[1.10.x] Mark IV Spaceplane System (August 3)

[Logan.Darklighter]

Nice work Nertea, I was searching for a TB2 style craft just this week and it's amazing how the MK4 system turned out. These parts deserve to be stock.

Thoroughly agreed!

The biggest challenge I see with these parts is the sheer size. If you have an MK4 cockpit, which is almost 6m wide, there is a lot of empty and unused space. You would be able to fit a dozen Kerbals in there comfortably and allow them to sleep, eat and do science, and still have room to spare.

An idea here would be to have the cockpit occupy the top section of the module, and have a service section or cargo bay underneath. You could even think of "drive-through" roll-on, roll off cargo bay designs through that. Alternatively, a smaller bridge or cockpit module that can snap into a slot in the top section of the fuselage may be an option.

So we have all this space below the crew cabins thats great for medium-ish rovers, lots of KIS containers, smaller cargo, etc. I find the cargo tail ramp to be overkill for unloading this and would rather make use of the space for something else (like fuel). Since I imagine the THunderhawk cockpit space is the same profile as the crew cabin, what about something like below?

Everything below the cockpit section splits and hinges open laterally (alternate version perhaps since this means no 1.25m attach node on the front) like a clamshell, and a ramp lowers to unload.

I think 2-3 pages back Nertea mentioned something about this concept. Ah yeah - here it is:

I'm also not done the pack! I have two relatively distinct updates planned, would appreciate input on which of the two I should work on first. They are both similar amounts of work.

A) Advanced Propulsion: More propulsion-related options, including highlights:

2.5m aviation fuel tanks, in short/medium/long sizes

1.25m Hornet VTOL engine, like the Yellowjacket but better suited to Mk4 planes

2.5m CUTLASS multimode engine

2.5m or 3.75m nuclear ramjet

Maybe large to huge ducted fans

Advanced Cargo: More fuselage and cargo-oriented parts, including the following highlights:

Mk4 inline cockpit

Mk4 cargo elevator for attaching to ventral cargo bays

Nose cargo bay (C-5 style)

Few more adapters

(Red bold for emphasis)

So yeah - he's definitely looking into this.

Someone earlier mentioned it would also be nice to have a science lab version of the passenger cabin.

If I may make an original suggestion/question of my own, Nert?

I know you're working on a cargo elevator TB2 style. Is the intent to include a "pod" style arrangement where a cargo container is lowered/raised through a middle "frame"? Or alternately is the intent to make a variation on the existing ventral door cargo bay with a platform/elevator?

With the former, obviously there are problems with something like a cargo section being a separate piece. I don't think KSP would handle that very well. You can't just "swap out" pods like the original TB2 could and not have some significant stability/wobble issues. At least not in that exact fashion.

So I expect the "pod" will either be a permanent part of the module/part, or you'll be working with something more along the lines of the latter moving platform idea. (which has been done before with a few mods - Wayland's Devo once had a large shuttle mod with such a design, but that was about 4-5 versions of KSP back and it had some other unrelated issues that made it impractical to work with.)

In either case - I'm wondering if a "cargo pod" could be developed that would fit with the existing model - something with perhaps an integral pair of docking ports opposite each other so they can be secured even without the use of something like KAS/KIS? My experience with the Wayland Eagle tells me that it's better to have close-fitting sets of opposing docking ports/CBMs for flight stability. I don't think it matters whether they are a fore/aft config or a port/starboard config. But any "pod" that is a separate piece that docks with a larger craft to become an integral unit MUST have an opposing docking port arrangement for stability. Otherwise you have to secure it with KAS or something (like I did with the rover above in my earlier post).

Maybe even have an integral set of "rollers" or wheels integrated like a rover so that it can be manipulated or rolled into place by other rovers? Or maybe even make an optional pod that can configure like a KIS container that can fit larger volume stuff inside and can be placed aboard?

The intent with my ideas above is to provide a suggestion for a cargo pod/container that is NOT dependent on a particular cargo bay/part arrangement. In other words, it could work as both a "roll-on/roll-off" container for a regular aft ramp load in the field or be able to work with the vertical arrangement of a TB2 style ventral/dorsal cargo section.

I'm considering putting something together using existing parts/mods to better illustrate the above concept. But I hope you get the basic idea of what I'm talking about.

Don't mind me - I'm just "brain-storming" with the full knowledge that I may well be "over-thinking" this.

[Captain Sierra]

-snip-

Ya I know the C5 style cockpit is coming, but that's geared towards the full-sized bay cross section. I'm thinking more along the lines of something geared towards the "half-bay/luggage rack" we have under the crew cabin (cuz I routinely fit rovers in there to ferry crew and stuff). That and the current cockpit feels like there's a lot of space it takes up that isnt actually utilized.

[funk]

I might have found some issues in the config files of the cargo bays. According to this thread the lookupRadius is too small in most cases. It has to be the absolut value of a 3-dimensional vector from COM to the farest point within the bays. The following pictures show that the parts at the edges aren't occluded and have drag as well as thermal flux.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

craftfile for testing

Further the nodes facing the wrong direction:

node_stack_top = 0.0, 2.5, 0.00, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 4
    node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -2.5, 0.00, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 4

    node_stack_top2 = 0.0, 2.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_bottom2 = 0.0, -2.5, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2

Usually the big nodes are at the outside. Not sure if it makes a difference.

For the servicebay there are no inner nodes.

Nevertheless this is a great mod and I've had some hours with my first Mk4-craft ....it was not useful at all, but pure fun... save is gone:(

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited July 31, 2015 by funk

[Stoney3K]

Ya I know the C5 style cockpit is coming, but that's geared towards the full-sized bay cross section. I'm thinking more along the lines of something geared towards the "half-bay/luggage rack" we have under the crew cabin (cuz I routinely fit rovers in there to ferry crew and stuff). That and the current cockpit feels like there's a lot of space it takes up that isnt actually utilized.

My idea would be to have separate utility modules that you would attach into an otherwise empty section of fuselage.

Similar to Universal Storage, but a lot bigger, with the top fuselage being only a structural part, and everything attached to it having a specific function.

With the same cross-section and length profile, you could have crew cabins, science labs, small cargo containers. Perhaps even escape pods that have a decoupler and retro-thrusters if you want to get away in a hurry.

The forward cockpit section would be more limited in purpose of what you can cram into it, but the cross-section is big enough for, say, a science lab, or even a service compartment stuffed full of batteries, fuel cells and RTGs.

Even if the nose area doesn't feature fancy doors with a ramp, we can still put it to good use if the empty space is left accessible.

BTW, that IVA looks pretty dahum sah-weet.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Stoney3K

[billkerbinsky]

That and the current cockpit feels like there's a lot of space it takes up that isn't actually utilized.

yeah, seems like you could plausibly add a bunch of miscellaneous storage for things like life support mods (USI-LS, TAC-LS, etc.,), or the like.

[funk]

My idea would be to have separate utility modules that you would attach into an otherwise empty section of fuselage.

Similar to Universal Storage, but a lot bigger, with the top fuselage being only a structural part, and everything attached to it having a specific function.

With the same cross-section and length profile, you could have crew cabins, science labs, small cargo containers. Perhaps even escape pods that have a decoupler and retro-thrusters if you want to get away in a hurry.

The forward cockpit section would be more limited in purpose of what you can cram into it, but the cross-section is big enough for, say, a science lab, or even a service compartment stuffed full of batteries, fuel cells and RTGs.

Even if the nose area doesn't feature fancy doors with a ramp, we can still put it to good use if the empty space is left accessible.

BTW, that IVA looks pretty dahum sah-weet.

Perhaps a mount for VTOL engines, I was building this and thought about the space which is left...

Edited July 31, 2015 by funk

[Wolf Baginski]

I'm working on a big spaceplane, and may have hit a bug.

Or it might be a side effect of RAM shortage.

But I am not getting fuel crossfeed for the 2-engine and 3-engine pods

I shall have to do some more checking. Air-breathing mode is fine, with the fuel in the pods. External fuel connectors don't work. I can't manually transfer fuel. And the SCIMITAR engines on the pods don't switch to closed cycle, perhaps because they're not getting oxidizer.

I haven't ruled out RAM shortage yet, but I don't see any more-general warning signs

Air-breathing I'm getting up to around 25000m and 1200 m/s. I toggle the intakes and switch modes. The pod-mount engines don't like it.

Next time I shall also have to remember to get a pic of my cargo-hold/crew fix. I attached a Mk2 crew cabin and clamp-o-tron to the node at the front of the cargo bay. And added a few struts. It's more flexible, with the cargo hatch, than the purpose-made crew section.

[Wolf Baginski]

Adding CrossFeedEnabler to the pods fixed the problem. Now I'm pretty sure it's not RAM.

And here's the front end of the cargo bay.

I shall try a few things on the cockpit to get a better result, maybe add a node to match that hatch. Crew compartment, a docking adaptor, and a lot of science stuff. The test flight gained me a lot of science.

[Nertea]

Well glad to see people enjoying the mod. Just a heads up, I started a new job the other day so my time kinda vanished. Not sure when I'll have time to work on this.

Awesome release Nertea! Your mod is now stock for my KSP from here on out. Nice touch with the Mk4 drone core Cylon Eye.

Very nice plane! I think you're the first person to comment on that little easter egg .

Nertea, what was the scaling factor of mass that you used for these parts from the MkIV v1.0? and were the yellow jackets' thrust scaled appropriately?

I did not scale the Yellowjacket thrust at all - the engines are just too physically small to look good lifting huge masses. Somewhere in that Advanced Propulsion path there will be a 1.25m size class engine that will be more appropriate for lifting Mk4 size parts.

BTW - got a full album up of my iteration of TB2. You might want to check it out to see how I used IR Robotics to recreate one of the original TB2's best gimmicks.

(And yeah, Nert, that's a hint as to what I think is possible for an optional part. )

http://imgur.com/a/DhYqX

Ah, beautiful . I would really like to include something like this as an example craft. How easy would it be to strip the IR parts out?

maybe a cargo section that does not open up at all that's just a fuselage. we can use to mount oh ... i dont know... Wings to? Or maybe a wing adapter or somthing

It kinda makes the part count bloaty, but yeah it would be possible without too much extra work. I continue to think about it. I think I would rather spend the effort on a 'beluga' style fuselage expansion.

Nice work Nertea, I was searching for a TB2 style craft just this week and it's amazing how the MK4 system turned out. These parts deserve to be stock.

I was also toying with an "MK3 widebody" similar to your parts set as a modeling excercise, but I may change that into a compatible parts set that is able to handle oversized payloads.

The biggest challenge I see with these parts is the sheer size. If you have an MK4 cockpit, which is almost 6m wide, there is a lot of empty and unused space. You would be able to fit a dozen Kerbals in there comfortably and allow them to sleep, eat and do science, and still have room to spare.

An idea here would be to have the cockpit occupy the top section of the module, and have a service section or cargo bay underneath. You could even think of "drive-through" roll-on, roll off cargo bay designs through that. Alternatively, a smaller bridge or cockpit module that can snap into a slot in the top section of the fuselage may be an option.

OTOH, with the enormous size, it's now legit to have nuke engines, refineries and fusion reactors that would fit inside the fuselage, for nice-looking interplanetary craft.

Redoing the cockpit is not really planned again at this point, but as you and Sierra point out, there is a lot of room below the flight deck that could be used. It's a question of effort-reward really. I would rather work on other things .

Hi Nertea, here some screen you asked about props errors:

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/447332253951099156/8DEFB8C217BE96453D63503AA83E5FA6527E4BBD/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/447332253951098972/0B0EBBE9CC6A16D4104E5707A32D331654DF3912/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/447332253951098820/DE89767697B67906B117CBE2043DDFD75559EB10/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/447332253951098659/1A8F5EC8E4C70E13EC3373778FC042CB429B2357/

The others so far seems work as normal!

There was a dude in the NFT thread working on improvements to the MFDs in NFprops. I'm going to see if I can contact him, because getting the MFDs working 100% perfectly is really tedious work that I won't enjoy at all.

If I may make an original suggestion/question of my own, Nert?

I know you're working on a cargo elevator TB2 style. Is the intent to include a "pod" style arrangement where a cargo container is lowered/raised through a middle "frame"? Or alternately is the intent to make a variation on the existing ventral door cargo bay with a platform/elevator?

With the former, obviously there are problems with something like a cargo section being a separate piece. I don't think KSP would handle that very well. You can't just "swap out" pods like the original TB2 could and not have some significant stability/wobble issues. At least not in that exact fashion.

So I expect the "pod" will either be a permanent part of the module/part, or you'll be working with something more along the lines of the latter moving platform idea. (which has been done before with a few mods - Wayland's Devo once had a large shuttle mod with such a design, but that was about 4-5 versions of KSP back and it had some other unrelated issues that made it impractical to work with.)

In either case - I'm wondering if a "cargo pod" could be developed that would fit with the existing model - something with perhaps an integral pair of docking ports opposite each other so they can be secured even without the use of something like KAS/KIS? My experience with the Wayland Eagle tells me that it's better to have close-fitting sets of opposing docking ports/CBMs for flight stability. I don't think it matters whether they are a fore/aft config or a port/starboard config. But any "pod" that is a separate piece that docks with a larger craft to become an integral unit MUST have an opposing docking port arrangement for stability. Otherwise you have to secure it with KAS or something (like I did with the rover above in my earlier post).

Maybe even have an integral set of "rollers" or wheels integrated like a rover so that it can be manipulated or rolled into place by other rovers? Or maybe even make an optional pod that can configure like a KIS container that can fit larger volume stuff inside and can be placed aboard?

The intent with my ideas above is to provide a suggestion for a cargo pod/container that is NOT dependent on a particular cargo bay/part arrangement. In other words, it could work as both a "roll-on/roll-off" container for a regular aft ramp load in the field or be able to work with the vertical arrangement of a TB2 style ventral/dorsal cargo section.

I'm considering putting something together using existing parts/mods to better illustrate the above concept. But I hope you get the basic idea of what I'm talking about.

Don't mind me - I'm just "brain-storming" with the full knowledge that I may well be "over-thinking" this.

Back in Mk4 1.0, I was testing a pod drop system which had two parts - a frame and a pod. The frame had an invisible docking port on the top, facing down, and the pod had a top-facing invisible port as well. This allowed attachment to be easy and intuitive, and worked really well - not much wobble while in flight and easy undock/redock.

I plan a third direction for the mod that involves purpose-built TB2 parts: namely, this frame, the pod and really long telescopic legs. Probably far off though (and it might be an optional download)

I might have found some issues in the config files of the cargo bays. According to this thread the lookupRadius is too small in most cases. It has to be the absolut value of a 3-dimensional vector from COM to the farest point within the bays. The following pictures show that the parts at the edges aren't occluded and have drag as well as thermal flux.

http://imgur.com/a/XhCFa

craftfile for testing

Further the nodes facing the wrong direction:

node_stack_top = 0.0, 2.5, 0.00, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 4
    node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -2.5, 0.00, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 4

    node_stack_top2 = 0.0, 2.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_bottom2 = 0.0, -2.5, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2

Usually the big nodes are at the outside. Not sure if it makes a difference.

For the servicebay there are no inner nodes.

Nevertheless this is a great mod and I've had some hours with my first Mk4-craft ....it was not useful at all, but pure fun... save is gone:(

http://imgur.com/a/f2gOr

Ah that makes sense. I calibrated the search radius thinking it just cast from the centre of the part, without following through that casting would have to travel the entire length of the bay as well as width, so the values provided will really only work for the small bay. Will adjust.

Figured the service bay was too small for inner nodes. I also had some connection issues with the cargo bays for a while, and then noticed I could fix them by flipping the large nodes. Seemed to have no side effects for me.

Perhaps a mount for VTOL engines, I was building this and thought about the space which is left...

http://i.imgur.com/5T4CK3X.png

I am planning some blister nodes that fit on the shoulder pods for the 1.25m VTOLs that will make good engine attach nodes.

I'm working on a big spaceplane, and may have hit a bug.

Or it might be a side effect of RAM shortage.

But I am not getting fuel crossfeed for the 2-engine and 3-engine pods

I shall have to do some more checking. Air-breathing mode is fine, with the fuel in the pods. External fuel connectors don't work. I can't manually transfer fuel. And the SCIMITAR engines on the pods don't switch to closed cycle, perhaps because they're not getting oxidizer.

I haven't ruled out RAM shortage yet, but I don't see any more-general warning signs

Air-breathing I'm getting up to around 25000m and 1200 m/s. I toggle the intakes and switch modes. The pod-mount engines don't like it.

Next time I shall also have to remember to get a pic of my cargo-hold/crew fix. I attached a Mk2 crew cabin and clamp-o-tron to the node at the front of the cargo bay. And added a few struts. It's more flexible, with the cargo hatch, than the purpose-made crew section.

As far as I know this is default behaviour. Air-breathing engines draw from all parts, rockets need fuel lines. I haven't checked to see if that's how it works with the stock RAPIER though. If it does indeed draw from all tanks, I'll adjust that.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Nertea

[Logan.Darklighter]

Very nice plane! I think you're the first person to comment on that little easter egg .

Wait... what? *Goes and checks*.

Sonovabitch! That's awesome.

Ah, beautiful . I would really like to include something like this as an example craft. How easy would it be to strip the IR parts out?

Not difficult at all. It's just the pistons and some gantrys that the KAS winches were attached to (which I wound up not using in any case). Easily stripped. Other than those parts, I think it's mostly stock or MK4 parts exclusively. No... wait - the Intakes on the tail I believe are from B9. I don't have time to check right at the moment. When I get in this evening I'll see if I can work up a craft file to link.

[Wolf Baginski]

I've been working on the Mk4 Cockpit to give an alternative to the crew cabin module. Essentially, I changed the nodes on the rear bulkhead, adding three, one high and two low. This shot shows the basic idea.

That's a standard Mk2 Crew Can and a Mk2 in-line Clamp-o-Tron, It only carries 4 Kerbals, unlike the Mk4 Crew module. On the other hand, you could mount solar panels or radiators to be used in orbit. It can be a little bit of a fiddle getting cargo hold and the three items attached.

These are the three attachment nodes I added. I trimmed the numbers to three significant figures. That works out as the nearest millimetre.

    node_stack_triad1 = 0.0, -2.328, -1.125, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_triad2 = 1.028, -2.328, 0.442, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_triad3 = -1.028, -2.328, 0.442, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2

I'll probably use the modded version as routine. It gives me a protectable location for otherwise vulnerable stuff, a bit like one of the small service bays. The idea might be useful for a fuel tank too, so that you could still put one between the cargo hold and the cockpit, though I'm not quite sure what I'd use the low two nodes for.

[mike9606]

Well I created a simple drone aircraft using these parts, but whenever I start the engines after a bit the drone core as well as the seats and other stuff I put in the service bay behind the drone core overheat and explode for no apparent reason. I have KJR installed but not FAR.

Edited August 1, 2015 by mike9606

[Bakase]

Well I created a simple drone aircraft using these parts, but whenever I start the engines after a bit the drone core as well as the seats and other stuff I put in the service bay behind the drone core overheat and expldoe for no apparent reason. I have KJR installed but not FAR.

Stock bug, I'm afraid. Small parts often overheat for no reason and explode.

[Grumman]

I've been working on the Mk4 Cockpit to give an alternative to the crew cabin module. Essentially, I changed the nodes on the rear bulkhead, adding three, one high and two low. This shot shows the basic idea.

http://i.imgur.com/YfBI0BM.jpg

That's a standard Mk2 Crew Can and a Mk2 in-line Clamp-o-Tron, It only carries 4 Kerbals, unlike the Mk4 Crew module. On the other hand, you could mount solar panels or radiators to be used in orbit. It can be a little bit of a fiddle getting cargo hold and the three items attached.

These are the three attachment nodes I added. I trimmed the numbers to three significant figures. That works out as the nearest millimetre.

    node_stack_triad1 = 0.0, -2.328, -1.125, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_triad2 = 1.028, -2.328, 0.442, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_triad3 = -1.028, -2.328, 0.442, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2

I'll probably use the modded version as routine. It gives me a protectable location for otherwise vulnerable stuff, a bit like one of the small service bays. The idea might be useful for a fuel tank too, so that you could still put one between the cargo hold and the cockpit, though I'm not quite sure what I'd use the low two nodes for.

I'm considering something similar. Do you have any particular reasoning for the position of the bottom two nodes?

[Wolf Baginski]

I'm considering something similar. Do you have any particular reasoning for the position of the bottom two nodes?

Equilateral triangle. A single lower node might be better, and would go well with a ventral-hatch cargo bay.

[blowfish]

Isn't that what the stock radial attachment point part is for?

[Grumman]

Equilateral triangle. A single lower node might be better, and would go well with a ventral-hatch cargo bay.

I'm thinking an isosceles triangle with the bottom two nodes at the same level as the fuel pods on the sides. Might as well add a fourth for completeness. The distance between the two side nodes, I'll try to place so that my intended unbalanced cargo will in fact be balanced. I'll just have to do some calculations first.

Isn't that what the stock radial attachment point part is for?

Radial attachment points allow arbitrary placement, while we want something more considered.

[Grumman]

Here are the nodes I think I'll be going with - the left and right nodes are on the horizontal center line of the fuselage and placed so that two 2.5 parts can only just be placed side by side inside the cargo bay. The top node is in the same place as in Wolf's to align with the cockpit door, and the bottom node has been moved up 0.25 units so that a 1.25m part does not clip through the floor.

	node_stack_quad1 = 0.0, -2.328, -1.125, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
	node_stack_quad2 = 1.25, -2.328, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
	node_stack_quad3 = -1.25, -2.328, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
	node_stack_quad4 = 0.0, -2.328, 0.875, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2

And here's a quick test of what I have planned...

[RedParadize]

If the vote is still open, I would go for B. A front door would be realy nice. If I may suggest, for the upcoming part, smaller window on the cockpit would make the mkIV look bigger. And its kinda big, so it should look big.

Edited August 2, 2015 by RedParadize

[Gargamel]

Downloaded this the other day. Very nice work!

[Wolf Baginski]

I think I am going to put a drone Mk4 in orbit with no cargo space, just fuel and a docking port.

[Izny]

Awesome mod. Having great fun trying to get my new leviathan designs into orbit. Want moar of this

[Isabelle.V.Fuchs]

Hello,

I have a simple and maybe silly question: How can I use atmospheric engins using intake-air. If I put a intake-part on the front two inlets of the cockpit and an air-using-engine on the - let's say - ramp outlets (these for 1.25 engines at the sides of the ramp-end) I cannot fire the engines because there seems no connection between the intakes and the engines.

I tried radial air intakes too, but these don't seem to support the engines either. So how can I get intake air to the engines?

Isabelle

[Bakase]

Hello,

I have a simple and maybe silly question: How can I use atmospheric engins using intake-air. If I put a intake-part on the front two inlets of the cockpit and an air-using-engine on the - let's say - ramp outlets (these for 1.25 engines at the sides of the ramp-end) I cannot fire the engines because there seems no connection between the intakes and the engines.

I tried radial air intakes too, but these don't seem to support the engines either. So how can I get intake air to the engines?

Isabelle

This should be working.

This might seem like a stupid question, but bear with me -- are you sure you actually have liquidfuel in your fuselage?

Otherwise it's an install problem.

[StevieC]

Small suggestion: inline science lab?