inigma

Thank you so much for this! I am adding your guide to the OP right away!

Shuttle accident? Do tell!

SSI is interested!

Thanks for the feedback! Yes, the mk2 tanks are almost the right.. but heavier, and actually slightly larger . I bummed off the OMS design from Westi's shuttle. I'll consider it though for the post 1.0 release. And yes I hope to see how much better aesthetics 1.0 brings to the next version of the STS.

test:

lol, i hear ya. was over a decade before I scrounged up the cash to buy the parts and build my own pc. It's now 3 years old.

No worries! I'm definitely keeping the prototype in my garage for study. I like the wing shape. I'll see if I can't hammer out a compromise design. Btw, I have a shuttle building guide here I'm drafting still (I've not shared it with anyone yet, but here you go!): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z5XHpF-5PPhzLa9uNVUI-IcXpNYhx62HAqvqRBI5oz8/edit?usp=sharing

Ok, I fixed the fuel lines and the SAS module offset. Download STS-5 Prototype Avalon: MediaFire Comparisons between STS-4 Intrepid and STS-5 Prototype Avalon: This might come down to personal preference, and of course, engineers are always free to run with their own branches. So here is my take on the two I LOVE the modular wings idea that the Avalon is testing. However I'm beginning to realize my fear with such a design: wobbly wings. When you pitch up and down on landing, the wings...flap. Nothing that struts can't fix, but again, more struts means more parts. I am a bit peeved at the wing options that KSP gives us. Your design BEFORE the bay clipping fix was perfect. But to avoid bay clipping, the wings have to jut out more to the sides, giving the Avalon a 70s muff look. heh. Some may prefer it, but it's not as flush as the Intrepid, and if you look at your Architect badge, the profile is more flushed than both. The Intrepid has filler triangles that just look unprofessional on its wingtips, a problem that can't be avoided if the Intrepid style wings are maintained in a new iteration. At this point, the Avalon orbiter design requires more parts than the Intrepid to accomplish the same goals, albeit the Avalon has more Monoprop and I can tell that might be a bonus idea to work into the final STS-5 design assuming 1.0 wing parts actually look good and help reduce part count. All in all the STS-5 Prototype looks great and flies great, but I have to admit its handling is not as good as the STS-4, which is sorta what I was fearing with the new wing design itself. I think if anything, it is worthy of a release as a space shuttle, and worthy to join the STS project on the OP page... but it will need to be listed as a separate download and not a replacement for the STS-4. This means, for now, it's not an STS-5 (let's reserve that for whatever future replacement comes up either now or after 1.0) - but an STS series spinoff craft for sure! You are of course welcome to name it whatever you wish (STS-4 Andrea Doria, or STS Andrea Doria, or Space Shuttle Andrea Doria are all good names!) and maintain it! You definitely have earned your Architect rating! Keep working on the variant to see if you can eliminate part count, reduce wobblyness (at this point, you're welcome to root the wings back to the bay of course!) and beat the STS-4 on performance and part count. If you can, I will be more than happy to revisit it for an STS-5 listing! Bonus if you find a way to reduce the wing muff and fit the NASA profile better than the Intrepid I will of course be more than happy to provide input and prototype fixes! Well done so far! I am impressed!

Awesome, amazing, woot woot job! I tested it, and flew the prototype. Glides really well. I'll have to keep playing with adjusting some parts, but overall very good design. The engine core is bouncy on ignition and stop. This is because the core is attached not to the cargo bay but to the SAS modules. I had to re-do the attachment. Main concerns: rear hidden canards tend to pop out on pull up, so I lowered them so they don't stick out. The STS 107 Space Hab module, and any module that attaches to the rear of the bay actually breaks fuel flow because when you created your stack, you reattached the fuel line to the cargo bay, and not the monoprop tank. This unfortunately breaks fuel flow at anytime the rear cargo attachment point is used for cargo. I ran into this in STS-2. STS-3 fixed it. I fixed it for this prototype, but its not centered like STS-4 is, so I will probably work on that in my next update. With the above issues fixed, I present to you the STS-5 Space Shuttle Prototype Inayla: MediaFire Download The Inayla prototype name is a combination of Inigma, Araym, and Darth Lazarus. I am wary about part counts too, so I might try to remove a few internal wing parts if possible. The gliding control with the SpaceHab module in the bay (defaulted in the download with appropriate fuel amounts), is about 8% more sluggish than the STS-4, and comes down heavier as a result requiring a massive flare for safe landing. Looks more realistic though than the STS-4 hyperglide though, so with some more tweaking I think we can find the right balance. Consider your wings now formally accepted into the STS-5 community development prototype. I did notice though that your composite wings are not rooted to the top wings, unless I maybe messed something up attempting to re-root the engine core to the bay. Feel free to take a look and modify the prototype. The Inayla represents our main branch. Feel free to name any other submitted STS-5 prototypes as necessary as you wish. My next goals are to figure out a better ET/shuttle sep, maybe with a hidden low powered separaton... Thankfully the shuttle is modular enough that if someone works on part of it, we should be able to assemble multiple prototype changes into the main branch without issue. Awesome work. Oh and Laz, feel free to share your booster idea. If you could make boosters work with the current STS-4 or STS-5 engine angles and simply create a Tank&Booster combo that we can subassemble into the prototype and offer it as a separate sub for those wanting solids, let me know! I was waiting to work on solids myself until after 1.0, but feel free.

Turbo Rapiers... is that 2/3 of the TURAN stack I published in the aesthetics thread? Without the Nuke? You bet it gives best thrust curve! Now if I made an orange tank capable SSTO...I wonder if I could turn my OCD into producing something... well... hmmm...

You can always hyperedit your glide tests. I do. - - - Updated - - - Can you fixup the moorings on the shuttle to reflect the actual moorings on the NASA SCA? The front connects on the shuttle-SCA mating should be triangled out by a wee bit, but yours are out to the far sides. Check out my config here when I designed the first ever recorded SCA in KSP using Westi's shuttle: I also recommend dumping the glide cover on the rear engines... and replacing it with a true STS-4 shuttle with emptied tanks but with engines. We can work on a glide cover later if possible or most likely will just wait for 1.0 fairings. It's looking great so far!

I notice an upgraded tail fin from shot to shot Looks great! Surprised you get it up there without using the orange tank fuel.

Update: ok so I tested both. And both land like bricks. If you call lithobreaking at 100 m/s a brick like landing. With total disintegration. Current aero demands composite wings. So... that's on my STS-5 to-do list unless you guys want to work on your wings as composites. Araym's wings had the best aesthetic... on the outside, but sacrificed it on the inside of the cargo bay. It's a wee bit too messy inside the bay. Darth Lazarus wings was the better balanced aesthetic wing set though - his wings had an attention to detail outside as well as inside so as to not overrun obviously much into the cargo bay. His tail was the most pleasing design aesthetic with no clip jittering. Araym's wings were rooted to the engine core which made swapping them out rather easy to do. I certainly will pursue wings rooted to the engine core for STS-5. The performance of the STS-5 has to meet or exceed that of STS-4, so this means being able to land empty and with 20 tons of cargo in the bay (SpaceHab). Currently both sets of wings aren't able to land it empty let alone with cargo. Composites are the way to go. But along with composites comes the extra challenge. But with 1.0 coming soon, I'm not sure how much we want to push for STS-5 with new wing parts and aero messing everything up for the future. Thoughts? Btw, for getting this far, and inspiring me no matter what we do with STS-5, you both deserve this: The STS Project was born with a desire to take the best of all shuttle designs and bring them together into the best STS out there. Go ahead and work on your shuttles, but if you want to share your progress, by all means do so! I'll borrow from them anyways if you don't lol Your ideas have caused me to think more about future wing designs that's for sure!

I'll be testing both tonight! I'll let you know what modifications if any I'll add. Consider STS-5 as our first official community developed shuttle. I'll consider contributions as subcontracted development! Keep the ideas coming! you too will be rewarded architect!

I'll see about testing this tonight if I can! I LOVE it! Worthy of an architect if I can verify it flies. Btw, anyone who contributes to STS development will always get full credit!

Based on a wing and a prayer...

Very awesome! Want to share wing designs or combine efforts in developing an STS-5? I am actually seriously considering making the STS-5 wings the same as yours and opening up the STS project as a community project for future development. The trailing edge triangles in the STS-4 just never sat well with me. At the time, my shuttle wings were the best in class. Now I'm seeing these designs and wishing I had some time to devote to a new set... but still a bit antsy with 1.0 looming over our heads. How are your glide tests coming?

Keep gold liquid, silver mono or xenon. Heck make the tank universal.

You can! http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/32nw0w/you_are_now_free_to_float_about_the_cabin/

But I love it when parts fly apart like they were elmers glued together. So awesome!

Glad to hear it! You are welcome to take an Engineer badge for the effort, since you did modify the cargo bay, and cockpit into something personally useful! I am hoping to make the engine core the root that the wings attach to in STS-5 so swapping out your cargo bay and cockpit should make for an interesting subassembly, hence the Engineer classification.

Could I offer a challenge to anyone to develop a KOS script capable of lifting this space shuttle into 200km orbit assuming the correct fuel amounts are loaded by the player, and to automatically adjust its flight profile depending on the cargo weight between 0 and 42 tons maximum? Then a landing script with an empty shuttle bay? Craft File Thread and Download: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108219-STS-4-Space-Shuttle-%28Stock-NASA-Replica%29-New-User-Subs-TRS-and-MMU-New-Video!-4-13-15

I am looking forward to the next episode Angel! To fans of this series and of the challenges: Would you say it would be a challenge to develop a KOS script capable of launching this shuttle into orbit no matter the tonnage up to the maximum rated tonnage (assuming you put in the correct fuel amounts)? Possibly also a KOS landing script too?

Ya, I wish they made a way to fine tune SAS torque and RCS thrust in stock. Btw, I love Flack Badgers (on reddit) shuttle wings: it has me thinking... I wonder if I could design STS-5 with wings rooted to the engine core so the bay and cockpits can be swappable... This way sub assemblies could have more permanent build outs for certain bay configurations rather than having to do all the fancy hidden panel tricks of previous subassemblies thus further reducing part counts...

updated post #2 with this idea: STS External Fuel Tank - Add a low powered hidden sepatron to forward tank to aid in collision prevention after separation.