Add support for an unmanned, Apollo 5-style LM

[sundhaug92]

Minimum version: Add probe module to the LM cockpit
Medium version: + Probe-only version unlocked earlier than crewed version (to emulate Apollo 5)
Full version: + Separate, legless version of the descent module

[sundhaug92]

This would also add support for de-orbiting the LM after a crewed mission

[jmrd98]

Options one and two can easily be done as a MM patch, for the extras folder at the very least. I just don’t have the time to do it at the moment. @sundhaug92 , an opportunity knocks!

[sundhaug92]

@jmrd98 I'm looking into doing it now, perhaps have the bells-and-whistles version as an upgrade as I'm not sure if variants can be unlocked separately and in other ways be more than "just" graphical

[jsolson]

While it would be useful, I'm a little hesitant because you can make the case that every manned craft had an unmanned test.

The LEM is battery powered. Do we know if the probe core would draw power while it's manned?

[sundhaug92]

@jsolson Fair point, though it does mean the LM gains the ability to be used in realistic impact-experiments (and cleaning up save-files). The simplest solution would be to say the probe-core doesn't draw extra power, and just is.

To do this, it seems to me the change would be to set minimumCrew to 0 for ModuleCommand, as well as adding the SAS upgrades. I'm not sure it's possible to have a "If this part is crew, EC-draw should be this, otherwise it should be this" without making a DLL, but I must admit my experience in making mods for KSP is severely lacking.

[jmrd98]

It looks like the part variant system may be able to do this, but I’ve not tried. You’d end up with something like a manned variant with a probe core that had no draw, but needs a pilot, or a seatless variant with a “working” probe core.

I’m entirely guessing from the variant example that google-fu rendered.

Edit, maybe not. It’s unclear what the outcome would be.

[jsolson]

The simplest solution would be to say the probe-core doesn't draw extra power, and just is

To do this, it seems to me the change would be to set minimumCrew to 0

No need for more variants, that solution would suffice. The LEM already has lunar and orbital variants.

Edit: Keeping saves free of dead LEMs around the Mun is a good enough reason to go ahead this in this case.

Edit2: I'd also say don't give it an SAS. It's not needed for the limited requirements.

[sundhaug92]

@jsolson You mean the CSM has lunar and orbital variants? I think the LM should have a SAS, but perhaps only the very basic stuff (maybe pro/retro hold, probably not anything fancier)

[jsolson]

No, the LEM has lunar and orbital variants. Orbital is a little over a ton lighter but doesn't have the main fuel tanks. It's got room for about 25 MonoProp. It's intended for stuff like the ATM attached to the LEM Ascent Module in the original Skylab wetlab plan. I erroneously thought the ATM/LEM would fly up with a CSM on a Saturn IB and created the lighter version because the Saturn was not capable otherwise. Turns out they would have used two launches for that. I left the variants in anyway.

[sundhaug92]

@jsolson Huh, just didn't find a reference to it.

Have begun on a branch, just not sure if it's possible to disable Crew Reports while it's unmanned

[sundhaug92]

Found ref now, it's using B9 partswitch

[sundhaug92]

After research, it seems these are the options:

• Upgrades: Enables support for a separate Apollo 5-style no-crew LM. Choice between no remote-control of the crewed LM or crew-reports without crew. No support for using an uncrewable LM after the upgrade.
• Variants: More or less just graphical changes, can't be unlocked.
• B9 fuel switcher: More or less "just" different tanks, can't be unlocked
• ModuleManager: Pros: Separate part based on the original, can be unlocked and have no experiment. Cons: Separate part.

It should be possible to have a separate assembly which essentially says "If there's crew in this module, it should have crew reports, otherwise not", but that requires more work. For now, my work just ignores the crew-report issue.