Jump to content

[1.2 - 1.4] Real Scale Boosters, 0.16 (2018-03-12)


NecroBones
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I have clamshell fairings added for all of the Delta IV and Atlas V configurations. I wanted to at least get those done, since the real ones are used in all launches and are well documented. I'm less concerned about the Saturns and Ares since they're mostly capsule lifters. As far as I know, the Saturns were rarely, if ever, used with anything but Apollo spacecraft and Skylab. So this is a good start.

 

As an FYI-- The clamshell fairings aren't thoroughly tested. I spot checked a bunch of things, but didn't launch every combination.

 

Before starting on another vehicle, this is a good time to get another test copy out. I'll be away for the second half of this coming week, so other than a possible quick patch (if needed), there probably won't be much more released until later in the following week. Unless I have some brilliant new thing over the next day or two to release. ;)

 

Posted:

0.3 (2016-01-31) - Alpha development.
 - Adjusted the descriptions of the STS/Ares SRBs.
 - Corrected the "manufacturer" for the Saturn S-II tank.
 - Added menu filter for FilterExtensions (currently still missing the custom icons).
 - All procedural fairing bases renamed to say "Procedural Fairing".
 - Added STS (Space Shuttle) External Tank.
 - Added clamshell fairings for all Atlas V and Delta IV configurations.
 - Added payload adapters (decouplers) for the Delta IV upper stages.
 - Updated sample rockets.
 - Added "agency" for Real Scale Boosters.

 

 

7 hours ago, Natskyge said:

Is this RO compatibel? In any case it looks awesome and its Nice to have a delta iv Heavy mod that looks good!

It should work with RO, but I don't think there's any specific support yet. The mass ratios, efficiency, etc have realistic values already, but it's still using the stock fuels instead of having RealFuels support (for now), and so on.

Edited by NecroBones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you set all the Atlas V masses and whatnot for all parts? A couple years ago I launched Juno in RSS after spending MANY hours researching every detail of the entire mission, including lots of info about the Atlas. If you have not done that part yet then perhaps I can check out the rocket and apply some of that research for yours parts.

NkoZyNl.png

 

Edited by Felbourn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

Have you set all the Atlas V masses and whatnot for all parts? A couple years ago I launched Juno in RSS after spending MANY hours researching every detail of the entire mission, including lots of info about the Atlas. If you have not done that part yet then perhaps I can check out the rocket and apply some of that research for yours parts.

 

Yep, the numbers should be pretty good. I don't mind some fact checking though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to fact-check but after I saw some strange numbers, I got confused if these were set up for Stock or RSS or just not finished yet. For example, looking at just the AJ-60A, the thrust looks good, so I thought it was ready for RSS. The fuel load is very low, though, so that made me think it was for Stock. A real one has a mass of 46,697 kg while yours is 13,748 kg without decoupler. A real one is 16.99 m tall by 1.57 m dia and yours is ~19.5 m by ~1.5 m so that made unsure if any stats were even ready yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

I was going to fact-check but after I saw some strange numbers, I got confused if these were set up for Stock or RSS or just not finished yet. For example, looking at just the AJ-60A, the thrust looks good, so I thought it was ready for RSS. The fuel load is very low, though, so that made me think it was for Stock. A real one has a mass of 46,697 kg while yours is 13,748 kg without decoupler. A real one is 16.99 m tall by 1.57 m dia and yours is ~19.5 m by ~1.5 m so that made unsure if any stats were even ready yet.

That's partially because it's not an AJ-60A, which are being phased out, but rather a GEM-60. The lift-off mass overall should be near 46.26 with 42.63 of it being propellant (using the stock solid fuel). I'm trying to remember which site I got the precise stats from. This page has some similar numbers but not exactly the same.

 

 

EDIT: It looks like I mixed some sources. My mass numbers look like they match the AJ-62 here:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html

 

EDIT 2: I think I'll rename it AJ-62 to match that. I'll check the length. I might need to shorten it.

Edited by NecroBones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Felbourn & @Natskyge

OK, I see... I guess the answer is that no, it won't work right with RO, currently, assuming it's relying on RealFuels, which apparently changes the density of the stock fuel units:

 

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[LiquidFuel]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	@density = 0.001
	@unitCost *= 0.2
}
@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Oxidizer]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	@density = 0.001
	@unitCost *= 0.2
}

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[SolidFuel]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	@density = 0.00178
	@unitCost *= 0.2373
}

 

That's why the propellant mass looked wrong.

Edited by NecroBones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

--

I've been stuck on a 4-hour conference call for work, so I've been just tweaking and googling as time permits while posting here.. heh. ;)

 

Anyway, just posted the tweaks to the SRB. No reason to sit on it too long. Looking at RO and RealFuels, it looks like the patching for it will be pretty involved. So no ETA yet.

 

0.3.1 (2016-01-31) - Alpha development.
 - Renamed the Atlas V SRB "AJ-62", and shortened it to 17.7m.
    - As per http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html
    - Updated sample rockets.
 - Added flag for RSB.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is beautiful, the fact that it comes out of the box ready to use with x10 kerbin or rss without the need to use RO is very good for those starting to use bigger scales but are still scared of RO. And the memory imprint is so low!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given J-2X is already been listed,  Any chance of seeing either the J-2T or F-1B engines so we can up-rate our Saturn rockets?

I prefer New school engines on my Old School rockets rather than stupid administratively castrated Rockets (Constellation/SLS)

TIA

Edited by Pappystein
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Given J-2X is already been listed,  Any chance of seeing either the J-2T or F-1B engines so we can up-rate our Saturn rockets?

I prefer New school engines on my Old School rockets rather than stupid administratively castrated Rockets (Constellation/SLS)

TIA

 

Yep, I could probably do something like that. I just took a look at thew wikipedia page for the F-1, and it looks like the main differences (aside from stats) is the removal of the turbopump exhaust manifold and a shortened skirt. I'm curious if the ISP is expected to change much, though they said the target thrust at sea level is 8000 kN. I haven't looked at the J-2T yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NecroBonesi found a small problem with the Common Centaur: it is missing a "vesselIcon" parameter and without it KSP flags the stage as debris.

BTW, the new clamshell fairings are absolutely fantastic!

Edit: also, if you don't mind, the CCB in reality has some small solid retro motors (8 of them) placed just above the LOX feed line. Would be possible to model them as separate parts or even baking some thrust transforms into the CCB tank model?

Edited by Phineas Freak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

@NecroBonesi found a small problem with the Common Centaur: it is missing a "vesselIcon" parameter and without it KSP flags the stage as debris.

BTW, the new clamshell fairings are absolutely fantastic!

Edit: also, if you don't mind, the CCB in reality has some small solid retro motors (8 of them) placed just above the LOX feed line. Would be possible to model them as separate parts or even baking some thrust transforms into the CCB tank model?

 

Woops, I'll add the vessel type.

 

Yep, I haven't forgotten about the retros for the CCB. I just hadn't decided if I wanted to do them as separate parts or not. The nice thing about baking them in is that it keeps the part count low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---

It turns out the vessel type was missing on the Deltas too, not just the Atlas/Centaur.

 

I'm going to see if I can quickly add the retros on the CCB. I'll probably push out another patch release today.

 

EDIT: I'll have to just guess at some reasonable numbers for the retros (thrust, propellant, ISP, etc). I can't find anything with quick googling.

 

 

Edited by NecroBones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I prefer baking retros into fuel tanks. The tanks don't normally need to be staged so it doesn't disrupt the staging sequence. I do this by hand with all my own tanks. I take any random engine, radially attach it, bake the model into the tank with a MM patch CFG, then scale=0.01,0.01,0.01 the model to make it basically disappear. I then attach my own new EFFECTS section. All of that can be skipped if you bake them in from the start. So... yea... big fan of baking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

@NecroBonesinformation about the CCB retro motors can be found in the Orbital ATK catalog (Star 5F rocket motor, page 81 if you are opening the catalog in your browser via the provided link).

Awesome, thanks! I had selected some pretty good numbers for propellant mass and ISP. But I was way off on the thrust. ;)

 

10 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

Later today (aka after work) I can give you a Real Fuels thrust curve for that chart.

OK cool, but just know that I'm pretty far away from working on RealFuels configs right now. I still need to understand what it adds and changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NecroBones said:

Awesome, thanks! I had selected some pretty good numbers for propellant mass and ISP. But I was way off on the thrust. ;)

 

Actually I was off on the propellant too. Wow. I thought they'd be like 10x more powerful.

 

35 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

Why would you need to work on Real Fuels CFGs?

Let me emphasize the right word there...

Why would you need to work on Real Fuels CFGs?

:)

Hah! Point taken. :)

 

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...