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

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, ColKlonk2 said:

Would it be possible to adjust the module RCS thrusters to 90 degree orientations, instead of the current 45 degree ones, for efficiency purposes.

Or maybe provide an option to eliminate these RCS thrusters so that we can install other ones... for RCS balancing.

Just a thought

Um, WHICH RCS parts are you talking about.  Please be clear with the exact PARTS you have an issue with RCS on.   Please understand that a LOT of these parts that @Shadowmage has created are near scale replicas of real world craft.   That means it is more likely your craft is not made well since these parts are set to mimic something akin to real life (where most of these parts actually exist and do/have worked.)

[notJebKerman]

is there a way to get .craft files? download links on craft repository are broken. i mean... this mod is still great but since im new to it i sometimes have a hard time building realistic spacecraft.

[ColKlonk2]

12 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Um, WHICH RCS parts are you talking about.  Please be clear with the exact PARTS you have an issue with RCS on.   Please understand that a LOT of these parts that @Shadowmage has created are near scale replicas of real world craft.   That means it is more likely your craft is not made well since these parts are set to mimic something akin to real life (where most of these parts actually exist and do/have worked.)

There you go... these thrusters (which are part of some SSTU modules).. as one can see, are angled at 45 degrees.

It would be nice/more usefull /efficient to have 90 degree angled ones (left/right/up/down/out)

Edited December 26, 2016 by ColKlonk2

[Shadowmage]

12 minutes ago, ColKlonk2 said:

There you go... these thrusters (which are part of some SSTU modules).. as one can see, are angled at 45 degrees.

It would be nice/more usefull /efficient to have 90 degree angled ones (left/right/up/down/out)

 

To make a long story short -- no I won't be switching those RCS, at least not in the near term.  Those parts are modeled after the actual Russian DOS modules, that all had RCS shaped and positioned similar to what is on those parts. 

 

Stock does not support run-time RCS model swapping, so there is no ability to have a switchable option for them (still looking at potential solutions to this, but I wouldn't expect anything for a few months).

 

However, the way that I have defined those models allows for end-users to edit/patch the parts and replace the RCS with the models of their choice (e.g. the RCS are defined through the equivalent of MODEL nodes, and can be changed without editing the meshes).  If you would like more information on this let me know and I can show you what the patches would look like, but also please note that such modifications are unsupported and you are on your own beyond showing what the basic patch syntax is.

[SpaceBadger007]

Here is part 2 of the almost fully reusable mun mission, this time I am launching a kerbin departure stage made with sstu parts to hook up with the lander/habitat that is in LKO

The album: http://imgur.com/gallery/7lqHy

[notJebKerman]

10 hours ago, SpaceBadger007 said:

Here is part 2 of the almost fully reusable mun mission, this time I am launching a kerbin departure stage made with sstu parts to hook up with the lander/habitat that is in LKO

The album: http://imgur.com/gallery/7lqHy

did u use original FMRS? i tried to install it for myself but that didnt work. but that was in 1.2.1...

[Sudragon]

Re: the docking mechanism on the SC-B-CM 'Apollo' style command modules...is there a specific passive port for these vessels?

[tater]

51 minutes ago, Sudragon said:

Re: the docking mechanism on the SC-B-CM 'Apollo' style command modules...is there a specific passive port for these vessels?

No, they're like stock ports and are androgynous.

[SpaceBadger007]

10 hours ago, notJebKerman said:

did u use original FMRS? i tried to install it for myself but that didnt work. but that was in 1.2.1...

I just used a compiled one from a few pages back on its thread

[Sudragon]

5 hours ago, tater said:

No, they're like stock ports and are androgynous.

Hmmmm, after testing on the SSTU docking adaptors and stock ports,  they don't seem capable of docking with anything. In extended mode the probe just jams against the target port. in retracted mode it doesn't 'click' in and just bumps against the target.

[Shadowmage]

43 minutes ago, Sudragon said:

Hmmmm, after testing on the SSTU docking adaptors and stock ports,  they don't seem capable of docking with anything. In extended mode the probe just jams against the target port. in retracted mode it doesn't 'click' in and just bumps against the target.

Pics?

The SSTU docking ports don't have probes or any 'extend' mode.  They look like:

 

Sounds like you might be using another mod or patch set that is changing out the docking ports.  Would need to know which one, and either way, it doesn't sound like a problem with the SSTU parts.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Sudragon]

4 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Pics?

The SSTU docking ports don't have probes.  They look like:

 

Sounds like you might be using another mod or patch set that is changing out the docking ports.  Would need to know which one, and either way, it doesn't sound like a problem with the SSTU parts.

My apologies, It looks like it's coming out of the SSTU-Expansion mod box. 

[JoseEduardo]

are you using the APAS one? I've set it to behave just like the stand-alone CxAerospace parts, which means they will only dock with another APAS from the CxAerospace, and that other docking port must be female/passive

another reason could be that since CxAerospace got updated @cxg2827 could have changed some stats of these docking ports, which will render them undockable, and I didn't have a chance to look at them yet

I'll be changing these additional pods for a docking port-less version instead in a future release

[Sudragon]

2 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

are you using the APAS one? I've set it to behave just like the stand-alone CxAerospace parts, which means they will only dock with another APAS from the CxAerospace, and that other docking port must be female/passive

another reason could be that since CxAerospace got updated @cxg2827 could have changed some stats of these docking ports, which will render them undockable, and I didn't have a chance to look at them yet

I'll be changing these additional pods for a docking port-less version instead in a future release

The 5 seat 'Apollo' capsule. (I'm progressing from 'Gemini-MOLE' to 'Apollo-Munlanding' and I'm in the market for higher capacity pods for station crew launches) 

[JoseEduardo]

that goes with BDB's Apollo drogue then, the one from his LEM

I probably know why it isn't working... did you get the expansion from spacedock or the github repo? the one from the repo is updated and should work with the latest BDB (one of those stat changes)

[thomash]

Has anyone been able to make it back to Kerbin from Mun using the "Orion" pod and service module?  I'm using Stock Scale Real Solar System, and only if I add 8x100L tanks of Aerozine 50 to the service module can I just barely make it.  That would include starting with a full load in Moon orbit, leaving Moon's orbit, entering orbit around earth and a reentry burn.

[AbhChallenger]

One thing I have noticed is that there is no engines in the earlier lineup that are good for small lander probes. Meaning either using a mount that partially covers the bell that you attach legs to. (Which looks unrealistic) or using a stock engine (Which is OP compared to your parts) is there any chance of an engine cluster that is designed for small lander probes in the early game? Even if it means a significant reduction in ISP

[Pappystein]

51 minutes ago, thomash said:

Has anyone been able to make it back to Kerbin from Mun using the "Orion" pod and service module?  I'm using Stock Scale Real Solar System, and only if I add 8x100L tanks of Aerozine 50 to the service module can I just barely make it.  That would include starting with a full load in Moon orbit, leaving Moon's orbit, entering orbit around earth and a reentry burn.

No problems in Stock scale, but I did set it to Direct approach (I didn't re-enter Orbit of Kerbin upon returning.)   I also had an almost full tank at the start... the Stage below it had a J-2 and operated much like the Saturn IVB staged did for Saturn V Rockets.

Suggest posting  this where you got your SSRSS configs from.

1 minute ago, AbhChallenger said:

One thing I have noticed is that there is no engines in the earlier lineup that are good for small lander probes. Meaning either using a mount that partially covers the bell that you attach legs to. (Which looks unrealistic) or using a stock engine (Which is OP compared to your parts) is there any chance of an engine cluster that is designed for small lander probes in the early game? Even if it means a significant reduction in ISP

Some of the Bell LR-81 engines (Hypergolic with AZ50 and NTO) are what I use from SSTU for my early un-manned Mun-lander.    It is HARD to land due to the height vs width issues.  IE it needs very flat ground and a nice vertical landing with nearly 0 drift.

 

 

 

[AbhChallenger]

13 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

.............

Some of the Bell LR-81 engines (Hypergolic with AZ50 and NTO) are what I use from SSTU for my early un-manned Mun-lander.    It is HARD to land due to the height vs width issues.  IE it needs very flat ground and a nice vertical landing with nearly 0 drift.

That is the thing tho. Unless I am mistaken. RL probes did not use engines with such large bells. That means their ISP sucks but the weight was lower.

So what I would like to see if possible is a cluster of lower ISP and lower weight engines that are basically just higher thrust RCS engines bolted together. Something to cover the gap in the early game until you unlock the superdraco later on.

[Cheesecake]

8 hours ago, AbhChallenger said:

That is the thing tho. Unless I am mistaken. RL probes did not use engines with such large bells. That means their ISP sucks but the weight was lower.

So what I would like to see if possible is a cluster of lower ISP and lower weight engines that are basically just higher thrust RCS engines bolted together. Something to cover the gap in the early game until you unlock the superdraco later on.

You can use Niche-Parts. There are many little Engines for Lander. It isn`t updatet yet but works for me in 1.2.2.

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, AbhChallenger said:

That is the thing tho. Unless I am mistaken. RL probes did not use engines with such large bells. That means their ISP sucks but the weight was lower.

So what I would like to see if possible is a cluster of lower ISP and lower weight engines that are basically just higher thrust RCS engines bolted together. Something to cover the gap in the early game until you unlock the superdraco later on.

Um, That is in-correct, the Probes that landed (not crashed) on the Mun all used bells similar in size to the LR-81..   The difference is most of them had their engines buried in the fuel tank, not external to it like how most KSP mods have their engines.  I built a Lander yesterday with 5x 1.25m fuel tanks and 5 LR-81 engines.  I successfully landed it on the Mun without issue..  My attempt on Duna was less successful as my chutes did not slow me down enough and I burnt through my fuel supply 100m above the Surface...   KeeeerrrrrrSPLAT!

Alternatively you can download Porkjet's Stock replacement rocket parts in the 1.2 discussion boards...  There is a new "lander" engine in that mod.  I have installed this mod and the associated MM file to hide the stock parts that SRRP has new versions of.   The Rockets can have "boat tail" or standard ends and look pretty cool.  

[tater]

You can adjust the vertical position of the SSTU engines in the right click to bury them if you wish.

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, tater said:

You can adjust the vertical position of the SSTU engines in the right click to bury them if you wish.

Ding, Ding!  We have a winner

That is the entire reason I put the 'vertical offset' on the engine, and that it is separate from the stock offset tool.  Go ahead and bury them in your fuel tank a bit / clip them into the mount.  Lots of real world craft were built that way, but as 'hollow' stuff is such a PITA to implement in Unity / video game physics, I've settled for a compromise method.  I do not consider it 'cheating' to offset an engine inside a fuel tank slightly;. with the high unused volume and dry mass of the tanks, I would think there is plenty of wiggle room to imagine that the tank had an inset for the engine.

Mu usual Mun lander is either the LC2POD or SC-B-CMX with either LR-81 using one of the short straight shrouds, possibly with extra tanks clipped inside the empty area of the shroud, and the engine offset so only part of the bell is protruding below the shroud (legs mounted on the shroud, if they are even used).

 

Alternatively, I do have the LMDE and LMAE prototype parts available as well.  Those were the 'real' mun-landing engines.  Yes, they are pretty huge though (as they were clipped inside tanks/lander IRL), and they sadly also unlock at the same time as the SD engines.  There isn't really any good spot for alternate lander-specific engines on the stock tech-tree;  the first good node for small engines is 'propulsion systems' which is near the middle of the tree, and where most  are already located (with the rest in prec. propulsion).

[JoseEduardo]

 speaking of the vertical offset, where do I modify the limit for it and the engine spacing?

[Shadowmage]

3 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

 speaking of the vertical offset, where do I modify the limit for it and the engine spacing?

Both are currently hard-coded I believe; I had no reason to think that someone would want to offset stuff by > 2m (or whatever I set the max at).  Will see how invasive it would be to add some config fields for those values, but no guarantees.