Dimetime35c Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Well if its really a problem I'm sure you could add an extra wheel in the back to stop it from flipping when you flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimetime35c Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Not trying to rush you helldiver. Do you have a rough eta on when the super 25 will be ready? Like are we looking at this weekend, 1 week, 2 weeks or like next month? Just wondering so I know if I need to begin deleting mods to make room for the 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Looking good! I just hope the last 40% doesn't take as long as the first 40%. I do agree with deathsoul97 about the rear gear being a bit far forward, but its not a big deal. I also like the built in docking port cover on the cockpit, it would be nice to have a similar one on the KSO mini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nukeboyt Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Love the design!Are you planning on someday releasing new modules (labs, observation module etc) that take advantage of the 25's larger cargo bay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Hunt Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Something I've been wondering since the start, why are your rear gears so far forward? I can understand the placement if the craft was an SSTO, or meant to take off horizontally at all, but as it is, I would expect the gear to be much further rearward, and it would give a lot more clearance for flaring and landing. Loving the design though, BTW.It's hard to tell without a side on profile view, but to me they look like they aren't much further forward then the main gear on the real space shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) It's hard to tell without a side on profile view, but to me they look like they aren't much further forward then the main gear on the real space shuttle.Actually, after doing a quick google images search I think they are the in the right spot compared to the actually space shuttle. Edited May 22, 2014 by Robotengineer Fixed the fact that I embedded a 2000 x 3000 image XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalon304 Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Not trying to rush you helldiver. Do you have a rough eta on when the super 25 will be ready? Like are we looking at this weekend, 1 week, 2 weeks or like next month? Just wondering so I know if I need to begin deleting mods to make room for the 25.When its done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted May 22, 2014 Author Share Posted May 22, 2014 UpdateNew Thrustmax SSMEs for the Super 25 done. Don't have a series number yet until we figure out the TWR and such.Javascript is disabled. View full album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Nice! Lots of progress! I like the look of the new engines better than the old ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combat squirrel Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Simply outstanding, cannot wait for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 It's probably too late to suggest, but...Can I suggest you make the forward part of the "cabin" area (just behind the nosecone) into a separate RCS fuel tank? That way players can perform a trick the real shuttle used, which is pumping RCS fuel between the rear and forward tanks to affect trim during the re-entry. It's possible to do this (with some cfg-tweaking) for the previous version, it would be nice to do this with the new model! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnistNAMEERF Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 It's probably too late to suggest, but...Can I suggest you make the forward part of the "cabin" area (just behind the nosecone) into a separate RCS fuel tank? That way players can perform a trick the real shuttle used, which is pumping RCS fuel between the rear and forward tanks to affect trim during the re-entry. It's possible to do this (with some cfg-tweaking) for the previous version, it would be nice to do this with the new model!The cockpit, cargo bay, and rear fuselage are all one piece. So it should be easier (read: less tail-first) for reentry without having to dump all your fuel since it shouldn't be tail-heavy like an empty KSO with fuel in the rear fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalon304 Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 UpdateNew Thrustmax SSMEs for the Super 25 done. Don't have a series number yet until we figure out the TWR and such.Beefy engines... I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 The cockpit, cargo bay, and rear fuselage are all one piece. So it should be easier (read: less tail-first) for reentry without having to dump all your fuel since it shouldn't be tail-heavy like an empty KSO with fuel in the rear fuselage.Fair enough! Anyway, I realise could create a mod-manager .cfg to allow it. Just adds RCS capacity to the nose gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 What will be the crew capacity for the super 25? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Fair enough! Anyway, I realise could create a mod-manager .cfg to allow it. Just adds RCS capacity to the nose gear.The cockpit, cargo bay, and rear fuselage are all one piece. http://i.imgur.com/AT8qOVb.jpgSo it should be easier (read: less tail-first) for reentry without having to dump all your fuel since it shouldn't be tail-heavy like an empty KSO with fuel in the rear fuselage.Hmm, one piece body. No more LES I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Hmm, one piece body. No more LES I guess Uhm, where would you put the LES anyway's? There isn't really a launch escape system on the real shuttle, only various aborts involving either attempting to recover the orbiter or having the crew bailout. Space Shuttle abort modes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) What will be the crew capacity for the super 25?Eight (8)I'll be streaming tonight.Hmm, one piece body. No more LES I guess I want to eventually revisit the KSO and it will get the same treatment as the Super 25, including welding the rear, cargo bay, and cockpit all into one. Part of that update I also want to improve the front window fascia as well as improve IVA visibility. But that won't be for a while. Edited May 23, 2014 by helldiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Uhm, where would you put the LES anyway's? There isn't really a launch escape system on the real shuttle, only various aborts involving either attempting to recover the orbiter or having the crew bailout. Space Shuttle abort modesJust because the real life space shuttle had no such system is no reason That we have to constrain ourselves. (interestingly enough, the crew compartment of the Challenger survived the explosion of its EFT intact. Given the nature of its construction, it's not outside the bounds of possibility to have given the entire crew compartment a means of separating from the rest of the shuttle to act as an escape pod withs its own parachutes and braking rockets) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Uhm, where would you put the LES anyway's? There isn't really a launch escape system on the real shuttle, only various aborts involving either attempting to recover the orbiter or having the crew bailout. Space Shuttle abort modesLES on my KSO Heavy attempt, added a decoupler to the pod CFG. The Heavy was more trouble than it was worth, but the LES works flawlessly, and completely automated thanks to SmartParts.I've read those shuttle abort modes before. The idea of rotating the entire stack (minus SRB's) 180* and trying to fly back is just ridiculous beyond Kerbalism.Just because the real life space shuttle had no such system is no reason That we have to constrain ourselves. (interestingly enough, the crew compartment of the Challenger survived the explosion of its EFT intact. Given the nature of its construction, it's not outside the bounds of possibility to have given the entire crew compartment a means of separating from the rest of the shuttle to act as an escape pod withs its own parachutes and braking rockets)NASA (very) briefly considered that idea after Challenger but dismissed it as too heavy and expensive. The dirty little secret of the Challenger incident is not only did the crew cabin remain intact through the breakup, the crew survived (switches on the control panel had been moved), and may even have been conscious when the impact with the water killed them.Irony: None of the contingency procedures implemented after Challenger could actually have helped the Challenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalon304 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Irony: None of the contingency procedures implemented after Challenger could actually have helped the Challenger.Short of seeing the problem before it happened... I dont think there is much that could have helped Challenger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Short of seeing the problem before it happened... I dont think there is much that could have helped Challenger...Not building it that way in the first place would have.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalon304 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) Not building it that way in the first place would have....I dont want to turn this into an argument about Challenger so Im going to leave that comment alone. Edited May 23, 2014 by Avalon304 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1989 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Not building it that way in the first place would have....I don't want to start an argument either but what does that mean? What your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) Short of seeing the problem before it happened... I dont think there is much that could have helped Challenger...The problem was seen before it happenedEdit: concerns were raised about O seal integrity being compromised after a brutally cold night. Engineers were overruled by managers.This is hardly a new problem either. The same thing happened over 20 years before when Apollo 1 astronauts complained about flammable space suits, hard to open hatches and other fire hazards that they asked to be fixed and never were, until after the fact of their deaths.Columbia too was avoidable. Concerns had been raised about a possible debris strike during launch. Again, those in authority decided that there was no way to deal with related problems while in orbit so the matter wasnt pursued further. Edited May 23, 2014 by Starwaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts