Mk3 Expansion - [KSP 1.12x] Version 1.6 [10/5/21]

[Svm420]

Some of the parts have a few errors in that the config has use velocity curve set to false.

Use Velocity curve should be false that is the old varible name.

[SuicidalInsanity]

@CptRichardson; Aren't janky deathtraps in the spirit of KSP? Or theres always the Inline cockpit, I suppose. Since I haven't started modeling engine bits yet, in light of the point you raised, I'm guessing radial attach retros would be a preferable option?

[CptRichardson]

@CptRichardson; Aren't janky deathtraps in the spirit of KSP? Or theres always the Inline cockpit, I suppose. Since I haven't started modeling engine bits yet, in light of the point you raised, I'm guessing radial attach retros would be a preferable option?

Nah, I'm kind of wanting to replicate this for the VTOL airless landing Mk2 design.

We've got the x-hub to sort of make it work, but what I'm looking for is the side-pod engines to do the final manuvering/retro-thrust/vertical landing. I almost want to say that maybe some weird kind of Mk-2 endcap super-RCS system that uses the standard rocket thrust would best replicate the design. It'd be a hell of a thing, and it'd even be useful for 'normal' spaceplanes, since you could strap one as the nose and one as the tailcap to give pretty impressive control.

Edit: Basically using Terriers as RCS systems in the stubby nosecone design. Four-way, with retractable covers (maybe), kind of heavy (since four rocket engines), and the problem of 'oh god, why?' fuel consumption for an RCS system, keeping the player from merely using them for ascent/deorbit. Make them useful for the last leg of landing, for maneuvering in orbit (ish), etc. But no throttle control. Mad pieces of engineering for the express purposes of 'I want to strap a Mk2 hull to a bunch of rockets, vertical land on the Mun, and THEN TAKE OFF VERTICALLY AGAIN!' *insert mad laughter*

Actually, another piece that would help (I don't know if your rover-pod can hold two kerbals) might be a small engineering compliment bay, a half-length fuselage that can hold one or two kerbals to oversee an ISRU and drill.

Edited June 21, 2015 by CptRichardson

[MaverickSawyer]

Nah, I'm kind of wanting to replicate this for the VTOL airless landing Mk2 design.

http://www.tobor2.com/eagle1/eagle_main.jpg

We've got the x-hub to sort of make it work, but what I'm looking for is the side-pod engines to do the final manuvering/retro-thrust/vertical landing. I almost want to say that maybe some weird kind of Mk-2 endcap super-RCS system that uses the standard rocket thrust would best replicate the design. It'd be a hell of a thing, and it'd even be useful for 'normal' spaceplanes, since you could strap one as the nose and one as the tailcap to give pretty impressive control.

Edit: Basically using Terriers as RCS systems in the stubby nosecone design. Four-way, with retractable covers (maybe), kind of heavy (since four rocket engines), and the problem of 'oh god, why?' fuel consumption for an RCS system, keeping the player from merely using them for ascent/deorbit. Make them useful for the last leg of landing, for maneuvering in orbit (ish), etc. But no throttle control. Mad pieces of engineering for the express purposes of 'I want to strap a Mk2 hull to a bunch of rockets, vertical land on the Mun, and THEN TAKE OFF VERTICALLY AGAIN!' *insert mad laughter*

Actually, a couple of the "Spark" engines would be enough, especially if done as a surface mounted unit in a streamlined pod. Toss in a central main lift engine (MkII format) with a Terrier in it... Hmmm... ideas.

[ABZB]

LOVE this pack!

I would love a tri-coupler that splits 1 mk2 to 3 parallel mk2 i.e.

             mk2.....
            /
....mk2 ----mk2.....
            \
             mk2.....

[inclusive] or

mk2- [the Single Part] - mk2
mk2- [the Single Part] - mk2
mk2- [the Single Part] - mk2

with the 3 mk2-s flush with each-other.

I am trying to build a spaceplane with that general shape, and using just radial attachment leaves unaesthetic and draggy gaps.

[CptRichardson]

LOVE this pack!

I would love a tri-coupler that splits 1 mk2 to 3 parallel mk2 i.e.

             mk2.....
            /
....mk2 ----mk2.....
            \
             mk2.....

[inclusive] or

mk2- [the Single Part] - mk2
mk2- [the Single Part] - mk2
mk2- [the Single Part] - mk2

with the 3 mk2-s flush with each-other.

I am trying to build a spaceplane with that general shape, and using just radial attachment leaves unaesthetic and draggy gaps.

I don't know if the geometry would work for that. I could see an inverter that splits a horizontal MK 2 into two vertical ones...

[ABZB]

I don't know if the geometry would work for that. I could see an inverter that splits a horizontal MK 2 into two vertical ones...

The hmmm - not even a bicoupler - one that splits to two of the Mk-2 shaped engines?

[SuicidalInsanity]

@CptRichardson; Ah, side pods. Those open up some possibilities, and some design questions.

Ore tanks concept WIP:

[CptRichardson]

@CptRichardson; Ah, side pods. Those open up some possibilities, and some design questions.

No. As I tried to explain to the other guy, take your snub-aeronose. Install four orbital 1.25 meter rockets in it so the engine bells are flush with the surface in the same configuration as an RCS block.. Remove the throttle other than open/closed, rig with RCS control scheme.

Now just slap them on the sides of an X-node, and instant vertical landing system! (best of all, it's Jeb Approved for 100% All Kerbal Simple Insanity!)

Edited June 24, 2015 by CptRichardson

[Toyotawolf]

Can i make an ask Suicidal in regards to the Mk3 expansion? Could you design some sort of docking ports and some nice engine mounts, the lack of them currently makes it hard to build a decent looking mk3 shuttle.

[SuicidalInsanity]

No problem; I already have plans for doing some of both

[Toyotawolf]

danke chaine

[Feradose]

Um. Squad made Mk3 like a 3.75m rocket part with its sides cut off. Id like having more lift and a more plane-ish look to it.

SO. How about a mk3 cockpit that has those "cut off 'sides'" as up and down, so we can have a meaningful plane with flat top and bottom, while being wide?

[SuicidalInsanity]

@Kweller: I'll consider it, but IRL stuff has drastically cut into my available time for modding, so...maybe?

On that note, I'll be posting a dev release version of the mk3 expansion stuff here, probably in the next few days, so that people can play around with the parts I currently have, rather than wait a month or so for a 1.0 release.

[CptRichardson]

@Kweller: I'll consider it, but IRL stuff has drastically cut into my available time for modding, so...maybe?

On that note, I'll be posting a dev release version of the mk3 expansion stuff here, probably in the next few days, so that people can play around with the parts I currently have, rather than wait a month or so for a 1.0 release.

Sure. I'd love to strap three Mk2s to a Mk3 and call it a 2.5

[SuicidalInsanity]

I had a some spare time, which resulted in these:

Radial, Mk2 fuselage, and Mk2-1.25m VTOL jet engines; with LF/O rocket VTOL engines planned. Much nicer looking that the old J. Edgar engines, which raises a question; IMO the J. Edgars are sorta clunky, so my thoughts were to depreciate them and replace them with the new ones, so: Would people prefer to have these engines supplement, or replace, the current H-VR 'J. Edgar' VTOL engines?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Replace. Those are some pretty models! I do question the use of the fans in front - wouldn't they normally be hidden from view? Attach a fuel tank in front and you can't see them..

[SuicidalInsanity]

True. I threw the fans on the fronts mainly as eye candy - I was thinking something along the lines of the turbine detail on the stock engine nacelle part. I guess the player gets something pretty to look at in the editor or when their plane suffers a rapid unplanned disassembly.

[EdusacconBR]

that smaller engine reminders me of YF-23 ones

[Rath]

Replace. Those are some pretty models! I do question the use of the fans in front - wouldn't they normally be hidden from view? Attach a fuel tank in front and you can't see them..

Stock does the same thing though. But this is one of those times kinda like this is: I'm keeping it horrible and buggy to be stockalike.

Edit: ninja'd

- - - Updated - - -

I had a some spare time, which resulted in these:http://i.imgur.com/zjSclVd.png

Radial, Mk2 fuselage, and Mk2-1.25m VTOL jet engines; with LF/O rocket VTOL engines planned. Much nicer looking that the old J. Edgar engines, which raises a question; IMO the J. Edgars are sorta clunky, so my thoughts were to depreciate them and replace them with the new ones, so: Would people prefer to have these engines supplement, or replace, the current H-VR 'J. Edgar' VTOL engines?

what are they?

Superuber duber edit: I can't read can I?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Rath

[SuicidalInsanity]

Got the VTOL engines working:

They are proving to be quite fun to use.

Also, for those who want it, I have a Dev release of the Mk3 stuff up on Github. Very very WIP; everything is functional, but almost certainly unbalanced in regards to part weights, costs, tech tree location, and so forth. Parts, models, textures and so forth are subject to change without warning etc. To be honest, I haven't made much progress on mk3 stuff of late; I've been working on mk2 stuff instead. I do still intend to make all the mk3 parts I said I would, it just might take a little while.

Edited July 29, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity

[Svm420]

Got the VTOL engines working:

http://i.imgur.com/udns3pk.png?1

They are proving to be quite fun to use.

Also, for those who want it, I have a Dev release of the Mk3 stuff up on Github. Very very WIP; everything is functional, but almost certainly unbalanced in regards to part weights, costs, tech tree location, and so forth. Parts, models, textures and so forth are subject to change without warning etc. To be honest, I haven't made much progress on mk3 stuff of late; I've been working on mk2 stuff instead. I do still intend to make all the mk3 parts I said I would, it just might take a little while.

Progress is progress those look awesome .

[MelancholyFlapper]

Got the VTOL engines working:

http://i.imgur.com/udns3pk.png?1

They are proving to be quite fun to use.

Also, for those who want it, I have a Dev release of the Mk3 stuff up on Github. Very very WIP; everything is functional, but almost certainly unbalanced in regards to part weights, costs, tech tree location, and so forth. Parts, models, textures and so forth are subject to change without warning etc. To be honest, I haven't made much progress on mk3 stuff of late; I've been working on mk2 stuff instead. I do still intend to make all the mk3 parts I said I would, it just might take a little while.

I'd like to suggest some rear RCS pods - OPT's creator made a nosecone for the Mk. 3 that's got a shuttle-style RCS system in it, but I have to manually place a bunch of single ports in awkward locations for the rear set.

[SuicidalInsanity]

@MelancholyFlapper; Sure. I had planned on doing Shuttle style OMS pods (thrusters + RCS), plus a bunch of mk3 RCS blocks anyway, so no worries.

[juanml82]

What I'd love is a tricoupler which keeps everything in the same horizontal line/at the same altitude. That way you can have, if pointed forward, a command pod with two intakes at the sides or, backwards, 2 rapiers with a centerline nerv (or any other combination).

The MK3 Rapier clone would be great to reduce part count