Kerbin Mini Shuttle

[ZRM]

The scientific world uses the International Sistem, no m/s speed lectures love for us?

I'm sure he intends to fix that. If not, it's easy enough to do yourself.

Well, S.I. units are actually what I started with, but helldiver is the one making most of the design decisions, and he wants the imperial/U.S. distance units, so that's what I have set as default.

It's very easy to change the units, and even the units labels with very small edits to the config file. Look at some of my most recent posts for an idea of this.

---

My apologies if this had already been addressed; will this shuttle have special fuel requirements, or will standard tanks work fine? I want to test out George Von Pragenau's proposed launch configuration when this bird becomes available. Thanks!

This has been discussed, and currently the shuttle will be released with a Modular Fuel System as a requirement, with a stock fuel version in the works. A stock-fuelled version will need to have all of its statistics balanced to work as well as the MFS version.

---

Just finished reading all the back posts on this project. Looks outstanding!

Few personal notes:

-Outstanding choice of the Liquid boosters. That alone makes a successful ascent far more likely, as you can throttle down to make sure you don't exceed terminal velocity.

-The pairing of the absolutely beautiful interior and the sleek exterior with the new MFD system is one of the best features of this mod. I would still probably download the shuttle without the MFDs, but those are the final straw: this is number one on my "to download" list.

-Will this be compatible with MechJeb's ascent guidance mode?

-Once you have the flight dynamics balanced, can you include a small manual for flight ops? I don't think that MechJeb's landing guidance will play well with the winged design... You'd need to provide a couple of suggestions for timing the deorbit burn.

All in all, this is going to become one of the top addons (in terms of pushing the envelope) ever made for KSP.

Thanks for the compliments. I'm lucky to be collaborating with such a talented artist.

MechJeb sort of works with it, but due to the off-centre thrust vector at the later stages of the launch it can be quite inaccurate. I recommend launching manually (it's not that hard) until I have created the programmable flight computer that can take care of all of this for you after you've written a landing script.

I can reliably land the shuttle with its current aerodynamics model (which is subject to change) using the following method:

For de-orbiting, I recommend turning on the MechJeb landing prediction indicator, but not actually activating the landing guidance. Then, from LKO (80-100Km), so that you don't re-enter too fast, you want to perform the de-orbit burn opposite where the KSC will be when you reach periapsis so that the landing predicition moves over KSC. I find that it does not have to be exact. It's best to overshoot slightly, then burn off any excess velocity by performing S turns (like the real Space Shuttle) on approach to the runway. In the first stages of re-entry (hyper/supersonic) a 20 degree angle-of-attack (AoA) seems to work well enough (and looks cool) without making the vessel skip back to orbit, then later on at slower speeds you can adjust the AoA to stay on target. You want to touch down at 80m/s (180mph) so that you don't stall, whilst also reaching a low final sink rate. You will need to perfect your glideslope and the timing of your final flare to reach this at the right point, though there is quite a bit of leeway as the brakes on the shuttle let it come to a stop after only 3/4 of the length of the runway. All in all, once you know what you're doing landing the shuttle as it is right now is quite forgiving and reliable, in my experience.

Now, that was the semi-realistic and efficient way to fly it. If aerodynamics-induced stress and heat damage were accurately modelled in this game it would also be the only way to fly it. The Kerbal alternative is to simply deorbit late at a steep angle and pull up to circle around the vicinity of KSC at around 3 Km up to bleed off speed until you are slow enough to line up and land. You still need to pull off the flare well to get to the right final sink rate and landing speed. Chances are that this descent profile would not work well with FAR (expect wings to rip off) or Deadly Re-entry (expect everything to blow up). Please note that I have not yet experimented with support for either of those mods.

By the way, the shuttle flies well with the above suggestions only if it has the V tail configuration. For some reason one stabiliser is not stable enough right now, resulting in a shuttle that likes looking everywhere but where it's going.

[CpPolar268]

To: helldiver or ZRM

Can we get a full mod list needed to fly this awesome shuttle?

[helldiver]

The scientific world uses the International Sistem, no m/s speed lectures love for us?

HDG Mode (the one you are probably seeing) is in Feet, and Knots Indicated Airspeed. Like an aircraft has. I specifically want it that way.

NAV Mode (I believe) will be in Meters for altitude and M/s for speed like KSP has by default. If you are used to Meters and Meters per Second, simply switch to NAV Mode and you'll be fine.

List of Mods

Once we get ready for release we'll have a list of any mods necessary

regards!

[MaverickSawyer]

Thanks for the compliments. I'm lucky to be collaborating with such a talented artist.

MechJeb sort of works with it, but due to the off-centre thrust vector at the later stages of the launch it can be quite inaccurate. I recommend launching manually (it's not that hard) until I have created the programmable flight computer that can take care of all of this for you after you've written a landing script.

Ok, time to brush up on the hand flying skills!

I can reliably land the shuttle with its current aerodynamics model (which is subject to change) using the following method:

For de-orbiting, I recommend turning on the MechJeb landing prediction indicator, but not actually activating the landing guidance. Then, from LKO (80-100Km), so that you don't re-enter too fast, you want to perform the de-orbit burn opposite where the KSC will be when you reach periapsis so that the landing predicition moves over KSC. I find that it does not have to be exact. It's best to overshoot slightly, then burn off any excess velocity by performing S turns (like the real Space Shuttle) on approach to the runway. In the first stages of re-entry (hyper/supersonic) a 20 degree angle-of-attack (AoA) seems to work well enough (and looks cool) without making the vessel skip back to orbit, then later on at slower speeds you can adjust the AoA to stay on target. You want to touch down at 80m/s (180mph) so that you don't stall, whilst also reaching a low final sink rate. You will need to perfect your glideslope and the timing of your final flare to reach this at the right point, though there is quite a bit of leeway as the brakes on the shuttle let it come to a stop after only 3/4 of the length of the runway. All in all, once you know what you're doing landing the shuttle as it is right now is quite forgiving and reliable, in my experience.

Now, that was the semi-realistic and efficient way to fly it. If aerodynamics-induced stress and heat damage were accurately modelled in this game it would also be the only way to fly it. The Kerbal alternative is to simply deorbit late at a steep angle and pull up to circle around the vicinity of KSC at around 3 Km up to bleed off speed until you are slow enough to line up and land. You still need to pull off the flare well to get to the right final sink rate and landing speed. Chances are that this descent profile would not work well with FAR (expect wings to rip off) or Deadly Re-entry (expect everything to blow up). Please note that I have not yet experimented with support for either of those mods.

Cool. Thanks for the heads-up on that.

By the way, the shuttle flies well with the above suggestions only if it has the V tail configuration. For some reason one stabiliser is not stable enough right now, resulting in a shuttle that likes looking everywhere but where it's going.

Hmmm... where's the CoL compared to the CoG/CoM? I find that balancing that so that it flies right is an absolute bear. And even when it's right at low speed, the slightest hiccup at Mach 2 causes you to tumble. One tail might not be creating enough "lift" (really lift/drag/pressure) to keep it oriented.

If it's still pretty high in the atmosphere, you could try using the RCS, but if the Center of Lift is smack on top of the Center of Mass, that's not going to be useful deeper in the atmosphere.

[satcharna]

HDG Mode (the one you are probably seeing) is in Feet, and Knots Indicated Airspeed. Like an aircraft has. I specifically want it that way.

NAV Mode (I believe) will be in Meters for altitude and M/s for speed like KSP has by default. If you are used to Meters and Meters per Second, simply switch to NAV Mode and you'll be fine.

Don't know which aircraft you've been looking at, but the metric system is the standard for flight computers as far as any aircraft I've ever seen.

[ZRM]

Don't know which aircraft you've been looking at, but the metric system is the standard for flight computers as far as any aircraft I've ever seen.

Then you've never seen the instrumentation for a British or North American aircraft? Most of them use a combination of knots, nautical miles, miles, feet per second and feet, with Celsius for temperature and inches of mercury or pounds per square inch for pressure. I personally have yet to see the inside of a metric cockpit, though I would be glad to leave imperial/U.S. units behind.

[helldiver]

Then you've never seen the instrumentation for a British or North American aircraft? Most of them use a combination of knots, nautical miles, miles, feet per second and feet, with Celsius for temperature and inches of mercury or pounds per square inch for pressure. I personally have yet to see the inside of a metric cockpit, though I would be glad to leave imperial/U.S. units behind.

The funny part is that ever since the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) in the US, Europe and former CIS countries, Russia, China and other countries that historically relied on meters are slowly switching to feet for altitude.

Other units in an aircraft are typically metric for convenience purposes (liters instead of gal and so on).

Doing some research at Airliners.net it seems that the system you see in the screenshots above is the most widely used (airbus and boeing use the same). However there is variance in different countries. The Airbus glass cockpits can be switched between metric and imperial. Other instruments are metric or imperial and it all depends on the country, airline, aircraft, and so on.

FYI, the real Space Shuttle uses KIAS and Feet for it's landing systems (not sure about the other instruments).

[Tw1]

Still, everything else in KSP uses meters. No point in making people need to divide by three all the time to get an idea of how high up you really are.

[drtedastro]

3.280839895, those last little bits will put you into the dirt. And why not have choice for units.???? keeps all banter regarding use of furlongs per fortnight to a minimum....

[Anariaq]

Then you've never seen the instrumentation for a British or North American aircraft? Most of them use a combination of knots, nautical miles, miles, feet per second and feet, with Celsius for temperature and inches of mercury or pounds per square inch for pressure. I personally have yet to see the inside of a metric cockpit, though I would be glad to leave imperial/U.S. units behind.

So far all flight that uses imperial units, uses feet/min not feet/sec. And named VSI ( Vertical Speed Indicator ) Just a head up.

And For me the units used in that screenshot, except the feet/sec. is something I can relate to, when flying in atmo. Been flying sims sins chuck yeager. old amiga 500 days

I just hope we can select a orbit MFD that is using standard metric system. So if one is to go IVA and outside. There will be no 2 different number for the same thing.

[drtedastro]

mixing of units? what is the worst that could happen, asked the people from "Mars Polar Lander/Deep Space 2", and "Mars Climate Orbiter"???

[qnistNAMEERF]

Concerning the MFD display units, isn't this all a moot point anyway? They are customizable, right?

[POTKC]

For me, as an experienced flyer in X-Plane 9 and 10 (several hundred hours logged in a virtual airline) using feet and knots in the atmosphere is much more convenient. However, since HDG mode is in feet and NAV mode is in meters people could just use whichever one they want at any time. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Guest]

My apologies if this had already been addressed; will this shuttle have special fuel requirements, or will standard tanks work fine? I want to test out George Von Pragenau's proposed launch configuration when this bird becomes available. Thanks!

This has been discussed, and currently the shuttle will be released with a Modular Fuel System as a requirement, with a stock fuel version in the works. A stock-fuelled version will need to have all of its statistics balanced to work as well as the MFS version.

Thanks, I appreciate that. Sorry for covering old ground again!

[chrischambers]

I can't wait until it is publish, so that we can give it a test flight.

[Sapphire]

mixing of units? what is the worst that could happen, asked the people from "Mars Polar Lander/Deep Space 2", and "Mars Climate Orbiter"???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

[Gristle]

Don't know which aircraft you've been looking at, but the metric system is the standard for flight computers as far as any aircraft I've ever seen.

And how many have you seen? Googling this makes it clear that the standard units of measure in nearly all aircraft are Knots, Nautical Miles and Feet.

[Guest]

Well, in Western ones, anyway. If he's used to Russian aircraft, then what he said would be true, they all use metric.

[drtedastro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Exactly, i just being facetious.

[satcharna]

I've seen Russian aircraft, Polish aircraft, Swedish aircraft and a French airliner. All of them used metric units. Still, as there will be an option to set the avionics to use serious and scientific meters instead of cutesie little footsies, it won't really be a problem.

[Sapphire]

Exactly, i just being facetious.

I know, I was agreeing with you and giving you another example.

Still, as there will be an option to set the avionics to use serious and scientific meters instead of cutesie little footsies, it won't really be a problem.

Uh oh, shots fired!

[Guest]

I've seen Russian aircraft, Polish aircraft, Swedish aircraft and a French airliner. All of them used metric units. Still, as there will be an option to set the avionics to use serious and scientific meters instead of cutesie little footsies, it won't really be a problem.

Well, that explains it. French might also use metric, being the ones who invented it. Polish aircraft mostly take after Russian ones in that regard. Can't say much about Swedish ones, unfortunately, my only contact with a Swedish fighter (Gripen, IIRC) was through FreeFalcon5.5 (it used metric, but the sim was mostly designed for American planes).

[Sochin]

As an ex member of the RAF (Air Traffic Control 16 years experience) I can clarify the following. Western derived aircraft altimiters are shown with feet (ft) as there primary scale of altitude. French, Italian, USA, Canadian, UK and NATO derived aircraft use feet. Russian derived aircraft have in the past have used the metric scale as there primary scale. This does not ditract from the following:

Terrain following / avoidance radar and visual representation do give the height above either ground level and or sea level in meters as this corrolates with (as in the UK) with ordanance survey maps.

All flight plans planning to fly above 2000ft are filled in feet (ICAO protocols - International Civil Aviation Authority), a flight can be planned using metres if required but in all my years in the service I only ever saw one plan and that was a US Navy flight going from a deck to RAF Gibraltar.

[Sochin]

However, taking into account KSP and this fine peice of work it would expect that changing this would be a real ball braker and really not worth the effort. Keep as is with the altitude shown in metres.

[ZRM]

Concerning the MFD display units, isn't this all a moot point anyway? They are customizable, right?

Exactly. The scipting interface means that changing the units (including the on-screen text saying "FEET", etc.) is a very painless set of small changes to the config file that any user that has ever edited a KSP config file should be right at home with (although it is not in the KSP config file format, the concepts are similar). And don't forget that the NAV mode is all metric. The HDG mode is designed purely for atmospheric flight.

You can have units on your displays in furlongs per fortnight, Jebs (the circumference of Jebediah Kerman's head, now in common parlance among KASA engineers due to historical reasons involving his previous career as a crash test dummy), or even radians (for the heading and bank indicators) if you want.