Jump to content

Looking for Apollo Saturn V stock only with lander


Pawelk198604
 Share

Recommended Posts

I tried in sandbox mode to create Saturn V with lander (used stock two stage lander because i'm lazy) and my Saturn V that i saved in subassembly.

 

But when i trying to utilize new fairing the rocket falling apart :(   

Edited by Pawelk198604
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

I tried in sandbox mode to create Saturn V with lander (used stock two stage lander because i'm lazy) and my Saturn V that i saved in subassembly.

 

But when i trying to utilize new fairing the rocket falling apart :(

Yup, Bubbdevlin Made a lovely Saturn V recently. The part count is over 1000 though. I have one in the works. As detailed as is possible and ONLY 700ish parts..

 Not many people have made them recently, which is odd. They are usually the most popular builds, when done right. I Have made so many now I have it down to an art.

In fact the best advice I can give is try it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a low part count alternative, I do have my Phoebus, that wasn't built that long ago and therefore should still work. Guaranteed to have 90% of the features in less that 50% of the parts (IIRC, about 150 on the pad).

 

Rune. Check it out in my sig!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rune said:

As a low part count alternative, I do have my Phoebus, that wasn't built that long ago and therefore should still work. Guaranteed to have 90% of the features in less that 50% of the parts (IIRC, about 150 on the pad).

 

Rune. Check it out in my sig!

 

 

 

I remember that, it was a kind of copy (Your admission) of my Selene Apollo craft. :cool: All the parts go into the landers of High part count apollo craft. I just cant bring myself to use a pod again.. It's just too obvious.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rune said:

As a low part count alternative, I do have my Phoebus, that wasn't built that long ago and therefore should still work. Guaranteed to have 90% of the features in less that 50% of the parts (IIRC, about 150 on the pad).

 

Rune. Check it out in my sig!

 

 

 

I just had a look, and you have updated since then. Sure it has a low part count but I think it is a poor recreation. There are no working interstages at all. And the third stage is ugly as sin man.. Could do better, 5 out of ten. See me after the class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

I just had a look, and you have updated since then. Sure it has a low part count but I think it is a poor recreation. There are no working interstages at all. And the third stage is ugly as sin man.. Could do better, 5 out of ten. See me after the class.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure. But I still think 80% less parts than the closest competitor, and the biggest complaint being a lack of interstage rings, which are visible for all of 5 seconds during the mission... yeah, I'll be happy if that is the worst I get. For some people, those +500 parts are the difference between using it, or seeing a video about it.

And I would thing twice about criticizing accuracy... I do use the correct number of engines on each stage, and scaled appropriately to get the very same mission profile as originally flown. Most "accurate" Apollo replicas fail on that incredibly simple detail, yet it is crucial IMO: my Saturn replica works like a Saturn V, burning 5 "big" engines in the second stage, 5 "efficient" engines on the second with smaller nozzles, and a single one on the third, of the same kind as the second. If anything, what irks me is that the one on the CSM is not yet another one, but there is no low-thrust engine with a decent vacuum bell. And the lander... well, I am pretty proud of the margins on that, and the engineering accuracy. One of my best balances between part count, functional accuracy, and aesthetics. I mean, it's battery powered and I nailed the mission dV to within 50m/s... If anything, the least realistic thing is that I didn't slave the "disable" command of all reaction wheels to staging, but truly hardcore users can right-click their way to a really accurate experience, with both limited electricity and attitude control resources, since it will work perfectly fine.

My replica is built to fly an Apollo-like mission, and worry about doing the same things the Apollo astronauts did, having a great gameplay experience. Not worrying about how close to melting my computer is, or waking up in the middle of a launch to get a drink because I am bored of watching the slideshow.

 

Rune. No offense intended, of course, maybe you run KSP on a liquid-cooled, number-crunching beast, and to each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Yup, Bubbdevlin Made a lovely Saturn V recently. The part count is over 1000 though. I have one in the works. As detailed as is possible and ONLY 700ish parts..

 Not many people have made them recently, which is odd. They are usually the most popular builds, when done right. I Have made so many now I have it down to an art.

In fact the best advice I can give is try it yourself.

Well, I tried making one once. I didn't really try to make it super realistic looking with part clipping and structural parts. It was pretty good and looked like a Saturn V(acted like it too!), but it was just so damn wobbly. You pretty much need KJR, no matter how many struts you put on it.

Saturn Vs are just not for KSP I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rune said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure. But I still think 80% less parts than the closest competitor, and the biggest complaint being a lack of interstage rings, which are visible for all of 5 seconds during the mission... yeah, I'll be happy if that is the worst I get. For some people, those +500 parts are the difference between using it, or seeing a video about it.

And I would thing twice about criticizing accuracy... I do use the correct number of engines on each stage, and scaled appropriately to get the very same mission profile as originally flown. Most "accurate" Apollo replicas fail on that incredibly simple detail, yet it is crucial IMO: my Saturn replica works like a Saturn V, burning 5 "big" engines in the second stage, 5 "efficient" engines on the second with smaller nozzles, and a single one on the third, of the same kind as the second. If anything, what irks me is that the one on the CSM is not yet another one, but there is no low-thrust engine with a decent vacuum bell. And the lander... well, I am pretty proud of the margins on that, and the engineering accuracy. One of my best balances between part count, functional accuracy, and aesthetics. I mean, it's battery powered and I nailed the mission dV to within 50m/s... If anything, the least realistic thing is that I didn't slave the "disable" command of all reaction wheels to staging, but truly hardcore users can right-click their way to a really accurate experience, with both limited electricity and attitude control resources, since it will work perfectly fine.

My replica is built to fly an Apollo-like mission, and worry about doing the same things the Apollo astronauts did, having a great gameplay experience. Not worrying about how close to melting my computer is, or waking up in the middle of a launch to get a drink because I am bored of watching the slideshow.

 

Rune. No offense intended, of course, maybe you run KSP on a liquid-cooled, number-crunching beast, and to each their own.

Ok, yes yours used only the five engines for the first stage with none clipped. but at the expense of the rocket not looking like a Saturn V. Yours is way too short, 'correct' number of engines or not. The only reason people use clipped engines is because of the inadequacies of the stock motors and in the pursuit of a realistic replica. The Saturn V is a monster, a towering magnificent beast and a replica should reflect that.

 I personally think you took too much away from the rocket in the pursuit of lower parts counts. Yes 150 parts is great but you end up with an ugly, not looking like a Saturn V rocket. Sorry man but I am being honest, the third stage is horrible looking, I think you could do better, that's all.

Yes having the lander have limited battery is fun and tight margins are good too, My old and soon to be new Selene is just that. And to be fair mate balancing a basic 150 part rocket is easy as pie.

We all build differently I know this and we almost always disagree. This is just my opinion.

 

1 hour ago, Sequinox said:

Well, I tried making one once. I didn't really try to make it super realistic looking with part clipping and structural parts. It was pretty good and looked like a Saturn V(acted like it too!), but it was just so damn wobbly. You pretty much need KJR, no matter how many struts you put on it.

Saturn Vs are just not for KSP I suppose.

No, stock parts are fine for a Saturn V. You just have to know how to build one properly. It takes time but do it a few times and it is a very easy build. When you get much more skilled with stock parts you can start to build more complex Saturn Vs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

No, stock parts are fine for a Saturn V. You just have to know how to build one properly. It takes time but do it a few times and it is a very easy build. When you get much more skilled with stock parts you can start to build more complex Saturn Vs.

I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sequinox said:

I suppose.

Totally dude. I have a working Saturn V that is rock solid. it's over 50M tall and over 1000t and not a bit of wobble I even have the tiny stack seperators between the stages. You just need to strut properly.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Totally dude. I have a working Saturn V that is rock solid. it's over 50M tall and over 1000t and not a bit of wobble I even have the tiny stack seperators between the stages. You just need to strut properly.

I would actually love to see some WIP  pics of that, it really sounds like an awesome replica! I bet the level of detail is pretty high already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Totally dude. I have a working Saturn V that is rock solid. it's over 50M tall and over 1000t and not a bit of wobble I even have the tiny stack seperators between the stages. You just need to strut properly.

Excited to see it when it's done! I'm not too good with complex stock crafts(or any craft at all). That's your thing haha.

Edited by Sequinox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sequinox said:

Excited to see it when it's done! I'm not too good with complex stock crafts(or any craft at all). That's your thing haha.

Thanks man, I am certainly not the only one making complex craft though man. Simply due to the recent changes in the game a lot of designs took a hit from engine nerfs and such. Bubbldevins is the first big one Iv'e seen after the recent updates. Sgt_flyer made an amazing Kerbalised Saturn V, i couldn't find it though..

 Back in the day the big one, and in my opinion still to this day the most impressive and creative use of stock parts ever, is Mulbins Munbug. It was 1300 parts and had a full set of custom made working fairings made from ibeams. Yup it was heavy as hell. I was the first to recreate them, and I posted a tutorial which can still be seen. It is totally moot now that we have offset tools and mods to remove the restrictions though.

 The issues you will have are with weight. The Stock engines are not enough, you will need to clip engines in engines. Do not feel bad about doing this. As it is more complex and harder to make, it is totally valid. As long as it looks and behaves like the real thing you are golden.

 There are loads of good Apollos out there. Just not many recently apart from Bubbs.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bubbadevlin said:

 

I would actually love to see some WIP  pics of that, it really sounds like an awesome replica! I bet the level of detail is pretty high already!

I never post WIP pics.. It must be that time of year, on of my favorite builders is working on one too. I will let them reveal it.

 Dude, I was VERY surprised by your lander. it is up there with the best LEM replicas.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Thanks man, I am certainly not the only one making complex craft though man. Simply due to the recent changes in the game a lot of designs took a hit from engine nerfs and such. Bubbldevins is the first big one Iv'e seen after the recent updates. Sgt_flyer made an amazing Kerbalised Saturn V, i couldn't find it though..

 Back in the day the big one, and in my opinion still to this day the most impressive and creative use of stock parts ever, is Mulbins Munbug. It was 1300 parts and had a full set of custom made working fairings made from ibeams. Yup it was heavy as hell. I was the first to recreate them, and I posted a tutorial which can still be seen. It is totally moot now that we have offset tools and mods to remove the restrictions though.

 The issues you will have are with weight. The Stock engines are not enough, you will need to clip engines in engines. Do not feel bad about doing this. As it is more complex and harder to make, it is totally valid. As long as it looks and behaves like the real thing you are golden.

 There are loads of good Apollos out there. Just not many recently apart from Bubbs.

12

Thanks for the advice!
Keep building awesome stuff man!

Edited by Sequinox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sequinox said:

Thanks for the advice!
Keep building awesome stuff man!

I can't not build. it's too relaxing! Anywhoo, use Editor extensions and no offset limits mod. They will help a lot!

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I never post WIP pics.. It must be that time of year, on of my favorite builders is working on one too. I will let them reveal it.

 Dude, I was VERY surprised by your lander. it is up there with the best LEM replicas.

Ah, Should have known :). I am sure it will be great!

Yea, some real time went into the lander, thanks!

 

Edited by Bubbadevlin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Thanks man, I am certainly not the only one making complex craft though man. Simply due to the recent changes in the game a lot of designs took a hit from engine nerfs and such. Bubbldevins is the first big one Iv'e seen after the recent updates. Sgt_flyer made an amazing Kerbalised Saturn V, i couldn't find it though..

 Back in the day the big one, and in my opinion still to this day the most impressive and creative use of stock parts ever, is Mulbins Munbug. It was 1300 parts and had a full set of custom made working fairings made from ibeams. Yup it was heavy as hell. I was the first to recreate them, and I posted a tutorial which can still be seen. It is totally moot now that we have offset tools and mods to remove the restrictions though.

 The issues you will have are with weight. The Stock engines are not enough, you will need to clip engines in engines. Do not feel bad about doing this. As it is more complex and harder to make, it is totally valid. As long as it looks and behaves like the real thing you are golden.

 There are loads of good Apollos out there. Just not many recently apart from Bubbs.

i've built several Saturn Vs replicas before 1.0 :)

but i guess you were speaking about my old mini Saturn V which was one of my masterpieces (built in 0.23.5) :)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/70046-0235-mini-saturn-v-with-launch-umbilical-tower/

http://imgur.com/a/lBNKo#0

although, it is going to be all messed up if you try to load it in 1.05 (different control surfaces, etc :p)

Edited by sgt_flyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

 

i've built several Saturn Vs replicas before 1.0 :)

but i guess you were speaking about my old mini Saturn V which was one of my masterpieces (built in 0.23.5) :)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/70046-0235-mini-saturn-v-with-launch-umbilical-tower/

http://imgur.com/a/lBNKo#0

although, it is going to be all messed up if you try to load it in 1.05 (different control surfaces, etc :p)

That's the one! I was looking for it the other day. I seemed to remember the lander and tower where very good indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pawelk198604 said:

Why my rocket falling apart ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0wZ6L_n_pY

S T R U T S

;-) You need to strut the cargo in the fairing. Either from cargo to base cargo sits on or to the fairing itself. Build a frame from below the cargo then up, outside of the fairing. This will later be deleted.

 The strut from the cargo to the frame. Delete the frame. Load into the game then back to editor, then struts will be attached to the fairing.

There are other ways to load the struts but that way is safest. Strut between stages, strut between tanks. Struts, struts, struts.

 P.S, Struts.

 

mj

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...