m4ti140 Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 (edited) On 4/24/2022 at 4:35 PM, Zorg said: What do you mean by not shielding? is the payload being destroyed? Or is it just a matter of drag. Because in my testing moduleCargoBay was working correctly and shielding the payload. If its drag I will see what can be done. I did some testing on this on the release: the jettisonable SLA doesn't just fail to shield the payload, it itself seems to be a massive source of drag. I'm playing on a 3.2 scale system (which seems otherwise perfectly suited for the new Saturn parts) and with jettisonable SLA I was not able to reach orbit in Saturn IB without a stage 1 extension, it wasn't lofting the trajectory high enough for S-IVB to have time to circularize. I wasn't carrying any payload other than the CSM itself (open top version obviously, in case that makes a difference). With non-jettisonable version I could get into orbit just fine with otherwise identical config (SM in ASTP config, empty bay with just a docking target). Looking at flight recorder revealed that drag losses with jettisonable SLA were more than doubled, over 800 m/s against 300 m/s with non-jettisonable one. I will look if the latest changes in repo fix this scenario. Other, problems I noticed with the overhauled Saturn/Apollo: 1. The heatshield and CM do not have the body lift disabled. This is bad, because the body lift vector is opposite to the lift surface vector, resulting in completely bogus aerodynamics: at reentry no lift is generated without extreme pitch angles (because the body and lifting surface lift cancel each other out). At subsonic airspeeds the pod gets completely overtaken by Kraken (especially with offset CoM set) and starts to attempt doing loops, because for some reason the body lift completely overwhelms the lifting surface. This is thankfully a very easy fix, just set disableBodyLift = True in ModuleLiftingSurface for both CM and heatshields, increasing the lift coefficient for the heatshield might also help but haven't tried it yet. 2. Less bugs and more design considerations (some are probably bugs though): The lunar ascent module needs an additional, forward facing control point, this is thankfully a simple cfg edit The CM experiment storage container doesn't have canBeTransferredToInVessel = True and canTransferInVessel = True, as a result experiments can't be transferred from ascent module without EVA A stretch maybe, but S-IVB IU could use an additional control point too, this time rolled inverted, (0,180,0) as the reference frames of launch vehicle and spacecraft are rolled 180 degrees from each other - the rocket flies the ascent with the CSM facing heads down, but for the launcher that's actually a heads-up attitude. Not really necessary though, this can be accounted for in kos/mechjeb Edited May 3, 2022 by m4ti140 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.