Logan.Darklighter

Okay - design for the new SSTO version - the Athena - is posted here!

Athena SSTO The Athena is the logical extension of the Minerva. It uses essentially the same airframe, but stores liquid fuel and oxidizer in most of its tankage instead of just liquid fuel, and 4 OPT ARIE engines are added, along with 4 extra air intakes. Instead of the APUs that the Minerva used, stock Fuel Cells and RTGs provide constant charge to the batteries. The Advanced Turbo Ramjets will get the Athena from the runway up to around 10,000 meters easily. From there, give the Athena a kick from the OPT engines until your speed is about Mach 1.6. That crosses the power threshold for the ramjet function. You can then turn the ARIE engines off again and let the jets continue to take you up to around 20,000+ meters. Keep gaining speed and altitude as long as possible, then kick up to 25-30 degree angle and activate all engines again before leveling out to follow pro-grade. If you manage your climb to orbit just right, you’ll be left with about 30-40% fuel remaining after circularization, depending on the load you’re lifting. Also note - during the ascent you may want to turn off the pitch control on the canards at some point to reduce up and down oscillation - this is mainly if you are using MechJeb. If you just have standard SAS on and flying manually, you probably won’t need to do this. And in fact, this SSTO is very responsive to control input despite the large size. (13 reaction wheels will do that for you!) Vernor Engines provide RCS control, but I recommend only turning them on when needed, as they do consume the main fuel supply. Also - in the version of this design posted, there is no foreward/aft translation control via RCS. So I recommend either not docking to a large station with the Athena as currently designed, or use a small RCS orbiting tug to assist in docking. Or - go ahead and add some fore and aft RCS control yourself. The cockpit module has enough Monopropellent to support limited operations with standard RCS. Or you could install some small Monopropellant tanks in the cargo hold. I tried to keep this design as simple and open to user options as possible. There’s plenty of slack in the design for customization. I do recommend KAS/KIS for cargo stabilization and/or IR Robotics for positioning docking ports for link-up. But again - I kept those out of the upload so you can design your own solutions. You might even consider adding some engines for VTOL on low-grav landing, since this design is more than capable of reaching the Mun or Minmus. But again - I wanted to keep the download as simple as possible. It's already 111 parts as it is! Download is available at Kerbal X.

All of this makes sense. Just to note - the markers for vehicles and objects can actually be turned off in KSP already - at least visually. However if you have a designated target (for transfer rendezvous in orbit etc) it still will actively track on the nav-ball and you can still orient toward/away from the target etc. (One of the more interesting new tactics for KSP Stock combat I've seen is for a ship design to have multiple small probes attached via docking port or de-coupler then release them and re-name your ship to match the probes so that an enemy (whether in turn-based mode or Dark Multiplayer client) can't tell at a distance which one is the actual ship and which one is a decoy. (Also - this works for stock missiles as well - out of a cloud of I.D. Markers, watch out for the one with the high speed vector toward your ship!) I don't know if this observation has any relevance for BDA, but I thought I'd toss it out there.) Seems to me that the marker suppression is easy to implement since a similar option already exists in game. But what you would really want is to be able to turn off the nav-ball guidance and ability to auto-orient unless you have a radar or other means of sensing the target at range (or a GPS set of coordinates for ground targets). Another related idea - different levels of radar lock (or other sensors) could reveal things about the target at range, but positive I.D. would need a thorough scan or radar lock or be able to see the target directly via the camera pod. If you do get a marker, it could start as "unknown craft" or even just a basic reticle marker with no info. The first info you could would likely be an indication of direction of travel and speed (relative to your craft). The closer you get or the longer you have a target lock, the more information pops up in your HUD. Such as estimated size/displacement (if you can implement stealth features, one of the most "real world" features of stealth aircraft is that even when you do see them on radar, they appear MUCH smaller than they really are), thermal output (which would help determine how many engines the craft has and how much power they are putting out) and other details. More info might pop up based on what the target craft is tracking YOU with. Are you getting pinged by radar? Or is there a targeting laser painting you? Naturally much of this applies to ground targets as well. But ground attack (especially in the new system) is based more on direct visuals or laser lock or GPS.

Development of the SSTO version of the Minerva went about as quickly as I imagined it would. And the results are quite promising. Even with the weight of the extra equipment and oxidizer fuel, the original OPT jets are still capable of lifting the airframe handily with no help from the ARIE engines. It does climb a little more sluggishly, but that's to be expected. With patience I'm sure it can still reach supercruise altitude and speeds on the jets alone. Well - I didn't have enough patience - I wanted to see what this baby could really do - so lets KICK OUT THE JAMS!!! Admittedly it wasn't the most fuel efficient flight profile, but... oh yeah - that's some GOOD Delta-V there! And there's the camera flip I wanted to see! Beauty shots. It still needs a few finishing touches - a standard docking port for one thing - but I think it'll be ready for production soon. I even have a name to distinguish her from her sister. Athena. And speaking of which - to make the distinction more apparent, I'm considering using this other OPT cockpit nose, even though there's no real working IVA in it (the Kerbals can see inside and out the windows, but there's no cockpit controls/panels). But for anyone interested - do you think the Athena SSTO should look like the following, or stick with the original cockpit?

Okay - so we overshot the KSP runway... ... and the Island airstrip... ... so I guess we'll have to turn around. POWER SLIDE! - - - Updated - - - And - just because I don't often get a chance to say something like this - That is one HELL of a sweet lander.

Just so you guys know - the full mod list is as follows: Bahamuto's Adjustable Landing Gear (Which NEEDS to be STOCK, darnit!) B9 Aerospace Pack (struts and lights - NOTE - check out the Dev thread on the forums for an up-to-date WIP version that's mostly up-to-date for version KSP 1.04) Kerbal Foundries Wheels and Repulsors ALPHA (The Auxiliary Power Units (APU)) Mk 2 Essentials (Batteries and reaction wheels - look closely at the "Black/Yellow/Black" stripes on the plane - that's a typical design cue from me - a Mk 2 Form Battery sandwiched between two Mk 2 Form reaction wheels) OPT Space Plane Parts (the body and most of the wing elements) TweakScale - Rescale Everything! (I re-sized a couple of lights inside the bay) EVA Parachutes (I have a Vanguard Tech Ejection system on the plane. The Abort key will pop the Kerbals out of the plane in an emergency and they have their own integral parachutes.)

My newest design - The Minerva HST (Hypersonic Transport) Body sections and wings are mostly OPT Spaceplane mod parts. But I've got some other stuff in there - B9 Struts and lights, Adjustable Landing Gear, APU from KW Foundries, etc. A large cargo bay in the back with a ramp that rovers can use, as well as an overhead loading door (not shown). Can carry large rovers with wide wheel axels. Or just lots of fuel and supplies. (Tested with Orange Tank and with a rover) (The clouds above are not the jets. They are the exhaust from the Auxilliary Power Units - they use fuel and intake air, and they are positioned in the cargo hold and vent the exhaust out the back when running.) For such a large craft, it's surprisingly maneuverable. Partly it's good placement of the control surfaces, but it also has something to do with the NINE(9) reaction wheels spaced around the craft. I don't believe in doing things by halves. When designing something this big, I want to be CERTAIN of the control authority! "Negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full!" SKRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-OOOOOOM!!!! "Damnit, Jeb!!" But where the Minerva REALLY shines is her long range, high altitude, endurance and hypersonic speed. She can even maneuver at hypersonic speeds - not quickly - but you can get enough of an angle forced through the sky to build up some significant G-Forces. (Those reaction wheels really come in handy) But the point where the "Rep-worthy" comes in on this design is the EXTREMES I've managed to get out of this design. I want you to look at the following screenshot carefully. Yes - you're seeing those readings correctly. That's Mach 6.32 and 38-39,000 meters altitude. And the fuel is at about 80%. Now - let me hit you with the following bit of gobsmack. That was the Prototype of the Minerva's maiden flight. AND SHE KEPT DOING THE ABOVE FOR THREE CIRCUITS OF CIRCUMNAVIGATION AROUND KERBIN WITH THE FUEL BARELY BUDGING FROM THE ABOVE LEVELS!!!!!! In fact I set her on auto-pilot with Mech-Jeb handling things while I went to do something else (like rest my back and read a book.) I ONLY brought her in for a landing at the KSC because the RTG power units exploded from the eventual heat build-up and the APU unit was having trouble keeping up the regeneration on the battery power. When the wheels touched the runway the fuel gauges were about 65% and the majority of fuel usage came between the altitude ceiling and touchdown. Minerva LOVES high speed and high altitude. It's INSANE how fuel efficient she is in that flight envelope. If it was only down to the fuel supply? She could've gone another 4-5 circuits around the planet EASILY. Needless to say with the production version I've addressed and fixed the above issues. (The RTGs are in a better spot thermally and there are 2 APUs instead of just the one on the Prototype. I've stumbled into true "supercruise" territory with this design. And with that kind of endurance and power, I think an SSTO Spaceplane version of the Minerva would be trivial to achieve. Want to try her out? Download at Kerbal X and let me know what you think.

Minerva HST The Minerva is a Hypersonic transport capable of top speeds in excess of Mach 6 (!!!) and able to supercruise at the edge of space at 38,000 meters (the HUD indicator actually will start to show Orbital rather than surface speed calculations. (Note the picture below showing the top speed and altitude recordings of the prototype during its test flight.) At those altitudes and speeds, it is unbelievably fuel efficient. The prototype craft circumnavigated Kerbin 3 times while only sipping fuel down to 70% of capacity. I only brought it down because the RTGs exploded from overheating and the APUs were having trouble maintaining the power levels (both issues since corrected). I want to stress that again for emphasis - it had already circumnavigated Kerbin THREE TIMES and could have kept going for another 4-5 trips around the planet maintaining altitude, speed and fuel efficiency at those levels (if I hadn't had the RTGs explode). All this and it can carry a large payload in the cargo bay while doing so(standard Rockomax Orange Tank tested). The bay is wide enough to carry large Rovers with wide wheel-bases. In fact it will neatly accommodate my Beagle 2 Rover based around LLL Parts and KW Foundries wheels. I’ve left the bay clear of cargo securing equipment in favor of a user designing their own. Though I have developed an IR Robotics arm and docking port that will secure rovers that roll up the back ramp. I also recommend KAS/KIS system of course. With 12 Reaction Wheels in addition to the one in the nose for a total of 13, the Minerva also has the control authority to give you confidence in maneuvers close to the ground - even crazy close ones! (Negative Ghost Rider - the pattern is full… WHOOOSH *Spills coffee* DAMN IT JEB!!! ) In fact with caution it can even pull high G maneuvers at trans-sonic speeds and altitudes. Note the ramp can be opened in flight with no detriment to aerodynamics at sub-sonic speeds. Put a Rover or armored vehicle in the back with some separatrons and some parachutes to kick it out the back for a speed-drop onto a targeted location. With the kind of performance numbers the Minerva is capable of achieving, it would not take much work at all to develop a spaceplane SSTO variant. In fact look for one soon… Downloadable at Kerbal X Full album of pics below:

I would think so! Lots of people, including (if not especially) Space Scumbag/SW Dennis above, would likely find it far easier to manage making videos if at least one version of the TIE (the interceptor) could fly effectively in atmosphere. Of course the original source material showed no actual physical flaps/control surfaces at the trailing edges (force field effects for control surfaces?) . But maybe it's possible to have an integrated control surface on a wing without the animation of a flap? For example, the OPT Spaceplane Parts Mod wings have integrated control surfaces so you don't need separate parts for them. But if it's possible to have the effect of a an integrated control surface without the actual animation of it on the part, then I would definitely go that route with the "solar panels" of the Tie Fighters (and the "S-Foils" of the X-Wing, etc). That way - you stay visibly close to the source material, yet the fighter will still fly in atmo using the effects of a wing surface in KSP's aero model.

Ooh very nice! I'm looking forward to more stuff looking like this! BTW - the almost completely stock jet-powered Tie Fighter example/sample fighter included in the package flies surprisingly well! And VERY stable! Yaw and pitch are VERY snappy but without throwing the fighter out of control. The only weakness in the performance is the roll rate. It's not nearly as responsive as the yaw and pitch. But I think adding another reaction wheel (or upping the strength of the existing one on that axis) might help with that. If you're careful with your throttle, you can even land it back on it's "tail" on the ground, it's so stable! One thing I've not been able to do is get it to orbit in SSTO mode. Mainly it's just a lack of fuel. I replaced the jet with a RAPIER and added some oxidizer tanks from Firespitter, and the best I can do it get it up to around 27-30,000 meters from the runway. On the other hand, I actually managed to glide it down and ditch in the ocean without breaking anything! (Granted I have the better buoyancy mod, but still...) The fact that the TIE Interceptor CAN glide and fly in the atmosphere - AT ALL - much less do it WELL, is surprising! Though I suspect that the standard TIE wouldn't be able to do that at all.

1999/2000 Because I see what you did there. (And yes - there ARE spaceships in the above video for you to rate! )

So what about space combat? I mean specifically, we need a few things: - To start with, the Space Maneuvering Missiles in BD Armory need an upgrade. The AI targeting needs improvement and upgrade to current targeting standards. Possibly RCS and overall fuel supply needs improvement to handle longer ranges - There currently is no way to use the AI to pilot craft in space. This needs addressing, if possible. I foresee the possibility that it may require setting up specific ranges and speeds that the A.I. will consider suitable for combat maneuvering. As in - the A.I. can only handle maneuvering for intercept or pointing a ship within those restrictions. Such as restricting maneuvers that will drop an A.I. piloted craft too low and intersect atmosphere or raise the orbit too high and wind up on escape velocity, or use too much fuel combined with the above, etc, etc. I accept that it may not be possible to solve this without player input. - Guard mode I think needs longer loading range options for space. Both visually and with radar. In practical terms 20-25 miles radar range is WAY too small for practical use in space. Optical acquisition would in theory be far more useful. Though one could argue the semantics in a scientific sense - radio waves are simply another form of light just farther along the radiation spectrum from visible light. What range for determining a threat is practical? Does anyone think that light speed delay should be a factor at extreme range? Offhanded thought - anybody ever play the original Traveller Pen and Paper RPG? Specifically their version of space combat? The one that actually had you do the MATH for delta-V calculations for both spaceships AND missiles? They simplified it in later editions to the level of "space opera" but that early version might be instructive for how KSP space combat - particularly the kind that Macey Dean and other stock space combat people use in various Youtube videos.

Great job on all your craft everyone! I've got one. Not based on anything in particular but it's a real sweet clean bird. Flies super stable. Don't even have to touch the controls and she just lifts off the runway. Has a small drop tank to extend the range. But if you switch the engine from the KAX rotary to the more efficient two-blade prop it'll go practically forever on a really small amount of fuel. I've flown this thing through the mountain passes west of the KSC. Lots of fun! And it's robust enough to survive some VERY serious damage! I scraped off all the wing surfaces on the right-hand side of the plane on one of the KSC buildings once and with the help of the reaction wheel and a little bit of luck and skill, actually managed to set it down safely!

I can't see that anyone gave you a proper rating. So here's mine: 10/10 for apparent realism and coolness all in one package. (Although holy hell your part count must make your framerate cry with that thing!) Here's a few little things I've been working on. The BIG one isn't finished yet, but it's coming along.

Swordfish II and Faye's Redtail. And there ya go.

I love the Planetshine mod. Reflective lighting from planets your ship is orbiting looks so nice sometimes.

BTW - if you want to watch a good video that shows some of the issues with that white plate, check out the youtube link below. The players in that shared universe are using a slightly earlier version of the mod, but even so, there's some good real time examples of the weirdness that the white water repulsor surface gets up to. I had no idea that it spawned to follow BD Armory cruise missiles launched from a ship using the hover thrusters on water for example! What a strange bug! The relevant bits that show the actual bug start about 9 minutes in.

Very nice! I always thought the Starfury would work nicely in KSP, since it was based a little more towards "realistic" space combat. I'll never forget the first time I saw a few in action - the first regular episode. Commander Sinclair is flying with his fighter group hunting some pirates and one of them gets on his tail. I was expecting a "Star Wars" type battle with turning and burning, trying to do more curving "aerodynamic" fighter combat. Nope! He spins the ship on it's axis while still on his original vector of travel, and blasts the pirate out of space! And I swear on my brothers CHILDREN I actually did the following for real... I jumped up off the couch, pointed at the TV and SHOUTED - "PHYSICS!!! Actual real honest to God Newtonian F*&^%$ing PHYSICS in a sci-fi television show!!! Okay guys - You've got me SOLD now!" Turns out B5 would have a LOT more to sell me on it than just their somewhat more realistic take on space combat, but that was A MOMENT OF PURE GEEK JOY! Heh.

That's bizarre. I've never seen that behavior before either. Neither this example or the one you posted just above. It might help to know what other mods you're using. Maybe there's some sort of odd conflict?

Yep, That's about how I interpreted it as well. Heh.

I had some problems in the previous version with the RONTGEN Engine module myself. Had to delete the part at the time to get the game to load. But working through CKAN, and updating to the latest version it's not been an issue.

I have the latest version running in 1.04 and I have detected no problems. Other than the squirreliness of the Ranger when trying to dock to its assigned ports that is - but I mentioned that before. Mind you - this is in sandbox mode, so I can't speak for career. But I imagine it'll work fine.

Nertea has hinted in the past he might try and do a TB2 styled cargo pod arrangement. But I suspect he may run into the same difficulties you did. I think it's likely more viable at this point to just admit defeat in general and make a general cargo pod that will fit in the bay, but just have it be a separate part that can be fitted in and raised/lowered/docked/undocked using whatever manner the user wants to try - whether that's via IR robotics or KAS winches etc.

The Zepheranthes is a multi-role ship. It’s main role is long range interplanetary transport, either of fuel, supplies or personnel. or all 3 at once. But it can do more than that. Swapping out a few basic items changes its capabilities significantly to suit your taste. Don’t let the part count in the VAB fool you. Most of that is in the launch stack. Once the Zepheranthes is in orbit and operating on it’s main Nuclear engines, it is only 89 parts. So it’s relatively easy on the framerate in space. In fact, the launch stack itself is WAY over-powered for just getting it to orbit alone. With the right ascent angle it’s possible to get the Zepheranthes on it’s way directly into a planetary transfer almost on the launch rocket stack alone! The Zepheranthes stock configuration comes with 6 standard sized docking ports on the main body. It also has a 2.5 Meter Docking port at the aft end of the main control pod/lander typically mated to the one at the front end of the tanker/nuclear tug part of the craft. And one more at the aft end between the Nuclear Engines for docking with larger craft. It can dock with other craft using those ports to transport them along with it (recommend KAS/KIS and/or Quantum Struts to stabilize externally docked loads for transport. And make sure the load is balanced on both sides! (Shown here docked with two Viper II fighters for refueling and transport) A swap of the centerline docking segment with a J type cargo section (OPT spaceplanes mod) will allow the Zepheranthes to carry 2.5 meter payloads internally. As noted earlier - the launch stack is over-powered for just the Zepheranthes alone, so it should be able to lift something fairly large up to orbit internally. Though for efficiency it might be better to bring a cargo like that up to dock with it on a separate launch. Feel free to experiment and tell me what works better. There is a B9 crew segment for transporting Kerbals. But that could be traded for a stock hitchhiker segment or another tank for more fuel. The OPT J-type fuel tanks are hot-swappable in the VAB. The nuclear engines do not require oxidizer. But you could change to standard L/OX mix for use in providing fuel for other craft. The real party trick of the Zepheranthes though is the fact that the Command pod can undock and become an independent craft on it’s own. It has it’s own engines, RCS, power generation, reaction wheels etc. It has landing gear and parachutes, so it’s an effective lifeboat in case of a catastrophic emergency. Can land and return from low gravity worlds such as the Mun or Minmus. It can use it’s parachutes and engines to land on a world with atmosphere. But in the case of Laythe and Kerbin, it cannot reach space again on its own. It MIGHT be able to get into orbit from Duna. But I haven’t tested it. However, note that with it’s 2.5 docking port, the Command pod could dock with another craft that could get it down and back up from such worlds. The Zepheranthes is actually effective at clearing out and de-orbiting debris and spent stages. The smaller craft is much easier to maneuver, and a good way of moving things around is to separate the command module and move it to grab something, then have it bring whatever it has grabbed and re-dock with the main section of the ship. It has more than enough RCS and enough torque (and engines) to move around larger craft than you'd think at first glance. (Here - the Command Pod grabs a spent stage that wasn't properly de-orbited. The larger portion of the Zepheranthes is in the background. The command pod was able to move this large section and re-dock with the main ship. And a quick burst of the main engines de-orbited this large piece of space junk and the Zeph was able to re-boost to stable orbit easily) All in all, I’ve only barely begun to find uses for this very versatile ship. I’m sure anyone who downloads it can modify it for more! Download at Kerbal X.

Hmmm... I think I just discovered something potentially VERY useful for updating the Eagle. There is a command pod mod called the Mk 3-9 Pod from the Near Future Spacecraft Mod set. (<-- Link to thread here on Forums) Now, Devo? I want to note some interesting things I just started noticing recently after playing with this a while. One - It's a 2-man pod. When I first saw it, I thought it was a 3 man pod, based on the size. But no - it's a 2-man with some extra consumables. (I think it's got a little bit of extra life support if you've got TAC or one of the other Life support mods) Now, when you look at this thing from the outside... well, I don't know about you, but I notice a vague resemblance to the Eagle's pod, at least in the way the windows work in regards to the overall shape and size. But that's not the important part. It's actually something I noticed AFTER spotting the following: And it took me awhile to spot it. But once I did, I had one of those "Holy .... why didn't I see that sooner?" moments! Look at the following IVA image: Now - here's my "sell". Doesn't that look like the geometry in general has the makings of a wonderful Eagle IVA interior? Don't see it? Let me take you through my thought process to point out the details. First - Forget the actual windows you see. Ignore them and imagine them to be flat grey bulkheads like the surrounding walls. Second - note the Quarter-Circle control panels directly in front of the Kerbal eyeline. On the far left side of the image, look for the word "Monoprop" if you're having trouble seeing what I'm talking about. Now - Imagine those control panels replaced with Eagle front windows. NOW does it start to come together? What I am suggesting here is this: Take away all the actual details - the controls and switches and windows. Strip it down in your minds eye to the basic geometry. What the SHAPES of everything is in this virtual area. With only a SMALL amount of tweaking, this becomes the PERFECT "skeleton" upon which to build an Eagle IVA! In place of the existing windows in that IVA and the walls they are set in, put the large yellow panels of the Eagle cockpit. Windows go where I noted above. Layer in controls, switches and displays based on the Space 1999 Eagle. Make the back door (and there is one in this IVA, I just didn't shoot an angle of it) into the classic shape, etc, etc. Now - this is work done by Nertea. So obviously you'd need to work with him and acknowledge/credit his help. If you're wondering if he'd be inclined to do so? Well. Heh. This IS the same designer who put together the Mark IV Spaceplane mod. A mod he's straight up admitted is made in homage to and with the hope of being able to MAKE flyable versions of Thunderbird 2! ( In fact, I obliged him on that. Check out my Thunderbird 2 design downloadable from Kerbal X. ) So I think if anyone would be inclined to collaborate with you on designing an Eagle IVA, it's him.