[WIP/Planning] SDHI AeroFairings - incrementally tweakable clamshell payload shrouds

[Bomoo]

You know, I feel like 140% is a bit too much. I'm afraid it'll look ugly and just generally be wasteful of space. I mean how much extra clearance on the sides do you ever typically need? You're adding, what, RCS blocks, a folded solar array, and at most maybe some foldable booms or something if you're using IR. If it's simply a tanker ATV with a couple of RCS block on the side, 100% isn't enough while 140% is way overkill. I think your original idea for ~125% was right on the money.

Edit: as much as I'm tempted to request an intermediate set of fairings, that's not terribly realistic given the extra workload. Would you instead consider maybe making the 100% diameter fairings into something like 110%? Just enough to fit some very basic low-profile doodads like RCS blocks on the side.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Bomoo

[sharpspoonful]

You know, I feel like 140% is a bit too much. I'm afraid it'll look ugly and just generally be wasteful of space. I mean how much extra clearance on the sides do you ever typically need? You're adding, what, RCS blocks, a folded solar array, and at most maybe some foldable booms or something if you're using IR. If it's simply a tanker ATV with a couple of RCS block on the side, 100% isn't enough while 140% is way overkill. I think your original idea for ~125% was right on the money.

Edit: as much as I'm tempted to request an intermediate set of fairings, that's not terribly realistic given the extra workload. Would you instead consider maybe making the 100% diameter fairings into something like 110%? Just enough to fit some very basic low-profile doodads like RCS blocks on the side.

There are some designs I've made in the past that would require 140% fairing sizes; If a super-light design falls in between, say 1.25m and 2.5m, would you want to accept the incrementally higher cost of a overpowered lifter?

[Bomoo]

There are some designs I've made in the past that would require 140% fairing sizes; If a super-light design falls in between, say 1.25m and 2.5m, would you want to accept the incrementally higher cost of a overpowered lifter?

Okay, I accept that 140% for the wide fairings can be useful. Sometimes you gotta launch something fat, sure. I did edit my post with an amended suggestion, however, which was to make the straight fairings slightly flared so same-diameter payloads with small surface gadgets can still fit without leaving a ton of extra space.

Example: a tanker like this doesn't need anything near 140% clearance, but a straight inline fairing won't be wide enough.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=440489524

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=440489571

Another example, a 1.25m rocket launching a small one-kerbal vehicle to the Mun. Didn't even attach RCS blocks to it, but you can see that it would've been way too wide with a 140%, and just not wide enough with the straight inline option.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=435781174

In general I'd argue that KSP's dV requirements are such that you're typically launching payloads on rockets of the same diameter. Using a 2.5m lifter for a 1.25m payload is ridiculous overkill, and similarly for a 3.75m lifter/2.5m payload situation. This goes double (if not more) if you're launching something like space station modules or anything lighter - you're going to be forced to use the boat tail fairings every time.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Bomoo

[sumghai]

The 140% diameter of the expanded fairings was to allow a crew compartment of the base diameter to have room for lander legs or bulky accessories (e.g. a 2.5m boattail fairing would accommodate a FusTek station module with landing legs arranged in a horizontal landing configuration, or a 2.5m rover fuselage with ore drills).

As for the 100% diameter inline fairings, they are intended to be cheaper, unlocked earlier in the Tech Tree, and used to accommodate payloads of one fuselage system down with additional surface-attached parts (e.g. a 1.25m inline fairing would accommodate a bulky payload based on a 0.625m fuselage, while a 2.5m inline fairing would similarly do the same for a 1.25m payload) - but yes, eventually, most people will end up using the expanded fairings more often. Increasing the inline fairing diameter to 110% sort of defeats the purpose of them being inline.

[Bomoo]

As for the 100% diameter inline fairings, they are intended to be cheaper, unlocked earlier in the Tech Tree, and used to accommodate payloads of one fuselage system down with additional surface-attached parts (e.g. a 1.25m inline fairing would accommodate a bulky payload based on a 0.625m fuselage, while a 2.5m inline fairing would similarly do the same for a 1.25m payload) - but yes, eventually, most people will end up using the expanded fairings more often. Increasing the inline fairing diameter to 110% sort of defeats the purpose of them being inline.

To some extent, yes, but realistically how often do you launch 1.25m payloads with a 2.5m rocket? Maybe in RSS or x3.2 or something, but in stock? Maybe in the tiny window after you unlock x16 tanks and the Poodle but before you unlock x32 tanks and the Skipper, and even then I would argue it's debatable and you'd be better off using your reliable 1.25m lifter than bodging some monstrosity like this.

My argument is that it gives the non-boattail fairing more universal utility and longevity at ~110% than it would have as merely a speed bump on the way to the useful fairings later in the tech tree. Allow me to illustrate with my heaviest lifter, if I may.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=379252389

Inline 3.75m fairing selected mostly for looks. The problem is there is nothing in the game massive enough to fit inside that fairing and require so much dV to get into orbit. Even packed to the gills with LVNs and full 2.5m LFO tanks, the lifter still has excessive dV for what it's carrying up. Now, if that fairing were 3.9m, for example, it would be usable for lifting 3.75m stacks and still be reasonably sleek. A 3.75x1.4 fairing would still be useful and desirable if you wanted to lift something outsized like a big rover or lander or something. Hopefully you see where I'm coming from with this.

[johnsonwax]

Yeah, there's something to be said for that argument. IRL, you have a fairing standard and you often construct your payload to fit that standard. No such thing exists in KSP. There are no 1.1m or 2.2m parts to tuck into a 1.25 or 2.5m inline fairing. Any inline fairing is effectively a 200% (or something just shy of that) fairing with a warehouse of unused space inside. It's a bit annoying, TBH.

That's not to say that there isn't a place for inline fairings, but they tend to already exist in game - engine shrouds, and now the service compartments. I too have having a bit of trouble identifying when I'd use a 100% inline fairing, and it's pretty rare. 105%-110% I agree would have a lot more utility, with the 140% boattail for the expected things.

[sharpspoonful]

That's not to say that there isn't a place for inline fairings, but they tend to already exist in game - engine shrouds, and now the service compartments. I too have having a bit of trouble identifying when I'd use a 100% inline fairing, and it's pretty rare. 105%-110% I agree would have a lot more utility, with the 140% boattail for the expected things.

Well, this kind of boils down to playstyle. I had a tendency to unilaterally use KW fairings, and built payloads based on the fairing sizes, and unless a part absolutely had to jut out, I tried to stick to inline fairings. Now not all players want to do this, or required larger boat tail fairings for their launches. It allows for us as players to have options. If you want to build replica launchers, go nuts. If you need to build a way oversized payload, use a larger launcher or the boat tailed fairings and have fun.

[Bomoo]

Well, this kind of boils down to playstyle. I had a tendency to unilaterally use KW fairings, and built payloads based on the fairing sizes, and unless a part absolutely had to jut out, I tried to stick to inline fairings. Now not all players want to do this, or required larger boat tail fairings for their launches. It allows for us as players to have options. If you want to build replica launchers, go nuts. If you need to build a way oversized payload, use a larger launcher or the boat tailed fairings and have fun.

While that's not impossible, I've found it isn't very practical with regard to part counts. Could I make an orange tank with a ton of 1.25m tanks freakishly clipped halfway inside it to fill up all that empty space in a 3.75m inline fairing? I could, but it'd slow whatever craft I attached it to to a crawl. So unless I want to use Tweakscale (which introduces its own set of problems with regard to docking ports and adapters), nothing I put inside that 3.75m inline fairing is ever going to require the dV that a 3.75m lifter can bring out. The point I'm trying to make is that while inline fairings are all well and fine on paper, they are not useful within the KSP environment because of the game's quirks and limitations.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=380619892

But in the end I fully recognize it's sumghai's mod, and he can obviously do whatever he likes with it; tryin' to offer a different perspective on straight inline fairings is all.

[B787_300]

uuuuummmm being a bit nitpicky here Sumghai, but ogive fairings normally come to a point

Ignore the better worse thing that is for non-supersonic drag...

Granted you cant come to an infinite point so some are capped, but the nose radius should be AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE

PS

really for a bullet, but what is a rocket other than a propelled bullet?

[sumghai]

I based my "ogive" design on what I observed on the Faclon 9 payload fairings rather than actual nose cone design equations, for expediency.

I'll look into reducing the cap radius, but no promises.

[problemecium]

Hmmm... this interests me, but:

I'd rather have interstages available since, well, KSP rockets often don't match real life stuff at all, plus a lot of us are history buffs and want interstages for things like Saturn V replicas.

Same goes for three- and four-point fairings, although I guess more isn't really necessary.

Fairings being persistent debris should be optional. I rather like how the stock fairings go away on their own.

A way needs to exist to strut payloads to the fairings; perhaps the fairing can move out of the way as does stock, except not while a strut's second end is being placed.

[sumghai]

Hmmm... this interests me, but:

I'd rather have interstages available since, well, KSP rockets often don't match real life stuff at all, plus a lot of us are history buffs and want interstages for things like Saturn V replicas.

It's outside my current focus right now, and besides, Saturn V replicas are IMO in the minority compared to payload lifter rockets.

Same goes for three- and four-point fairings, although I guess more isn't really necessary.

My original position still stands - two-way fairings only.

Fairings being persistent debris should be optional. I rather like how the stock fairings go away on their own.

I want people to take responsibility for getting rid of their own orbital debris.

A way needs to exist to strut payloads to the fairings; perhaps the fairing can move out of the way as does stock, except not while a strut's second end is being placed.

If your payload is wobbling within your fairing, then it is most likely too tall.

Apologies for the curt responses, but SDHI AeroFairings was envisioned to fit specific niches rather than being a comprehensive "do anything" fairing system.

[VenomousRequiem]

So I'm confused, are they going to work the same way as the old KW Rocketry fairings? Or more like Procedural Fairings?

[sp1989]

It's outside my current focus right now, and besides, Saturn V replicas are IMO in the minority compared to payload lifter rockets.

My original position still stands - two-way fairings only.

I want people to take responsibility for getting rid of their own orbital debris.

If your payload is wobbling within your fairing, then it is most likely too tall.

Apologies for the curt responses, but SDHI AeroFairings was envisioned to fit specific niches rather than being a comprehensive "do anything" fairing system.

This is all I saw when I read that.

[Shad0wCatcher]

Precisely! It's an honor working with you Mr. Wolf

[sumghai]

So I'm confused, are they going to work the same way as the old KW Rocketry fairings? Or more like Procedural Fairings?

It's a hybrid - it'll mainly work like the procedural fairings from stock and e-dog's add-on, but the limited configurations will be similar to how KW fairings are built up.

My first progress report on the matter has already explained this clearly.

This is all I saw when I read that.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/elitistux-121014110445-phpapp01/95/whats-wrong-with-elitist-ux-4-728.jpg?cb=1350213026

Precisely! It's an honor working with you Mr. Wolf

Heh.

I really should sit down one day to watch Pulp Fiction

[salsathegeek]

Really looking forward to seeing this released and getting the Fustek parts again. I agree that using B9's procedural wings texturing would probably be the best bet to avoid any wonkiness. I have an idea for mod that I'd need an aero shell for, but I think I'll just use this.

Good luck and looking forward to more updates.

[CapCornsnack]

Well I found a mod that may be of use for the type of fairing you are trying to make:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124031-1-0-2-Stock-Clamshell-Fairings-%28June-1%29

This mod by xEvilReeperx allows the option to change stock fairngs to the Clamshell type.

[Mecripp]

Well I found a mod that may be of use for the type of fairing you are trying to make:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124031-1-0-2-Stock-Clamshell-Fairings-%28June-1%29

This mod by xEvilReeperx allows the option to change stock fairngs to the Clamshell type.

What does that mod have that ProceduralFairings don't do ?

[CapCornsnack]

What does that mod have that ProceduralFairings don't do ?

Well for one it is exactly what stock fairings are, but it allows the confetti/potato chip stock farings to become two part clamshells.

[Mecripp]

Well for one it is exactly what stock fairings are, but it allows the confetti/potato chip stock farings to become two part clamshells.

But ProceduralFairings is 2 parts IMO ProceduralFairings is better looking the stock Fairings has to the shape has well and don't get me wrong not saying anything bad about the plugin just not seeing what it added that we didn't already have.

EDIT- You can also set ProceduralFairings to be a set size and add it to any part so you would only have 2 more pieces in the menu.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Mecripp2

[Pulsar]

This fairing is also has limit on the size. Somewhat like KW as well.

Which I like it, for payload design challenge and less absurd fairing shape.

[sumghai]

Well I found a mod that may be of use for the type of fairing you are trying to make:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124031-1-0-2-Stock-Clamshell-Fairings-%28June-1%29

This mod by xEvilReeperx allows the option to change stock fairngs to the Clamshell type.

Unfortunately, that's not really applicable to what I'm trying to do here.

SDHI AeroFairings is more than just clamshell fairings - it is about forcing users to build sensible payloads by limiting the tweakability of making fairing sizes and shapes. If you had read my OP, you'll have noted that I don't like the fact that the stock or e-dog's procedural fairings are fully tweakable, allowing people to make really wacky-shaped or oversized payloads with them, which goes against the mass production and standardized tooling ethos of real-life aerospace manufacturing.

[Bomoo]

Unfortunately, that's not really applicable to what I'm trying to do here.

SDHI AeroFairings is more than just clamshell fairings - it is about forcing users to build sensible payloads by limiting the tweakability of making fairing sizes and shapes. If you had read my OP, you'll have noted that I don't like the fact that the stock or e-dog's procedural fairings are fully tweakable, allowing people to make really wacky-shaped or oversized payloads with them, which goes against the mass production and standardized tooling ethos of real-life aerospace manufacturing.

Thing is that kerbals don't have quite the array of capabilities when it comes to cobbling modules together in orbit with any kind of precision. Not nearly on the scale of something like the ISS, or even just assembling craft in orbit. KIS/KAS are a huge step in that direction, but it's torture trying to assemble something like this skycrane in orbit rather than simply launching it up ready-made. Or this heavy lander. Or this tug. Or this rover, sweet Jebus. You're essentially limited to relatively simple craft of ~3.75m total width. Or is it radius? You know what I mean.

Ironically, it would be easier to launch wider payloads in something like RSS, I think, because the dV requirements are so much higher, and you're always launching payloads of a size one step lower than your lifter. So, if you were to try and send that heavy lander up, you'd be using the KWR 5m parts and fairings, and actually using their dV. If you were to launch the same heavy lander using the 5m parts in stock, you would be wasting just sickening amounts of dV on the attempt.

[Railgunner2160]

Unfortunately, that's not really applicable to what I'm trying to do here.

SDHI AeroFairings is more than just clamshell fairings - it is about forcing users to build sensible payloads by limiting the tweakability of making fairing sizes and shapes. If you had read my OP, you'll have noted that I don't like the fact that the stock or e-dog's procedural fairings are fully tweakable, allowing people to make really wacky-shaped or oversized payloads with them, which goes against the mass production and standardized tooling ethos of real-life aerospace manufacturing.

Hmm, sounds like how KW Rocketry new procedural fairings works with that clamshell mod. Those don't let you build any wider than the fairing bases width, and with the clamshell mod they are quite believably shaped....