YANFRET

[1.6.1] Chaka Monkey 161

Recommended Posts

Looks like something that need a nice big Bobcat wide screen RPM in it :) what Internal you using on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MPLM sized hab normally uses oribtal orb internals, but I'm open to suggestions!

Improved texture detail:

M8FI1M.jpg

v2KA3l.jpg

Sgzv8c.jpg

Edited by YANFRET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the texture. My only suggestion is a nice way to ditch that adapter piece. But that can just be done with your little sepetrons. Because If it were me id want a way to get that adapter out of the way for docking then possibly deorbit. So if anything maybe put a probe core into it with a tiny bit of SAS torque with some electricity. This way you can then fire any sepetrons without the need of other parts.

Edited by Motokid600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh did I happen to mention the procedural version?

iOyA21.jpg

6N0NXt.jpg

zjBeoL.jpg

I'm not sure if that's going a little too far but it does fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that would be the Apollo version of the SLS then?

aha pretty much!

It's also quite similar to the Jupiter direct proposals.

I'm struggling with the structural logic of having such a tall and complex payload under the Orion service module. A simple habitat can is one thing, but when we make it as complicated as Apollo, I think that an angled fairing and a larger upper stage gives us a more reasonable situation.

Regardless, here's the finalized texture and sizing config for the procedural version:

AbS4hJ.jpg

qM9vk5.jpg

Rm5da4.jpg

Edited by YANFRET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now that you mentioned it... :D

DIRECT_Jupiter-120_Exploded.jpg

could work neatly, the problem would be the ICPS though... what if, in the case of these variants with a payload area, you made them just with the EUS and just the core, Jupiter-like?

BTW... remember that PM? just tossing out the idea, especially with the image above :P

Edited by JoseEduardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now that you mentioned it... :D

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/DIRECT_Jupiter-120_Exploded.jpg

could work neatly, the problem would be the ICPS though... what if, in the case of these variants with a payload area, you made them just with the EUS and just the core, Jupiter-like?

BTW... remember that PM? just tossing out the idea, especially with the image above :P

Is that... an asymmetrical engine configuration? Will someone please explain to me how that works??

I know the Atlas V does that all the time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that... an asymmetrical engine configuration? Will someone please explain to me how that works??

I know the Atlas V does that all the time...

The Atlas uses such configurations simply because one SRB is cheaper and easier to manage then two smaller ones. And in real life gimbal ranges far surpass KSP so any asymmetric thrust can be easily countered. Now im not sure, but the Castor SRB's may also gimbal too. However that asymmetric SLS configuration baffles me. The only thing i can think of as to why that woiuld be nessesary is because you can have two engines on a static mount and just one to gimbal? Other then that why not just move the one engine into the middle? Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, it would be commonality, this is the heavier (moon and mars) version

jupiter246_exploded.jpg

this way you have to design just one cluster, and use how many engines it needs

DIRECT 1.0 and 2.0 also had this kind of thing, where the simple version had 2x RS-68 and the one with an upper stage had 3x, all using the same cluster and consequently the very same core

DIRECT_Jupiter-232_Exploded.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yanfret, Here is one for you. An Orion that has enough fuel in the upper stage to burn to the moon, make a course adjustment. The 2 stage lander and capsule are so light you can circularize around the moon with just the service module. As well as burn back to Kerbin plotting a deceleration burn into the atmosphere running out of fuel just in time to re enter :)

screenshot5_zpsefam95tg.png~original

screenshot8_zpsmqj6irjs.png~original

screenshot10_zpss4yxnetd.png~original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
genuine question, not trying to be a douche or anything, but, are you new to mods? have you seen their size compared to stock?

the pod alone is the size of the large tanks (3.75m diameter), this pack isn't intended for stock, it is at 75% scale and most mods you find that recreate stuff are at 64% scale, not to mention that most mods, even stock-alike ones, aren't balanced for stock gaming

I'm not actually. I have 2 installs, 1 with stock-ish balance and another with RSS and RO. And this mods balance is quite far from both of them. It's parts are considerably heavier than realism overhaul parts. FASA comes closest in terms of weight but its parts are still lighter and more consistent: while heat shielded components are heavy, aerodynamic elements, even big ones, don't weight several tonnes there.

What mod author says - that parts are intentionally heavier than their real life counterparts to compensate for stock Kerbal system being easier kinda makes sense i guess. But is also somewhat strange: surely someone who wants to play with realism, see those huge rockets etc will play with RSS? And if they want to stay on Kerbin theres a 10x scale version of vanilla solar system.

Right now mod requires you to want realistic challenge when building launch vehicles, but at the same time keeps you in slapsticky and miniature stock solar system. It's just a very unorthodox choice for balance. It also means that this one doesn't play nice with other mods.

Some very nice parts here, but the balance is just weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could work neatly, the problem would be the ICPS though... what if, in the case of these variants with a payload area, you made them just with the EUS and just the core, Jupiter-like?

I agree that a secondary payload, in addition to the Orion, looks best and looks more structurally sound with the EUS. I also feel that an SLS/MLS + EUS, with an Orion + a munar Altair as payload would be a very useful craft. Easy, 1 rocket access to the Mun or Minmus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried using Chaka with FAR? I'm experiencing an issue where when I launch the EMLV III Station Core into Orbit, as soon as I jettison the fairings, the common berthing mechanism in between the 2 habs superheats rapidly and explodes. That particular part is pretty far away from the engine and even the parts around it aren't hot until the moment I jettison the fairings. I am aware that there is an overheating bug on small parts and that FAR tends to exacerbate the problem, but from reading FAR's latest patch notes, that problem should have been fixed. This does not happen with FAR uninstalled.

I also tried installing Real Heat, hoping that might solve the problem but the same thing happens. However, as an experiment, I launched the station core into orbit and left the fairings on. I then hit F11 to look at my heat using HotSpot and then hit time warp and orbited around Kerbin about 6 times until my engine cooled off. I then jettisoned the fairings and to my surprise, there was no explosion. I have not experienced any problems with any of the other Chaka vehicles with FAR, just the station core. I checked the debug logs and it shows that the berthing mechanism exploded due to overheating. I was curious if anyone else experienced this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that a secondary payload, in addition to the Orion, looks best and looks more structurally sound with the EUS. I also feel that an SLS/MLS + EUS, with an Orion + a munar Altair as payload would be a very useful craft. Easy, 1 rocket access to the Mun or Minmus

My thoughts exactly

Has anyone tried using Chaka with FAR? I'm experiencing an issue where when I launch the EMLV III Station Core into Orbit, as soon as I jettison the fairings, the common berthing mechanism in between the 2 habs superheats rapidly and explodes. That particular part is pretty far away from the engine and even the parts around it aren't hot until the moment I jettison the fairings. I am aware that there is an overheating bug on small parts and that FAR tends to exacerbate the problem, but from reading FAR's latest patch notes, that problem should have been fixed. This does not happen with FAR uninstalled.

I also tried installing Real Heat, hoping that might solve the problem but the same thing happens. However, as an experiment, I launched the station core into orbit and left the fairings on. I then hit F11 to look at my heat using HotSpot and then hit time warp and orbited around Kerbin about 6 times until my engine cooled off. I then jettisoned the fairings and to my surprise, there was no explosion. I have not experienced any problems with any of the other Chaka vehicles with FAR, just the station core. I checked the debug logs and it shows that the berthing mechanism exploded due to overheating. I was curious if anyone else experienced this.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. We do have a variety of MM scripts that are supposed to make FAR work with Chaka, however they have not been updated for a few versions. Your heating issue is an example.

We need to investigate how FAR sees the fairings, update the fairing cfgs and perhaps add another MM script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get ahead of myself but I think I MAY have found something...I read that parts with smaller mass tend to overheat faster...I just took a look at the .cfg files for the two berthing mechanisms in the IACBM_1.25m folder. I'm not sure if the mass on the part in question has a typo or it was intentional but here is what I discovered...

Take a look at the mass for these two parts marked in red... Could this be the reason?

Filename: part - Copy.cfg

PART

{

name = XIACBM1ee25m

module = Part

author = sumghai

mesh = model.mu

MODEL

{

model = CMES/Structural/IACBM_1.25m/model

scale = 1.8, 1.2, 1.8

}

scale = 1

rescaleFactor = 1

node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.19, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 3

TechRequired = basicRocketry

entryCost = 600

cost = 230

category = Utility

subcategory = 0

title = CHAKA / Common Structural Reinforced Berthing Mechanism

manufacturer = Sum Dum Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (under licence from FusTek Aerospace)

description = RADIAL ATTACH

attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0

mass = 5

dragModelType = default

maximum_drag = 0.25

minimum_drag = 0.25

angularDrag = 0.5

crashTolerance = 10

maxTemp = 3400

breakingForce = 60200

breakingTorque = 60200

Filename: part.cfg

PART

{

name = XIACBM1.25m

module = Part

author = sumghai

mesh = model.mu

MODEL

{

model = CMES/Structural/IACBM_1.25m/model

scale = 1.8, 1.2, 1.8

}

scale = 1

rescaleFactor = 1

node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.19, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 3

TechRequired = basicRocketry

entryCost = 600

cost = 230

category = Utility

subcategory = 0

title = CHAKA / Common Berthing Mechanism

manufacturer = Sum Dum Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (under licence from FusTek Aerospace)

description = An innovative new docking/berthing solution, the Improved Androgynous Common Berthing Mechanism (IACBM) features integrated LED illumination units, in-flight toggle between Active/Passive guide fin configurations and a special "Hatch Mode" to allow crew to EVA from Karmony modules whose hatches would otherwise be blocked by competitors' docking ports. This 1.25 m diameter variant is designed for small to medium sized spacecraft.

attachRules = 1,0,1,0,1

mass = 0.05

dragModelType = default

maximum_drag = 0.25

minimum_drag = 0.25

angularDrag = 0.5

crashTolerance = 10

maxTemp = 3400

breakingForce = 60200

breakingTorque = 60200

Edited by bigshow281
Accidentally pasted content from cfg files twice, fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can anyone tell me what exactly this adds? is it just model reworks?
No, it adds so many parts that you can play without any stock ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can anyone tell me what exactly this adds? is it just model reworks?

It is indeed model reworks. Parts from the mods listed on the OP are rescaled, retextured and built into well put-together craft files to simulate current and future missions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.