[1.4] SpaceY Heavy-Lifter Parts Pack v1.17.1 (2018-04-02)

[BlackTalos]

We're probably good on those adapter parts too, unless there's a specific arrangement that we haven't thought of yet. The next release will have the one-way 5m->3.75m, 3.75m->2.5m, and 2.5m->1.25m sizes as flat adapters with optional fairings.

Great news for the new release, and what i had in mind was 5m->2.5m, 3.75m->1.25m with possibly 5m->1.25m. You know, put that R5 Lifter under your smallest Space Probe, because you want to go fast

Great work on the conical "petal" payload bay! the only other version (as you've seen) has warnings everywhere lol

[NecroBones]

Great news for the new release, and what i had in mind was 5m->2.5m, 3.75m->1.25m with possibly 5m->1.25m. You know, put that R5 Lifter under your smallest Space Probe, because you want to go fast

Great work on the conical "petal" payload bay! the only other version (as you've seen) has warnings everywhere lol

LOL, yes, those warnings made me feel better about leaving decoupler nodes off, after failing to get the ModuleJettison stuff working with internal struts.

Cool, I see what you mean on those adapters. I get frustrated with having to stack lots of different size-adapters if I need to go down two or three diameter sizes. I could see a use for this.

[NBZ]

I get frustrated with having to stack lots of different size-adapters if I need to go down two or three diameter sizes. I could see a use for this.

Would it be possible to make a dual-size adapter using the dual fairing ability. E.g. a 5m bottom plate with two nodes hanging in the air above. The lower node generates a fairing 5m>2.5m and the upper node shrouds 5m>1.25m. If you do the paint job and heights right (so the sides' angle remains constant) it would look really cool. If possible, staging and ejection should be disabled. You would have a third fairing "first". Besides, rightfully, and adapter should adapt.

Hard core: Two top nodes, and two bottom nodes: 5m/3.5m > 2.5m/1.25m would give have possible uses:

5m>2.5m

3.5m>2.5m

5m>1.25m

3.5m>1.25m

Just make sure they look like conical adapters, not fairing shrouds.

[NecroBones]

Would it be possible to make a dual-size adapter using the dual fairing ability. E.g. a 5m bottom plate with two nodes hanging in the air above. The lower node generates a fairing 5m>2.5m and the upper node shrouds 5m>1.25m. If you do the paint job and heights right (so the sides' angle remains constant) it would look really cool. If possible, staging and ejection should be disabled. You would have a third fairing "first". Besides, rightfully, and adapter should adapt.

Hard core: Two top nodes, and two bottom nodes: 5m/3.5m > 2.5m/1.25m would give have possible uses:

5m>2.5m

3.5m>2.5m

5m>1.25m

3.5m>1.25m

Just make sure they look like conical adapters, not fairing shrouds.

That's an interesting idea, and I think it's partially workable. The limitations that potentially break it, that I can see:

- Maximum of two shrouds/options per part, since I already know from experience (and lots of googling too) that three or more results in VAB glitches (might be worth trying again after 0.90).

- It can't have multiple combinations of node attachments (from both top and bottom). That is, each "shroud" keys off a single node, not two.

- I don't think the shrouds can have collision meshes. That is, the shrouds would be non-collidable, and thus not accept radial attachments/struts/etc. There could be one collision mesh that corresponds to the "inner" shroud, so at least you can grab it somewhere other than just at the base, while in the VAB. I might have to set up an experiment and see if colliders can be set up as "children" to the shrouds, and whether KSP will then do the right thing or not. But my suspicion is that this won't work.

- Staging/ejection can't be disabled for it, since it doesn't matter which part breaks the node's connection. As long as the node disconnects, the shroud stays on the other part (usually the decoupler). Most people wouldn't be decoupling it of course. You'd have to do it intentionally, such as an upside-down decoupler, or a separator. But if you did, the shroud would pop off the lower plate and stick to the other stage.

Now on the other hand, a selection of regular adapters is really easy, and I have a set of them ready, and sharing the existing texture (5m->2.5m, and 3.75m->1.25m). Adding a few parts to the structural tab isn't that bad.

But of course, now I'm wanting to run some experiments. Heh.

[NBZ]

That's an interesting idea, and I think it's partially workable. The limitations that potentially break it, that I can see:

- Maximum of two shrouds/options per part, since I already know from experience (and lots of googling too) that three or more results in VAB glitches (might be worth trying again after 0.90).

- It can't have multiple combinations of node attachments (from both top and bottom). That is, each "shroud" keys off a single node, not two.

(...)

But of course, now I'm wanting to run some experiments. Heh.

I knew you would fall for the temptation.

I am not sure I understand you right. Two options per part, or two options per shroud? Your first point sounds like the former, the second like the latter.

If two completely separate shrouds on the same part is possible, but with a maximum of two shrouds per part, you could make a 3.75m>2.5m adapter, with normal nodes on top an bottom, but with an additional floating node above and one too below. The top one activates a shroud extension from the top 2.5m>1.25m, whereas the bottom one extends the bottom 3.75>5m.

Happy experimenting. It isn't exactly rocket science, but, oh, well... whatever.

[NecroBones]

I knew you would fall for the temptation.

I am not sure I understand you right. Two options per part, or two options per shroud? Your first point sounds like the former, the second like the latter.

If two completely separate shrouds on the same part is possible, but with a maximum of two shrouds per part, you could make a 3.75m>2.5m adapter, with normal nodes on top an bottom, but with an additional floating node above and one too below. The top one activates a shroud extension from the top 2.5m>1.25m, whereas the bottom one extends the bottom 3.75>5m.

Happy experimenting. It isn't exactly rocket science, but, oh, well... whatever.

Yes, that's right. For point 1, the part can only have two options (two shrouds of fixed sizes). For point 2, each shroud has a fixed size, and is toggled on and off by a single attachment node.

Using your example, let's say the top nodes are the controlling nodes for which shroud appears. Since that's all that's needed for the selection anyway, adding a second lower-node will just confuse people, since only one will be correct for each shroud. They might as well share the bottom node. And that node can be contained in the "base" part that you grab from the menu and drag to your ship, making it a seamless UI experience.

I started an experiment with it. It looks like my point #3 isn't an issue. Slaving the collision meshes to the shrouds does work after all. Nice!

So it's looking like this will work for consolidating the new adapters. They can each have two target diameters, and the existing 5->3.75 adapter can stay as-as. Cool.

[NBZ]

Yes, that's right. For point 1, the part can only have two options (two shrouds of fixed sizes). For point 2, each shroud has a fixed size, and is toggled on and off by a single attachment node.

Using your example, let's say the top nodes are the controlling nodes for which shroud appears. Since that's all that's needed for the selection anyway, adding a second lower-node will just confuse people, since only one will be correct for each shroud. They might as well share the bottom node. And that node can be contained in the "base" part that you grab from the menu and drag to your ship, making it a seamless UI experience.

I started an experiment with it. It looks like my point #3 isn't an issue. Slaving the collision meshes to the shrouds does work after all. Nice!

So it's looking like this will work for consolidating the new adapters. They can each have two target diameters, and the existing 5->3.75 adapter can stay as-as. Cool.

Yay. Maybe you should split the pack into two: "SpaceY Heavy Lifter Engines and Tanks", and "Multi-Point Adaptive Adapters and Thrust Plates"...

I cannot wait for you next update. On a different note: My keyboard has a blank key between F4 and F6. Do you happen to know what it does?

[NecroBones]

Yay. Maybe you should split the pack into two: "SpaceY Heavy Lifter Engines and Tanks", and "Multi-Point Adaptive Adapters and Thrust Plates"...

I cannot wait for you next update. On a different note: My keyboard has a blank key between F4 and F6. Do you happen to know what it does?

Heh, yeah I could, but then again anyone using a new diameter of tanks is also going to probably need the adapters. Heh.

F5 worn out? I'd say either quicksaving, or doing lots of browser refreshes.... Looking for 0.90?

[NecroBones]

- Maximum of two shrouds/options per part, since I already know from experience (and lots of googling too) that three or more results in VAB glitches (might be worth trying again after 0.90).

OK, so I screwed up this part. Actually, this limitation is on Decoupler Nodes, not the shrouds themselves. I was thinking of my battle with KSP bugs in the Inline Fairings mods, and what was happening there was that I had a decoupler node for each shroud, and that's what was breaking. I was thinking about it wrong in my replies here today. More shrouds is just fine, as long as they don't contain the decouplers themselves.

So, the 5m adaptive adapter I made today will now support scaling down to 1.25m, 2.5m, and 3.75m. Awesome.

EDIT: Screenshots of the 5m adapter (all from the same part, and the heights were chosen to maintain the same slope):

Edited December 10, 2014 by NecroBones

[Dire_Squid]

Ok, Necrobones.... I was trying to complete a contract via-testing your Heavy Booster (the one that starts with an "S", followed bya LOT of letters and numbers). Mind you I did this with 9 boosters (in 3 stages of four, four, and one).

I didn't complete the contract, BUT I potentially have a cheap means TO GET TO MOHO... FOR THE FIRST TIME!

Thanks, brah!

[NecroBones]

Ok, Necrobones.... I was trying to complete a contract via-testing your Heavy Booster (the one that starts with an "S", followed bya LOT of letters and numbers). Mind you I did this with 9 boosters (in 3 stages of four, four, and one).

I didn't complete the contract, BUT I potentially have a cheap means TO GET TO MOHO... FOR THE FIRST TIME!

Thanks, brah!

Ah, so one of the SRBs? Cool.

[NecroBones]

0.4 is out. I hope everything works... lol

0.4 (2014-12-10) - Beta updates
 - Increased gimbal range of all engines, slightly.
 - Decreased dry mass of all fuel tanks slightly (dry/fueled mass ratio is now between stock 3.75m and 2.5m tanks). 
 - Added "D1" 1.25m booster engine.
 - Added upper-stage (with fairing) single-engine thrust-plates:
    - 5m to 3.75 adapter
    - 3.75m to 2.5 adapter
    - 2.5m to 1.25 adapter
 - Added non-fueled size adapters with multiple target sizes each, with a shared texture (from the 5m to 3.75m adapter):
    - 5m to 3.75m/2.5m/1.25m adapter
    - 3.75m to 2.5m/1.25m adapter
 - Added 3.75m to 2.5m conical "petal" payload bay, with functioning doors

[NBZ]

0.4 is out. I hope everything works... lol

0.4 (2014-12-10) - Beta updates
 - Increased gimbal range of all engines, slightly.
 - Decreased dry mass of all fuel tanks slightly (dry/fueled mass ratio is now between stock 3.75m and 2.5m tanks). 
 - Added "D1" 1.25m booster engine.
 - Added upper-stage (with fairing) single-engine thrust-plates:
    - 5m to 3.75 adapter
    - 3.75m to 2.5 adapter
    - 2.5m to 1.25 adapter
 - Added non-fueled size adapters with multiple target sizes each, with a shared texture (from the 5m to 3.75m adapter):
    - 5m to 3.75m/2.5m/1.25m adapter
    - 3.75m to 2.5m/1.25m adapter
 - Added 3.75m to 2.5m conical "petal" payload bay, with functioning doors

Aaaand we've got another fairing "first". I hereby crown NecroBones as KSP's (un)official King of the Fairings:

1. First slanted fairing

2. First multiple fairings

3. First adaptive adapter

All I have to say is: Holy shrouds!

[NBZ]

 - Repainted 5m decoupler to match fuel tank stripes, and have blue triangles.

Since we are both perfectionists, allow me to suggest blue triangles on the radial decouplers too.

[Dire_Squid]

Ah, so one of the SRBs? Cool.

Specifically, the S1 SY-1875S 1.875m x 9.5m boosters. Because of them, I have the potential to reach speeds of 3600-4000+ m/s to get to escape trajectory and to cheaply AND QUICKLY get to Moho orbital vicinity (I may need Karborundum Fusion Drive Engines to actually get to the final destination, since the lander is kinda tiny, atm, until I actually get to Moho [i.e. need to] in Career Mode... or I can experiment in Sandbox Mode to see if it all works).

[Motokid600]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but is there a HotRockets config by chance?

[Bowman]

Your single engine thrust-plates work nicely. But I have found one possible optimization: Give them several nodes to attach the decoupler. So we can adjust the length of the shrouds to our attached engine. For example: putting a poodle under a nerva-sized shroud looks a bit weird and makes the rocket even longer as it has to be. This system is used in some fairing-mods for example.

All in all: thanks for your work. Now are my rockets more aestethik and also more economic.

[NecroBones]

Aaaand we've got another fairing "first". I hereby crown NecroBones as KSP's (un)official King of the Fairings:

1. First slanted fairing

2. First multiple fairings

3. First adaptive adapter

All I have to say is: Holy shrouds!

Heck yeah! In a way I'm surprised no one tried these things before. But I'm sure we'll see lots of mods with them now.

Since we are both perfectionists, allow me to suggest blue triangles on the radial decouplers too.

Not a bad idea. I may do that.

Specifically, the S1 SY-1875S 1.875m x 9.5m boosters. Because of them, I have the potential to reach speeds of 3600-4000+ m/s to get to escape trajectory and to cheaply AND QUICKLY get to Moho orbital vicinity (I may need Karborundum Fusion Drive Engines to actually get to the final destination, since the lander is kinda tiny, atm, until I actually get to Moho [i.e. need to] in Career Mode... or I can experiment in Sandbox Mode to see if it all works).

Heh, awesome! What's great is that those SRBs are all balanced with stock in terms of size/mass/ISP. All I did was make them big, and give them a high thrust (burn rate, really), similar to the lower-end SRBs. What a difference that makes, for sure.

Sorry if this has already been asked, but is there a HotRockets config by chance?

Not currently. I just haven't had the time to decipher how the Hot Rockets stuff works. But I like the look of it, and have used it myself, so I may circle back on this. The good news is that all but one of the engines in this pack use the newer particle effects that came with the NASA/ARM update, rather than the plain blue/white plumes of the older stock engines. So it's a sort-of in-between look for now. But this would certainly be cool.

Your single engine thrust-plates work nicely. But I have found one possible optimization: Give them several nodes to attach the decoupler. So we can adjust the length of the shrouds to our attached engine. For example: putting a poodle under a nerva-sized shroud looks a bit weird and makes the rocket even longer as it has to be. This system is used in some fairing-mods for example.

All in all: thanks for your work. Now are my rockets more aestethik and also more economic.

Actually I tried doing that first, and it doesn't work. The reason is, is that the large attachment nodes(s) for the bottom of the shroud are "more attractive" to engine placement, than the actual node you want to put the engine on. Anywhere I placed a node that was shorter, it rendered one or more engines impossible to place on the thrust plate. It's not a problem with engines that don't stack at the bottom (like the aerospike), but almost all engines do stack that way, so we're a bit stuck. I had to go with a length that supported the largest engine you might place in there, such as mainsails, the MRS quad-nuke, the R1, etc.

As wonderful as these multi-length shrouds are, it's not worth the headache of not being able to place certain lengths of engines at all, because their length is close to an optional shroud length. so really the only "fix" here is to make multiple thrust plates, in long/short versions.

[NecroBones]

It was a huge pain to figure out how these work, but I have launch clamps working. Whew.

These are set up with 20x the strength of the regular clamps, and they also supply a little fuel and power while connected.

EDIT: Here's where I found the missing information I needed: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76136-FASA-Launch-tower-tutorial

[NBZ]

It was a huge pain to figure out how these work, but I have launch clamps working. Whew.

These are set up with 20x the strength of the regular clamps, and they also supply a little fuel and power while connected.

EDIT: Here's where I found the missing information I needed: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76136-FASA-Launch-tower-tutorial

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2011-23-00-53.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2011-23-59-50.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2011-24-11-84.jpg

Me likeY.

I think they look too naked, though. The stock ones (like in real life) are very "busy" with girders, a white panel, and a tube. Some Ideas:

1. Add fuel lines to the sides of the vertical white pillar*, since it supplies fuel. Change the color if needed so you can use the lines from the tanks that only work on white.
   
2. Make the square dark-blue sides white (or even better: an X girder with see through), and put flags on them.
   
3. Add an antenna and a fence on top, since the area is big enough for a kerbal to stand on.
   

And some questions:

1. How does the supplying fuel work?
   
2. Does it enter the tank that the clamp is connected to?
   
3. Usually the clamp would be above COM, which may well be an upper stage. What happens then?
   
4. Where does the fuel come from?
   
5. Does the clamp have a finite supply?
   
6. If not, how is the fuel cost integrated into carrier?
   

[NecroBones]

Me likeY.

I think they look too naked, though. The stock ones (like in real life) are very "busy" with girders, a white panel, and a tube. Some Ideas:

1. Add fuel lines to the sides of the vertical white pillar*, since it supplies fuel. Change the color if needed so you can use the lines from the tanks that only work on white.
   
2. Make the square dark-blue sides white (or even better: an X girder with see through), and put flags on them.
   
3. Add an antenna and a fence on top, since the area is big enough for a kerbal to stand on.
   

Fuel lines and flags could definitely work. Not sure about the fence though, for one main reason- the orientation is completely variable. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but if you put a tank on your rocket upside-down, and then attach a clamp to that, the clamp's head is upside-down too. The clamp rotates to match the orientation of the part it's attaching to, so I think it needs to look pretty much the same from every angle. Plus, the post clips through whichever end of the head is aimed at the ground.

Granted, the flags will have an "up" and a "down", but they can be turned off too.

And some questions:

1. How does the supplying fuel work?
   
2. Does it enter the tank that the clamp is connected to?
   
3. Usually the clamp would be above COM, which may well be an upper stage. What happens then?
   
4. Where does the fuel come from?
   
5. Does the clamp have a finite supply?
   
6. If not, how is the fuel cost integrated into carrier?
   

You know, I'm not sure which tanks get fed first, or whatever. I saw that FASA did this, so I added it to this clamp too, but haven't done testing with that yet. The only generator I've made that does this before, would be the fuel-cells in MRS. But I didn't play around with tank-order there much either.

My guess is that the resource-generators follow the same fuel-flow logic as engines, and won't feed stages that they're not connected to.

It's using the "generator" module, so the fuel magically appears out of nowhere, endlessly. So it could be like getting free fuel in career mode. I might have to turn it off after all, and just let it supply electricity (which is all the stock one supplies).

[E.Nygma]

Hi necrobones,

congrats to the new release, just playing around with the ne parts and loving it

a consideration for the improved launch clamps though:

those are 20 times stronger than the regular ones, designed to take on a massive load, right? Yet, I can't help myself and think of their pillars and bases as unable to bear the imagined loads in excess of 1.5 kt even under the assumption of high stress steel construction or new materials (see here for details on load stress). Do you think that doubling the base area and changing the shape of the pillar to a triangular shape or alternatively adding in a supporting third element might be a way to make them a bit less "smallish and fragile" looking?

Regards

Edit: I dug up a piece by NASA for the stabiliser concept for the Ares program, the used launch clamps also had a broader base: Picture

Edited December 11, 2014 by E.Nygma

[NecroBones]

Hi necrobones,

congrats to the new release, just playing around with the ne parts and loving it

a consideration for the improved launch clamps though:

those are 20 times stronger than the regular ones, designed to take on a massive load, right? Yet, I can't help myself and think of their pillars and bases as unable to bear the imagined loads in excess of 1.5 kt even under the assumption of high stress steel construction or new materials (see here for details on load stress). Do you think that doubling the base area and changing the shape of the pillar to a triangular shape or alternatively adding in a supporting third element might be a way to make them a bit less "smallish and fragile" looking?

Regards

Edit: I dug up a piece by NASA for the stabiliser concept for the Ares program, the used launch clamps also had a broader base: Picture

Yeah, I'm probably going to redesign the base and post, and make it look a lot more beefy. But of course, I look at it more like those NASA stabilizers in a way too, in that realistically they don't hold up a spacecraft, off the surface of the pad, from radial attachments. Instead, they stabilize it to keep it upright. KSP "cheats" in that it holds everything up above the ground. So imaginary levels of strength are probably needed.

Even so, I can probably do a lot to pretty these up.

Heh, I love that, "smallish and fragile".

[E.Nygma]

in that realistically they don't hold up a spacecraft

Well, I just found another picture, this time of the Vostok launch system, seems the Russians did suspend a rocket in midair by a singular radial mount:blush:: Picture on Wikipedia

Heh, I love that, "smallish and fragile".

Yeah, I know they're just looking that way

[NecroBones]

Well, I just found another picture, this time of the Vostok launch system, seems the Russians did suspend a rocket in midair by a singular radial mount:blush:: Picture on Wikipedia

Yeah, I'm not too surprised that there are exceptions. I just always laugh a little at the huge monstrosities we build, and then hold them up radially. Heh.

---------

OK, so progress. Clamps are surprisingly picky and complicated for something with a simple function. But I managed to get some detail added without going crazy on the edits. I also backed off teh strength to 12x instead of 20x, and it seems plenty strong (check out the last pic below, with only one clamp still holding the largest tank).

I added girders/trusses, red/yellow fuel pipes, flag decals, and a few other things.