Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[A_name]

On 11/17/2017 at 9:56 PM, Van Disaster said:

You're thinking of structural pylons? they sorta work ( although things can get a bit bendy, and strutting landing gear I've found can be a bit buggy ) but they do kinda look like you just put the gear on stalks. Stock needs half-cylinder structural pieces...

Landing gear is automatically autostrutted to the heaviest part by default. 

[Matuchkin]

I don't quite get the point of all these links if they just lead back to the OP.

[Vim Razz]

On 1/8/2018 at 9:18 AM, Matuchkin said:

I don't quite get the point of all these links if they just lead back to the OP.

The links got broken as a result of a major forum update back in late 2016 or early 2017 or thereabouts.  The OP stopped updating the index back in 2014.

It's still a nice thread to browse through for inspiration at times, though.

[Foxster]

Not sure whether everyone appreciates this (I didn't for quite a while) but engines work fine even if not vertically or horizontally aligned, as long as they are opposite each other and aligned with the CoT...

Edited February 3, 2018 by Foxster

[septemberWaves]

That's just regular physics really. Doesn't even have to be rocket science. If the resultant force vector passes through the center of mass, it acts with a moment of zero. Using simple laws of moments, you could have (for example) one engine twice as far from the center of mass as its matching engine, but at half the thrust, and it'd work perfectly.

Edited February 3, 2018 by septemberWaves

[Foxster]

3 hours ago, septemberWaves said:

That's just regular physics really. Doesn't even have to be rocket science. If the resultant force vector passes through the center of mass, it acts with a moment of zero. Using simple laws of moments, you could have (for example) one engine twice as far from the center of mass as its matching engine, but at half the thrust, and it'd work perfectly.

Well, yes. It's just that you don't see it done much and it didn't occur to me until I'd been playing KSP for about 3 years.

It can make some things work, like the example above where you want two pairs of different engines to both thrust through the centre line of the craft but not have them all in a row. 

[Xurkitree]

I don't know if anyone figured this, but I noticed that the old, hidden parts like the Decouplers, Seperators, Mk.1-2 Pod, and the Rockomax tanks (The ones with rivets, and the old orange tank) and the ROUND-8 tank are all available in advanced mode. Just search for them under sort by tech tree level - they appear along side their newer counterparts. 

Yeah, you could like search for them in the Stock craft or crafts from previous versions, but you could use them to recreate old designs, or just get different asthetics if you wish.

Note: TR-XL Stack Seperator had a higher seperation force than anything, so you can use them for extra heavy seperation . . . things.

Don't you find this weird? I thought they were supposed to be hidden.

[MaianTrey]

They are still there so that old crafts made with these parts aren't broken. They're not intended to still be used in new craft going forward, and Squad said they were considering removing them from the game at a later date (might not though for people with long-standing saves). The reason they are separate is because of mesh changes; they didn't want to break crafts by changing meshes and attachment nodes to parts that are currently in use, so this was their compromise.

[Xurkitree]

While yes, I know they are present for compatibility purposes, my observation is that they are freely availble for use this way, instead of being hidden from the editor and tech tree as they are supposed to be.

[prgmTrouble]

Airbrakes can be used in a rather simple fashion to create a compact tilting engine. Mostly for functionality purposes but I figured that some aesthetic designs could benefit from a relatively flat design.

Craft Download: https://kerbalx.com/C7-Rejects/Rotating-Engine-Prototype

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by prgmTrouble

[Mephisto81]

Does anyone her have an idea on how to either reduce the frontal plate drag of the shielded docking port or how to get a low drag junior docking port at the front with good heat resistance?

I am trying to build some smaller SSTOs with docking capabilities. From my point of view, the best location for a docking port is in front, where the main engines on the back can be used for maneuvering.

Foxster did some tricks with offsetting a fairing to reduce drag for a lander can at an Eve Ascent vehicle. But I haven't been able to replicate the effect.


 

[Foxster]

Did someone say my name? 

One idea depends on whether you want to use the craft for more than one up-and-back journey. You can put a nose cone (or an extra intake) on the front of the docking port (you don't need one on the nosecone) for the trip up and undock it when in orbit. Hopefully the extra drag on the way back won't be so important.

You should be able to do the fairing thing if you don't mind being "creative". The assembly in the VAB will involve: 

Place the fairing base on the top of the docking port and create the fairing to a point. Then lift it off and put it under, say, the docking port and cockpit so that the point project a little way beyond the docking port. It may take a few goes to get the size right but you should end up with the parts above the fairing base shielded even though the fairing only passes through them. Then add the rest of the SSTO. Jettison the fairing when in space. You'll have the same drag issues as above coming back of course. 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Foxster

[Mephisto81]

1 hour ago, Foxster said:

Did someone say my name? 

One idea depends on whether you want to use the craft for more than one up-and-back journey. You can put a nose cone (or an extra intake) on the front of the docking port (you don't need one on the nosecone) for the trip up and undock it when in orbit. Hopefully the extra drag on the way back won't be so important.

You should be able to do the fairing thing if you don't mind being "creative". The assembly in the VAB will involve: 

Place the fairing base on the top of the docking port and create the fairing to a point. Then lift it off and put it under, say, the docking port and cockpit so that the point project a little way beyond the docking port. It may take a few goes to get the size right but you should end up with the parts above the fairing base shielded even though the fairing only passes through them. Then add the rest of the SSTO. Jettison the fairing when in space. You'll have the same drag issues as above coming back of course. 

 

Thank you for the detailed explanation! Getting the reusability was the issue at hand.

[Foxster]

21 minutes ago, Mephisto81 said:

Thank you for the detailed explanation! Getting the reusability was the issue at hand.

Ah, right. So you planning to re-fuel the SSTO and send it back up?

[Mephisto81]

Yes. For the last couple of months, I've been exploring different iterations of single stage to anywhere crafts. Apart from a dedicated Eve lander, main craft should be able to do everything else, in stock and outer planets mod. If possible, also rescue missions, docking with other craft, etc.
Whilst it is not a strict requirement, it would be nice to have a good docking port at the front or back. I do like the shielded docking port especially for ites aesthetics, but the massive frontal plate drag plays a bigger role with smaller crafts. Above 150 tons, I don't really care, as the percentage of drag from the shielded docking port is negligible. On small crafts with highly optimized thrust to weight ratios for rapiers, it just breaks the vessels performance.

[Rune]

1 hour ago, Mephisto81 said:

Yes. For the last couple of months, I've been exploring different iterations of single stage to anywhere crafts. Apart from a dedicated Eve lander, main craft should be able to do everything else, in stock and outer planets mod. If possible, also rescue missions, docking with other craft, etc.
Whilst it is not a strict requirement, it would be nice to have a good docking port at the front or back. I do like the shielded docking port especially for ites aesthetics, but the massive frontal plate drag plays a bigger role with smaller crafts. Above 150 tons, I don't really care, as the percentage of drag from the shielded docking port is negligible. On small crafts with highly optimized thrust to weight ratios for rapiers, it just breaks the vessels performance.

Hummm. I have an idea. You could use the new inflatable airlock, and keep it tucked away inside the craft until needed so it isn't the first part in the airstream. It would go something like this: build a standard nose ending in a 0.625m node, and put the airlock on it.Then sink the airlock where it can't be seen, unextended. Drag-wise, that is the foremost part, bad but 0.625m bad so not that bad. You can build a second nose with a couple of 0.625m nosecones to make it pointier (darg-wise, an independent thing), and surface place it on the 0.625m circle so it looks cool. Then, heat-wise, the foremost part is the nosecone, with high temp-rating and creating a pointy thermal shock cone. Tough I do like how the shielded docking port creates a blunter, cooler, draggier, bow shock that hides the part behind it better. The bow shock thing shadow depending on part geometry? You can be forgiven for not knowing about that, I do because I remember the devnote about how that worked.

 

Rune. Call it an undocumented feature.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Rune

[Foxster]

I think you are going to be out of luck. 

To have a docking port jr (or any flat 0.625m part) on the front of the craft is going to be draggy, especially if mounted straight into the wind. It's less draggy if surface mounted so its sideways on to the wind but I don't think that's what you have in mind. 

I just can't think of any way around this not already covered. 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

One option might be to connect a nosecone on with another docking port, then use a hinge to swing it back, maybe into another docking port in a cargo bay or something. I'll fire up KSP and see if I can make a mockup.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

@Mephisto81: It's a bit high mass, but this works reasonably well:

Note that the nosecone needs hold attitude and reaction wheels. However, it is a bit wonky, since the magnets on the ports are pretty strong. However, TweakableEverything should be able to fix that.

[Foxster]

7 hours ago, Foxster said:

I think you are going to be out of luck. 

To have a docking port jr (or any flat 0.625m part) on the front of the craft is going to be draggy, especially if mounted straight into the wind. It's less draggy if surface mounted so its sideways on to the wind but I don't think that's what you have in mind. 

I just can't think of any way around this not already covered. 

I should never say never...This works...

The docking port works (despite having a big spike sticking out of it) and has zero drag. 

Easy to do:

Place the fairing base and make a pointy fairing. Place the docking point inside the fairing on the fairing base connector. Translate the docking port forward like you see in the first picture. Simples. 

 

[Rune]

Another, even simpler option: I may post pics later, but basically a small cargo bay with an inflatable airlock works, and it's dirt simple: open bay, extend airlock clipping through everything in front of it, and there you go. And it's as sleek as whatever you have in front of it.

 

Rune. Not much more 'cheaty' than Foxter's option, and no offset required.

[Foxster]

28 minutes ago, Rune said:

Another, even simpler option: I may post pics later, but basically a small cargo bay with an inflatable airlock works, and it's dirt simple: open bay, extend airlock clipping through everything in front of it, and there you go. And it's as sleek as whatever you have in front of it.

 

Rune. Not much more 'cheaty' than Foxter's option, and no offset required.

Great minds think alike. I was just playing with something similar but with a Service Bay...

It's a little heavier (~0.25t) but kinda fun. 

[Rune]

3 hours ago, Foxster said:

Great minds think alike. I was just playing with something similar but with a Service Bay...

It's a little heavier (~0.25t) but kinda fun. 

Unsurprisingly enough, that is exactly what I had in mind:

 

Rune. The inflatable airlock is the bestest part of the DLC.

[Mephisto81]

On 7/21/2018 at 4:06 PM, Rune said:

Unsurprisingly enough, that is exactly what I had in mind:

 

Rune. The inflatable airlock is the bestest part of the DLC.

You guys are great.
The good thing about the inflatable airlock is, you also have another crewable part for only 0.1 t. And its heat resistance is rather good with 2600 K . Ideally suited for some rescue missions or shuffeling crew around inside the craft. Drag on the way down is less of an issue most of the time.

Mephisto.
(Who wants to fly forever?)

[Mephisto81]

The inflatable airlock is my new favorite part. I just discovered, that you can also store science in it. And it has a "collect all" function. Time for my redesigned science bay with only 0.7 tons.

Action groups:
0: Toggles ladder, airlock and service bay.
9: Collects all science to the airlock
8: Runs all experiments.

Idea is to open the science bay, transfer an scienctist to it. Then, run all the experiments, go EVA for EVA report, surface samples, etc. The scientist can reset the mystery goo and science jr. whilst hanging at the airlock.






Mephisto.
(Going to bed or playing KSP? Wait, the question was serious?)