Amloris

This is a simple two stage lander that I have used extensively in my campaign missions. It is a bit overdesigned since it was used to land on nearly any planetary body and perform multiple landings in some missions. However, it is more than capable of performing a landing on Duna and subsequent trip to Ike.

Greetings! I have picked up coding with KOS once again. I had stopped using it about a year ago to wait for further development as I felt that some essential features were lacking. Now that lists are available and the coding documentation has been updated it has unlocked many possibilities that were previously impossible. Furthermore, I'm glad to see this mod has continued and that the developers are active on the forums. However, I have some questions that need to be answered and some suggestions that I would like to make. Most of my coding experience comes from using C++ for engineering iterative methods, or VBA and MatLab for control system analysis, so I may use inconsistent code oriented language as I talk about examples. Question #1 Is there a way to retrieve/store data from lists other than using FOR loops? In most coding languages, lists come in the form of matrices that are used to store data in various forms. Users generally must define an array size (unless the are using scale-able vector arrays). To store and retrieve data, the program uses row and column integers to interact with the data matrix (if it is a 2-D array). Does KOS have any of this functionality? I know lists exist and can be stepped through with the use of FOR loops, but is there a more straightforward way to pull a specific point of data from matrix through the use of requesting rows and columns? Below is an example of some of my C++ code that performs RREF calculations on a data matrix and accurately portrays the functionality that I am talking about. double normalization(double A[NROW][NCOL], int mark) { int col; double temp; temp=A[mark][mark]; for (col=mark; col<NCOL; col++) { A[mark][col]=((A[mark][col])/temp); } return (0); } In this situation, A is a 2 dimensional array with "m" rows and "n" columns. So if I say X=A[row][column] where "row" and "column" are represented by integers, then X will equal the value pulled from the matrix at that point. Using lists and matrices in this way is very intuitive and straight forward. FOR loops can still be used to store and retrieve data, but this structure also allows users to request a singular data point easily without FOR loops. The reason why I am asking about this feature is because I am attempting to program an inertial guidance system in C++ that will take the initial conditions of the craft and information about the type of orbit you would like to achieve with said craft. This program will then use an iterative Runge-Kutta procedure, coupled with a Monte-Carlo method to find an optimal ascent profile and store the final trajectory data in the form of a txt file that can be read by KOS. At the end of the day, I want to be able to say "At mission time 53, look at matrix row 53 and pull pitch, yaw, and throttle info from the matrix and implement it with the rocket". Is this currently possible with KOS, or is it a potential feature in the future? Due to the long-winded nature of my first question I will abstain from asking the rest of my questions in this post to prevent information overload. Thanks in advance for any information that anyone can provide! Regards, Amloris

After months of delays the Atlantis 2 is ready to be released to the public! If anyone has any problems downloading the file or following the main post please let me know! Have a good day!

I uploaded a video of Atlantis 2 for those who may be interested. I apologize for the quality (it turned out a bit dark); however, it is only the second time I have made a video, so I'm still learning. I tried uploading the video using an .mp4 format in 1920x1080p. If anyone who is more experienced in video production has any suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong it would be greatly appreciated! Have a good day!

Thanks! I tried to find that thank you message that you sent me on Youtube, but I was unable to find it because I don't know where my inbox is anymore (That just comes to show how long I haven't used youtube either).

My apologies for the delay. I have finally returned from a long period of inactivity. I notice that the forums have gone through a shuttle craze recently; I have also noticed that my shuttle on the front page is extremely outdated. Atlantis 1 was made in 0.18 and is still operational today (no one has told me otherwise at least). I made Atlantis 2 about 5 months ago to replace it but I haven't gotten around to posting it yet. Atlantis 2 has been modified with a superior (and more realistic) wing geometry, requires no stabilization rockets, has a much shorter launch preparation time, uses only 1 action key, and features a much higher power to weight ratio on takeoff. Perhaps I will upload it later today if I have the time. Atlantis 2 Once again, sorry for the delay. Have a good day!

I built this a couple of months ago but haven't gotten around to posting it. Project Auburn is a modular interplanetary vessel that was designed to land and return from nearly any planet in the Kerbol system. The fuel budget was scary on the Project Auburn's first visit to Duna (less than 1% of fuel was left in the propulsion stage, descent stage, and ascent stage).

I tried your code that you provided and I still can't get it to recognize key input. I feel like I'm running into a brick wall here.

Unfortunately, none of those suggestions manage to get the code to work. When the KOS window is unfocused and the game is in camera view the code will not recognize any actionkey input. Even using the coding directly supplied by the KOS Space Computer yields similar results. I suppose I can get my code to respond to external input by using the landing gear, brakes, rcs and sas keys to act as external input during the prelaunch sequence, but I would much rather get it to work by using the action keys. Any suggestions?

Hello, everyone! I have been tinkering with this mod over the last couple weeks in my fleeting free time and I have to say I love it (even though it has its quirks ). However, I have some questions that I need some help with. I have tried everything that I can think of, so I figure it's better to ask the community before I proceed to bang my head against the wall any more than I already have. First Question I am trying to create system responses through the use of action keys for a functional menu system. I saw that the KOS Space Computer thread accomplished this feat, but I am having difficulties replicating their success, and to be honest I doubt whether it is still possible in the most current version. The following simplified code is a portrayal of what I want to work, but have not gotten to function properly yet. Note: The spacecraft that is being tested on is in orbit. CLEARSCREEN. SET X TO 0. UNTIL ALTITUDE < 70000 { IF AG1 == "TRUE" {SET X TO 1.}. IF X = 0 {PRINT "FAILED" AT (0,0).}. IF X = 1 {PRINT "DETECTED" AT (0,0).}. }. I'm sure that I am missing something absolutely trivial (a common case in programming). I would appreciate any input on this matter so that I can sleep better tonight.

My realization that fuel lines and struts are completely massless. I have been playing KSP for over two years now (back when the moon was new) and I never made that realization! I have over 50 pages of delta-v and TWR calculations based on the assumption that fuel lines and struts had a mass of 0.05mT! It has caused me great grief for a very long time now as my theoretical calculations were always a little off from my actual observations. I have made countless rockets where I have forgone adding struts to a specific stage because I was out of my structural mass allowance that my calculations indicated. I can not believe that I have easily put over 500 hour into this game and never made that realization!!! Please excuse me while I flip a table and binge drink to hide my shame. On a different note: Where can I go to close the poll? I can't seem to find the option.

The External Tank rebuild is going well, though it is not necessarily going according to plan. I have managed to reduce the part count substantially (~50-100 parts after struts are added), but for what ever reason it has picked up a bunch of weight somewhere in the rebuild even though it should weight about the same as the original. For design concerns the External Tank must have a total mass of 127mT, an empty mass (structural weight) of 25mT; this leaves 102mT devoted to fuel alone. I need some help figuring out where I picked up some additional weight in my rebuild (and this will give you guys a chance to get an up close look at the ET and comment about it). Below are some statistics to help me show what is wrong with it. The LRB's were not included in this external tank rebuild. It is important to note that the new tank has no struts or fuel lines right now. External Tank (old) Wet mass: 124.98 Dry mass: 22.98 Part Count: 206 External Tank (new) Wet mass: 125.13 Dry mass: 23.13 Part Count: 98 Things I changed in the design (net weight change) (mdry)old-(mdry)new= 3 inline reaction wheels (small) - 1 inline reaction wheel (big) - 16 small structural panels + 2 small I-beams + 4 small adapter + 1 rover body (mdry)old-(mdry)new= 3(0.3mT) - 0.2mT - 16(0.075mT) + 2(0.1875mT) + 4(0.04mT) + 0.15mT (ÃŽâ€mdry)theoretical= 0.185mT Removing struts and fuel lines (ÃŽâ€mdry)theoretical= 0.185mT - 20 fuel lines - 42 struts (ÃŽâ€mdry)theoretical= 0.185mT - 20(0.05mT) - 42(0.05mT) (ÃŽâ€mdry)theoretical= -2.915mT Comparing this theoretical value to the actual value I measured (mwet(new))actual-(mwet(old))actual=(ÃŽâ€mdry)theoretical ÃŽâ€mactual = ÃŽâ€mtheoretical 125.13mT - 124.98mT = -2.915mT 0.15mT ≠-2.915mT I'm at a loss of how to explain this, the math simply just doesn't add up! The new external tank is suppose to weight almost 3 metric tonnes lighter than the old one accounting for all of the changes I made, yet in practice when I measured it, it weights 0.15 metric tonnes heavier than old one. The amount of fuel is correct in both of them, so the change in mass must be structural. Where did I pick up almost 3 tonnes of weight even though I meticulously kept a list of changes I made between the designs? If someone else could take a look at this I would greatly appreciate it! Craft files: External Tank (old) External Tank (new)

After a few weeks and many hours of work I have managed to fix my FPS issues. The solution was painfully trivial (my desktop was somehow in power saving mode when I rebuilt my system). *facepalm* Now I can actually start working on testing the long awaited Thorium Launch System! One of the projects that I discussed earlier that will be an integral part of testing the shuttle is the Aegis Abort System. This 3 man CSM will be parked in a 70kmx70km orbit in case the Thorium Shuttle lacks the fuel to obtain the target orbit or select the appropriate re-entry location. While top kerbal officials were first leery of the terms "redundancy" and "back-up plan" they quickly warmed up to the idea as it offered an unprecedented excuse to make a simple task as complicated as possible. Thus, the Aegis-1 was born. Hailed as being "too safe" by the general population, SRB's where quickly added to the original design to decrease the safety level, satisfying the public. Aegis-1 Unmanned CSM in Orbit Separation of Service Module before re-entry I have started working on rebuilding the external tank for the Thorium Launch System. So far I have reduced the part count by 75 parts and have added 3 more reaction wheels (21 total). The ludicrous amount of reaction wheels is for payload stabilization; they will also force you to keep the throttle above 50% or else you will run out of power to stabilize yourself as a added benefit. I am really liking how the ET is coming along! I have also reduced the part count in each Gemini-LRB by 8 parts. Questions: How do I get rid of the Poll? (It has overstayed its welcome, we all know which project won ) How do I re-size my images via bb code to make them not as gigantic? More updates coming soon!

This is the update so far: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/49274-FPS-Stuttering After rebuilding my OS I have been experiencing unexplainably horrific lag; flying anything more than 200 parts is painful to watch. This has made it impossible to continue aerodynamic testing since the Thorium Shuttle is about 140 parts and the Antonov-225 Aerial Launch Vehicle is 250 parts. Without an aerodynamically stable shuttle it would be silly to launch the thing since you wouldn't be able to recover it. While I may not be able to test aerodynamics and launch system stability at the moment I have been focusing on other smaller tasks that will make up the bigger picture. Some of the things I have been working on for the Thorium Launch System are as follows: Developing the Azimuth Abort System: This will be a backup system for Kerbalnaut survival if the Shuttle's aerodynamic surfaces are damaged during ascent (rendering the Shuttle aerodynamically unstable and incapable of re-entry) and the Shuttle is on a sub-orbital trajectory. Developing the Aegis Abort System: This will be a backup CSM in a 70km-70km orbit in case the Thorium Shuttle is left in a lower than intended orbit without the necessary fuel to safely reach a specific landing location. In this situation, the Aegis CSM will be remotely operated to rendezvous with the Shuttle to save the crew. Developing the Crew Mobility System: Essentially just rcs jetpacks with seats. I wanted to do EVA's with a proper NAV ball, so this is my solution to that problem. Creating Alternate Landing Areas: I'm working on a couple of separate "landing strips" to give me landing opportunities to land somewhere other than the main airstrip in case something goes wrong on reentry. 1 will be located just west of the main strip (for early re-entries), 1 will be on the eastern continent for a very specific mission I have for the Thorium System (and for early abort possibilites). These sites will have a jet to return landed crew, a refueling station, a hab unit, and landing lights. Reducing Part Count of the ET: Due to complications in the building process (I'll explain the problem later when I get the time) the part count was very high for the Thorium Launch System (ET+LRB's). I learned a lot from making that rediculously complex peice of machinery the first time, so now I know how to reduce the part count substantially. Plus I need to add load bearing rails to it or else the Shuttle's power plant will shred it. The External Tank rebuild will probably take about 3-4 hours, so I'm putting it off as long as possible. This project is by no means dead. I work on it a little bit every day (even with the lag), perfecting it little by little. I will only release it when I am completely satisfied with the final product. Kindest Regards, Amloris

Aerodynamic testing of the Thorium Shuttle has been complete. The old Boeing 747 used to test Atlantis would have been 100% over its weight capacity limit if it had been used to test the 30 tonne Thorium Shuttle. To combat this issue, an Antonov-225 was created which is capable of lifting 40 tonnes of dead weight. The split tail design offered superior yaw control during testing an required far less seperation motors to be used to clear the Shuttle from the Antonov during aerodynamic tests. Antonov-225 (Used as an aerial launch vehicle) Aerodynamic testing of the Thorium Shuttle The Thorium Shuttle is separated in a similar fashion The Thorium Shuttle glides quite well during testing; following a 10 degree descent path with ease. It's flight characteristics were only tested without any payload, though it may be able to return 5-10 tonne payloads from orbit if properly balanced. However, I'm not overly satisfied with the aesthetics yet, and there are some peculiar issues with it. It currently loves to go into uncontrollable stalls which are unrecoverable, and the kraken attacks when you deploy the landing gear (which always induces catastrophic stall). Unfortunately, the Thorium Shuttle is composed of 165 parts and I have no idea how I'm going to reduce that number. Perhaps I will post the craft file of the Shuttle if anyone is interested in modifying it to be more part efficient. Have a good day!

Construction and testing of the new Cargo Shuttles propulsion system has been complete. It develops a maximum thrust of 2010kN to help propel the Thorium Launch System and the attached shuttle. Fitted with reaction wheels, it should theoretically be able to handle unbalanced payloads (If my math is true). Even though the combined mass of the Shuttle and payload will weigh in at around 50 tonnes it only uses 3 tonnes of fuel for orbital operations due to the use of nuclear engines. Testing of the Cargo Shuttle Propulsion Pack 16.5 tonnes of engines at work Now all it needs is wings and aerodynamics tests before it is bolted onto the Thorium Launch System!

The production of the Thorium Launch System is complete. It is specially designed for the Payload Capable Shuttle (Still thinking of a name for it) that will weigh in at about 50 tonnes fully loaded. It has an 125 tonne asymmetrical external fuel tank so that the shuttle can be embedded into it, allowing for greater control and payload balance. The two Liquid Rocket Boosters burn for 2.5 times as long as a large SRB and are nearly 3 times as powerful! Thorium Launch System The fuel routing for this thing was diabolical... So, what are your thoughts about this launch system? I would also like to know what you plan on launching with a payload capable shuttle! Feedback is appreciated as always.

Empty, Atlantis can glide for 30km from an altitude of 10km. I'm sure you can extend its glide path with the right amount of patience. With the new wing structure though it has the tendency to want to stall at very low speeds. Fuel is located inside the orbiter; clipping was used to preserve aesthetics and functionality. A polar runway would be nice in certain situations, but unfortunately the Atlantis now does not have the DeltaV to establish a polar orbit. First off, I started with the fully fueled orbiter alone (No external tank or boosters). I then turned on the thrust vector and center of mass to do the alignment. Line up the OEM's thrust vector with the center of mass of the Shuttle. Then, add the external tank; you will then add the main engines to align the resultant thrust vector with the new center of mass (The COM will move during flight, so try to guess where it will be a majority of the time). This relies on the assumption that the OEM's will be firing during the ascent. That is how I did it! Imagine how much fun it is lining up the OEM's and SME's when you are dealing with a payload capable shuttle with varying payload weights and placements.

@Exsmelliarmus I have, in fact, found a way to make the 3 main engines more powerful through the use of clipping and careful fuel line placement. Now the new version of Atlantis should feel significantly more powerful! This technique will also be used in the payload capable shuttle that I am currently working on. I'm glad you liked the new wing structure; it is not only aerodynamically stable, but it is also much more realistic. I love how the swept wings imitate the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon leading edge of its real life counterpart! Sadly, I could not find a visually appealing way to make a cover for the engines during 747 testing. However, I do believe the landing gear setup more than makes up for it.

Due to the success of Space Shuttle Atlantis, a board meeting was called to discuss how to improve upon the original design. During the brainstorming process an intern interjected the idea of making a Payload capable Shuttle. Thrilled by the possibility of being able to destroy the Shuttle and the payload in a single launch the gathered committee accepted the idea by an overwhelming majority. After the press announcement, three top Kerbal officials were hospitalized due to an overdose of awesomeness. A new, more complex Shuttle would be necessary to fulfill this role. It was also theorized that a re-purposed commercial airliner would be required for testing the aerodynamics of the new Shuttle. The creation of the aerial launch platform would significantly reduce the need to launch dozens of rockets to test the new shuttle and minimize casualties during testing. Top Kerbal officials also approved of the ability to crash unintentionally dissasemble both the plane and the Shuttle if an anomaly were to occur. Aerodynamic testing of Atlantis as a test vehicle Surprisingly there were no casualties during testing, although there were some very close calls. (Failed Successful landing) To be clear, the Boeing is a modified version of one produced by forum member Mareczex333. Aerodynamic, landing gear, and structural changes were made to the original version. I would like to thank Mareczex333 for allowing me to use his plane! I strongly recommend checking out his Youtube because he makes some very impressive things.

Simply use left shift key while rotating a part like normal (using the W,A,S,D,Q,E keys) to rotate your selected parts in increments instead of a full 90 degrees. Now, finding the correct angle to place them is an entire physics lecture in its own right.

Are you referring to what hot-key that you use to slightly angle the struts, or the concepts of of physics that I used to choose their correct orientation? If it is the later, I would be ecstatic to show you how I went about doing it as I am sure that others would also be curious to know. A thousand thanks SDIR! I'm not sure how after playing this game for hundreds of hours that a simple fuel routing logic such as that escaped me. Now work can begin on the upgraded external tank for the Thorium Launch System!

The Atlantis has been a good shuttle, and does its job exceptionally well. Many people have made very worthy suggestions on how to improve it, but unfortunately it looks like I will have to do a complete rebuild to include many of them. I still plan on updating Atlantis to make it more user friendly after .21 came out (most notably adding more reaction wheels, batteries, and RTG's). I also plan on developing a more capable shuttle, one that is capable of transporting a crew of 3 and carry a potential 30 metric tonne payload while still being easy to control. However, this will require a more heavy duty launch system, which leads me to the following presentation. Behold, the GLV/M-I/A. It is a heavily modified first stage of my Gemini Launch Vehicle, featuring an extended fuselage for additional fuel capacity, an elliptical cross section as opposed to a circular one, and an aerodynamic nosecone. It is designed to be a Liquid Rocket Booster (LRB). Two of these LRB's will be embedded into an larger integrated external tank to create the Thorium Launch System for the new shuttle. Unfortunately, the LRB has an issue that needs to be fixed before I can proceed to designing the external tank. I need the help of the community to analyze this LRB and fix its fuel flow problems. The problem is: the LRB does not supply any fuel to the engines properly. I am trying to fix this issue while preserving its current functionality and aesthetics of the booster. I am at a loss on how to go about fixing this, so I am calling upon the community to assist in the development of the GLV/M-I/A. Download: GLV/M-I/A Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Have a good day!

The new stability control system has had some notable effects on this Space Shuttle, some of them good, and some of them bad. Shortly after liftoff the Atlantis is a challenge to fly because it simply lacks enough reaction wheels to keep it under control. The effects of this are easily apparent; the reaction of the Shuttle to control input could be described as lethargic at best seeing that the cockpit is one of the only forms of stabilization. The upright maneuver is equally more challenging now due to the same reason. One good effect is that the leanback maneuver is much easier to do now. The Endeavour is now impossible to control now sadly, even if you follow the pre-launch protocol to the letter. It does however make a glorious explosion at about 1500m as it loses control and desegregates. If a drogue chute can not be opened on the ground due to game constraints it may not be feasible to include it at all. The Atlantis already flies like a brick with lead weights attached to it, I would hate to see what would happen if you deployed the chute prior to landing... Thanks, but there is always room for improvement!