[0.22] B9 Aerospace Pack / R4.0c / New pods, IVAs, engines, fuselages & structures

[loppnessmonsta]

So as I've been building spaceplanes (I suck at spaceplanes.) I've been drawn to planes like the Strugatsky.. and how cool it would be to be able to do controlled airdrops. Right now, you just have to pitch up and let things just kinda tumble out, but I thought maybe the B9 crew could make it smoother than that. The best I could come up with, as far as a way to do it, is to have a special node on the tail ramps, which you then attach a special airdrop part (maybe a pallet?) to. The airdrop part would then have its own special node (kinda like how KW does fairings) that would let you string airdrop parts in sequence, and you could build your payload on the airdrop part. Now, sure, you can already do that with decouplers, but the real cool part (which I have no idea how you could possibly do) would be to have the airdrop parts move to the tail node before they actually decouple/stage, which would let you do parachutes and whatnot. Like I said, I have no idea how you could pull that off... but it would be pretty cool if you could. It would also have some pretty interesting applications in space.

Just thought I'd mention it. For now, what I plan on doing, is using KAS to move each stage back as I fire them. But they're still going to rattle around a lot.

[Railgunner2160]

How about a DR hydraulic ram with a decoupler attached?? All you'd have to do is set it up to extend towards the back and then hit the decoupler stage....

[velusip]

For everyone who doesn't use Deadly Reentry but still uses a mod with ModuleManager:

Here is fixed version of the ExsurgentEngineering plugin. Put this directly into GameData/ExsurgentEngineering/Plugins.

I have careo's permission to redistribute.

Collaboration across awesome plugins fills my heart with joy.

[smunisto]

I have been wondering - is there any counter-incentive for people not to use the sabres on their interplanetary ships? They are immensely OP once in vacuum, much more than the normal nuclear propulsion engines. Compare a 2.5m NERVA engine to a Sabre M...it is op.

I know that we can just keep using NERVAs, but it is itching me to know that there is a more efficient engine in my KSP and I am not using it on purpose

[Hyomoto]

It's just one of those things. I had this conversation with a friend earlier. You can use whatever parts you want, you can use MechJeb, you can use unlimited fuel. At the end of the day, your enjoyment is what matters there. The only time it will come into play is when you start to compare. If I flew to the Mun with a duct tape rocket, I'm not going to be impressed that you HyperEdit'd yours there. As a counter you might just be baffled I didn't do the same.

That's why comps usually have stock/modified leaderboards. Stock is the baseline, modified is just difficult to judge since there is no standard. Personally I use a few of these parts, I'd consider more except the sorting is so absolutely abysmal, but all downloaded parts I have modified to be in alignment with stock. I do the math, edit the files and move on with my day. I want the diversity, but I'm not willing to give up the challenge for it.

[Van Disaster]

I have been wondering - is there any counter-incentive for people not to use the sabres on their interplanetary ships? They are immensely OP once in vacuum, much more than the normal nuclear propulsion engines. Compare a 2.5m NERVA engine to a Sabre M...it is op.

I know that we can just keep using NERVAs, but it is itching me to know that there is a more efficient engine in my KSP and I am not using it on purpose

Are you not just looking at the jet ISP? the rocket mode is 375 in vacuum, 330 at sea level ( from the cfg ).

There's no reason not to use them on any spaceplane large enough to need a small one though, and that's pretty much anything bigger than a personal shuttle.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Van Disaster

[MR4Y]

With some tweaks(altering the surface control details on FAR) I can bring the Heinlein up to 24 Km...then it falls back to the ground.

[smunisto]

Are you not just looking at the jet ISP? the rocket mode is 375 in vacuum, 330 at sea level ( from the cfg ).

There's no reason not to use them on any spaceplane large enough to need a small one though, and that's pretty much anything bigger than a personal shuttle.

I guess you are right. I am amazed how that didn't come into my mind, completely forgot they have 2 modes and that the ingame info probably shows jet isp.

@Hyomoto: Yes, you are right. However, as the years go by the child in us grows and I personally started playing games by seeing numbers and charts everywhere, from MMOs to KSP, somehow I rarely find(like in the case of KSP for me), a game where I can dedicate myself gambling around like a little bunny. Once you get the ropes of the game, it becomes just numbers. Enjoying is different from challenge though, as you have said too. I, too, have a personal level of tolerance for mods and overpowered stuff in the game.

[bac9]

Version 3.2 is up on kerbalspaceprogram.com. Contains new version of ExsurgentEngineering.dll, now compatible with ModuleManager. Thanks to careo & ialdabaoth for investigation and the fix!

[Tartiflette]

First I want to thank you Bac9 for creating the most awesome pack of parts, one that fits perfectly my "Why go to space if it's not with style" kind of mind.

But I have to admit I found some of the engines a bit too efficient. Here's why:

There you can see my newest VTOL, a true marvel of balancing if I may, very easy to fly, take off and land perfectly, I love it!

It's a jet only plane, no oxidizer, but I almost reached orbit (100km x 51km), and the engines are still running (although at an extremely low power). You can also notice that I was in flight for 23minutes and still near full tank.

So I thought "Damned, I'm sooooo close, all I need is a dozen of m/s!" That's when I noticed that my compressed air thrusters where still full...

And here you have it: Orbit achieved on air breathing engine only!

Anyway, it's still a great mod!

[6677]

I love this pack but could it be possible to get a tail piece for the widebody S2 with a cargo ramp in it? I wanted to make a huge dropship with a massive cargo bay of rovers but there isn't an effective way to get out of that cargo bay when not in orbit, apart from rovers with their own flight abilities of course.

[hellion13]

mediafire link for 3.2 is down

[Gaius]

mediafire link for 3.2 is down

Actually, the links in the first post are entirely messed up. The one that it says is for kerbalspaceport takes you to mediafire (3.1c), and the one that it says is for mediafire is actually to "..."

[bac9]

Thanks, fixed the links.

[pappa]

Slight problem for me, i dont have all the parts, only the cockpits and the ngines, anyone know what to do?

[Lurven]

Seems like the 3.0+ updates broke the S3 supersonic cocpits retraction :/

[moxzot]

Seems like the 3.0+ updates broke the S3 supersonic cocpits retraction :/

it not broken dude its been removed but the animated peices are still there because people wanted lights over retraction

[Spanier]

Version 3.2 is there, so FAR doesn't break the SABRE M engine any more, right?

[o_O]

The Adventure Star, designed to carry a Duna lander and command module except with those Sabre engines it already is a Duna lander and command module. Single Stage To Anywhere

Although, technically its not single stage if half the landing gear randomly fall off on takeoff and landing. Im thinking about just making a gear version of the MK3 rover wheels.

Edited June 16, 2013 by o_O

[Gaius]

Although, technically its not single stage if half the landing gear randomly fall off on takeoff and landing. Im thinking about just making a gear version of the MK3 rover wheels.

Personally, I only count it as a stage if there's a decoupler involved. Parts falling off is a "variable geometry vehicle".

[IGNOBIL]

I love this mod, I made a crew carrying spaceplane to take and pick up kerbals from GKO station that works like a charm every time, but I cant take any cargo, can't get the cargo bay doors to close, neither the S2 or the big ones!

[6677]

Although, technically its not single stage if half the landing gear randomly fall off on takeoff and landing. Im thinking about just making a gear version of the MK3 rover wheels.

More gear in one solid line maybe?

Failing that, rover wheels seem to work better for rolling in a straight line than the official landing gear does, just no folding. Some lightweight rover wheels, perhaps without the drive motors or steering would work infinitely better than the stock landing gear.

[Defkaunta]

This might be a very stupid question but i recently added this pack to KSP. I am building a spaceshuttle now with the Tetragon Projects "Sabre S" & "Sabre M" Engine. I have added fuel tanks and air intake. So far it starts without falling to pieces but as soon as i reach the stratosphere (border to space) one engine after the other switches off and my spaceshuttle falls back down to the ground.

Did i forget something? Are the engines not made for space travel?

Any help would be great! Thanks!

[iplop]

This might be a very stupid question but i recently added this pack to KSP. I am building a spaceshuttle now with the Tetragon Projects "Sabre S" & "Sabre M" Engine. I have added fuel tanks and air intake. So far it starts without falling to pieces but as soon as i reach the stratosphere (border to space) one engine after the other switches off and my spaceshuttle falls back down to the ground.

Did i forget something? Are the engines not made for space travel?

Any help would be great! Thanks!

You need to switch the Sabre engines to rocket mode.

To do this you can either right click the engines while in flight and select switch mode or make an action group for the engines in the construction warehouse.

The latter option is better.

[Lurven]

it not broken dude its been removed but the animated peices are still there because people wanted lights over retraction

OK, thanks