Shadowmage

[WIP][1.3] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [02-05-17]

6576 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

@Shadowmage Is that the TKS return capsule?

Does this mean Proton is in the works to come to SSTUL?

Yes, and no.

Yes, it is the TKS capsule (VA).  No, I am not specifically making Proton rocket parts, only the capsule.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so i was bored, so i made this

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:  The VA Capsule:

After much reading/research, it appears that my understanding of the setup/configuration for the VA was a bit off (and might still be).  As near as I can tell, what I had been labeling the 'Service Module', is actually the RCS and landing segment.

GruDml5.png

The blue colored parts would be the 'landing configuration'.  The white colored bit is the LAS which is jettisoned once on-orbit (or during ascent).  On the landing segment, the upper portion contains the de-orbit engines, attitude control, parachutes, and soft-landing motors.  So basically, the entire blue segment would be returning from orbit.  The capsule itself has no RCS, parachutes, or other thrusters, it is merely a heat-shielded crew capsule.  Only the capsule was re-usable; the rest of the 'service module' bit would be replaced for each flight (or at least refurbished with new SRBs for the retro and soft-landing motors).

 

This is a bit different than I had originally planned/envisioned, but shouldn't impact the overall development of the parts.  It does render the whole 'size of top node' discussion a bit pointless though, and mostly eliminates the utility of having a docking port on the top of the capsule.  I'm half tempted to combine the parts into a single-piece setup and entirely remove the docking port option.... but I also like the thought of having a generically usable 1.875m capsule.  I'll probably have to play around with the prototype parts a bit more to see where it all leads me.  Either way, nearly finished with the VA meshes / geometry (barring any changes needed from testing), and will be moving onto the meshes for one of the other capsules shortly (probably Mercury, as it is fairly simple and straightforward).

 

 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Gemini is the part of the NASA space program I liked the most.  A Pure science in preparation for Apollo missions that was added to speed up Apollo.

HOWEVER, there are many hurdles as several people have mentioned.

Since @Shadowmage mentioned he was concerned about the Geometry, since many people have mentioned that the docking port on Gemini is not passable (very true.)  Might I suggest an alternative?

 

I give you BIG-Gemini!   The Nose is no longer used for docking but instead has a LANDING GEAR!   The tail end diameter is STOCK 2.5m  (the front of the nose would be 0.625 but wouldn't matter for much.)   It uses a PARAGLIDER to land and @linuxgurugamer already has a modlette to support deploy-able lifting surfaces and someone else we know should have a good grasp on wheels/skids by this point :).   It is designed to, and supports, many OTHER parts already in SSTU. Parts like, I don't know... .STATION parts.   And it's two primary service modules (3.75m for Saturn launched and 3.125m for LDC-Titan Launched) would have the docking ports, Life-support consumable/cargo and Retro thrusters.   Also Early on it would have used the Apollo Mk2 CSM.   The whole point of Big-G was to support Space Stations starting in the mid 1970s.   More cargo and cheaper to build/maintain than Apollo Blk III/IV.   Via Part switching the CM can have a crew capacity from 14 down to 4 with a capability to increase stowed consumables for the station (Life support.)

If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologize.  But it is a way to get one of the three variants of Gemini in the game without worrying about the geometry

BTW stay away from Wikipedia on this one folks.  It has data makes it sound like BigG was a small program with one path... the neat thing about Big-G was that it was pretty modular and the only fixed points were that it was LOOSELY derived from Gemini.  Very few parts were the same however.   Rather it was a new space-craft with a structural similarity to an in production space craft at the time of proposal (Gemini-B)  The below link has some good RW documentation on it

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37347.80

Had NASA gone the route of many Space Stations like they thought they would in the  late 1960s.... Big-G would likely have been built since it would have been cheaper than any Space Shuttle program.   To be clear.  Big-G is not a space shuttle replacement... rather it is a cheaper alternative for  several of the rolls Space Shuttle was designed for.  Historically, as soon as the Follow on order for Saturn rockets failed to happen (in two consecutive years) there was no point to develop Big-G since no more Saturns meant no big Space Stations.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shadowmage I was just about to post about the VA... the SM for VA is FGB and the combination of-course is called TKS.   IF VA launced it would launch with FGB module.  This is what made the FGB architecture so robust that it is used as the basis for several previous/current and future proposed Russian modules on the ISS and beyond.

Just like Gemini-B, VA has a hatch in the heat shield.  However I am guessing that the Soviet/Russian space program didn't design it well, didn't like it or just preferred to stay with Soyuz (all are EASILY possible.) since VA was never landed maned..... that we know of.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space Kadet said:

so i was bored, so i made this

You are officially nuts :)    Welcome to the club!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question/feedback about the v0.6 MUS changes. I very much like the new single part with the toggle between split tank and common bulkhead, but the vertical scaling possibilities on the common bulkhead seem way off.

In the past, the height adjustment allowed for a very Centaur-looking upper stage, but the 0.6 changes have it capped at a pretty squat height. I notice it is the same height as the top tank in the split configuration, so I’m sure that plays into it a bit.

Is there any desire to bring back the taller common bulkhead upper stages? Easily one of my favorite parts of the entire mod.

Screenshots for comparison:

27yidRk.png

Fzxfxzj.png

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Re: Gemini geometry / docking ports:

Red colored bit would be the 'replica nosecone'.  Structural-only bit, no function.  Might even just be a 'mesh-switch' option for the capsule itself.

Br4aHcH.png

The stack of parts on the right is testing out the 'Big-G' setup.  Really unsure if I'll do that line of parts though -- its just too many special/single-use parts for my liking.


Tiny bit of work on Mercury geometry, base layout of the SM/engine block:

LLR6nZK.png

 

6 hours ago, acolangelo said:

Question/feedback about the v0.6 MUS changes. I very much like the new single part with the toggle between split tank and common bulkhead, but the vertical scaling possibilities on the common bulkhead seem way off.

In the past, the height adjustment allowed for a very Centaur-looking upper stage, but the 0.6 changes have it capped at a pretty squat height. I notice it is the same height as the top tank in the split configuration, so I’m sure that plays into it a bit.

Is there any desire to bring back the taller common bulkhead upper stages? Easily one of my favorite parts of the entire mod.

Screenshots for comparison:

 

 

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/479

Edit: If ^^ wasn't a big enough hint -- I'll be adding a longer main tank option to the MUS for the next release.  You can see comparison screenshots in the link above.

Edited by Shadowmage
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Re: Gemini geometry / docking ports:

Red colored bit would be the 'replica nosecone'.  Structural-only bit, no function.  Might even just be a 'mesh-switch' option for the capsule itself.

Br4aHcH.png

The stack of parts on the right is testing out the 'Big-G' setup.  Really unsure if I'll do that line of parts though -- its just too many special/single-use parts for my liking.

Thanks for at-least considering the Idea of Big-G.   Many mods have a bare-bones variant (FASA even has a 2.5-3.75m SM for it) but none have anywhere near the complete program as proposed in 1968 or finalized and canceled/ignored in 1971.

I knew the SM would be an issue but I figured it would solve your geometry issue since the top would be 0.625 and the Bottom would be 2.5m.  I think most mod developers stay away from this beast for exactly two reasons...   1) Multiple configurations of SMs.  2) Docking port BEHIND the capsule... not in front of it.  

In your diagram above the Docking port would RETRACTED into the bottom of the bottom cone... Then extend out about a meter and a half and connect with a Station.    Incidentally, in my notes, I have several references to the 2.5mx3.75m conical SM being the least preferred version of the SM (Unsure if NASA or McD-D was calling it "least preferred")  It appears a 2.5m (Kerbal Scale) Cylindrical SM would be used for both Apollo and via an Adapter... Titan IIIM (Ala Titan IVa)   In Kerbal scale Titan should be ~2M (1.95m to be exact.) same is true of the UA-120x SRM family (120" = 3.048m = 1.95m in Kerbal Scale)  The UA-156x family of 156" then becomes almost exactly 2.5m (2.53m to be exact.)

*Considers looking into learning Blender, how to do layers in  PaintShopPro and how to use Unity to make a Big-G mod.... 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TRAILS mod by @Beale has a nice Gemini and Big Gemini. That's the capsule I already use, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tater said:

The TRAILS mod by @Beale has a nice Gemini and Big Gemini. That's the capsule I already use, actually.

Like @Jimbodiah I use the version in BlueDog... Same model, newly updated textures.   But as I stated above, when it comes to the Big-G model, it is a VERY bare-bones model (No paraglider or Landing gear to START with :) ) and in the end, it is of limited use.   I have cobbled together a few SMs for it but none have worked "JUST RIGHT...."  and lets not talk about docking going backwards AT ALL :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Re: Gemini geometry / docking ports:

Red colored bit would be the 'replica nosecone'.  Structural-only bit, no function.  Might even just be a 'mesh-switch' option for the capsule itself.

Br4aHcH.png

The stack of parts on the right is testing out the 'Big-G' setup.  Really unsure if I'll do that line of parts though -- its just too many special/single-use parts for my liking.


Tiny bit of work on Mercury geometry, base layout of the SM/engine block:

LLR6nZK.png

 

 

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/479

Edit: If ^^ wasn't a big enough hint -- I'll be adding a longer main tank option to the MUS for the next release.  You can see comparison screenshots in the link above.

The replica nose cone could hold more ls supplies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the nosecone will not be a seperate part but just a model, like the cap on the apollo that comes off when the chutes open. So no resources.

TAC-LS overhaul incoming on the next release by the way :wink:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi fellow kerbonauts. i have a problem. some parts didnt show up ingame. they are totaly invissible. even in the shortcuts there is just an empty field. can somebody help me? pls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds like an install problem.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm maybe i install everything new and start a new game

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Saberdo said:

hmm maybe i install everything new and start a new game

 

If you could provide screenshots of your gamedata folder, and an upload of your KSP.log, we might be able to give more detailed instructions on what went wrong/how to fix it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shadowmage said:

If you could provide screenshots of your gamedata folder, and an upload of your KSP.log, we might be able to give more detailed instructions on what went wrong/how to fix it....

i installed everything new. i will response to that if the problem still exist. ps. my english is not very good so i apologize for that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 8:12 PM, Jimbodiah said:

You are officially nuts :)    Welcome to the club!

im not crazy, my mother had me tested!

And would a crazy person launch 30 orion modules into retrograde orbit at the same time?! I think not :P
 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to blow all our career funds in one launch...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The new ATV, version 2.0

Spoiler

sstu_atv_02.jpg

BDB Apollo parachute top, docking port and rcs; SSTU for all the rest.

 

And here a little different version.
 

Spoiler

sstu_atv_03.jpg

sstu_atv_04.jpg

sstu_atv_05.jpg

 

Edited by Jimbodiah
fabulous forum software
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

The new ATV, version 2.0

  Reveal hidden contents

sstu_atv_02.jpg

BDB Apollo parachute top, docking port and rcs; SSTU for all the rest.

 

And here a little different version.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

sstu_atv_03.jpg

sstu_atv_04.jpg

sstu_atv_05.jpg

 

I need this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

If you could provide screenshots of your gamedata folder, and an upload of your KSP.log, we might be able to give more detailed instructions on what went wrong/how to fix it....

so everything works fine now. great mod. i like the details. thanks for your patience...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Space Kadet said:

I need this...

I can publish the craft file if you like. It requires SSTU, BDB and Procedural Parts.

Edited by Jimbodiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mine is all SSTU I think, I'll have to update it for the latest release:

 

UYH7BTm.png

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now