Constellation Mission Packs Discussion Thread!

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

6 minutes ago, MrMeeb said:

Is that just the Mk3 cargo bay? It looks too round!  

I figured this out a while ago (actually, maybe I read about it somewhere) when I was trying to find a prettier replacement for stock 3.75m tanks.  Basically, you attach a mk3 tank where you want, then you attach a mk3 cargo bay, rotated 90 degrees, of the same length to the end of the tank.  Then you offset the cargo bay along the axis of the tank, so they overlap.  There is some z-fighting, so I offset the cargo bay down the smallest amount possible.

 

[pTrevTrevs]

Looks like the counterweight idea worked.

I should probably set up an action group to cut all the parachutes, they made it hard to judge my deceleration and kept swinging all over the place.

It's sad that this is the best landing I've accomplished so far. Two of the landing struts *overstressed* when I tried to deploy them, and the engines managed to overheat a cubic strut or two. the other two legs probably couldn't bear the whole weight of the lander and *overstressed*. When I tried to deploy the SPR the game rewarded me for my achievement by crashing.

Yeah, in case you didn't notice, I stole the DAV design from @Mad Rocket Scientist. Sorry, but it was such a clever idea!

Edited June 21, 2016 by pTrevTrevs

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

Looks like the counterweight idea worked.

 

I should probably set up an action group to cut all the parachutes, they made it hard to judge my deceleration and kept swinging all over the place.

 

It's sad that this is the best landing I've accomplished so far. Two of the landing struts *overstressed* when I tried to deploy them, and the engies managed to overheat a cubic strut or two. the other two legs probably couldn't bear the whole weight of the lander and *overstressed*. When I tried to deploy th SPR the game rewarded me for my achievement by crashing.

Yeah, in case you didn't notice, I stole the DAV design from @Mad Rocket Scientist. Sorry, but it was such a clever idea!

 

I'm glad you sorted the flipping issue! Yup, you need to cut those chutes for a propulsive landing. Just set sas to retrograde with the focus on that DAV pod or that docking port and then just feather the throttle. You can land at very low speed then. Just don't go below 1m/s as it will deactivate the retrograde hold.

 Are your descent engines separate from the DAV engines?

[pTrevTrevs]

1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

 Are your descent engines separate from the DAV engines?

They are right now, but I may integrate the two systems if it turns out that fours extra engines are too heavy. 

Would the MAV's engines have fired on descent in real life?

[Majorjim!]

Just now, pTrevTrevs said:

They are right now, but I may integrate the two systems if it turns out that fours extra engines are too heavy. 

Would the MAV's engines have fired on descent in real life?

Yeah man, There are 6 motors 4 are the 4 on the MAV. You can use thrust adjustment to balance the lander.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

1.1.3 is out!  Time to look for easter eggs!

12 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

[...]

Looking good man but why a white tank for it?

Since my pack is 3.75m throughout, if I use 3.75m tanks, I never have to use compound tanks, and the smoothness is worth the inaccurate color.

12 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Also, one honest criticism, the fairing could be cleaned up a little with the rotation tool.

I was working on that for a while, but I got tired of fiddling with it.  I'll go back to it when I'm tired of testing.  

8 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

[...]

Yeah, in case you didn't notice, I stole the DAV design from @Mad Rocket Scientist. Sorry, but it was such a clever idea!

I'm happy to see it being used! 

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I got tired of fiddling with it.

I never get tired of this! It's the part I like the most. So relaxing.

Just now, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Since my pack is 3.75m throughout, if I use 3.75m tanks, I never have to use compound tanks, and the smoothness is worth the inaccurate color.

Isn't the tank you showed compound too though? You can get quite a smooth finish with orange tanks, it just takes a few to do it! And it looks great when connected to the Copernicus. But it's your pack man and I am happy to see people making it in different ways!

 I just had a thought, Kerbals cannot get out of your fairing DAV pod.. Is that what the extra pod I saw is for? But it's so fun to climb directly into the pod! Maybe you can expose the door a little so they can still do that?

Edited June 21, 2016 by Majorjim

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I never get tired of this! It's the part I like the most. So relaxing.

Isn't the tank you showed compound too though? You can get quite a smooth finish with orange tanks, it just takes a few to do it! And it looks great when connected to the Copernicus. But it's your pack man and I am happy to see people making it in different ways!

It is compound, but it's the same diameter.  

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

 I just had a thought, Kerbals cannot get out of your fairing DAV pod.. Is that what the extra pod I saw is for? But it's so fun to climb directly into the pod! Maybe you can expose the door a little so they can still do that?

I'm using external command seats.  The current boarding method involves jumping from the lander to the docking port on top of the DAV, but I have a plan for making it so kerbals can just climb in.

[pTrevTrevs]

47 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I'm using external command seats.  The current boarding method involves jumping from the lander to the docking port on top of the DAV, but I have a plan for making it so kerbals can just climb in.

Oops, I didn't think of that, and I'm using six Mk 1 command pods clipped together. I'll have to add an extra pod to allow them to enter.

Wait... If you're using command seats, what is the lander can for?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

3 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Oops, I didn't think of that, and I'm using six Mk 1 command pods clipped together. I'll have to add an extra pod to allow them to enter.

Wait... If you're using command seats, what is the lander can for?

That's a holdover from when I was using a command pod.  Now I'm just using it for testing.

[Majorjim!]

3 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Oops, I didn't think of that, and I'm using six Mk 1 command pods clipped together.

Using seats would save a lot of weight.

4 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I have a plan for making it so kerbals can just climb in.

To a fairing? Must be from underneath it yeah?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

11 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Using seats would save a lot of weight.

To a fairing? Must be from underneath it yeah?

No, I was thinking of a ladder extending from the lander to the side of the DAV.  

Anyway, I completed a bone-stock 1.1.3 landing on Duna's night side:

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

No, I was thinking of a ladder extending from the lander to the side of the DAV.  

Anyway, I completed a bone-stock 1.1.3 landing on Duna's night side:

Nicely done man! I bet that felt very good indeed!

 oh ok I see, I thought you meant a way for Kerbals to enter the fairing. How is 1.1.3?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Just now, Majorjim said:

Nicely done man! I bet that felt very good indeed!

 oh ok I see, I thought you meant a way for Kerbals to enter the fairing. How is 1.1.3?

I like it.  Less crashes, bigger monoliths.  No noticeable change in performance.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I like it.  Less crashes, bigger monoliths.  No noticeable change in performance.

Sounds like progress to me! I may have a go tonight but I am shattered from throwing the RIB around today. The Thames gets very choppy at certain states of tide!

19 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Yeah, in case you didn't notice, I stole the DAV design from @Mad Rocket Scientist. Sorry, but it was such a clever idea!

Can i give you some constructive criticism? I will assume so. The pod looks too big for the DAV/MAV and is set too high. In the proposed lander the pod is quite small compared to the rest of the lander. What reference pics are you working off?

[The_Shortline_Gamer]

I am going to start working on building Ares I & Orion CEV today. So expect some pictures very soon.

[pTrevTrevs]

1 hour ago, Majorjim said:

What reference pics are you working off?

None, really. My main goal here is to make something that works, and my secondary one is to make it easy to use. I think making it look exactly like the concept images is only my #3 priority. Besides, the designs would likely have changed drastically before they went into production, so I think some differences will be acceptable. As an example of just how much things can change, allow me to link you to a photo of the original concept for the Apollo Lunar Module from 1963.

But yeah, I think maybe command seats would be a better option for the DAV, and I will consider making it somewhat smaller. I might try and integrate the Descent engines and ascent Engines too, although I'm not sure about that just yet.

Edited June 22, 2016 by pTrevTrevs

[Majorjim!]

26 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

None, really. My main goal here is to make something that works, and my secondary one is to make it easy to use. I think making it look exactly like the concept images is only my #3 priority. Besides, the designs would likely have changed drastically before they went into production, so I think some differences will be acceptable. As an example of just how much things can change, allow me to link you to a photo of the original concept for the Apollo Lunar Module from 1963.

But yeah, I think maybe command seats would be a better option for the DAV, and I will consider making it somewhat smaller. I might try and integrate the Descent engines and ascent Engines too, although I'm not sure about that just yet.

It's funny how similar that concept look to the SPR concept! The windows are the same! 

 

[MrMeeb]

24 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

a photo of the original concept for the Apollo Lunar Module from 1963.

Bah! That isn't a concept photo! That's a photo of the 'real' moon landing. As you can see, the astronaut is clearly a model man. More proof the moon landings were fake.

pls don't hurt me i am only joking

[The_Shortline_Gamer]

OK! I am done with my Orion CEV, and I have to say it turned out really nice! I want to post pictures, but I do not how to. I will probably put the pictures on imgur, and insert the images from the URL, I will be hopefully starting on Ares I tomorrow. I am starting to work on Altair, and I am working on some mock-ups. 

On 6/22/2016 at 3:27 PM, pTrevTrevs said:

Allow me to link you to a photo of the original concept for the Apollo Lunar Module from 1963.

I find the original LM concept really funny! So allow me to link you to a documentary on the Apollo LM. ---]   

 

[Majorjim!]

Just now, The_Shortline_Gamer said:

I want to post pictures, but I do not how to.

If you use steam press f12 for screen shots or use an external program. And yeah Imgur works well. I look forward to seeing it!

[The_Shortline_Gamer]

I have pictures! Well, a picture. So here is my Orion CEV! Hopefully the links work.

 

Note that in the original Orion CEV concepts, the service module was not going to be a derivative of the automated transfer vehicle's service module. That is the reason why the service module is bigger, and the solar panels are different.

  

  #SpaceShuttleLivesMatter

Edited June 24, 2016 by The_Shortline_Gamer
#SpaceShuttleLivesMatter

[Majorjim!]

Just now, The_Shortline_Gamer said:

I have pictures!

Interesting choice using that version, looks like a decent rendition too. Keep it up man!

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, The_Shortline_Gamer said:

-snip-

I like that version of Altair better, that's what I modeled my LV-3A 'Bullfrog' after.  In other news, I've made a lot of progress on my 2.0 version of my HLV-6A 'Warthog' Duna cargo lander.  What you see in the picture is 316 parts, but that will fluctuate as I tweak and refine it.  The SRTG is the analogue to the FSPS, and the MPC is the analogue to the DIPS.  Even though the FSPS was supposed to be a proper fission reactor and the DIPS was supposed to be RTG-powered, the SRTG is RTG-powered and the MPC is purely solar.  The aft ramp drops and the SRTG repositions and plugs into the cargo lander to power the ISRU process, and the MPC can also do the same thing on the other side of the lander.

[Majorjim!]

10 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

 In other news, I've made a lot of progress on my 2.0 version of my HLV-6A 'Warthog' Duna cargo lander.

I'm really going to have to up my presentation game once release time comes. I love you presentations. So cool!