michal.don

Shuttle Challenge v5 - The STS thread [Stock and Mod Friendly] - NEW MISSION 21.9.2018, NEW "TEST PILOT" MISSION 1.12.2018

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, michal.don said:

Also, I finally tweaked and edited lots of small things in the OP and the rules. And quite a bit of spelling errors, too :) If you happened to stumble on anything out of place, or straight wrong, please, let me know so I can fix it too :) 

I'm actually a bit confused about the 'aero-break/capture' part of the duna and eve missions. While it is not a  big deal on the duna mission, it can be a huge difference in the eve mission: does it mean "aero-break AND get captured" or "aero-break and MAYBE get captured (but burning a bit retrograde is fine as well)"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

I'm actually a bit confused about the 'aero-break/capture' part of the duna and eve missions. While it is not a  big deal on the duna mission, it can be a huge difference in the eve mission: does it mean "aero-break AND get captured" or "aero-break and MAYBE get captured (but burning a bit retrograde is fine as well)"?

Considering the Pilot level badge says to capture however you'd like, I'd take that as you must ONLY use an aerobrake to capture. After that you can use engines to adjust the orbit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

I'm actually a bit confused about the 'aero-break/capture' part of the duna and eve missions. While it is not a  big deal on the duna mission, it can be a huge difference in the eve mission: does it mean "aero-break AND get captured" or "aero-break and MAYBE get captured (but burning a bit retrograde is fine as well)"?

Yes, that part is a bit confusing, I remember struggling with that myself, back in the "shuttle flying, not challenge-running" days :) It means you have to capture by aerobraking to a stable orbit within the planet's SOI. Then you may adjust the orbit however you like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, michal.don said:

Yes, that part is a bit confusing, I remember struggling with that myself, back in the "shuttle flying, not challenge-running" days :) It means you have to capture by aerobraking to a stable orbit within the planet's SOI. Then you may adjust the orbit however you like.

Well, I was hoping for a different answer but thanks for clarification ;)

On the bright site: the rule doesn't specify the number of aero-breaks or a time limit so i can keep the 'one year break maneuver' as my plan B  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 12:58 PM, 4x4cheesecake said:

Well, I was hoping for a different answer but thanks for clarification ;)

I know the aerobraking can be tough in some instances, but hey, that's what the wings are for.... :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, michal.don said:

I know the aerobraking can be tough in some instances, but hey, that's what the wings are for.... :) 

It is more like a quirk of the game which is the problem here...the two rockomax x200 tanks which are partially clipped into the body are not occluded by the body or the wings and thez just provide a heat resistance of 2000k. I already started a thread in the gameplay subforum and got some interesting ideas how to work around this issue but even the self made radiator doesn't allow me to lower the Pe below 75km. This is already a ride on the edge regarding the heat tolerance but I'm still slightly too fast to get captured around eve (~80 -100 m/s).

There are still a few things I want to try but if anything fails, I'll probably go for a second aero-break after one solar orbit (or the heat shields:D )

Here's the link to the thread in the gameplay subforum: 

 

Edited by 4x4cheesecake
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 8:31 PM, michal.don said:

...a pretty impressive mission, too. The sats look perfectly spaced, and the change-of-plan for the landing location says a lot about your piloting capacity. Very well done! Just curious - How many landing strips do you have on Kerbin? I'm not familiar with that one, so I suppose it's from a mod?

 

Yep - Kerbal Konstructs and Kerbin Side Remastered. Provides a bunch of bases across Kerbin. Hopefully I'll be putting them to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing some final prelaunch checks on my STS-3 mission:

BRdK8Rr.png

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Mk.1 shuttle had only two flights, I've already made a Mk.2, as the problems made missions a lot longer than they should have. This revision of the shuttle fixes the wings tearing off during launch and keeps the gear from over-stressing on landings that aren't soft. The weird tail design is to help prevent tail strikes. Some things look worse in this revision, but others also look better (imo) such as the wings. Here's a change-list:

  • Replaced the LY-60 Large landing gear with the LY-99 Extra large landing gear.
  • Outer wing design changed so control surfaces can be added to it, meaning that roll will no longer be done by the two canards at the front.
  • The inner wing, wing tank and outer wing are all connected to the fuselage then offset, meaning the wings will no longer shear off.
  • The engine adaptor was changed to one made for 2.5m parts (I didn't know it existed).
  • The battery now resides in the cargo bay, not behind the engines.
  • The tail has had a design change, to bring the torque to 0, meaning the craft is more stable.
  • A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S have been added to help the craft slow down when landing.
  • The horizontal/vertical stabiliser assembly has been updated so the elevators no longer appear to float when pitching up/down.
  • Reaction wheels are now attached to the front of the wing tanks, to improve aesthetics. 

Here's some photos: 

tENXYPI.jpg

LFIdsM0.jpg

3EnvNpO.jpg

NUJ13HE.jpg

Edited by JacobTheFoxx
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JacobTheFoxx

What about re-entry heating with those long aerodynamic cones ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

@JacobTheFoxx

What about re-entry heating with those long aerodynamic cones ?

I did a few re-entry tests, and so long as I keep a relatively high pitch throughout the re-entry the craft is fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 5:00 PM, Kerbolitto said:

What about an outpost near Vallhenge, with 1 rover, science experiments to carry around, various probes on the hills around to mimic triangulation of the monuments, surface-based telescope to look at a distand galaxy or stuff like that ? :D

Maybe we could also use Laythe's outpost to refuel a tanker, or move the crew around to pack Vall's base with scientists..

So what you think ? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kerbolitto said:

So what you think ? :p

I know this challenge is all about shuttle design and flying, but we haven't had much in the way of rover payloads.  Maybe a new mission could require the deployment of a rover via a cargo ramp?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Kerbolitto said:

So what you think ? :p

I'm not a big fan of putting stuff on the ground during shuttle missons, especially if it requires to land the shuttle. Releasing a payload which will perform the landing is fine though.
Well, It's kinda fun to land the shuttle on a different celestial body but it somehow feels more like an SSTO mission than a shuttle mission, just because the shuttle is not designed for this in the first place. I guess it is somehow required to provide some variation of missions but I prefer space assemblies, so: nope ;)

38 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

I know this challenge is all about shuttle design and flying, but we haven't had much in the way of rover payloads.  Maybe a new mission could require the deployment of a rover via a cargo ramp?

Some reason as above^^
Also, this would requre a restricted shuttle design (which includes a cargo ramp) and a restricted payload design (a rover capable to drive within the cargo bay and down the ramp). I would prefer a misson which restricts just one thing: the shuttle or the payload. There are many creative designs around here and restricting a mission too much will just limit the fun of solving a given problem. So, I'm saying nope to this one as well ;)

(Usually it's not necessary in this forum but just to be sure: these are just my personal opinions based on my personal taste. Please don't feel offended just because I'm disagreeing with your ideas :) )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

(a rover capable to drive within the cargo bay and down the ramp)

You're thinking too small ;)

Why not crane ot out? Or bottom side dunk it? There's myriad options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hoioh said:

You're thinking too small ;)

Why not crane ot out? Or bottom side dunk it? There's myriad options

Well, the suggested mission explicitly mentioned to drive the rover down the ramp...actually, the whole mission idea is 'deploy a rover via cargo ramp'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, hoioh said:

You're thinking too small ;)

Why not crane ot out? Or bottom side dunk it? There's myriad options

I was thinking cargo elevator. The Mk 4 mod I use for my shuttle already has a bottom-opening version of the cargo bay.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

I know this challenge is all about shuttle design and flying, but we haven't had much in the way of rover payloads.  Maybe a new mission could require the deployment of a rover via a cargo ramp?

I'm a big fan of shuttles, rovers and ramps.

Spoiler

Proof

uz9WhyM.png

But don't you think it would be too restrictive for the designs?  I think part of the fun is seeing how each one of us find different solutions for the same mission requeriments.  On a different line of thinking, perhaps banning the use of cargo ramps in a rover delivery mission could be quite challenging ( just using them, so people with ramps on their shuttles aren't forced to build a new shuttle from scratch ).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

Well, the suggested mission explicitly mentioned to drive the rover down the ramp...actually, the whole mission idea is 'deploy a rover via cargo ramp'.

I wouldn't worry about that, our OP is smart enough to word things just precise and just vague enough to allow for maximum creativity as the current mission descriptions clearly show. And he has a mind of his own, always creating something new that is just not exactly as suggested.

Also, it's hard to get your mind to work that way (vague, yet specific), it's what lawyers get paid rediculously well for and for good reason.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hoioh said:

I wouldn't worry about that, our OP is smart enough to word things just precise and just vague enough to allow for maximum creativity as the current mission descriptions clearly show.

I guess everyone here will agree on this one. michal.don would be definitly able to build this idea into a more vage description which would allow some more creativity, nevertheless, it's totally valid to share some thoughts about suggestions anyway and maybe even start an discussion about it to refine the idea.
You suggested some alternative deployment method, which is fine :)I already used some of these during previous missions. Maybe, I should have mention alternative approaches in the first place instead of just criticising, because I actually want to discuss the suggested mission idea and not  possible interpretations ;)

Edited by 4x4cheesecake
too many 'already's
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kerbolitto, @zolotiyeruki, @4x4cheesecake, @hoioh, @sturmhauke, @Ozelui - thanks again for the ideas, and for your confidence in my judgement - I'll try my best not to disappoint :) 

As you said, I'm trying not to force too specific mission requirements to let you do your thing, your own way. So probably no ramp requirements. But you are right about the rovers - we did not use too many of those, so I'll try to incorporate those in one of the coming missions.

Since you asked, i'll probably release a "Test pilot" mission soon, maybe even today, and one "Main" mission soon-ish - I have to think about the precise rules for a bit. But I can give a small spoiler to you - it's for a celestial body we have not visited yet... :) So, please have a bit more patience with me, it should come pretty soon....

Thanks,

Michal.don

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, what the hell, here's a mission for you :D 

STS-6T is officialy go,

the mission is focused on booster recovery. The details are in the OP, and yet another badge to claim:

nt5jgwx.png?1

Hope you enjoy it,

Michal.don

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 4x4cheesecake said:

That was quick

well, yeah :D I had it almost ready for some time, I just wanted to test some of the parts a little bit more before I released it. But I'm confident it's definitely doable, even without the final few tests, so I'll just let you do your thing and not worry too much :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, michal.don said:

well, yeah :D I had it almost ready for some time, I just wanted to test some of the parts a little bit more before I released it. But I'm confident it's definitely doable, even without the final few tests, so I'll just let you do your thing and not worry too much :) 

I already have two different ideas how to recover even the huge booster of my interplanetary shuttle....this will be fun :) Actually three ideas if refuelling and flying back the booster is a valid option :D
(Also, a good reason to get FMRS back in action, I'm not going to crash one of my orbiters on purpose :P )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now