[WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

[Gunslinger1]

Anything out of ordinary in the log file? E.G. Exceptions or errors?

The only exceptions I was running into was with Distant Object Enhancement. But this lastest release fixed the problem for me. Must have been having a problem with a plugin or something.

[falken]

You know, if you make an ISS truss, you're pretty much required to make some solar arrays for it, right?

Loving the work!

[davidy12]

The Korion's Panels still aren't picking up EC. However I've gotta solution. RTG and Offset rules!!!!

[Shadowmage]

You know, if you make an ISS truss, you're pretty much required to make some solar arrays for it, right?

Loving the work!

I had tried working out the geometry for an ISS style hexagonal truss (6-sided), however it became an unmanageable mess when I tried to do a 6-way hub with it. Was just not going to work out properly. There was no way to -cleanly- merge the different directional trusses, and no matter what the whole thing would be very directionally dependent (e.g. trusses would need to be rotated a certain orientation to line up properly).

Instead, I have settled for Near-Future Octo-Girder style trusses (currently unimaginatively titled 'Octo-Truss'). I do not think these will be available as discrete parts/individual truss sections (you should use the NF ones instead), but will come 'pre-welded' with other features -- such as docking ports, solar panel arrays, or storage sections.

So, yes, there -will- be some station trusses with built in solar arrays.

Currently planned station parts are:

Multi-Docking Port - multiple configurations with different sized docking ports, 5 docking ports, 1 standard attach node

Solar Truss - basic truss with large deployable solar panels, 4 solar panels

Solar Docking Truss - Combination of Multi-Docking Port and Solar Truss, with special layout of docking ports to accomodate the layout of the panels, 3 docking ports, 3 standard attach nodes, 4 solar panels

Storage Torus - large non-rotating rigid torus, includes docking ports (x4), optional solar arrays (x4), resource-switch capability. My also include lights.

Antenna Truss Cap - station end-cap containing an antenna array (multiple dish antennas) and several solar arrays. Will also include lights.

For references, many of these parts will resemble some of the welded parts I had created for this monstrosity:

-Large Storage Torus w/docking ports can be seen... its the big torus thing

-Antenna Truss Cap - the parts attached to the torus with 3x solar panels on them; might be making them a bit different, but the concept is the same.

The Korion's Panels still aren't picking up EC. However I've gotta solution. RTG and Offset rules!!!!

This is a problem that apparently -just you- are experiencing. I do not experience this problem in my personal game (played a bit over the weekend, I would have noticed if it was not working), nor have I heard of any other reports.

Did you ever go through the steps to track down what mod/etc was interfering? Did you try and verify the problem persists a clean install?

Edit: Wanted to add that I really do want to resolve the issue you are experiencing, but without enough information to duplicate the problem on a clean in stall or a minimal-mod setup I have nowhere to begin the investigation.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Shadowmage

[Shadowmage]

Spent a bit of time working on finishing of Ship Core - Series B (rather, spent most of this time a couple weeks ago, and just getting back to it now)...

Working on creating the SC-B-CORE; what would be the equivalent of the SLS core stage. The only real problem I'm running into is the size of the thing at proper rescaled dimensions. It is tall. Really tall. Barely-fits-in-the-VAB tall.

So... I guess I have a few questions regarding what people would expect/want from a kerbal-sized core launcher stage (and what size/how tall it should be!).

1.) Payload capacity of the core system (SC-B-CORE and SC-B-SRBs only).

SLS Block 1 has a 70 tons-to-LEO capacity. Scaled down to kerbal dimensions is only 18.35008 tons (70*0.64^3), which seems really tiny. Should I aim for a comparable payload to LKO (e.g. 70 tons), and let the difference in to-orbit-delta-v offset the difference in scale?

2.) Weight/performance of the core stage and boosters

Currently I am using some bashed-together liquid-hydrogen stats for the ICPS, HUS, and preliminary numbers for the CORE (volume, density, mass, engine ISPs). This means that they are comparatively light, and only contain a fraction of the fuel they would if stock fuel densities were used.

Should I go for standard stock balance using stock engine ISPs and fuel densities? Should I go full-out and actually use the LqdHydrogen resource as defined by USI/NF?

What should the weight be of the core+boosters only?

3.) Size of the core stage

Currently at ~34m (~64% scaled from real article) (not including engines), it is -very- hard to fit the core stage in the standard VAB. You can -just barely- manage to attach the ICPS and CSM to the top before running into camera/positioning problems.

Obviously it will be staying at ~5m diameter. However the height is open to adjustment if needed. Height does influence internal volume, which determines fuel capacity (and thus lifting capacity). So, I suppose the first thing that is needed to be known is 'how much to lift?'.

Preview of current geometry, for reference:

Geometry -not- finalized; not sure how tall to make the thing. SRBs are ~2.5m diameter. You can (kind of) see these parts in the screenshot I posted of the BPC/LAS engine effects.

.... And of the RS-25 engine that will be used (geometry and texture mostly finished; might have some small texture touchups).

[falken]

Shadowmage, that looks good. Are you going to do a seperate RS-25 as well?

Also, I'm looking forward to the station parts, in particular the hub parts with docking ports pre-attached. My station design (look up Space Station Freedom) uses 6 hubs. When you consider that each hub has 6 docking ports... that is alot of parts.

The truss sounds great too. I take it you'll be able to make a truss that resembles the function of the ISS truss with only a few parts?

Will the solar arrays rotate along the axis of the truss like ISS does?

[davidy12]

So this is similar to SLS block 2? Are you going to make one eventually?

[Shadowmage]

Shadowmage, that looks good. Are you going to do a seperate RS-25 as well?

Also, I'm looking forward to the station parts, in particular the hub parts with docking ports pre-attached. My station design (look up Space Station Freedom) uses 6 hubs. When you consider that each hub has 6 docking ports... that is alot of parts.

The truss sounds great too. I take it you'll be able to make a truss that resembles the function of the ISS truss with only a few parts?

Will the solar arrays rotate along the axis of the truss like ISS does?

Currently the engine is a separate part, as shown in the second render -- I have made it a separate part to enable 4 or 5 engine variants of the SLS/SC-B core. So, in that regard, yes, it is a separate part, usable on any craft. It is missing the upper turbopump geometry and plumbing, but I did not model any of it as it was not needed for its intended purpose (and, would have increased the tri-count substantially... it is already high-poly enough). I will be balancing the engine as its own part (e.g. thrust, heat, weight); about the only thing that would be a bit off for use on other craft would be the overall height of the engine

Have the geometry work mostly figured out for most of the station parts, at least the initial few that I have planned. Might have some that are usable by this weekends' release, though no guarantees (and they likely won't have any real texturing yet). Taking it slow on the station parts while I work on finishing up the rest of the Lander Core WIP stuff (mostly texturing at this point). Will try to post up some renders of what I have for feedback later today.

The solar panels integrated into trusses will only be able to rotate in the standard stock-supported behavior (e.g. along the long axis of the panel itself). Trying to rotate the entire truss would.... not work out well due to lack of stock support for it (e.g. surface attached stuff would -not- rotate with the visible mesh). Trying to add any other multi-axis tracking for the solar panels would require a major rewrite of the plugin module that drives them, and is not currently planned.

But yes, the whole point of these parts (all of them that I make) is to reduce part count on useful vessels (ships, landers, stations, bases). Basically they amount to little more than 'pre-welded' parts, but include all the bits that you can't normally weld due to plugin/module constraints (such as solar panels, landing legs, etc). I always -want- to include large numbers of massive solar panels on my stations, but never can due to part count (when limited to ~60 parts for a useful/non-laggy vessel, allocating 8 to solar panels is out of the question). Same with lights, docking ports, and resource storage; I always want to include them, but never can due to part-count limitations.

So this is similar to SLS block 2? Are you going to make one eventually?

Yes; the Ship Core: Series-B is supposed to be a Kerbalized analogue to the NASA SLS system. I already have all (most?) of the upper stages and the top end of the stack; now I'm working on completing the bottom of the stack. Might also make a couple of other payload adapters / large fairing parts (as the stock 3.75m is just not big enough for a 5m rocket!). In the end there should be a Block 1 config (Core+boosters+ICPS), as well as Block 2 (core+boosters+HUS+5th engine). I just have no idea what their payload-to-LKO capacity should be in the Kerbal system, going to orbit from Kerbin.

Right now I'm at the concept validation point -- I need to make sure that the parts will work as desired in KSP with stock balancing (I'm sure I could get RO/RSS stuff to work fine, as all of those stats are known quantities). I'm trying to determine the needed size of the core stage based upon the desired lifting capacity to LKO and the type of fuel/engines that will be used. I'm going to need a MUCH smaller rocket to push ~70t to LKO (3.6km/s dV max), compared to pushing the same to LEO (9km/s dV or so). So...that is what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm heavily considering rebalancing the SC-B parts to use standard/stock KSP ISP values and mass fractions (and thus require -much- more fuel for a given payload). Currently I am using values based off of real-volume with fuel amount calculated from fuel with the density of hydrolox (much less dense than KSP LFO). So, there is a ton of 'volume' that could still be used in the ICPS and HUS if I were to convert them to use stock fuel values; but the overall (wet) weight of the parts would skyrocket. Hmm...perhaps I'll run some number and see what I can come up with.

[riocrokite]

Shadowmage, beautiful concept of that SLS stuff,

I would personally go for 80-120t LKO capability since MK3 stock SSTO with rapiers is already able to push sizeable 40-60t payload depending on setup and it's reusable.

edit: 3.75m 4x cluster stock engines are also currently overpowered having great isp and thrust alltogether. I'll check what I can launch with 1 engine and 2 boosters and update my reply.

Quick test with stock aero: 3.75m biggest stock engine, 3 x biggest 3.75 tanks + 2 biggest boosters = about 75-80t to LKO. Since player can multiply cheap boosters I guess the same configuration with 6-8 boosters is able to deliver 85-90t to LKO.

test rig:

Thus I guess it would be good if your SLS is able to deliver more -> i.e. 120t with 2 boosters and 140t with 4 booster configuration.

Edited September 22, 2015 by riocrokite

[Shadowmage]

Yah, I will probably end up going at this pragmatically.

I -really- wanted to just go with proper scaled values for everything; e.g. the CM would be 10000kg rescaled (10000*0.64*0.64*0.64), but that would end up with a command pod total mass of only 2.6t. Sadly, this just doesn't work out right for anything close to stock balance or for use with other stock parts. While I could make it consistent across the series of parts (self-consistent), it would just not play nicely with anything else, or be usable for much else (it certainly wouldn't be a heavy lifter).

And yah, the heavy-lift capability just with a few stock parts is pretty amazing. I have a 3.75m Delta-IV-Heavy styled lifter in my games doing >100t to LEO. By that metric, the SLS-styled setup should probably lift >150t in baseline config, or ~240 in the fully evolved Block 2 setup. And I suppose to properly fulfill its purpose (heavy lift vehicle), it really will need to be able to orbit such large payloads.

One factor I'm trying to balance is the performance of the individual parts, relative to their real-life counterparts (as they are currently a bit OP, and do need a rebalance).

CSM - deltaV: ~1300 (1242-1350, depending on sources/exact ISP) - used for TEI, re-entry correction, orbital rendezvous. (25t)

ICPS - deltaV: ~3050 (with CSM stack) - used for TMI, (75t + 25t CSM 'payload')

HUS - deltaV: ~5900 (with just CSM stack), ~4300 when used with CSM+ICPS (150t + 100t CSM/ICPS 'payload')

CORE+SRBs - deltaV: ~9.5km/s - (with CSM+ICPS) used solely for the majority of orbital insertion,

total dV: 13850 m/s for CORE+ICPS+CSM (enough for orbit, TLI with free return)

total dV: 16000 m/s for CORE+HUS+CSM

total dV: 16750 m/s for CORE+HUS+ICPS+CSM (seems like it -should- be higher..., but I'm not sure this configuration would every actually be used)

(these are not official figures, just what I can calculate given the dry/wet mass and ISP values that I could locate, and might differ from real values based upon staging; I calculated dV based on full-burn of the SRBs before the core stage is lit.)

Translating those to KSP values, you end up with something closer to:

CSM - deltaV: ~500 - enough for some orbital rendesvous, or return-from-munar orbit burn.

ICPS - deltaV: ~1150 - enough to finish orbital injection and perform a TMI (with attached CSM)

HUS - deltaV: ~2500 (with just CSM) - not quite enough for most planetary injection + insertion/circularization at arival.

CORE+SRBs - deltaV: 3.5km/s with CSM/ICPS

total dV: ~5150 m/s for CORE+ICPS+CSM

total dV: ~6000 for CORE+HUS+CSM

total dV: ~6200 for CORE+HUS+ICPS+CSM

The real problem I'm facing on balancing an SLS Core type part is the rectification of its supposed heavy-lift capability versus the mass of the CSM payload; There is no way to make it 'just barely' orbit the ICPS+CSM while still maintaining even a 70t heavy-lift capacity, at least not given any kind of realistic (KSP-realism) mass for the CSM and ICPS.

Hmm... lots of things to think about on this one... do I want a dedicated SC-B-CSM launcher, or a generic heavy-lift vehicle?

[riocrokite]

IMHO for start I would do a general heavy lift vehicle so would copy isp or make it a bit lower than the 4x25 3.75 stock engine. Then make higher thrust for TWR 1.6 for 120t payload with i.e. biggest 6 stock boosters. Or you can check SpaceY 5m parts pack for reference since it underwent several balance passes + has few interesting things like switching between all and one engine in cluster to assist during landing. As for boosters a cool thing would be to integrate separator engines and decouplers to them as was done in behemoth aeropace engineering large parts mod.

Tank length - I guess that an additional extension for 5m fuel tank to be put on top of the big base one would be also useful for varying payload and number (size) of boosters/clustered engines.

A suggestion where to cut main tank:

Edited September 23, 2015 by riocrokite

[Shadowmage]

Aye, for the SC-B-CORE (and boosters), I believe I will be going for low-part count (super) heavy lifter. Not much choice given the size of the thing.

A full-height (64% scale) variant with two boosters, using stock balance mechanics, (85% usable tank volume, 15% dry mass fraction, 1t/m^3 fuel density, lower for SRB stats) has the following stats:

CORE Tank Stats

Height: ~40m (without engines)

Diameter: 5m

Mass (full): 753t

Mass (dry): 112.5t

Mass (fuel): 640.5t

CORE Engine Stats (each)

Mass: 10t

ISP 350s vacuum (because they are -supposed- to be really-high efficiency LH2 engines, in the 460 range....)

Thrust: 2500kn each (preliminary/guesswork figure)

Booster Stats (each)

Height: ~35m

Diameter: 2.5m

Mass (full): 238t

Mass (dry): 34t

Mass (fuel): 204t

ISP: 220s Vacuum

Thrust: 5000kn each (preliminary figure)

Totals:

Height: ~45m

Diameter: 5m largest piece, 10m maximal width of core+boosters

Mass (full): 1279t

Mass (dry): 230.5

Mass (fuel): 1048.5t

Raw Unladen dV: ~6500

Max payload to LKO (75km, ~3600dV): 300t @ 3678 dV (should -just- get to orbit with fairing-enclosed 300t payload)

If those numbers seem a bit ridiculous... its because they are The thing is huge; barely-fits-in-the-VAB (without payload!) kind of huge.

With all of that calculated out; I think I will probably go for a not-quite-true-scale version; probably 2/3 of the 'real' height. So, the core is currently 40m, I'll probably end up going with something between 25 and 30m. Boosters will likely get scaled down as well (possibly in diameter too). I will probably aim for a ~200t to LKO capacity for the standard 'full' version with no upper stage (full height tank, 5 engines, 2 boosters). Nerfing the ISP down to KSP 'lifter' levels will probably help with the OP'ness a bit as well.

I likely will end up creating two tank sections of different heights to allow for a few different combinations (where you had suggested the tank-split is pretty close to the already-existing intertank split-point, will probably go with that, or very close). This, however, creates a bit of a problem -- which tank section should include the engine mounts? Or should I create those as separate part(s) (possibly with integrated engines... 3, 4, and 5 engine variants)

Will run another set of numbers with some different scaled parts, as at this point it is pretty obvious that I cannot used the true scaled-height of the core (it is just too big, and has more lifting capacity than I would ever need in a single launch or could even use given its already-massive height). So, expect another math/numbers filled post later today...

At this point I am thinking that the entire SC-B upper stack will be rebalanced as well. The Command Module and Service module will be intended for unassisted Kerbin-SOI operations, and as such will have close to the same dV it currently has (and close to the real-life value of 1400m/s); this should allow it to propel itself to Mun/Minmus with enough dV for insertion+station rendezvous+return (and still far lower performance than it-should- have given its volume... it should hold much more fuel). The ICPS will be repurposed as a 3.75m generic upper stage (using stock balance/volumes/etc). Initial balance calculations put it somewhere >3km/s when pushing the CM+SM, so it will be enough to propel the CSM to a few different interplanetary destinations, and should be adequate to use to deliver the CSM + lander/rover to Mun/Minmus. The HUS will be repurposed as a generic 5m upper stage (again, using stock balance figures); it should be quite capable as an upper stage to deliver some of the heavier payloads to their interplanetary destinations; have not done any preliminary calcs on this, but I'll try to keep it in line with the rest.

I was quite curious regarding the 'SRB with integrated separator and decoupler' that you had mentioned, but I could not find any such part(s) in the BAE download package. They do have SRBs, but none of them have integrated decouplers (or any function besides the SRB engine). I really would love to add decouplers and such to my SRBs (to reduce part count even further, and make them a true/simple strap-on booster), but as far as I know it is not possible due to stock staging mechanics (e.g. a part may only have a single staging action)(It also really messes with MJ/KER dV calc when you include decouplers into engines/fuel tanks). If you have more info on this, I would love to hear it though...

[riocrokite]

Max payload to LKO (75km, ~3600dV): 300t @ 3678 dV (should -just- get to orbit with fairing-enclosed 300t payload)

That's a huge payload to LKO

Although... this thing might fill the gap (more powerful than SpaceY 5m parts) and perfect match for mods like:

KScale2 - rescales the Kerbin system to double the size.

64K - rescales the Kerbin system to 6.4x ssize

Although it depends on whether you want to optimize it for stock or not.

Then if you want to use LH2 engines for first stage you might want to check cryogenic engines mod by Nertea since LH2 takes a lot of space. As a result better Isp of those engines is usually offset by heavier (and larger) tanks. Also this might be an interesting post about it.

Integrated decouplers and staging boosters - you're right. They were integrated into radially attached tanks (in the behemoth mod) so you would still have to attach engines beneath. However this might be also a good concept for boosters (2 part booster instead of 1 part booster + decoupler + staging solid rocket(s) + strut(s)). This configuration would also be good for calculating dV, mechJeb etc I guess.

[Shadowmage]

That's a huge payload to LKO

Although... this thing might fill the gap (more powerful than SpaceY 5m parts) and perfect match for mods like:

KScale2 - rescales the Kerbin system to double the size.

64K - rescales the Kerbin system to 6.4x ssize

Although it depends on whether you want to optimize it for stock or not.

Then if you want to use LH2 engines for first stage you might want to check cryogenic engines mod by Nertea since LH2 takes a lot of space. As a result better Isp of those engines is usually offset by heavier (and larger) tanks. Also this might be an interesting post about it.

Integrated decouplers and staging boosters - you're right. They were integrated into radially attached tanks (in the behemoth mod) so you would still have to attach engines beneath. However this might be also a good concept for boosters (2 part booster instead of 1 part booster + decoupler + staging solid rocket(s) + strut(s)). This configuration would also be good for calculating dV, mechJeb etc I guess.

I'm going for overall stock balance / usable in stock system with other stock-balanced parts and mods. MM patches can (mostly) accommodate any optional rescale packs that users want to setup. Things would be -much- easier were I designing for RSS/RO, as I could use the actual real-world values for stuff for the most part, but sadly those values just do not work for the stock system/mechanics.

I had initially run a balance sheet using LH2 stats (including less-dense fuels and heavier tankage by mass-factor (relatively unchanged by volume factor)); however the whole thing was still... weird... given the mechanics at play in the KSP universe (densities, scales, orbital velocities). Some things worked out quite well (upper stages/balancing of CSM), others not-so-much (CORE stuff was still weird).

Hmm.. will consider different options for the SRBs. I like the idea of an integrated separation engine in the SRB/decoupler (as the stock decoupling mechanisms are...sketchy at times). Perhaps I'll make some specialized radial decouplers for 2.5m parts that include a surround ring + separator engines. Will see what I can whip up.

On a unusual note of good news, the height-rescaled-rebalance of the parts is looking promising. 30m/5-engine/2-booster config at 315 ISP can do the intended ~200t payload to LKO (or upwards of ~300t if HUS is used as part of the lifter). A shorter 20m/4-engine/2-booster config does ~160t to LKO.

Will add more info/stats as I figure things out

On the subject of IVAs -- I'm still plodding away at them slowly, making a bit of progress every day. By far the hardest thing has been trying to find appropriate positioning for the seats to allow for a good 'landing view'. Sadly, I cannot actually find any good positioning that does not have problems (for LC2/LC3); the geometry of a Kerbal is just not well suited to adaptation of real-world lander designs -- the geometry of their body and head is all wrong for trying to use the same kind of mechanics humans would. Where a human would push their nose into the window to look out and downwards, the top of the kerbals head is too huge to allow them to do this (their head hits the window or upper wall, while their eyes are still below it).

So I will be moving to include RPM support out-of-the-box, mostly for use of the 'external cameras' on MFDs (redesigning geometry on already 'finished' models is not an option). This does mean that the stock IVA experience will be sub-optimal, but it generally is in the other IVAs anyhow (I have not seen a single stock IVA that is actually usable for its intended purpose -- the view angles/visibility in all of them is terrible; mostly due to the previously mentioned strange kerbal geometry).

The 'stock' IVA experience for the landers will be mostly an instrument-only deal. You would need to use the nav-ball and radar-altimeter to land.

Perhaps if/when I do a refresh on the lander parts I'll -start- with the IVA geometry and work outwards from there (will ensure good visibility). For now though I'm going to have to settle for some amounts of compromise.

[riocrokite]

cool,

Concerning radial decouplers - the problem with them is that they have too little mass for their joints to hold massive SRB effectively thus one usually requires struts. However maybe it's ok for 2.5m?

Concerning IVA position I agree - it's hard to find a balance so I wouldn't worry about it too much. One last option I've found is ASET landing capsule - it has two small windows one in front and second bottom one and some instruments between them.

Inside view album:

http://imgur.com/a/RqLDX#8

[Shadowmage]

cool,

Concerning radial decouplers - the problem with them is that they have too little mass for their joints to hold massive SRB effectively thus one usually requires struts. However maybe it's ok for 2.5m?

Concerning IVA position I agree - it's hard to find a balance so I wouldn't worry about it too much. One last option I've found is ASET landing capsule - it has two small windows one in front and second bottom one and some instruments between them.

http://i.imgur.com/XC5H6Oe.png

Inside view album:

http://imgur.com/a/RqLDX#8

Aye, if/when I redo the landers I think they will all have dedicated downward facing windows. The view from the LC-5 IVA is just too good to do otherwise for the rest of the parts. Ohwell, lessons learned, we've all got to start somewhere

On that note:

(Cutaway view of the current WIP LC3-POD-IVA geometry)

I've never really liked the need to strut stuff in stock games; seems like a poor band-aid mechanic introduced so Squad could keep the 'comedy' factor of rockets exploding for little/no logical reason (it also un-necessarilly increases part count). KJR is generally one of the first mods I install which (mostly) eliminates the need for strutting stuff. 250t strap-on boosters on a single radial decoupler with no struts? No problem. Sadly I'm not aware of any way to fix this problem for a stock-only/low mod install. Will see what I can do though.

Just thought I would mention - thanks for your help and input on this stuff; even if I don't use your exact concepts you are still providing me with valuable info, options, and opinions. So... thanks

I had mentioned some preview renders of the station stuff yesterday, but spent all day/night (and most of this morning) with my nose buried in spreadsheets trying to balance stuff. So... here they are:

One example of a docking truss, just getting the geometry for the sub-parts setup (the exact combinations of ports is undecided; this piece is just the prototype for all of the port sizes and sub-pieces to make them).

The roundish bump-things on the side of the docking ports will be lights (probably just emissive); green or red depending on if the port is available and active or inactive/in-use.

The ports will also have their port #/name written on the texture on the side of the port, so that you can tell what right-click action corresponds to which port.

And a basic render of the integrated solar truss (with multi-docking port on the end... undecided if they will be separate parts or integrated).

Random collection of base truss parts I will be using to create the actual in-game parts (probably a few more pieces to be made; not shown are the 1.25 and 2.5m adapter parts used for the docking ports).

[riocrokite]

awesome looking parts, keep it up

well hopefully I could use some of your plugins for my mods when they are released

[VenomousRequiem]

Ah, glad to see you guys nerding it up over here. Sorry for being so useless the past while, things have been busy.

I'm still alive though!

[falken]

Looks great. Is the integrated radiator truss going to be like the ISS one (and Squad trio radiator panel)?

[Shadowmage]

awesome looking parts, keep it up

well hopefully I could use some of your plugins for my mods when they are released

Of course, if you find any of them useful, you are more than welcome to make use of them

Ah, glad to see you guys nerding it up over here. Sorry for being so useless the past while, things have been busy.

I'm still alive though!

No worries, still in dev mode getting things cleaned up and moving forward. Lots of new ideas and concepts in the works as well.

Looks great. Is the integrated radiator truss going to be like the ISS one (and Squad trio radiator panel)?

I haven't really thought of anything along the lines of radiators - have never had to use one in my games. Though I might consider integrating some radiator panels into the solar-truss as well (or other station parts), as I can see there might be a need for them for some setups (mostly those involving reactors, or close solar orbit).

After -much- thought, -many- hours of number crunching, and quite a few discussions on the subject, I -think- I have settled on a set of parts and a system of balance for the Ship Core: Series B lifter parts.

Fuel tank 20m

Fuel tank 10m

Engine Cluster x5

Engine Cluster x4

Engine Cluster x3

SRB - 28m

SRB - 20m

(Rough geometry render, no geometry finalized yet except for the engine bells)

Using those parts you can assemble 5m lifters for many different needs, with payload-to-LKO ranging from 60 to ~350 tons depending on part configuration (and final part balance).

Engine TWR, ISP, fuel density, and tank mass/volume fractions are all within the range used by stock parts. I'll also be doing some comparisons vs KW Rocketry to see how it stacks up there (perhaps other heavy lifter packs as well); I'm not aiming to obsolete (or compete with) any other mods, merely offer a unified low-part count alternative.

The 3x engine cluster has a bottom attach node (and engine fairing), and could be used for a first stage engine for smaller payloads or as an upper stage engine for some of the more massive payloads. So far I've balanced it for slightly higher ISP with slightly lower thrust-per-nozzle than the other clusters.

The 4x engine cluster is 'middle of the road' of the three engines. Nothing special (other than it is still massive and puts out gobs of thrust). It has no bottom node, and is intended for first-stage use only.

The 5x engine cluster has slightly lower ISP and slightly higher thrust-per-nozzle compared to the 4x cluster. Intended to be used when you just need more thrust. Again, no bottom node, intended for fist-stage use only.

The SRBs are nothing special, aside from being much larger than any of the stock offerings. Really heavy, really poor ISP, tons and tons of thrust.

The tanks... are well... fuel tanks... you put fuel in them for your engines . Big..really big, and heavy. The -small- tank weighs 196t when full, double that for the 20m one.

I have not yet done any geometry work regarding decouplers, but have a few ideas that might help the overall experience (if they work).

The one problem I was experiencing during testing was how poorly KSP handles such massive parts in stock. I do not have KJR installed in my dev setup, and the parts are just so massive they tend to break the attach joints just from gravity whenever physics is started up; even the joints between the tanks, or tank and engines... they all tend to get crushed. Some quick strutting fixed the problem, and might just be an unfortunate (and otherwise unsolvable) side effect of such large/massive parts in non-KJR installs.

[VenomousRequiem]

Issues with joint breaking and *incompatibility with KJR? Is it time to write another brand new custom plugin?

*For lack of a better term; various bugs

[riocrokite]

One thing you might consider adding for a 20m tank (I think it was in original model of that long 5m tank before), mainly some kind of fairing between LOX and LH2 internal tanks. Something like this:

[Shadowmage]

Issues with joint breaking and *incompatibility with KJR? Is it time to write another brand new custom plugin?

*For lack of a better term; various bugs

I haven't noticed any out-of-the-ordinary problems when using KJR on my career/play install. Certainly not anything I would call an incompatibility. I would even go so far as to say that KJR is a pre-requisite for this mod, at least for proper use of the larger parts.

However if you have run into reproducible problems with SSTU + KJR installed, please let me know and I'll see what I can do to track them down and get them cleaned up.

One thing you might consider adding for a 20m tank (I think it was in original model of that long 5m tank before), mainly some kind of fairing between LOX and LH2 internal tanks. Something like this:

Aye, I will likely be adding inter-tank details to both the 10 and 20m tanks; probably actually the -same- intertank geometry (and texture) as it will make UV mapping a bit easier to deal with / better scale. Actually, not sure yet if these bits will end up being actual geometry or just details on the normal-map. Though, will likely end up being both.

Going to -try- to spend today finishing off internal geometry (and external camera positions) for LC2 and LC3 IVAs, and hopefully spend this evening adding props, baking textures, and testing the more complex RPM functionality for the external camera bits. Gotta get these things wrapped up so I can officially move onto the other stuff I've been toying with. If all goes will with LC2 and LC3, I'll try and get the LC5 IVA done next week.

[Shadowmage]

Baked shadows are tasty...

Edit:

Even tastier with props-cream

Edited September 25, 2015 by Shadowmage

[davidy12]

Yes!!! I don't know what I'm more excited about. Core stages, or the IVA! Finally I can make proper replicas of Ares and SLS rockets!

- - - Updated - - -

PS: Try to eliminate the nosecone so we can use the core SRB Shadow.