sgt_flyer

Well, you can use clustering / boosters with no crossfeed too if you don't want to make boosters too tall - for tank clustering, think Proton 1st stage For boosters with no crossfeed (think soyuz, delta / atlas with SRBs, Ariane IV and V, longmarch launchers, where the central core burns at the same time as the boosters, but has more fuel - the key point, is to have spent enough fuel in the core stage at the end of the boosters burn to have a TWR > 1 for the core stage + upperstage & payload above it.

Hmmm - maybe 1 button to instantly clear everything when trying to make a post (accessible in both mobile & desktop) could be helpful against old text & quotes memorised by the system. Because some times, we could want to scrap everything and restart (Especially when we delete some things and the editor tells us that x field cannot be empty because we emptied a quote.)

if SLS comes back crashing into the pad, guess the investigation time, then modifications of incriminated parts and their recertification would give them the time to repair the damaged pad (especially if they also need to rebuild the payload, if it was a non manned version)

Here's a potential two stage design. (the 'outer' mainsails are slightly throttled down, so they burn as long as the core mainsail). when installed, the fairing encapsulates both the upper stage and the payload (widest possible for a 2.5m fairing). both the upper stage and the payload are simply 4x symmetry around a structural girder (any wider, and the 2.5m fairing is not large enough :p) a note of warning though, in this design, the fuel tanks don't like the structural girders, so don't forget to add some struts (else the thing will shake itself to death once it separates from the upper stage) the whole thing is perfectly stable. (i make a 5° pitchover just after the rocket reaches 70m/s - afterwards, i simply follow the prograde marker - the 1st stage carries me above 20000m with this ascent profile, afterwards the remaining atmosphere as not much effect on the stability of the upper stage + payload.

if there's still enough drag up there, simply rotating the rocket for the boostback burn in the correct position should be sufficient to settle the fuels. (Basically, drag slows down the rocket, but the fuel in 'free fall' inside would not be affected by the drag) if there's not enough drag, an impulse from cold gas RCS thrusters is enough. for the reentry burn and the landing burn, there's plenty of drag and the rocket in the correct orientation for the fuel to settle in the tanks (after all, MECO and 1st stage separation happens at 80km altitude)

i've built several Saturn Vs replicas before 1.0 but i guess you were speaking about my old mini Saturn V which was one of my masterpieces (built in 0.23.5) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/70046-0235-mini-saturn-v-with-launch-umbilical-tower/ http://imgur.com/a/lBNKo#0 although, it is going to be all messed up if you try to load it in 1.05 (different control surfaces, etc :p)

you'll still have the lander's engine in the way though. (wonder if an heatshield could help here, if there was a bit of space between the lem's ascent stage and the lower stage.)

@Wcmille Hello - here's the propulsion pod fitted on top of my launcher (this launcher is capable to put up to 900 tons into LKO - so the propulsion pod's 663 tons is not a problem (and if your mothership fits within the fairing, it could even launch the whole thing in one go - i've tested that with an added mass simulator of 80 tons on top of my docking subassembly - feel free to ask me for payload integration ^^) ;)) - i removed the side vernor pods from the propulsion, the pod's attitude control is done through it's large reaction wheel) . http://www./download/8dmeh66a6qua4kl/Nuclear+drive+pod.craft And here's the dock subassembly to attach to your mothership, so it can dock with the propulsion pod. http://www./download/0zto70ouwcg78zg/NPpod+dock+subassembly.craft (note, you might want to disable fuel usage on the propulsion pods fuel tanks before launch - to prevent the launcher's upperstage RCS from using the payload's fuel) note, due to the additionnal radiators and docking assembly, i had to add additionnal fuel tank - so the initial 4000m/s DV manoeuver burn time might be closer to 19mn. the propulsion pod is installed upside down on top of the rocket, to ensure a correct structural integrity. Launch sequence : go full throttle and fire the engines as soon as you reach a speed of 30m/s, start your pitchover manoeuver to initiate the gravity turn. (just tilt the rocket 5° eastwards as fast as the rocket's control authority allows you) once you reach a 5° angle from vertical, simply continue to follow the prograde marker. (you can slightly speed up or speed down the gravity turn by pointing your rocket slightly below or above the prograde marker's center) you'll want to reach an angle above horizon of 45° near 15000m. stage the rocket boosters as soon as they are empty, and continue to follow the prograde marker. (note, once above 40000m, you can point the rocket straight towards the horizon if you wish) once the core stage is fully empty, (the core engine burns out before the rest of the stack) stage once to eject the fairing, wait for the parts to clear the rocket a bit, and stage to activate the upper stage. - lift your apoapsis until your desired orbit height, then coast to apoapsis and circularise with the upper stage. once circularised, you can detach the upper stage and deorbit it. (you can use the N key to use the slightly angled RCS for pushing the upper stage away from the payload after separation, before rotating it and deorbiting it) switch back to the nuclear propulsion pod, select the probe core and hit 'control from here' so the control is in the correct orientation.

the UR-700 rocket concept used a kind of 'simple' asparagus system, which would have not needed additional pumps etc. the UR-700 lower stages was meant to use common cores - 3 in the middle, in triangles, surrounded by 6 other cores (two of the side boosters for each of the middle ones) on each pair of side boosters had one side booster fitted with an additionnal fuel tank on top, the other side booster had an additionnal oxidizer tank on top. those additional tanks were only used to refill the core stage oxydizer and fuel tanks (as they were mounted above, they could directly use the rocket acceleration to refill the core tanks (no need for additionnal pumps besides the engine pump - gravity / acceleration could do the job)) - when the side boosters ran out of fuel and were staged, the core stages were still full thanks to being refilled by the additionnal tanks (additionnal tanks which were dropped at the same time as the side boosters)

@Wcmille Happy new year i'll post a mediafire link with explanations later in the morning (just came back from new year's eve party

ok, made a few tests, for a high TWR nerva propulsion pod, i managed to get away with 1 single large radiator panel per nerva (the fixed curved one) for delaying the overheating. - could manage a 18 minutes burn at full thrust before shutting it down to prevent nervaexplosion from overheating. (not sure if it'll do a 15 mn burn with 80 tons of payload, but it should still be close.) - brought my orbit waaay past moho (PE sub 1000.000 km from kerbol, from a single burn from LKO) vacuum full duration test burn roughly 30s after ending the burn - will still need a bit of time to cool down between burns A view of the docking port subassembly (if a 3.75m adapter is ok for your mothership :p) - note, once you add the subassembly to your mothership, you should be able to pick those struts to stretch them higher on your mothership to limit wobbling a lot. tell me if you want to test it (and if you need the launcher i used to put this monster in LKO too ;))

it's even more complicated than that - you also need the correct 'intermediate' part that can transfer the heat - cubic struts are really bad at transerring heat back to the fuel tank (as the fuel tank can absorb enormous amounts of heat - if i could transfer this damn heat through the intermediate part. (cubic struts are bad for this). it'll require a bit of experimentation though -the additionnal thermal data avaible through the menus is difficult to read. and i think the sunlight, by increasing skin temp, can also affect the efficiency. (afterwards, it depends on where you want to go )

you can use the icon (the white i with a green dot in a white square) - in the following dialog window, you just need to add the album's imgur ID (the random letters after the /)

Here's some pictures of the WIP on a nerva based engine pod (note, i still need to tweak the cooling... can manage around 7/8 minutes of burn at full thrust before some of the nerva explodes due to overheating.) - 562 tons currently, propelled by 35 nervas. the pod had approximately enough D/V for the payload requirements without the slanted fuel tanks, but as i needed to add radiators and such, so i needed a bit of additionnal fuel. it might be slightly over 15mn for a 4000m/s of delta-V burn, but as it has it's own RCS fuel, you should be able to limit the RCS on the mothership itself. (needed those RCS pods to test it, as they have a specific hidden staging to prevent the vernors from using the nerva's fuel). the 5 nervas on the core fuel tank would run out of fuel before the outer ones. (though it should possible to add a MK3 to 3.75m adapter)t he rocket on the side is an upgraded version of my chaos star 500 rocket (and the 500 is the smallest of the series ^^) it can lift the whole pod to LKO in one piece (for only 449 parts at launch, including the 138 parts nuclear engine pod! - and yes - the nuclear pod fully fits within the rocket's fairing) still need to build a docking subassembly for your mothership. (if you have a preference for the diameter for the docking subassembly (so you can strut the subassembly to your mothership) - with the mass of the thing, when doing RCS manoeuvers, it would impart a huge amount of torque on a single 2.5m docking port) nuclear pod RCS system : 1 large RW, 1 large probe core, 1RTG to power the two, and two rocket fuel pods to feed the vernors. (pitch / yaw and roll possible with the vernors).

one problem though, is you can't 'cut' fuel tanks closest possible to your numbers is 7x long MKIII fuel tanks, + 5 nervas / engine. (and you'll still need a superstructure to connect to your payload, bipropellant RCS fuel to steer that monster - unless you account for those within your payload's weight)

yeh, i tried to test out configurations for the burn time requirements (with only 16.7 tons of return payload after a 81 tons outbound burn), not accounting for additionnal superstructure needed to attach the engine pods - and i need around 640 tons of fuel on 46 nervas for single stage with the given parameters. it would burn 2/3rd of the fuel for the outbound burn, and the 1/3rd remaining for the return burn - to stay on a single stage. besides, given the weight of the thing, going on anything else than nuclear is going to need an awful lot more of fuel.

wouldn't a mechanism like that work (modded or not) ? (quick & dirty paint ;)) basically, while the arm (or synchronised arms, if placed on both sides of the rover) is swinging, it will naturally pull the rover upwards while moving it outside of the bay, before lowering it towards the ground (like the system used on some trucks carrying those big dumpsters)

@Majorjim yup, it helped i've rebuilt a new version using only two fairings, and no more need for the MK1 structural fuselage. (the same 'open ended' one with nozzle from the bottom, and a long one pulled from the top like yours (it's the one i used as the COM shift example a couple posts back) - allowed me to shave a bit of dry weight

@Majorjim what i can't do with no open end is shifting the SRB upwards to move the COM granted, for classic rocket designs COM's position is not a problem, but for shuttle style the COM position is a big deal for controlling a shuttle design with offset thrust (by limiting the shuttle's liquid engines angle, you end up lowering your DeltaV losses and sideways drift (and the COM should also move less when you drop your SRB's) and with the SRB shifted upwards that much, i need an opening to let the thrust out (be it by simply closing the fairing around the skirt, very close to your design, or by creating an open ended nozzle to create the nozzle's shape underneath for aesthetics purposes. in the end, it's a different point of view on the problem, between pure aethetics and low part count and trying to add a bit more versatility to the design both are valid depending on the design you are pursuing (it the end, it's nitpicking on optimisation for a given design, but heh they also sometimes nitpick in real life to gain every little d/V they could on another problem, i can confirm that adding nosecones to any additionnal kickback clipped in helps (with 10 additionnal kickbacks with varying amounts of fuel (so the liftoff TWR is higher, but limits itself during ascent as the SRB's with less fuel burn out), i've gone from 900 km altitude to 1100km by putting nosecones on the additionnal kickbacks - same amount of fuel & thrust between the two boosters)

@Majorjim here's my example regarding the COM shift first example with the SRB fully downwards, with it's nozzle protruding (like your version) same version, viewing the gap on top (as the booster's height would be dependent on the shuttle's ET, regardless of the kickback's height) version, with the kickback shifted upwards, same height, with a clear COM shift (and it's only with 1 single SRB, imagine with several clipped kickbacks ;)), but in this case, i need an open ended fairing at the bottom, as the fairing extends past the SRB to connect seamlessly to the skirt. (and a more neutral COM position can also helpful when separatrons move that thing away from your booster ;)) granted, i could simply close the fairing around the skirt and it would leave an opening for the SRB, but in this case i would have no nozzle protruding underneath the booster

actually, i could need at least 1 open ended one when using the 1.25m to 2.5m fuel tank as a skirt, instead of the 3.75m adapter (with the fuel tank depending on the chosen diameter, you would have difficulties having a seamless 'body' coming up from the skirt (unless using 2 fairings :p) - as the fuel tank allows me to 'move' the SRB upwards - because it shifts the whole center of mass of the booster higher up without increasing dry mass by having to put a fuel tank on top (and with Shuttle designs, COM position is important :p) - for the same booster height, it shifts the com upwards for around 1/5th of the height

@Majorjim tested out my booster with 1 from the top and 1 open ended one at the bottom (i then 'translated' a 1.25m nosecone from the fairing base to the top of the booster, before closing the fairing around the nosecone) works too , and shaved a bit of dry weight in the meantime only downside, is the fairing's drag is still a bit weird (when reentering, they tend to go tail first in the airstream ! @Bubbadevlin do you want me to take a look ? i've played around with those damn fairings a lot of times now, i manage to understand more or less at which point the 'stowed' mechanic activates. (i then generally put some custom bodywork made of wings or radiator panels at this point to allow the engines to still activate)

is it stable ? as there's no direct connection between the top of the fairing and the SRB, don't you risk a wobble between the two ? (unless you place struts between the two) - the early version in the WIP thread had no correct linkage at the top, and G forces could make the kickbacks wobble outside the fairing.

meh, earth a disc carried on the shoulders of 4 elephants, on the back of a giant turtle of course !

hello i found a way to bypass the 'stowed' mechanic while using kickback SRB's, so i can create a good looking custom shape for SRB's for your shuttle / SLS replicas (and with a much more good looking diameter than the classic 1.25m or 2.5m diameters) the overall 'shape' uses only adds 6 parts ! (the fuel tank adapter, the structural fuselage + nosecone, and the fairings. all 6 combined add 5 tons of dry mass) basically, the trick is to have multiple fairings, so each one of them covers only partially the kickback's length (so none of them can trigger the 'occluded' state - in this case, the SRB can be activated without getting the 'stowed' message.) it uses my open ended fairing technique, and the rotation + translation trick (but i reexplain them into the album). here's the album detailing the construction technique : here's the saved basic subassembly, if you just want the subassembly : (no additionnal SRB beyond the first one, no separatrons - you can customise that at will by adding additionnal kickbacks with nosecones and separatrons within the top nosecone and the bottom fuel tank adapter) note, if you add additionnal kickbacks, remember you can tweak the new ones fuel quantity or thrust limiter, to have different burn timings between the SRB's (so it will create a thrust curve that can limit acceleration when the solid fuel is nearly depleted) http://www./download/nmo69714snm7pv7/Custom+SRB.craft Have fun PS : i know those don't have parachutes i built a version with parachutes, but they needed to add a custom ejectable nosecone (using radiators to recreate the shape) in order to house the parachutes so they are not occluded by the fairings. besides, this booster doesn't like water (they can land on ground, but explode if trying to splash them down ^^)