[WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

[Shadowmage]

And this all brings me to a couple points of discussion:

1.)  I will be doing a rebalance pass over all of the command pod/service module stats -- mostly weight and fuel capacity.  ISP/thrust will use the stats from the engine.  As I'm using scaled real-world stats for the engines, I want to use scaled real-world stats for the command pods and service modules as well.  The question/point of discussion here is:  What balance should be used for these?  Should I apply basically the same scaling as for the engines? (0.64*0.64*0.64* mass *4).  Something else?   (This balance would place the Orion-CM at 10t total mass; which is nearly its exact real-world value; other parts would likely come out similar)  Perhaps only a 2x mult for mass rather than 4x?  Basically, I'm trying to bring down the mass of these pods a bit through some proper realistic balancing rather than use the current 'close enough to stock balance' that I have in place (have noticed that stock is actually very inconstent with pod/crewed part masses, so there is quite a bit of wiggle room).

2.)  What engine clusters should be included in the default download for SSTU?  I have a feeling that many of the clusters are used rarely, if at all.  I can certainly trim down the default engine cluster list while offering the rest as a separate download - no need for everything to be in the default installation.  Could possibly even offer just the single engines in the standard download and have all of the cluster-config-patches as a separate 'optional' pack (where users could then trim it down further themselves to keep only those they want).  Thoughts?  Favorite engines/clusters?

[blowfish]

13 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

And first pass at rework on the HUS:

...

Still need to go back over the spec masks on both parts and bring them up to my new standards, and perhaps add a few details, but these appear to be mostly done as it is.  -Might- be able to get them into tonights testing release with the rest... a bit of config work to do on them, but should be able to get it sorted quick enough.

Are those the RL10-A-4?  I think the SLS's EUS is intended to use the RL10-C-2, which looks and performs almost identically to the RL10-B-2.  Although maybe other people have more important opinions on this - I will probably use the adjustable upper stages almost exclusively.

Edited December 29, 2015 by blowfish

[Shadowmage]

3 minutes ago, blowfish said:

Are those the RL10-A-4?  I think the SLS's EUS is intended to use the RL10-C-2, which looks and performs almost identically to the RL10-B-2.  Although maybe other people have more important opinions on this - I will probably use the adjustable upper stages almost exclusively.

Yes, they are 4-A's -- the B-2s will not fit under the tank very well/at all.  Pretty sure the EUS was supposed to actually use the fixed-nozzle version of the RL10A-4 (RL10A-4-N2 I believe), but honestly, the information on these parts is... sketchy at best (we really won't know until the first one is flown).  I'll test them out (as the mounting would be exactly the same), but I don't think it would work out well.

 

And the C-1 is not the same as the B-2 in terms of size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10

B-2: length = 4.14m, dia = 2.13m

C-1: length = 2.2m, dia = 1.44m

I could not find any information regarding a C-2 variant; wikipedia lists the EUS as using a RL-10-C, without stating which sub-model -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Upper_Stage

 

Anyhow, I'm mostly redoing these two parts as they will have special hand-tailored balance for the SC-B CSM stack, and likely be available at different (earlier) points in the tech tree.  Also to maintain the iconic Orion/ICPS look.

[Jimbodiah]

1.) I actually have no issues with the current weights of the pods. If you want to make them lighter, by all means, but I do not find it an issue. The thust on the A-SM is weak, the B-SM is really awesome for traveling around the Kerbal system. What kind of thrust/isp does the Orion come to with the new engine? It's 250kN right now, I can live with a little less, but at 40kN like the A-SM I might want to stick on a different engine  

2.) I personally use clusters for F1 (1/3/5x). F1B (1/3/5x), RS25 (1/2/3x), J2 (1/2/3x), on occasion some with 6-7x F1/F1B engines for monster lifters, but could live with them being put in a separate mod. All the low thrust ones I only use in singles, doubles and triples, if I use them at all (!) as it does not make sense to me to use 7x RL10x when I can get more thrust with just a single J2, and it's cheaper too in career mode.

 

Quote

 Also to maintain the iconic Orion/ICPS look

Save the Orions!!!  But in all seriousness, please keep the Orion and Apollo close to real life like they are now. These are the flagships (pun intended) of your pack and I love them to bits.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[blowfish]

50 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Yes, they are 4-A's -- the B-2s will not fit under the tank very well/at all.  Pretty sure the EUS was supposed to actually use the fixed-nozzle version of the RL10A-4 (RL10A-4-N2 I believe), but honestly, the information on these parts is... sketchy at best (we really won't know until the first one is flown).  I'll test them out (as the mounting would be exactly the same), but I don't think it would work out well.

 

And the C-1 is not the same as the B-2 in terms of size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10

B-2: length = 4.14m, dia = 2.13m

C-1: length = 2.2m, dia = 1.44m

I could not find any information regarding a C-2 variant; wikipedia lists the EUS as using a RL-10-C, without stating which sub-model -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Upper_Stage

I found a reference that describes pretty much all of the variants: http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/P&W_RL10_engine/index.htm.  It's detailed, if somewhat disorganized.  At least some images I've found distinctly show extendable engines on the EUS, and I'd say the rest are ambiguous.

E: Other sources are conflicting.  This article says C2, but this one says C1, but shows some images with a clearly extendable nozzle and some with a fixed nozzle.  I guess this is part of the problem the adjustable upper stages were designed to solve .  The RL10-A-4 engines do look a little small on your HUS compared to most of the images I've seen though.

Edited December 29, 2015 by blowfish

[Shadowmage]

2 hours ago, blowfish said:

I found a reference that describes pretty much all of the variants: http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/P&W_RL10_engine/index.htm.  It's detailed, if somewhat disorganized.  At least some images I've found distinctly show extendable engines on the EUS, and I'd say the rest are ambiguous.

E: Other sources are conflicting.  This article says C2, but this one says C1, but shows some images with a clearly extendable nozzle and some with a fixed nozzle.  I guess this is part of the problem the adjustable upper stages were designed to solve .  The RL10-A-4 engines do look a little small on your HUS compared to most of the images I've seen though.

Aye, info is a bit sketchy/unreliable.  The images that I based the HUS on I think used some other non-extendable engine, judging from the diagram (was part of some NASA .pdf files).  But yah, exactly the problem that the modular-upper stage parts are intended to solve (well, one of the problems anyway).  Also why I call it the 'Heavy Upper Stage' rather than any of the many different names that have been given to the SLS block II upper stage (Earth Departure Stage, Exploration Upper Stage, Large Upper Stage, DUUS (not sure what it stands for), likely a few others that I've missed as well).

I'm still going to try out the B-2's on it though... its all MODEL node based, so simple enough to change all that stuff up if I find that it works out well in blender.

 

 

Edit: Silly auto-merge...

 

Updated testing pre-release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.25-pre2

New Series-B CM, SM, BPC, HUS, ICPS.  They are -in- the game, and should be at least mostly working.  They -all- have unfinished textures and config stats/balance.  Have also deprecated all of the older parts, setting their category to 'none' in their configs -- this merely removes them from the editor; existing craft will still load for now.  I'll be removing the old models in a few weeks, so start converting your craft... soon (probably after this weekends' release will be safe to start converting them).

Edited December 30, 2015 by Shadowmage

[Jimbodiah]

aaargh....  Replaced the Orion CM/SM for some builds and took it for a spin around the block. I thought the engine did not work until I saw the thrust in the VAB   It went from 250kN to 11kN, whahaha... Is this accurate?

[JoseEduardo]

13 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

aaargh....  Replaced the Orion CM/SM for some builds and took it for a spin around the block. I thought the engine did not work until I saw the thrust in the VAB   It went from 250kN to 11kN, whahaha... Is this accurate?

RW one has around 33kN, so I would say it's quite accurate

[Jimbodiah]

The Apollo SM has 4x the thrust and that thing takes forever to maneuver, with 11kN it will be agony.

btw:  I just did a re-entry with the A-CM, all went well until I hit the water at 7m/s... the capsule bounced off the water at 40m/s and crashed on the rebound. Two land landings after that were fine.

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

aaargh....  Replaced the Orion CM/SM for some builds and took it for a spin around the block. I thought the engine did not work until I saw the thrust in the VAB   It went from 250kN to 11kN, whahaha... Is this accurate?

Yes, and no.  Yes, it is intended;  no, it is probably not final.  Also, this is why I wanted to reduce the CM/SM masses -- so that the scaled engine is not painful to use.  Realistic balanced engines need realistic balanced pods.

Also still debating how to best do a minor rebalance on all of the engine stats; though I still would like to wait until I get at least a few more engines before I start really worrying about the balance on those.

In the end, I believe all engines will have their thrust increased but a percentage (with HLOX engines getting a bigger bonus), but probably not more than 50% for the HLOX, and more like 10-20% for the rest.  However, even 11*1.5 is still only ~15, and very pitiful thrust.  Which brings me back to rebalancing the CM/SM

 

1 hour ago, JoseEduardo said:

RW one has around 33kN, so I would say it's quite accurate

The stats I found listed 26.7kN, but yah, its a pretty tiny engine.  And keep in mind the Orion CM/SM weights nearly the same IRL as it does for my parts (~10t pod, ~15t sm), so the thrust-to-weight ratio would not be that much better even in real life.

 

12 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

The Apollo SM has 4x the thrust and that thing takes forever to maneuver, with 11kN it will be agony.

btw:  I just did a re-entry with the A-CM, all went well until I hit the water at 7m/s... the capsule bounced off the water at 40m/s and crashed on the rebound. Two land landings after that were fine.

I have noticed some strangeness with the water (landing on land is fine).  Not sure if its something with the new water changes, or what... but will be investigating this over the next few weeks.  It seems very inconsistent -- I've had them land just fine; had them land, then shoot into the air; had them land, then explode due to overheating (when at 300k...); and had them land and then slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean (~-1000m @ 1.4m/s; takes a few minutes).

Likely this will involve removing modules one at a time / altogether and testing the part as a 'dumb shell';  could be a module conflict, or perhaps might just be something odd with the part itself.  Honestly, I have no idea how the buoyancy model was implemented, so it is all just guessing at this point.  However, it is almost certainly related to the buoyancy stuff, as the issues only occur when the pod hits water.

 

[JoseEduardo]

that is true for the AJ-10-190 in the shuttle, which only had 26.7kN, but the one for Orion is uprated and has 33.4kN thrust and better isp

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

[Jimbodiah]

Re the bouncing betty... I landed on water plenty of times, never had issues. Only had it happen once so far.

PS: I was under the impression the HUS/IPCS would be redundant with the modular tank version for these stacks. Besides the integrated engine I don't see any different in favor of the HUS/IPCS.

[Shadowmage]

35 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Re the bouncing betty... I landed on water plenty of times, never had issues. Only had it happen once so far.

PS: I was under the impression the HUS/IPCS would be redundant with the modular tank version for these stacks. Besides the integrated engine I don't see any different in favor of the HUS/IPCS.

Currently there is not much difference; however I do intend to custom balance them a bit.... hand tailor their performance and capabilities for specific limitations.  Basically, going to fake them being LH2 through a combination of light-weight tank and not much fuel onboard.  Or that is the plan currently, we'll see how it works out.  Might be that they are in fact redundant and should be removed entirely.  Will know more after I can play around with their balance a bit (which requires rebalancing the CM/SM/BPC first)

[Jimbodiah]

You could just make your own resource for LH2, or use the CommunityResource dependancy for the fuel-switch. I know KSPI has their tanks that need active cooling (Ec/s) or they lose vloume even faster, and Near Future is looking into LH2 with boil-off as well.

[Shadowmage]

Hmm... I think it looks alright using the B-2's.  Will look into doing the config swapping stuff tonight.

 

[Shadowmage]

46 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

You could just make your own resource for LH2, or use the CommunityResource dependancy for the fuel-switch. I know KSPI has their tanks that need active cooling (Ec/s) or they lose vloume even faster, and Near Future is looking into LH2 with boil-off as well.

While I -really- don't want to go down this route; it is seeming more and more like what I'm going to have to do.  I suppose the semi-realism basis of the mod kind of deserves it as well.

Which would open up a whole new set of balancing problems/questions.  Hmm... will give this some thought over the next few days/week and see what I can come up with.

[Jimbodiah]

Gheghe, can of worms

You keep working around the stock fuels... you could opt just to use LF instead of LOx to keep it within stock resources. You can go all out and do real-fuels, but that will scare off people I think. Community Resources would be a lower threshold as almost all the mods I use already refer to this pack anyway.

[Shadowmage]

First detail pass over the SC-B-CM - mostly positioning RCS ports, segment separators, add the base normal and noise layers, and tweak a few colors a bit.  Still in the very early stages, probably only about 1/4 done at this point.

 

[Jimbodiah]

- Don't know if this is "textures WIP"... but the cabin lights on the new Orion don't work.

- The Orion CM/SM light up red from heat after burning for 30-45 seconds (for 50m/s dV no less, this is just painful).

- The GUI is so long on the Orion CM that I can't get the bottom lines in my screen (a.o. all the crews and transfer). Start fuel-cell is the last one I can fit.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[ComatoseJedi]

It really doesn't matter to me what you do with the fuel. I'll still use these parts anyways. Engine ISP's don't matter either, compared to the electric engines, you're screamin at 27kn. Next step up would be nuclear, but I doubt nor want this to be implemented in this mod pack. Just keep doing what you are doing Mage. 

[Jimbodiah]

The Orion SM (old one) does not seem to pull any Ec when it is turning; no CM attached and no other source of energy.

[Shadowmage]

14 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

- Don't know if this is "textures WIP"... but the cabin lights on the new Orion don't work.

- The Orion CM/SM light up red from heat after burning for 30-45 seconds (for 50m/s dV no less, this is just painful).

- The GUI is so long on the Orion CM that I can't get the bottom lines in my screen (a.o. all the crews and transfer). Start fuel-cell is the last one I can fit.

1.)  Yep, no glow texture = no cabin lights.  The docking lights should work however as far as emitting light, but no glowy texture there either.

2.)  Noted.  I have not done a pass on the heat balance, so they are using the heat-output from the engine; and as stock has some strange inverse-mass heat output specification, I need to rebalance the heat for the mass of the SM; which needs balancing the SM first.

3.)  Hold middle-mouse button and drag; you can rotate the camera around so that you can see the entire GUI.  Nothing really that I can do about it at the moment, but with 1.1 many things will be moving to their own config GUIs (fairing controls, others), so that many of those buttons will be removed/etc.  Also, I'll probably remove the fuel cell from the SC-B-SM, as it does not belong there (those things were solar/battery only as far as I know).

[Jimbodiah]

1.) yep, docking lights worked
2.) moar radiators!
3.) I'll use the deprecated ones for now, as I can't transfer anything in career mode. I hope they pump out 1.1 soon, it's about time.

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

The Orion SM (old one) does not seem to pull any Ec when it is turning; no CM attached and no other source of energy.

Nothing has changed in that config, nor in the modules... so it should not have any different behavior.  Is also scheduled for removal and has been removed from the editor, so will not be receiving any further updates.

Is this also a problem with the new service module?

[Jimbodiah]

Didn't test the new one yet, just noticed the reaction wheels do not pull current on the old one (RCS does I think). Will test the new one again in a bit, sending up more damn tourists anyway.