Araym

Take a 2.5m Pod. Add 2.5m Heatshield. Add a 2.5m decoupler. Add 2 Material Bay, 4 Goo pod, 4x every smaller Science Experiment(5 experiments). Build with a 2.5m fairing a perfect cilinder to cover ALL of the science parts. Now you can add ONLY INSIDE the 2.5m fairing cilinder some fuel. NO TANKS could be outside. Both Oxidizer and Liquid Fuel, as well any extra Monopropellent you could need for RCS, aside the one in the Pod. THAT, kerbalized, are the requirement to build a "sort of REAL Apollo CSM".......... ........ "a lot of electronics and science experiments" (in real life, just only taking pictures was NEEDED for science, not counting tons of phisical data of the enviroments around a spaceship in space every launch), with ONLY spare space for fuel........ It's very different from add just a 2.5m fuel tank and a Poddle engine, under the decoupler......

Look there: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108219-STS-5-Space-Shuttle-%28Stock-NASA-Replica%29-New-Sub%21-STS-ComSats-%28RemoteTech%29-5-31-15?p=1929890&viewfull=1#post1929890 I used the Mk.3 rcs nose cone only here, in my own/modified from inigma's one (no space shuttle engine mod, but tweakscale for OMS engine mounts) and an AIES engine modified to monoprop and same thrust as 5x stock OMS engines... ... but actually it is phased out of service for some issues with cargo weight, if too near the front... Actually working at K-8M version (with STS-107 and/or service module subassembly the old one plunged at landing at 50/60 m/s... too much...) with better results with all cargo config...

MIR Station. 12-: MIR-Shuttle program: STS-71 At KASA's mission planning we tried to achieve all the programmed step for the MIR-Shuttle program, but a major overhaul of the space program was already planned, so, at least, we wanted to hit still a mid-term milestone: http://imgur.com/a/QnEkp Kristall module hosts STS-71 at central port - from June 29 to July 4, 1995 See you "Soon" on KSP 1.0.2, with new, extraordinary, Adventures!!!

MIR Station. 11-: Spektr module launch and docking To further improve the MIR Space Station, the Spektr module was conceived to allow astronauts from incoming future Shuttle missions to have more space for their own research: http://imgur.com/a/J4MbK Spektr docked to MIR - June 1, 1995 - - - Updated - - - MIR Station. 12-: Spektr and Kristall module reposition After its own docking procedure, Spektr module was needed to be moved to allow Kristall to be again in the forward port, to have the necessary clearance to allow future Shuttle docked to its own APAS port: http://imgur.com/a/o2lJ2 MIR as Spektr module was moved on the bottom port, with only one of the second pair of solar array unfurled - June 2, 1995 Kristall reposition on forward docking port - June 10, 1995

MIR Station. 10-: One Kristall module's array and Kristall itself reposition Managed the necessary task to test the APAS docking system and the Shuttle ability to reach the MIR inclined orbit, some rework of the station were tasked, to upgrade further the space station: http://imgur.com/a/4lTBQ Kristall moved at starboard side with a solar array mounted on KVANT-1 - May 29, 1995

I liked so much your F-14s, that I have an urge to merge them in one, iconic, version, in my modded game: http://imgur.com/a/MWRHU using Infernal Robotics (to add the docking washers to the foldable wings) and TweakScale (to add some smaller airbrakes between tails, to recreate the real ones): Download: http://kerbalx.com/Araym/Grumman-F-14-Tomcat Also, for militarized player, sporting BDArmory and P.E.W. (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117635) additional missiles (for the Phoenix): http://kerbalx.com/Araym/Grumman-F-14-Tomcat---Armed

Working on some WW2 replicas, I'd like to have (at least, having already the ammos) some .50 cal guns (actually using the inline 20mm cannon... but for some american planes, like p-47 or p-51, they are not feeling right )

Testing a P-47 Thunderbolt (not totally full developed: it needs still some work) (Stock, KAX and tweakscale)

I told you that we left "soup-o-sphere" when we left 0.90, so a lot of things could be omitted Pretty happy my idea worked on your Shuttle too. () Tomorrow I'll test both Indipendence and Constitution... ... but today (after releasing my K-7 "Kolumbus") I'm enjoying a ride on another of mine, probably the one I'll use to resume in 1.0.2 my MIR rebuild: the STS K-7M "Galileus". - "M" stays for "Modded", as it very related to the mods I'm using, and those tweaks I made to let all of them work together - It will be very difficoult to openly release it to the public... I went "harder" on TweakScaled parts, to rebuild the OMS zone (using 2 AIES Galaxy-VR2 as engines, cgf edited to work on 1.0 and converted to monoprop) and Mk3 Mini Expansion Pack to add a shuttle nosecone: http://imgur.com/a/wILQf

If it should be a Corvette, I prefer a classic one: Aside from jokes and returning to OP: very nice "spaceship"

... simply preference about brakes use (I'm lazy: I always push the "brake lock" on landing, and - maybe for design - never had an issue )... Aside that: I tried your solid boosters on my K-7, but (as you reported during building phase) swapping tanks leads to some struts popping out randomly from them. I tried to rebuild then the same boosters, but failed, as I noticed that yours are not "simmetrical buried" inside the liquid fuel tanks skins... ... then I left yours to test (even with some struts popping out)... ... discovering that my K-7 does not have the same "range" on orbit. Very strange: I didn't expected such difference, mostly only caused by the different wings load (even if K-7 + solid boosters and full fuel tank + 42t cargo is lighter Than the STS-5E prototype, probably does not have the same wing lift on launch configuration, or it is loosing in drag). So, for the moment, I'll probably stay on my tweakscaled boosters for it: I'm actually working on my own K-7M(odded), to further reduce part counts for my games. I will try, eventually, a 9 cluster (1 central + 8 around) or... dunno... some tweakscaled solid boosters could work too... but both ideas are not my best choice: I'm not a fan of heavy clipped assembly, if them are fueled, and I was trying also to stay "stock", eventually (if I have to resort on mods, I have already a better one like the K-7M, lighter on part counts)

I told you I was looking to your Solid Boosters version, so as I saw the STS-5E pre-release, obviously I JUMPED in it to a ride... ... also to compare it to my STS K-7 prototype in handling. It's great, as always your shuttles, but, as your request, I'm trying here to do a "flight tester's report": if I could be crititical, it's just to point you toward some "area of improvements". OVERALL: Great shuttle. The solid boosters give a LOT of power to the ship, probably improving the 0.90 STS-4 possibilities in term of range (I struggled in 0.90, sometime testing the higher possible orbit, to have monoprop to reentry... not an issue here even in a 350km orbit test with full 42t payload). Handling is very smooth in all the launch phases, no particulary issues on heating parts (even if I feared, on my first test, the red glowing booster's case made by empty 2.5 fuel tanks ): I run always at 100% thrust, to stress test, and nothing exploded. Reentry it's easy and predictable (as I practiced on my K-7, now I can be pretty precise on KSC): in comparison, STS-5E come a bit faster than my own in the atmosphere, but bleed velocity very well: it does not show any "reentry plasma glow", so after moving under 30km altitude, it's past any critical velocity (200/150 m/s) and makes possible to manouver as needed to slow down further, glide, even pitch down very hard if overshooting KSC, to quietly land on the airstrip. TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS: -Pros: I LIKED A LOT the "tail's splitting vertical rudder" idea, like the real Space Shuttle air brakes, unexpected, when I deployed the landing gears (I didn't look at the action groups before the first ride). As my preference (but this is TOTALLY personal) I'd probably link the solution to the "brake" action group: it could be an issue for "short reentry" landing, if a bit of speed could be needed to glide a bit more to select a suitable, flat, landing spot, with gears deployed, before any brake necessity after touch down. The "drag chute" is a nice addition too, both in funtionality and look department, and it's nice also the "safety chute" on the cockpit (to save the pilots if a splash down in the sea is the only landing option). -Cons: Not really any, aside some thoughts to eventually improve the rising "part counts": 1- as I tested on my K-7, then removed, I does not feel so necessary those "tail fins" clipped inside the cockpit: it seemed to me an "old 0.90 trick" to have more lift in some critical areas, when "soup atmosphere" and "infinite-glide" bug gives us a not realistic flight performances, and "lifting surfaces" were counted by KSP 0.90 as working even if buried (with 1.0.x onward, I have feeling that this trick is not working so much: even my bigger mk.3 planes, now, fly very well without this solution). 2- for the same "soup-atmosphere" and "infinite-glide" reason, the "double layer wing" was also needed to have the appropriate lifting to the whole orbiter: I saw you removing some of the double layer on wing tips, but (probably to easy construction methods) you left it on wing roots, where you build the rear landing gear. Have you thought/tested to remove ONLY the whole UPPER layer (to not delete the rear landing gear) and place then back as wings only the downside layer? I think that there is room for part count improvement in that area (if not, as in my K-7, to move to Mk.3 Shuttle wings, even if we should ask to SQUAD to add some new/revised mk.3 wing parts ) without ruining too much the gliding/flying performances... (in my K-7, the added wing strakes on wing roots are there mostly for appearance, rather than functionality, even if I think that angled as they are, they are giving some, not being totally "flat" on the main wing parts) ... you should try it, because, if those ideas will work, the part count could be lowered at least of 20 units (roughly estimation), probably: as I'm not sure about your method to build the wings (my old prototypes I sent here were not so successfull as I could not replicate a wing like yours, cuz mine were really wobbling) so it's better to leave it to you...

Is it possible to have a mirror download url? KerbalStuff in this days (at least on my end) is not working... (... not only BDArmory, but any other download... differently, any Curse link - from mods that provides multiple download - are totally fine...) Have I to login/subscribe on Kerbalstuff??? (All its links starts as "https", like were encripted.........)

I miss this for KSP 1.0.2 a LOT!

Not any release anywhere up to now: I had no time to do it, and it needed a check about action groups and some visuale tweaks (booster engines were not rotated on their axis simmetrically)... ... untill those tweaks were done (NOW!): http://kerbalx.com/Araym/STS-K-7-Space-Shuttle-Kolumbus Mention that TweakScale is MANDATORY for this craft (or boosters will not work) Tweakscale download: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112693 I never fly it at full thrust in lower atmosphere (or it will burn ) neither when it reached space (Main Shuttle Engines go hot, so after booster separation is good to go 80% thrust max to not overheat them too much, even if fully 42t loaded: they never exploded even if I left them 100%, but probably it could be risky, as I left go at max throttle only on a pre-test, low, 75km orbit, so they were shut-off very soon ) As always (as your "padawan") I could like if you can take it for a spin in space (maybe to find some bad clipping, eventually, for the shuttle's cargo subassemblies): I tested them a bit, for me are fine, but you are the "master" of space shuttles building for me

... for the lower part count (my poor laptop need a bit of love: 208 parts empty cargo) and just using tweakscale (as you drived me to use it, when I downloaded the service module with the arm to grab things), just before i could see your STS-5 prototype with solid boosters: http://imgur.com/a/GxI89 Features: - 3d Mk.3 Shuttle wings (strakes were used to create a bulge on wing roots, like the real Shuttle) with minimal impact on internal cargobay - new medium landing gears as a must to use for me too... - 3.75m TwakScaled Mainsail to boosters (not your fault, but i do not liked the multi-nozzle ones) - TOTALLY capable to orbit with the 42t fuel pod at any previous orbit like STS-4 0.90 - It's a feather on reentry: bleeded enough speed on hi-altitude (50-45km) you can then almost "stop" it in mid air, nose up 30°, at 10km altitude (... I touched a 50m/s surface horizontal and -6m/s, then pitching down to regain speed to land like a glider). I have to just manage my reentry to actual pinpoint the KSC, but I suppose I could use even the automatic Mechjeb landing path for rockets, as I have plenty of ability to use the same feature to "stop" any overshooting, then land on the airstrip... (still testing: my new job does not allow to play at night as I used ) ... it's "not-stock" just 'cause of the TweakScaled Mainsail... for ease to eventually share, as probably my shuttles (K-7M) will be heavier modded, switching the stock nose cone with the OPT's one with built-in rcs, then my single-cgf edited-monoprop AIES engine as OMS, to gain the same thrust as the 10 stock OMS = 20 parts count less on total... ... what probably you could not like about it: On the orbiter ventral side, wings will cause a little, visible, dent, because mk.3 wings have a large wing roots and I couldn't blend it fully to the main fuselage, to not clip too much inside the cargobay walls (to avoid to mess with subassemblies or cargos) NOW I should try just your new solid rocket boosters assembly, to rid of any "modded" engine --- edit: About the 42t fuel pod: probably it will be better to switch the solar panels in 1.0.2. The one still using now are not foldable back, once deployed, so for any eventual "pod recover from space mission", the cased and foldable version should be preferred... --- edit 2: ... STS K-7 full ride, to orbit and back: http://imgur.com/a/n9wRe

Testing the new build, 2.1... ... aside from the strange behaviour about the mk.3 Shuttle cockpit, disabled on Squad MM cfg, ANY manned pod does not allow to be rescaled. NOT stock ones, NOT any manned part from any mod. It was disabled someway on the new patch?

Caro Chiodo, per quello che ho capito (sto ancora studiando la nuova versione, ed ancora meno ho risposte, visto che in roba di giorni hanno cambiato molto con le patch 1.0.1 ed 1.0.2) devi tenere conto, durante l'ascesa nello spazio, che se anche non "esplodi", a far tutto con troppa spinta le tue parti si riscaldano comunque, e che una volta nello spazio, oltre che a ceder calore verso il freddo vuoto spaziale, parti con differenti caratteristiche termiche scambiano calore fra loro... ... nel tuo caso, ci scommetterei (anche se non ho dei dati certi) che lo scudo termico, fatto apposta per assorbire/dissipare calore più velocemente (a parte ad avere dell'ablator) sta succhiando calore da parti vicine calde, che lo consumano (anche se queste non sono più in pericolo)... ... sto testando uno shuttle, in questi ultimi giorni (per finire la mia ricostruzione della MIR... anche se probabilmente la farò ancora in 0.90) e secondo il profilo che uso, alcune parti faticano a raffreddare (ne devo tneere conto, spesso, ritardando il rientro, che nei miei primi test avveniva esattamente dopo un'orbita, mentre adesso lo lascio un po' più di tempo in spazio proprio per farlo scendere di temperatura)

... in meanwhile, just add INTERNAL { name = Placeholder } to all those pods without IVAs (the same way used in 0.90 to see crew on mk.3 Shuttle cockpit) to see kerbals on the crew windows... I do it on my self editing any pod I found missing of internals

Inigma: actually I'm using RCS build aid as it was in 0.90, with no particulary issues. I just tried for fun, and I found it can work as it is also in 1.0 and 1.0.2... ... beside, on my end (like I told during those few exchanges about my prototype wings), as a mod user, and (sadly) after the big engines on the boosters being nerfed as "space engines" not suitable for the lower atmosphere, I'm glad I have TweakScale as always: a 3.75 Mainsail can do the same job, mantaining the "single engine nozzle" x booster, and someway, probably, giving to my new "STS K-7 prototype" a better kick to space (during ascending moments, I barelly go over 50% thottle... or it burns in flames before reaching 15km altitude )... BUT, unlike you, I'm gladly accepted the new mk.3 shuttle wings, for more ease of my poor laptop (doing probably a little upscaling resize, around 120%, always thanks to TweakScale, to have a better looking shuttle)... ... now I have just to figure the right reentry path: - in 1.0, I burned my wing strakes, overshooted the KSC by more 100km and splashed down (lost just the remaining wing on impact + engines, but cabin and cargobay were safe) - in 1.02, I saw probaly less issues of overheating on launch, but I have still to do my first reentry... Sadly, again, over general improvements from 0.90 (no more "hidden nested wings" to fly) I'm sad about the poor engine choices we had actually (that is why I'm playing a little modded game on my own: no need for a lot of features, but just some different loooking engines, or parts that ease the part count on crafts)

I admit: I downloade it just because you added AFTERBURNERS to jet engines!!! My own sorta of replica jets used all the basic jet engine for looking, but lacked the option to the added thrust at expense of more fuel using. I was thinking how to do it (using the same switch as the rapier) but you did it! THANKS + rep immediately

I just took a fast look on 25.1 release for Tantares... ... happily noticed some change at parachutes (... a previous Spica/Gemini-like launch endend so bad 'cuz parachute was unable to slow down past 40m/s) Aside from that... it was just an edited change I'm making, for each release on my end: I find the Soyuz lanuncher a bit too much fueled. When fully loaded with a Tantares-Soyuz, I always end in orbit using only the boosters+central core, NEVER burning at all the upper stage, that ends almost unused even if i need to rendevouz with an hi-altitude orbiting ship/station (+400km)... ... practically, my Soyuz are reall some sort of "space tanker" to refuel other ships, as I just use some RCS just during docking... ... or they have plenty of fuel for Mun fly-by/orbit... ... a bit too much, not using the LOK-analogue service module, neither a Proton/N1 rocket (By the way: great work as always on updateds... )

Same issue here... ... probably related to the "bottom node" problem we are dealing using pre-1.0 mods (... the Y value must changed from 1 to -1 somewhere... dunno if on the legs or on the node placement on the fuel tank)

Sad... Tested STS-4 on KSP 1.0, cargo empty, basic fueled as we used as empty: - Kerbal Engineering gives to me the idea that it has not enough fuel - booster's engines are now less powerfull at sea level than the 3 SSME As result, mostly from the second point, as soon release launch clamps (and even before I can perform the roll program to point my tail at navball 90°), it point horizontally to the sea then........ SBAM.... it crashes on the shores... Enough said, I couldn't figure "aerodynamically" if the old "double layer" wings still work...

Totally starting from ZERO. Old crafts surelly helped me to develope my construction tecniques, but THIS IS KSP 1.0: the past is back my shoulder