Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, Alpha Gametauri here.

 

Thought about starting a discussion talking about each others Shuttle's, how to improve them, combination of each others ideas, etc. Nothing specific. I was going to upload my Space Shuttle, but i lost it going back to 1.2.2, (reason being there is a Interstellar mod i miss having and trying to find again.)

 

Let's just say my Shuttle handles like a Drunk Rhino on Landing, come down even a tinsy bit too fast and it shatters. She is a little hard on launch, and i probably have enough fuel left over after i dump the ET for a one-way trip to Duna or Eve. I do have a Shuttle Test Bed file, a Shuttle i use for test upgrade/improvising design and see how it flies. I have tried designing an SSTO, all of them fly wonderfully, except i have little fuel left when in orbit, and if i carry too much, i max at 48-52,000M.

 

Can't wait to see what ya'll have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly prefer a dreamchaser like spacecraft doing a regular in-fairing launch than a 70 ton brick glider slapped right next to a rocket. Its much easier to build. Also, a Maks type system is also quite neat, bassicly a small shuttle launched from a plane with a big fuel tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, i learned that. Wanted to keep it near in terms of looks like the Nasa shuttle, but it is hard to fly Thors hammer with Popsicle sticks for wings and office tape holding it together. I did get the joint reinforcement mod which helps, but coming down harder then an asteroid is unrealistic. So i adopted the dreamchaser shuttle design, only 2 issues, i'm sometimes struggle getting payloads into orbit because of room, and if i start the gravity turn too early, i tumble it into the ocean, too late, i'm going interplanetary.

EDIT: I just found a shuttle mod "Cormorant Aeronology" So i'ma give the NASA shuttle design one last try.

Edited by Alpha_Gametauri
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a very fast build, and needs a lot of tweaking, especially the horrible atmospheric flight behavior, but it did make it to space with 3000+ dV, so definitely has some promise, I am going to try and pack a tiny Laythe base in the cargo hold and try and get a return from Laythe as well.

Kazj8NB.png

25fkPfW.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Questions to the guy above me.

1- What Texture mod are you running, the terrains and atmosphere look awesome.

2- What are ur PC specs? Cause that's a s**t ton of mods. I have an AMD A8-6410 Radeon Graphics with 4GB ram, so i have the bare minimum requirements. 

I'm thinking of YT'ing and all this other stuff in the future, so i'm saving for a Monster PC, a build so outrageous i won't need another until we live on the planet that rhymes with my name (slight exaggeration)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to call someone just put an @  symbol in front of their name

1. Astronomers Visual Pack Repackaged

2. in KSP CPU core speed is king, I'm running a Core i5 [email protected], my video card is just a GTX 1060 3GB.

If you want to Stream and play with high part count ships and dock at stations and stuff I would recommend an AMD Ryzen 5 1600X overclocked with a Fractal Design Celsius S36 cooler, it is almost as powerful as an i7 7700k but cheaper and has more cores. A GTX 1060, RX 580, Vega 56, GTX 1070 are all easily good enough to play at reasonable frame rates with all the visual mods at 1080p, if you want a higher resolution go for the more expensive cards. Luckily there is no benefit in running KSP at a high frame rate, 30-60FPS is good enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@selfish_meme

Future build

CPU: Ryzen 7 1800X OC

MB: Asus Crosshair VI Hero

CPU CLR: Celsius S36

RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 64GB

MEM: Samsung 960Evo 1TB ssd + Seagate Barracuda Pro 8TB HDD

GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080ti FTW3 (two of them)

CASE: be quiet! - Dark Base Pro 900 Full Tower

PwrS: SeaSonic-Prime Titanium 850w 80+ Titanium Certified Fully-Modular

 

Grand Total is around $4.2-$4.3k

Edited by Alpha_Gametauri
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted a computer where i can have all the mods i want, game at max settings, and anything else i want to do with no difficulty, and i wouldn't need a new build until... ever. Might, and this is a BIG might, still have probs with KSP since it's limited to one core and 4gb ram cap.

 

I have some people say it's overkill, one said i was overkilling overkill.

@selfish_meme

Speaking of Mods there's this one Interstellar mod i miss. I forgot what's it's called, and what KSP version i ran when i had it. I'm currently running 1.0.5, waiting until i get a better computer before i stay up-to-date in versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alpha_Gametauri said:

I wanted a computer where i can have all the mods i want, game at max settings, and anything else i want to do with no difficulty, and i wouldn't need a new build until... ever. Might, and this is a BIG might, still have probs with KSP since it's limited to one core and 4gb ram cap.

 

I have some people say it's overkill, one said i was overkilling overkill.

KSP does not have a 4GB cap, that's only if you start the 32bit version, start the 64bit version and it will use all your RAM. Still even with all the mods loaded you will be hard pressed to exceed 16GB

It is only overkill if it exceeds your needs. If you want it to last a long time, and be perform-ant for a long time, it is perfectly reasonable to spend more now. Personally I wouldn't get a second 1080ti, as SLI is notoriously finicky and prone to breaking, but it is still a valid choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Annnnnnd back on topic:

This is my current early stage build of an interplanetary shuttle.  It's doing a few Mun missions to shake down before going into a partial re-design to ready it for extended Jool Operations:

0XgKEEF.png

 

I've made absolutely heaps of shuttles though.  Here are a few that I can remember:

Here's a micro shuttle:

2S2aIt9.png

 

Here's my copy of a JSC Shuttle IIc, with a fully functioning abort to space or abort from orbit cockpit ejection system:

4qnqAWT.png

 

Rockwell C-1057 Breadbox Shuttle.  Never worked properly:

04B8RCM.png

 

My Buran (my most successful shuttle to date:

Image result for speeding mullet shuttle

 

A nice midi sized Mk 2 Shuttle:

Image result for speeding mullet shuttle

 

Don't even know what I called this monster.  Those windows are from the Mk1 crew cabins:

GvwzxKG.png

 

Another Micro Shuttle:

uD3szM4.png

 

My dreamchaser (I call it the Screamchaser):

Q0ToqN5.png

 

As you can see I quite like building shuttles.  It's definitely one of the more challenging things to do well!  Sorry to turn your first page into a wall of pictures :)

SM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, it's alright, i quite like them, especially the breadbox, XD. I'll adopt the really tiny shuttle (2nd pic) as an emergency shuttle, like space station evac.

 

I like how you said "aaannd back on topic" I love how a small discussion went from improving gameplay to a PC Part Picker forum.

Also, i never had luck with an interplanetary shuttle. I'd test it on Kerbin, works perfectly. Then i go to Duna, shatters on Re-entry, if i survive, no matter my speed or how shallow i come in, i always land hard. Plus it's hard for me to find a flat tundra on Duna... or any planet/moon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I improved the fuel flow and handling on my shuttle, it now has 4600dV in 100km+ orbit. I intend to land it in the water on Laythe and then roll ashore somewhere flat, it will have a base with refueling capabiltiy onboard (not built yet) and rover, possibly an aerial scout vehicle as well.

M83g85O.png

Edited by selfish_meme
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 4:33 AM, Alpha_Gametauri said:

Let's just say my Shuttle handles like a Drunk Rhino on Landing

I've never seen a drunk rhino attempt to land a space shuttle before. Sounds pretty disastrous.

In any case, if you're struggling getting the shuttle orbiter to glide to a landing properly, you should try testing out a version of the shuttle with empty fuel tanks and just add a couple of jet engines and fuel tanks on either side of the center of mass. That'll let you fly it like a plane up to a reasonable altitude to test its gliding abilities, without having to do a full orbital test. Ever since I learned that the real space shuttle had a cheaper (identically-shaped) counterpart for aerodynamics testing I've been doing this for any space shuttle I build. It makes things a lot easier because you can make drastic changes to wing shape or even completely change the orbiter design if you need to, but you won't need to overhaul the launch vehicle because you won't've built the launch vehicle yet. It's far easier to test a shuttle in stages than trying to get it all to work at once (though really this can apply to any vehicle in KSP).

Edited by eloquentJane
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to build a big bird like some pictured. Mk3 body, a PTSO design, carrying a large fuel tank and extra engine underneath, much like a lot pictured here.

I am running into an annoying issue, in that she launches fine, performs her initial turn and once she gets moving (250 - 300 m/s) she will hold a 45 degree climb angle fine, reducing it to around 30 degrees after 12,000 altitude, but as the under tank gets near empty and the altitude is around 22,000 she will nose up severely under throttle, but you can reduce power to guide her to around 30,000 where she becomes uncontrollable. It isn't pictured, because I have been trying so many different combinations of wings, thrust, reaction wheels etc. all to no effect. Anyone have any ideas of what causes a shuttle to nose up aggressively in the upper atmosphere?

I ask here because so many of these designs are so similar to mine, I feel someone here will know! Maybe even you had the same issue?

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

Anyone have any ideas of what causes a shuttle to nose up aggressively in the upper atmosphere?

Anytime you're making an asymmetrical shuttle layout, (like the American STS), the Center-of-Mass will shift significantly during ascent as you burn fuel out of the external fuel tank.  Compare the "wet" CoM (full fuel tank) with the "dry" CoM (empty fuel tank) in relation to where the Center-of-Thrust is.  I'm assuming that the CoM and CoT is lined up at launch, but as the fuel tank is emptied, the CoM shifts more "up" toward the orbiter since that's where the majority of the dry mass is.  As the CoM shifts up, or dorsal, the CoT will be "lower" or ventral than the CoM, causing the shuttle to nose up.

Further complicating this balancing act is the addition of side boosters that not only affect the total CoM before and after jettison but the CoT as well.  Even the total payload mass and where the payload is mounted in the shuttle bay can affect the balance throughout the various phases of ascent.  Yeah, shuttles are definitely hard.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Further complicating this balancing act is the addition of side boosters that not only affect the total CoM before and after jettison but the CoT as well.  Even the total payload mass and where the payload is mounted in the shuttle bay can affect the balance throughout the various phases of ascent.  Yeah, shuttles are definitely hard.

Depending on engine layout, adding some SRBs to the side of an external tank (a very STS-like layout) can actually improve the balance during flight. One way of designing a shuttle launch vehicle might be to set it up so that it's more unbalanced with the tank full than with it empty, but then adding boosters to balance it better at liftoff. That way (though this part is very much dependent on the specific vehicle design and also on engine thrust limiting and engine angles) the boosters will balance out the vehicle in the early stages of flight, and at booster cutoff the external tank for the orbiter should be at about the right fuel level to be balanced enough for stable flight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all true.  I like to think of shuttle designs as a backwards planning method:

1) Design an orbiter and adjust aerodynamics so it can maintain stability during reentry and glide properly with empty or partially-empty tanks.
2) Balance OMS and RCS layout/orientation for orbital operations with and without a payload. Re-verify step number 1.
3) Design and balance external fuel tank and orbiter main engines for upper ascent to orbit phase with heavy and light payload.  Re-verify previous steps if mass is added/removed/shifted on orbiter.
4) Design and balance side boosters with orbiter/tank assemblies for launch to upper ascent phase with heavy and light payload.  Again, re-verify previous steps if mass is added/removed/shifted on orbiter and/or external tank.
5) Incorporate whatever Sepratron/decoupler set ups as needed to ensure a smooth booster/external tank separation during ascent. :)
6) Practice the ascent profile until it's repeatable, and then find out how much of a payload you can haul up without losing control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great advise guys, and thanks! @Raptor9 has pretty much a) confirmed what I already thought and then b) in the second post put the list of actions I have been following developing this vehicle with one minor change - the payload is minimal and fixed. The end use is a massive spaceplane type thing for ferrying tourists en-masse.

@eloquentJane I haven't been using any SRB on it, other than sometimes a Flea to stop the nose dropping too fast after launch!

And no, the top section doesn't fly so well, but it can nosedive into the ground and the passenger compartment always survives the impact. Cockpit doesn't ever survive though, so make sure there is a seat in the back for Jeb! Haha

Thanks for the advice, I will get this to fly and then add it here :D

 

In re-reading Raptor's comments it makes me think.... The US Shuttle always rolled over on launch, no? I wonder if this is to do with the mass moving etc?

 

Edited by Andetch
Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...