anywhere except Eve and return from anywhere else except Tylo. The LV-N's also double the thrust of the tanker-lab for interplanetary burns. Ignore the oops where I went mono RCS high and vernors low.

[Landge]

Out of all the planetary landers I've built, over the course of playing KSP, Duna has been the most visited place outside Kerbin's SOI.

Here's a sampling of some of the landers and rovers. All stock.

Version 0.18. My first Duna Base:

Paying a visit to one of my first probe landers:

Early version of what will become the "Pride of Kerbin" Lander:

Early version of the "Crossbow" Lander/Rover Module:

Pride of Kerbin Mark II. Replaced (4) LV-909's with (2) LV-N's for better fuel efficiency.

(I nearly couldn't get back into orbit so all future versions have (4) LV-N's):

My first Mobile Base, the "Dunabago" after jettisoning the radial landing rockets:

First SSTO/VTOL the "VindiGator" and Fuel Truck, to arrive on Duna along with the "Dunabago":

Another probe lander at Duna's polar region:

"Dunabago" with "Crossbow Mark II" Rover/Lander that has been to/returned from almost every planet except Eve and Tylo.

The "Crossbow" uses a combination of (4) LV-N's and (4) Aerospikes, if needed, to assist returning into orbit.

"Pride of Kerbin" w/Science Lab instead of Hitchhiker Module.

Phased out in favor of leaving the Science Lab in orbit:

Version 0.25 another visit to Duna from the "Pride of Kerbin".

(This has been my "go to" Lander/Ascent Module for every planet and moon except Eve, Laythe, & Tylo):

On the left of "Duna One" Hab Module is the "Beagle" VTOL rover. Capable of returning back to Duna orbit.

Improved upon the "Dunabago" and Hab Module with the "Kanyonero".

Bringing the Science Lab back to the surface. It is a Mobile Science Lab after all:

Edited January 7, 2015 by Landge

[problemecium]

Wow, that's a small lander. What's the mass there? 1650kg? 1750?

By the way.. is that a thrust plate from Procedural Fairings on the bottom? Or the small RGU? The former is a bit less than stock

I don't recall the mass, but that seems about right. There isn't anything clipped inside to be making it heavier.

And that is the small RGU on the bottom, so it is stock

[NecroBones]

My first interplanetary landing ever, was this Duna landing, using what was essentially my (at the time) Mun-Lander with some parachutes strapped on, and a transfer stage in orbit (Apollo-style). The mission succeeded, just barely.

(album)

Sometime later, I went back with a much more well-planned mission, and landed on Duna and Ike:

(album)

After we got contracts and money added in 0.24, I went back under a contract. I ended up landing several times since I got more contracts while there. Everything above the SRB stages was recoverable (I didn't use any automatic fund recovery mods). I landed the whole lander + transfer stage back at KSC. This mission was slight overkill, except that it afforded me those multiple landings, and was a cheap mission since only the fuel and the SRBs were wasted:

(album)

[zekes]

Say hello to an ancient ship - the Duna Tripper 6, circa 0.18. Still works though.

[Renegrade]

We all have our standards for reasonable designs. Otherwise we wouldn't be launching any kind of command pods at all, as the command seat makes all of them obsolete. My standards of reasonability say that one-kerbal pods are only suitable for short-term missions, while interplanetary missions require a crew of 3+, at least two kerbals in the lander, and 2-3x more living space than strictly necessary. A small lander might be built around a Mk1-2 command pod or a Mk2 lander can, a medium lander would add a hitchhiker, while a large lander would also include a laboratory.

Yeah, we do have different definitions. While I agree that the EAS thing is nonsense (and it's not a real replacement even gamewise for the capsules as it does not refill EVA fuel - plus I'm not sure if it can do an internal 'crew report' or not or store science) and that using the 1-man can for an interplanetary transfer is probably stretching it just a little, I don't see any reason at all why a short term landing has to be a two-man mission or use a long-term vessel.

I might accept arguments that you need an atmospheric-rated craft for landing on Duna (halfway, at least.. I mean, it's Duna afterall), but that would ONLY include the mk1 and mk1-2 capsules and spaceplane cockpits... not the one or two man cans, nor the lab or hitchhiker. (the descriptions in-game do mention something about the cans not being atmosphere rated, and imply that the hitchhiker can't 'return', although there's no game mechanic to back that up in stock).

My usual station is based around a Mk1-2 capsule or Cupola, with a lab, and possibly a hitchhiker attached (depending on my mood and/or contracts), but I don't see any reason to use any two-man vessel for landing. Not everything has to be a copy of the Apollo program - the Soviet design called for a two man orbiter and a one man lander. Given that the typical career-oriented landing mission is land, do science, and return, there's no reason to have a long endurance craft (especially considering the Apollo LEM could do something like 75 hours on battery power alone). So I'd say that the Mk1 capsule is acceptable under all circumstances, and if Duna's atmosphere is too thin to be a problem (or we're just ignoring that entirely), the 1-man landing can too.

The older Duna lander pictured was piloted long range by solo pilot, although that's mostly because I was too lazy to put a probe core on it. The modern one has a probe core under the docking port (yay gizmos), and transferred to Duna on autopilot.

My Duna Lander. Its basically a tower of junk strapped on top of a lander.

Weird lander is weird

What's the story/philosophy behind that design anyways?

I don't recall the mass, but that seems about right. There isn't anything clipped inside to be making it heavier.

And that is the small RGU on the bottom, so it is stock

Yep, that's definitely stock compliant then

(I also don't have anything against modded bits, just that these are supposed to be stock hehe)

Say hello to an ancient ship - the Duna Tripper 6, circa 0.18. Still works though.

Big lander is big and mostly small hardpoints!

[DrD]

Apollo style with separate lander (0.26):

I used a 1 kerbal capsule/lander can with a probe core on each for when unmanned.

One benefit is you can use nuke for transfer but liquid for landing/ascending to orbit.

Also if lander has fuel after ascent you can transfer fuel back to return stage.

Lander is discarded and de-orbited after transferring fuel and pilot (de-orbit burn done with RCS.)

RCS balance a bit tricky, it's well balanced when docked, and lander alone well balanced, but return ship without lander very unbalanced. For this reason I controlled lander for rendezvous in Dunar orbit.

On Kerbin launch lander was behind transfer stage and connected with stack separator. In Kerbin orbit it staged off and docked to transfer stage just like Apollo.

NOTE: initially I used regular (1 sided) decoupler and it stayed attached to lander. Unfortunately (bug?) the docking port on top of lander, now within the still attached decoupler, was not selectable. I could dock but then not undock. I had to start all over! (typical.) So the lesson is make sure decoupler goes away when it is around a docking port, either by attaching properly or using separator which detaches on both sides. And if something seems off don't go all the way to Duna without confirming that it will work.

Edited January 7, 2015 by DrD

[Rolanvorxariat]

I'm pretty sad, because i'm seeing the same ol' kerbal landers. I used to have a fleet of three Constellation style duna landers that were advanced and severly over complicated, and i spent months on them, but since i used a few mods for science parts (KWR) for engines and fuel tanks, .90 broke one of the science mods, and the landers were unable to load. however, i strappped together a new, simpler plan based on the current plan for mars. i have the unmanned habitat and SPR rover down. the ascent/descent Krew lander also has an incredible strange design... but i'm not showing you guys it untill it's on Duna.

http://imgur.com/a/0C9OM

I dont know how to share albums.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Rolanvorxariat