Shuttle Challenge v6 - The STS thread [Stock and Mod Friendly] - ANNOUNCEMENT: v7 IS LIVE!

[Fulgora]

1 hour ago, Artienia said:

Thank you! I personally like the Duna Commsat mission as i want to see what everyone comes up with for 100% coverage for Duna and Ike. The best i could come up with was a 5 sattelite combo

Also after brainstorming some original ideas, i thought of this: What about some water base for Eve? maybe even a submarine? Boat? I think that would be really fun to build an Eve boat 

Making clever use of the generous margins in the Commsat code (allowing the signals to travel through the "crust" of planetary bodies) you can probably get away with 4 satellites - 2 for Duna and 2 for Ike.

However as there is already an  STS-satellite mission this doesn't add anything new to the STS missions. In my opinion this would be much better suited as a dedicated challenge - and possibly using the Jool system instead. With a clever formula that penalizes number of satellites as well as partcount and mass this could yield very interesting results. In order to prove proper coverage you'd probably also need to provide a savegame with "ground stations" in the system that need to be connected to the KSC to ensure a level playing field.

 

I think a new challenge has to tick at least these four checkboxes:

1. Is it fun? (duh!)
2. Does it add anything new to the STS challenge in terms of either: Shuttle design, Shuttle piloting, Gameplay mechanics that can be used in combinations with shuttles?
3. It isn't possible / feasible / desirable to do the new mission as a dedicated challenge (without shuttle requirements)
4. Does it align with the existing missions in terms of complexity / effort required?

Another good requirement for new missions would be that the author needs to provide a valid entry for the idea (and meet all the preconditions for his/her challenge). That ensures that the requirements have been thought through, tested and written with notable Shuttle design / flight experience before a mission is considered by @sturmhauke.

I'd be more than happy to do that for my proposal (once I am done recording / editing all the current Mun missions).

Edited May 24, 2021 by Fulgora

[Artienia]

Kerbin STS-2a

Because imgur keeps uploading my pictures out of order, i'll only send a partial collection of them, but i can send all of them out of order if anyone wishes to verify this.
If anyone would like to give this launch an OK that would be appriciated, as i wouldn't want to self-verify myself 
Click the spoiler for the key moments

Spoiler

Edited May 25, 2021 by Artienia

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Hello.   It's been an age since I last posted here, and was looking to get back onto these challenges, but with a different niche.

I've been developing a shuttle for entering the challenge again, this time with Real Solar system, since I saw that's being accepted now (with a little ribbon thingy on the badges too).  It's something of a cursed Frankenstein monster with characteristics of the original Space Shuttle, Dream Chaser, and X-37B.   It's got a chonky booster being developed to go with it.  

 (Yes those are AJ-260s being used as strap-on boosters)

However, one thing it also has at the moment that I'm unsure on are RCS thrusters, engines, and tanks  from RO.

I know currently the rules state that engine stats should be roughly in line with stock, and it's occurred that the engines I have on this thing don't really fall into that.  RO engines, being made of Earthling materials, have much higher TWR than the Kerbal engines, and tend to have somewhat higher ISP (particularly in the case of HydroLox, which is currently the core of my launcher).
For example, RS-25 (SSME) has a vac Isp of 452 s and TWR of 73.1 while the equivalent stock engine, the Vector, only gets 315 vac Isp and has a TWR of about 25.5.  So the performance of RO engines is much higher, but of course they have to do a lot more work too.

Would it be allowed to use these?    To me it just makes sense using them with the bigger solar system, where everything has to be much bigger and go way faster, all without melting your computer.  Also, well, they're realistic (I say as I plan to send a shuttle to Mars).  That being said, I'd understand if the answer is no, considering the last (and only) person I saw enter with RSS (@Entropian) used stock parts to do the whole thing (kudos!), and there's so many different things to juggle when moderating.

Edited May 27, 2021 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Artienia]

11 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Hello.   It's been an age since I last posted here, and was looking to get back onto these challenges, but with a different niche.

I've been developing a shuttle for entering the challenge again, this time with Real Solar system, since I saw that's being accepted now (with a little ribbon thingy on the badges too).  It's something of a cursed Frankenstein monster with characteristics of the original Space Shuttle, Dream Chaser, and X-37B.   It's got a chonky booster being developed to go with it.  

 (Yes those are AJ-260s being used as strap-on boosters)

However, one thing it also has at the moment that I'm unsure on are RCS thrusters, engines, and tanks  from RO.

I know currently the rules state that engine stats should be roughly in line with stock, and it's occurred that the engines I have on this thing don't really fall into that.  RO engines, being made of Earthling materials, have much higher TWR than the Kerbal engines, and tend to have somewhat higher ISP (particularly in the case of HydroLox, which is currently the core of my launcher).
For example, RS-25 (SSME) has a vac Isp of 452 s and TWR of 73.1 while the equivalent stock engine, the Vector, only gets 315 vac Isp and has a TWR of about 25.5.  So the performance of RO engines is much higher, but of course they have to do a lot more work too.

Would it be allowed to use these?    To me it just makes sense using them with the bigger solar system, where everything has to be much bigger and go way faster, all without melting your computer.  Also, well, they're realistic (I say as I plan to send a shuttle to Mars).  That being said, I'd understand if the answer is no, considering the last (and only) person I saw enter with RSS (@Entropian) used stock parts to do the whole thing (kudos!), and there's so many different things to juggle when moderating.

I am just an assistant so i'll give my best judgement to this situation. As i see it the engines qualify for "in-line stock". If i scaled up a planet, it should obviously follow that the engines should scale up aswell.

So if you used RSS it would only make sense for you to use RSS-designed engines. That's my take on it. If you were to submit i would give you the badge, but as just an assistant, Strumhauke has the final say and could revoke it (Doubtful he would though)

In short: go ahead man i'm excited

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Ok, I can now confirm my shuttle flies, as a glider at least.   A glider that flies marginally better than a brick, but that's to be expected.

Now if I can only get past the issue that my carrier plane explodes with extreme violence (to the point of sometimes crashing my game) the moment my shuttle detaches from it, so I can make a half-decent video/report. 
(Also for some reason all my procedural wings look like they have heat tiles no matter what texture I set them to, but I figure that's relatively minor)

[Artienia]

2 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Ok, I can now confirm my shuttle flies, as a glider at least.   A glider that flies marginally better than a brick, but that's to be expected.

Now if I can only get past the issue that my carrier plane explodes with extreme violence (to the point of sometimes crashing my game) the moment my shuttle detaches from it, so I can make a half-decent video/report. 
(Also for some reason all my procedural wings look like they have heat tiles no matter what texture I set them to, but I figure that's relatively minor)

Maybe use seperators? Those small SRB engine thingies, that could maybe work?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

2 minutes ago, Artienia said:

Maybe use seperators? Those small SRB engine thingies, that could maybe work?

Yep.  Those are the sort of black box thingies on the side of the fuselage of the big plane.  I think it's some kind of Kraken issue that's getting me.  It's not like the carrier and shuttle are crashing into each other after separation, the carrier just instantly explodes the moment it decouples.
Might need to redo the combined vessel file or something.

[Artienia]

1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Yep.  Those are the sort of black box thingies on the side of the fuselage of the big plane.  I think it's some kind of Kraken issue that's getting me.  It's not like the carrier and shuttle are crashing into each other after separation, the carrier just instantly explodes the moment it decouples.
Might need to redo the combined vessel file or something.

What if you put them on the shuttle instead of the  plane?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

4 minutes ago, Artienia said:

What if you put them on the shuttle instead of the  plane?

Hmm, I'll try that later this morning.  I wanted to keep the shuttle clean of any features it wouldn't have in flight, but tbh they're probably too small to make a significant difference in how it flies.  Even if they do, it's better than the other plane exploding right? 

Edited May 29, 2021 by EpicSpaceTroll139
Edit: Realized it already was morning

[Fulgora]

1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Hmm, I'll try that later this morning.  I wanted to keep the shuttle clean of any features it wouldn't have in flight, but tbh they're probably too small to make a significant difference in how it flies.  Even if they do, it's better than the other plane exploding right? 

Are you deploying the flaps on the shuttle before releasing it?

[sturmhauke]

9 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Hmm, I'll try that later this morning.  I wanted to keep the shuttle clean of any features it wouldn't have in flight, but tbh they're probably too small to make a significant difference in how it flies.  Even if they do, it's better than the other plane exploding right? 

For my STS-1T mission, I throttled down the carrier plane and went into a shallow dive before releasing the orbiter. I also mounted the orbiter pitched up slightly so it would naturally have more lift on release. Here's a link:

Er, wait no that's the wrong one. Here:

 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

 

11 hours ago, Artienia said:

What if you put them on the shuttle instead of the  plane?

I switched them over to being on the shuttle and it worked once.  Except my shuttle dropped back into the carrier plane after separating by several meters.   Somehow I went on to make a survivable "landing" afterwards despite scraping off the body flap in the collision.

I adjusted the separation motors afterwards and now the carrier plane is back to exploding.  

9 hours ago, Fulgora said:

Are you deploying the flaps on the shuttle before releasing it?

Yes I've been doing that, though I have tested without.  I think they help with separation a bit.

Edited May 29, 2021 by EpicSpaceTroll139
several meters not planes

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

4 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

For my STS-1T mission, I throttled down the carrier plane and went into a shallow dive before releasing the orbiter. I also mounted the orbiter pitched up slightly so it would naturally have more lift on release. Here's a link:

Er, wait no that's the wrong one. Here:

 

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

It's hard to see, but I also have my shuttle mounted at an angle.  Small angles make a bigger difference in FAR, and I was wary of affecting the flight characteristics of the vehicles when they're attached to each-other, but I'm going to try tilting it a bit more.  I also have been throttling the carrier plane back.  I'll have to try the shallow dive technique though, haven't been doing that.

Still gotta figure out what's causing the instant explosion on some occasions though.  It's like the carrier just spaghettifies after separating.  

Edit:  Using more a aggressive pitch mounting of the shuttle and an action group to trim the carrier aircraft down at separation, I've now got the shuttle detaching cleanly with (apparently) good reliability.  It seems the separation motors were the source of the kraken attacks.  No idea why.

Edited May 29, 2021 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[sturmhauke]

6 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Edit:  Using more a aggressive pitch mounting of the shuttle and an action group to trim the carrier aircraft down at separation, I've now got the shuttle detaching cleanly with (apparently) good reliability.  It seems the separation motors were the source of the kraken attacks.  No idea why.

I've found that if you clip the separators too far into other parts, it can cause collisions at the moment of separation that the game wasn't checking for before separation. 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

2 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

I've found that if you clip the separators too far into other parts, it can cause collisions at the moment of separation that the game wasn't checking for before separation. 

I don't know if you're talking about separators as in decouplers or as in the separation motors, but neither was clipped at all. 

It turned out I was just getting lucky with the carrier plane not exploding after I removed the separation motors.  It has returned to exploding.  I tried offsetting the decoupler a little bit outward just in case it was clipped slightly for some reason, but that didn't help.  If I can't solve this issue tonight I think I might just go ahead and make a report without landing the carrier plane.  After all I'm doing this in sandbox and the STS-1T mission doesn't technically require landing the carrier. 


Edit:  Looks like in this particular flight I forgot to throttle down the carrier engines before detach.  Doesn't seem to have any effect on the exploding tho

Edited May 30, 2021 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[sturmhauke]

16 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I don't know if you're talking about separators as in decouplers or as in the separation motors, but neither was clipped at all. 

Both, really, but yeah that's weird. Are you using autostruts? Sometimes too many autostruts can cause phantom stresses, especially if any autostruts cross the decoupler.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

1 minute ago, sturmhauke said:

Both, really, but yeah that's weird. Are you using autostruts? Sometimes too many autostruts can cause phantom stresses, especially if any autostruts cross the decoupler.

Hmmm... that might be it.  I don't have many autostruts on there but the locked-to-heaviest-part ones on the shuttle's landing gear do go across the decoupler... I suppose I could go into the craft file and force-disable the autostruts on the landing gear, then see what happens.  I'm not sure how the shuttle will fair on landing if I do that though.

[sturmhauke]

On 5/27/2021 at 2:18 PM, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Hello.   It's been an age since I last posted here, and was looking to get back onto these challenges, but with a different niche.

I've been developing a shuttle for entering the challenge again, this time with Real Solar system, since I saw that's being accepted now (with a little ribbon thingy on the badges too).  It's something of a cursed Frankenstein monster with characteristics of the original Space Shuttle, Dream Chaser, and X-37B.   It's got a chonky booster being developed to go with it.  

 (Yes those are AJ-260s being used as strap-on boosters)

However, one thing it also has at the moment that I'm unsure on are RCS thrusters, engines, and tanks  from RO.

I know currently the rules state that engine stats should be roughly in line with stock, and it's occurred that the engines I have on this thing don't really fall into that.  RO engines, being made of Earthling materials, have much higher TWR than the Kerbal engines, and tend to have somewhat higher ISP (particularly in the case of HydroLox, which is currently the core of my launcher).
For example, RS-25 (SSME) has a vac Isp of 452 s and TWR of 73.1 while the equivalent stock engine, the Vector, only gets 315 vac Isp and has a TWR of about 25.5.  So the performance of RO engines is much higher, but of course they have to do a lot more work too.

Would it be allowed to use these?    To me it just makes sense using them with the bigger solar system, where everything has to be much bigger and go way faster, all without melting your computer.  Also, well, they're realistic (I say as I plan to send a shuttle to Mars).  That being said, I'd understand if the answer is no, considering the last (and only) person I saw enter with RSS (@Entropian) used stock parts to do the whole thing (kudos!), and there's so many different things to juggle when moderating.

I've been giving this some thought. I think the sensible solution is that the parts used should have stockalike balance relative to the planet mod to qualify for "stock". So for instance, a mod like OPM that adds planets to the stock system, or GPP that replaces it with stock scale planets (in the default config), should use the standard stock parts list.

For an upscaled planet pack like JNSQ, GPP with an alternate config, etc., stock parts are effectively somewhat closer to real life performance, making missions a bit harder than stock. Perhaps I could make some laurels or something to signify the higher difficulty. Using a mod like SMURFF to rebalance parts to stockalike would be permissible.

In any of these scenarios, using a combination of mods to get modestly higher performance than stockalike would put the mission into the modded category. Using massively higher performance mods would still be disallowed.

I have read up on all these different mods, but I haven't actually used any of them myself. I'm open to feedback on specific configs and such.

And finally, @Entropian deserves special commendation for doing RSS with standard stock parts, which is way more difficult than any of these. Even RSS-RO would have been easier than that. And so, I present the Skunkworks badge! Congratulations!

[sturmhauke]

On 5/23/2021 at 7:28 PM, Artienia said:

Also while we're at the missions, would it be possible to rearrange the order of the mission listings on the first page from
(Kerbin -> Kerbin 9 -> Mun -> Duna -> Jool -> Eve -> Minmus -> Kerbin Test)
to
(Kerbin -> Kerbin 9 -> Kerbin Test -> Mun -> Minmus -> Duna -> Eve -> Jool)
because it's out-of-orderness really drives me mad  

The Test Pilot missions are not just on Kerbin though, and are also not part of the standard progression. I think they should stay where they are.

[Astrionix]

Is your shuttle allowed to have one large booster, or must it also have two side boosters?

[Artienia]

7 hours ago, Astrion said:

Is your shuttle allowed to have one large booster, or must it also have two side boosters?

Your launch vehicle can have any number of boosters, your shuttle can do too but the shuttle itself must be reusable (so you cant decouple them)

[Autochrome]

Looks like a cool challenge, I'll make sure to try it out.

[Autochrome]

Let me introduce you to the Determination Space Shuttle!

https://imgur.com/a/DqhLXR6

I hope to improve this shuttle in the future.

[Artienia]

50 minutes ago, Austin_Kerman said:

Let me introduce you to the Determination Space Shuttle!

https://imgur.com/a/DqhLXR6

I hope to improve this shuttle in the future.

Looks good! can't wait to see how it fairs in the missions

[Autochrome]

@Artienia Thanks! It has a lot of flaws I have to iron out, but it should work.