inigma

I found the easiest was to simply add 2/5 fuel, since the empty liquid tank space above the rooted SRBs equates to 2/5 more SRB space. Easy math, easy fix. No need for thrust limit increases, but certainly I'm not opposed to that solution either since the result is the same. With more thrust though, SRBs burn too short, and too fast if you don't also fiddle with fuel amounts. I opted instead for the above mentioned easy math. Less craft file editing = less controversy!

Bear in mind the STS-6E SRBs only add the equivalent of fuel proportionally equal to the empty liquid tank space above their root, and no more. Since the game automatically factors in the additional weight, I don't consider it a hack more than I do using EditorExtensions to perfectly align parts. Adding fuel to empty space is a technique that is not often used but to make a perfect stock shuttle with SRBs capable of lifting the STS Fuel Pod, I think it should be embraced as a notable exception. It's really only cheaty if you add more fuel than empty space, which I don't advocate or do. The beauty of this is that you have a means to engineer empty fuel tanks to be solid fuel extensions without requiring users to download a mod. A totally stock solution that returns a downloadable stock craft! Engineered. Not hacked. Also you can't add an insane amount of fuel to a craft file anyways since its weight is factored by the game. Add too much and your craft will be too heavy to lift off. Its a border a craft file cheater can't cross, which is why I've pushed for the technique to be accepted as mainstream advanced stock craft file engineering.

U mean something like this? KSC Collision Bug. Very annoying. This ship, the STS-6E Space Shuttle Ranger was resilient enough to land with a wing and a prayer, with Jeb at the controls of course: This is why I recommend landings at KSC Island until further notice unless you quicksaved for a second attempt at landing at KSC. I really hope Squad fixes this most annoying bug.

I cannot thank you enough, inigma, for deciding to add that emergency parachute. Four Kerbals owe their lives to it. Thanks for attempting to use her for your station. Yea, SAMPA has saved many Kerbalnauts from shuttle flight doom. I've noticed the best solid booster separation is at 45 degrees, and immediately after cutoff. don't wait for the ship to stop jimmying. I'll post a video soon. For now, enjoy this raw video of the current 42 ton payload launch: http://www.twitch.tv/inigmatus/v/6196197 I launched a 12 ton station module with my son tonight that he designed on the 6E. Had to reduce the External Tank fuel to only 10% fuel on the lower tank. Nothing else needed. Profile is steeper with gravity turn and 45 degree sep by 18km or so as the SRBs really make lighter payloads really pick up speed. Learned that booster sep is best immediately after SRB engine cutoff. If you wait for the shuttle to stop jimmying, the shuttle's own speed and aerodynamics actually can slam into receeding boosters. Also I've found that making use of the SAS Radial, Stability Assist, and Prograde options to be really really useful in maintaining perfect control of the craft while performing roll and pitch maneuvers. Here's the science module he designed attached to the station core:

Thank you! It needs some good and proper shakedown. I wish 1.0.3 would come out soon. - - - Updated - - - I read an official report somewhere that data recorders recovered from the crew module indicated that flight inputs were still being received by the commander's stick...all the way down to impact. Cabin pressure was lost but most of the flight deck crew had time to regain conciousness prior to impact to at least realize the ocean was coming up fast. However they were in freefall and most likely only held onto a slim hope they would survive impact as most inputs mostly yielded no positive result. It is likely the commander thought some parts of the shuttle was intact enough to at least try to glide to a crash landing, or was trying to orient the module to maximize impact suvival chances. The bottom deck crew was lost I think during the initial breakup, but if I remember right, all bodies were found in or near the impacted crew module underwater.

STS-6E Space Shuttle Ranger Flight Profile Launching STS Fuel Pod to 400km orbit: 1. Set SAS to Radial 2. Set 2/3 throttle 3. Launch 4. Roll tail to ocean by 2km 5. Turn up full throttle after your roll is complete. 6. 3-4km set SAS to Stability assist to allow boosters to naturally pitch the shuttle on its gravity turn 7. 14-18km at SRB burn out, pitch should naturally be near 45 deg. Keep it back up there if it dipped down. 8. 30km pitch to 40 deg 9. 40km pitch to 30 deg 10. 50 km set SAS to Prograde 11. Roll belly down 12. Set SAS to Stability Assist 13. Keep pitch 10-15 deg 14. 60km pitch to 10 deg and fly it like a spaceplane (after all, it is a spaceplane) 15. Raise periapsis to 400km while keeping original apoapsis marker under 70km so tank debris gets deorbited after you ditch it. 16. Ditch tank and circularize using OMS Monoprop engines to 400km. 17. Return to KSC by retrograde burning on the other side of Kerbin, until Periapsis is 40km directly above KSC. - - - Updated - - - It happens. try loading a different ship, recover it, then go back to VAB and load STS-6E. It's a game bug.

STS-6 and STS-6E released for better 1.0.2 aero handling. RTLS abort with fuel pod possible now if you still can burn off some of its fuel.

All updates final. STS 6 is published. Now with keybound airbrakes, less parts (removed the internal communotron 16, and an extra cubic strut - thank you offset tool!) Flies like a dream, all payloads. Lands beautifully now. No more "why am I diving into the runway at 43 m/s? ABORT ABORT ABORT!"

updated to STS 6 and STS 6E. Reverted STS Service Module and Ops Module changes as this was a general bad aero issue with STS 5.

Eureka. Extra wing part added to STS Service Module, makes shuttle land much smoother now, even with full equipment in the KIS Containers and unused MMUs. I have also added some default equipment and spare parts in the KIS Containers for those times when you wish you had remembered to bring something. - - - Updated - - - New STS Service Module uploaded to KerbalX. Version 6 is definitely an improvement. OP updated: Updated STS Service Module to version 6 to be more compatible with 1.0.2 aero. Added a wing part to make landing an orbiter with this subassembly MUCH easier (before it was impossible). Also added default equipment to the KIS Containers in case you forget to take up anything with you for on orbit repairs and construction fun. - - - Updated - - - Also updated STS Operations Module to v4 accordingly. - - - Updated - - - Ok, the problem was not with the service or ops modules. The problem was with the orbiter itself. STS 5 is just not aerodynamically strong in front. I've fixed that. STS 6 to be released shortly, with the STS Liquid Booster Stack and STS Solid Booster Stack to be optional subassemblies. So up first will be the STS Space Shuttle OV-6. This will require some work.

It appears the new aero makes it darn near impossible to land the STS-5 Space Shuttle orbiter with the STS Service Module installed. In fact, I've never been successful landing it in 1.0.2 with the STS Service Module. It landed fine in 1.0 aero but I dunno. Its a weight and lift balance issue of sorts. I'm troubleshooting a solution. In the meantime, I've figured out how to revert back to an orbiter based distro, and allow for liquid or solid launch stacks as separate subassemblies. Apparently you can get around any bugginess with subassemblies flailing their struts and fuel pipes all over the place, by simply turning your camera to face another direction prior to pulling the subassembly out of the menu. Works like a charm every time. I'm still trying to narrow down the particulars in preparation for a KSP bug report, but I think I'm on to something grand here for STS-6. - - - Updated - - - Ha! Ballast is the answer. Nothing that a full ore tank can't do eh? hmm but its 17 tons of ballast. Service Module is already at 10 tons, not counting inventory items... thats a 37 ton default payload without any additional cargo. good thing the shuttle is rated for 42 tons. still working on a better solution... Update: Better solution found: include a simple extra Wing Connector Type A angled into the Cockpit as part of the subassembly. Nice fix. 1 part, hardly any tonnage cost.

Wow! Ingenious! I like things that come in packages!

I used the Kaboom mod set to kaboom only the bottom of the tank where Challenger's was , and Naito's STS-51L cargo module to simulate the cargo and I got this: Contrary to popular belief, the Challenger crew did not perish in the explosion. The physics don't lie. The crew module survived the explosion in every simulation I ran, but without a SAMPA module as our fateful Kerbals have here, it sadly pluged into the ocean killing all aboard on impact - with most data giving evidence that STS-51L Commander Richard Scobee fought to regain control of the decapitated Challenger in an attempt to do what he can to survive a crash landing into the ocean below. We have learned from their gallant sacrifice, and now all KSP STS Space Shuttles carry a SAMPA crew module parachute system.

Used Kaboom to simulate this: Except our Kerbals have a happier ending.

I like seeing simple designs offered for the public to play with in their own creative backyards! Good job on this one!

yes I do remember! Oh and you earned this: Fly the new STS-5 or STS-5E. Th STS-5 is a liquid booster varient with lower part count, the STS-5E is a solid rocket booster varient. Both for 1.0.2.

Absolutely beautiful! My new desktop for the week. Glad you like it!

Thoughts? Doable? I know DMP does ghosting, but I was wondering if there was actually a possibility of simply recording all events for playback later, so you can fly around and get different angles on the event.

Nice pics! Slow down your SCA to 0 throttle, and only release the orbiter when the SCA starts to drop altitude due to slow airspeed.

Took these shots of your TDRS subassembly on board the Independence. Beautiful!

Just had to share this here. I developed a single subassembly that fits three RemoteTech comsats in a Mk3 cargo bay for a starter constellation: Download: http://kerbalx.com/inigma/STS-ComSats-RemoteTech More Pics:

Just had to share this here. I developed a single subassembly that fits three RemoteTech comsats in a Mk3 cargo bay for a starter constellation: Download: http://kerbalx.com/inigma/STS-ComSats-RemoteTech More Pics:

Just had to share this here. I developed a single subassembly that fits three RemoteTech comsats in a Mk3 cargo bay for a starter constellation: Download: http://kerbalx.com/inigma/STS-ComSats-RemoteTech More Pics:

STS ComSats (RemoteTech) published to KerbalX! OP updated! Requires 6 crew members, and either the STS Operations Module or STS Service Module to point a dish at the sats to control them to their final orbits. Also STS Operations Module and STS Service Module have been updated/rebuilt with a properly oriented Mk2. Crew Cabin so rear views of the cargo bay from inside the crew cabin are possible...and beautiful:

Showcase and best video overall nomination: not sure if we can self nominate. would be interested to see if its worthy to compete.