Bonus Eventus

Sorry, but you'll just have to wait Still texturing. I want these parts to be extra special. Also, @AJTheMighty I said Friday at the earliest.

Updated the end cap. Here's a shot of the fairing. Some additional views.

Here's where I am with the fission reactor. The connection at the bottom will have a fairing (similar to Soyuz). Still not sure about the top stack connector details, might want to add some pipes. I'm not that sure, because it will most likely be covered up 90% of the time. Puts out 2,250 EC/s. In the next stable update (1.075) Leviathan Solar Wings will generate 275 EC/s (Thanks to @Table for suggesting this!) so 4 of them will generate half the EC required for full thrust from the ELF Plasma Engine. The ELF needs 2000 ec/s to run at full throttle. The tradeoff ihen is, the fission generator is much heavier and takes up more space than the Leviathans (when folded anyways haha) and it's less expensive than 8 Leviathan Solar Wings. Here are the current stats on the ELF (Thanks to @cy4n for his input on this) Max Thrust (ASL) - 2.667kn Max Thrust (Vac)- 160kn ISP - 100 (ASL) - 6000 (Vac) Electric Charge - 2000/sec. Max Xenon Gas - 27.192/sec. Max Mas: 2t Since it's taking me longer than expected to finish 1.1, I've decided to do what Squad does and break up this big update into smaller ones. The next update will be 1.075 and it will probably be out Tomorrow night at the earliest. Included in 1.075: Added part ELF Plasma Engine. Added part SMR Sodium Fast Cooled Reactor Bug fix for XL-6 Landing Strut (when in the start extended state, craft would spawn partly in the ground) Bug fix fix for S6 Radial Decoupler (surface attachment strength was far weaker than it should have been thanks to a typo) (Thanks to @DStaal for reporting it!) Bug fix for Kerbodyne S6-94640 Tank (surface attachment strength was weaker than intended) Adjustment to Leviathan Solar Wing (EC/s is now 275 instead of 200) Adjustment to T202 BA-64 Battery Array (EC/s is now 4000 instead of 6000)

Thanks for taking the time to post these images and explain your craft's design (looks pretty awesome btw). This is very helpful to me, because I know how I would build with K+ but it's hard to imagine what other people are trying to accomplish. The new decouplers are very strong. So strong in some configurations you won't need struts. I'll see about adding some big fins soon.

If/When T404 gets overhauled I would like to transition the CM1 to a S6 (7.5m) Hab or several S3 (3.75m) Habs. So, the reason for the redesign is to make a more unified structural system, one which makes building stations and motherships straight-forward and fun. In terms of ship design I'll borrow the terminology of Atomic Rockets. T202 makes up the spine of the spacecraft. It's there to support most of the ship's critical functions. T202 modules for comms, science equipment, electrical, small unpressurized storage. T404 very large unpressurized storage, for large vehicle payloads. Extra structural supports for thrust frames and extra payload attachments that work with T202 and T404 S6 and S3 pressurized modules for kerbals, fuel, etc. Engines Electrical generators

Well, I've thought about that a lot, so I'll answer you with a question. What things would you want to store in a pressurized container?

I think this could make a good door (it actually is for hangars). This is a SpaceX facility at Cape Canaveral.

I'll lower the isp and push out a dev update.

I'm making a special T202 truss section with a Xenon tank inside. Thanks for the feedback on the ELF. Did you take a payload with you to duna? When I balanced the engine I was pushing around a craft with 50+ tons.

This is do to how I chose to animate the light in Unity. I'll see about changing that with the new t404.

Nailed it. I planning on pushing out a new update on thursday or friday, this fix will be included. Thanks for the bug report!

1) Didn't imagine people would use the clusters that way. My intent was for them to be used in propellant depots. However, that's the fun of KSP, using parts in unexpected ways. Problem is, having multiple nodes with stacked symmetry and crossfeed makes for weird fuel flow issues. One solution would be to remove the other nodes leaving just one on the bottom and one on the top. Another way is to add a giant decoupler that fits the tank clusters, but then another problem appears in the form of multiple engines to one decoupler. Hmm, have to think about that more. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! 2) This is why I gave the behemoth engine cluster a high gimbal range of 8 and response speed of 8. For comparison the "Vector" engine has a gimbal range of 10.5 and a response speed of 8. When I tested the system with a 1000 ton payload (6 behemoth asparagus using radial decouplers), it performed as expected with no fins. I'll do some tests. Can you send me a screen of your craft in the VAB so I can see what your setup was?

You bring up a good point, I've been considering the last couple of days. I went with the orange in these WIPs because it matches the large orange adapters, and the Kerbodyne logo has orange in it (also orange stands out in the blackness of space). However, I know that if you try to attach t202 to t404 it might seem awkward, seeing as t202 is structural as well and ad being light gray in color. T202 is also made out of angular metal struts, while the new T404 is made out of round metal tubes. So, one way I could resolve that is by making the t202 out of round orange tubes, another way is to make the T404 tubes light gray. The issue there is that the metal panels that make up the curtain walls of the T404 would have to be a different color or they would overmatch with the tube framing. However, there is a third option which is embedding some similar elements into the t202 system or some t202 transitional adapters. I don't know, but the good news is I don't' have to have an answer right now. BTW, @Table what's wrong with orange? Is it that you just don't like orange?

I'm overthinking the reactor design. I think what's realistic is placing it in some kind of shroud, for protection and stability. With all the pipes sticking out, not only would overheating be hard to control, but I question the feasibility of a reactor outside of some kind of pressurized compartment. A reactor in space, just like an liquid fuel tank, will have to combat sloshing effects of liquids in a microgravity environment. Vibration would be an issue too. Yeah I think a design such as this (image below) would be the most practical.

So, I mentioned a couple of posts back that T404 should be thought of as a large containment structure for use in orbital docks/shipyards or as a surface for large attachments. I don't think T404 should simply be a scaled up version of the T202 truss. To that end I did yet another redesign. It won't work much differently than it does now, but the shape will become more square/diamond, the diameter will be increased by 300% (making it 22.5M in diameter) , it will still come in 3 sizes and different aesthetic variations (type A, B). Not shown here, but planned are truss caps that will make securing docking ports easier. Doors, doors, doors (also not modeled yet) with animations., ladders, so kerbs can get around, and lastly static solar panels (with all that surface area it just makes sense). So, even though I say it will be like this or it will be like that, what I really mean to say is that this is my idea for what T404 could be. I'm sensitive to the feelings of people who like the current T404 design, so if enough folks voice their discontent, I won't force it. These are 3 T404 B-2 hulls. The size 2 hulls are 15m same length as the current ones. Note the absence of lighting. This type B hulls will become structural only. Here is the T404 A-2. Type A and B are functionally the same, they just offer a different aesthetic for variation in ship/station design. This is the new T404 C-2 hull. Since it has static solar panels, the T404 C-2 has integrated lighting (the model for the lights is still a WIP). Shot of the interior of the new T404 C-2 Hull

Do you think you could show me some screenshots of crafts you've tried to make with the current system? If you don't feel like sharing here you can always PM me

This is essentially the T202 integrated truss system isn't it? The only difference being T202 is 3.75m octo

Actually that's a great idea, I've been trying to balance the new ELF all afternoon. I don't want it to be too overpowered. I want players to be able to use the solar wings for power generation, and still get useful thrust from the engine. 4x275=1100 which is close to my goal of 2mW for full thrust. Meaning, if you use 4 solar wings you can get 1mw which equates to half the thrust. Trade off being a lighter craft. right now the setting are: isp - 12600 max thrust - 160kn ec/sec - 1000 xenon/sec - 12.949 mass - 2 tons 12000 onboard ec

This is a WIP of the sodium fast cooled reactor. Still need to add heat exchange pipes. The section at left with the 8 radially placed pumps is where the reactor core is located. There really aren't many visual associations I can use as a designer which will communicate to the player, "this is a nuclear fission reactor", other than including a cooling tower and a radiation warning sign (sigh). In real applications these things tend to look like water coolers. And even a lot of what is cool will be inevitably covered by a shroud (because nearly all reactors are terrestrial reactors). Nasa has been experimenting of late with small fission reactors to replace RTGs, but these are test platforms (so look like random plumbing to the untrained eye). There is the 1950s SNAP 10A reactor which was actually flown by the US and a few russian ones, but since these craft were mostly test vehicles, the point of the craft was the reactor, so it's conical and at the front of the craft. I'm after a more general design players can stick in a fairing similar to an ISRU.

Well as I said before, I plan to make the CM1 either an s6 bulkhead (7.5m round like the behemoth tank) or 3.75M round not sure how that will work exactly. What I am sure about is that I want to redesign that part. I feel that the interior could be more detailed with laptops and science equipment. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Habitation_Module_-_Crew_Quarters.png Keep in mind these changes won't be coming soon. This would be down the road, well after 1.1 K+ still needs a bunch of capability/gameplay parts. I feel like the point of this pack isn't well experienced yet. I'm more concerned with that aspect at the moment. That's why I'm trying to get at least the first tere IP engine and reactor done before 1.1

Oh snap! That's too bad. Appreciate you sharing these tests and analysis with all of us! Actually I did some tests this morning and it seemed that increasing the radius would add to suspension distance, just trying to cancel out variables. Unity Setup (4.22) CFG Settings (copied from LT-2 and then adjusted) MODULE { name = ModuleWheelBase wheelColliderTransformName = wheelCollider wheelType = LEG // setting this to true will override the radius and center parameters FitWheelColliderToMesh = False radius = 0.0 center = 0,0,0 mass = 0.040 autoFrictionAvailable = False TooltipTitle = Landing Leg TooltipPrimaryField = groundHeightOffset = 0.77168625 } MODULE { name = ModuleWheelSuspension baseModuleIndex = 0 suspensionTransformName = piston //suspensionDistance = 0.83 suspensionDistance = 4 suspensionOffset = -0.83 targetPosition = 1.0 springRatio = 3 damperRatio = 1.0 boostRatio = 0.1 } MODULE { name = ModuleWheelDeployment baseModuleIndex = 0 animationTrfName = legTest animationStateName = leg deployedPosition = 1 deployTargetTransformName = foot TsubSys = 0.83 } MODULE { name = ModuleWheelLock maxTorque = 500 } MODULE { name = ModuleWheelBogey baseModuleIndex = 0 bogeyTransformName = foot deployModuleIndex = 2 maxPitch = 160 minPitch = -160 restPitch = 0 pitchResponse = 100 bogeyAxis = 0, 0, 1 bogeyUpAxis = -1, 0, 0 } KSP Test suspensionDistance = 0.83 (just like in unity) (these screens were captured at vehicle launch, legs started in the extended position) suspensionDistance = 4 Oddly, this had the effect of submerging the craft on unpack, but then when the legs were retracted and then extended again they work like normal and there was no appreciable difference. I'm wondering if this has anything to do with my wheelCollider orientation. I noticed that what seemed to have the biggest effect on the suspension was the spring, slip, and damper settings in unity. I plan to do some more tests throughout the day.

@nli2work Your radius for the wheelCollider was presumably 0.18 was this set to the same value in the cfg

It would pretty much be the same, except the walls would be thinner and the struts that make up the frame would be round like a pipe and narrower in diameter. I've been going back and forth with this design for a while. I don't want to take away any parts which people like. But I think it might be OK if the change is superficial. I'll throw up a sketch soon. Tomorrow I'll be finally getting to the nuclear reactor, so not sure when I'll have the time, maybe over the weekend. Might do another poll...hmmm

Yeah, I have no intention of copying anything exactly. I want to make a building system that's modular like Lego, so you can build what you whatever you want. However, just like with ksp stock I want parts to fill specific purposes, so players of all levels can find immediate uses for any given part. Just as when one looks at a screw driver and immediately knows which part is the handle, I feel like players should know which end is up and what each part's intended use is. Obviously some parts will be more specialized, and thus less modular than others, but I'm hoping to make these part systems as extensible as possible. Just as you said the hope is that you could make a spacecraft like the isv venturestar or the Hermes or the Discovery for that matter. That's why eventually I'll likely redesign t404 to look more like a hangar, more fragile, and light weight like something meant to only exist in zero gravity, put together in modules that unfold and then dock together.

That's what I need the most at the moment, feedback and bug tracking. As far as T404 I want to enforce the idea that T404 is for hangars and volume containment. T202 is for structural support. Circular bulkheads are for habs. Let's take a look at the ISV Venture Star as an example of what I'm talking about.