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

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.30-pre2

Lots more fixes and updates.  Several new texture options for various parts.  Removes most of the LH2 patch (now default stats).  A couple new placeholder low thrust / upper stage engines.  As usual see the link for full changelog and download links.

Also figured out how to make procedural engine shrouds out of the retro-decouplers

[StickyScissors]

Anybody else having issues with engine mounts freaking out upon loading into flight?

It only happens with engines that have something (i.e. a decoupler) glued to the back of them, while the other, uncovered ones are fine. However, sometimes If i leave the craft (switch scenes) and come back, it will fix itself.

[Shadowmage]

2 minutes ago, StickyScissors said:

Anybody else having issues with engine mounts freaking out upon loading into flight?

It only happens with engines that have something (i.e. a decoupler) glued to the back of them, while the other, uncovered ones are fine. However, sometimes If i leave the craft (switch scenes) and come back, it will fix itself.

I had a few other reports of this in the past but was never able to duplicate it during testing in order to fix it.

Would you mind positing that craft file, minus the inflatable hab?  (looks like the rest is all stock parts) (assuming it still happens when you remove the hab) 

Having a craft file where this happens reliably/repeatedly would probably let me get it fixed finally

[StickyScissors]

1 minute ago, Shadowmage said:

I had a few other reports of this in the past but was never able to duplicate it during testing in order to fix it.

Would you mind positing that craft file, minus the inflatable hab?  (looks like the rest is all stock parts) (assuming it still happens when you remove the hab) 

Having a craft file where this happens reliably/repeatedly would probably let me get it fixed finally

I can do that, just a minute. Also, I should note that it isn't just these engines, and it isn't just this craft that have done it, this is just the most recent case.

[StickyScissors]

@Shadowmage Here we are, hopefully void of all parts other than SSTU and stock: https://www.dropbox.com/s/odpybu16481ri4n/Testcraft.craft?dl=0

[Andem]

Will thease be released in one pack or several? I could see the lander parts being in a second pack entirely...

[tater]

The LMDE runs on Mono, but the LC*-FL tanks are only LFO.

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The LMDE runs on Mono, but the LC*-FL tanks are only LFO.

Shadowmage is planning to overhaul the lander parts at some point in the near future, and I'm guessing issues like this were going to get addressed then.  Adding the LMAE and LMDE wasn't really for the landers anyway, it was more to provide some alternate vacuum engines for probes and the like.

[SpaceBadger007]

This is probably a stupid suggestion but would there be a chance in adding in the M-1 rocket engine?

[MrMeeb]

7 hours ago, Andem said:

Will thease be released in one pack or several? I could see the lander parts being in a second pack entirely...

It's been discussed, but the decision was that splitting the mod into separate packs would be more work than it's worth to maintain and work with, especially in the short-term.

[Jimbodiah]

Gheghe, I might be responsible again I fear  Giving mage more work. No doubt these engines are just placeholders for future models that were added to appease some requests (ahem) for very light enigines. They could go onto the Lander Core series when they get overhauled eventually.

BTW; You can copy the LC tanks and create your own MP version if you want in the meantime. It's quite easy. Or just change the engine's cfg file to use LF/Ox instead.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[tater]

Yeah, changing the cfg is not a big deal, I know,

One thing that needs some work/thought is staging he LF tanks (I posted about this above a ways).

So my immediate thought with the LEM engine(s) was to make a LEM. Since the LF tank wouldn't work, I made a 1.25m mono tank, and used the stock little landercan. Now I have an ascent stage. The "hollow" LF tank would fit around it, and I could make a descent stage... except staging would result in it staged high, instead of "fire in the hole."

[Jimbodiah]

You could stick the engine onto the LC2/3 and only use the LC3 tank with a hole in the middle as a drop-tank (use a fuel line). That way only one engine is needed and you save weight.

[Qwarkk]

Will there be a patch file available to give us the option of changing the engines ISP/Fuel back to Liquid Fuel instead of Liquid Hydrogen? 

I think it would be good to keep the mod flexible in this aspect.

[tater]

44 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

You could stick the engine onto the LC2/3 and only use the LC3 tank with a hole in the middle as a drop-tank (use a fuel line). That way only one engine is needed and you save weight.

Yeah, that works, as I posted above. What you cannot do is do the same thing with another tank below (or a different capsule). Actually, you CAN, it's flaky, though. The image I posted of the Duna Descent/Ascent Vehicle showed it can work, but it's literally one of those keep randomly clicking the decoupler to the tank area and maybe it will attach to the tank instead of the engine bell. 

Whatever it is that allows this workflow:

1. place crew part

2. place engine to crew part

3. place decoupler ring to crew part even though engine is below it

4. place hollow tank to decoupler

needs to also work for:

1. place crew part

2. place a tank

3. place engine to tank

4 place decoupler ring to tank (not engine)

5. place hollow tank to decoupler (not engine).

 

[Shadowmage]

Had to split the SC-E docking adapter off into a separate part.  This was to fix MJ trying to fly the thing from its rear-end, and dock tail-first onto things.  Also cleans up the cargo bay for longer cargo if desired.  Docking adapter has a crew capacity of 1, to allow use of the airlock/hatch.

So... also took the time to add a second animated/extensible variant:

It extends so the edge of the docking port is several cm  past the top edge of the fuselage, so you could dock with another adapter that was flush against a surface.

Will possibly add some external strutting stuff to it and rework the texturing a bit.  Though, will probably be like you see here for the next few releases.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

that is one of the reasons I like Buran, the airlock extends... that's pretty cool

[tater]

So the trick is that the tank needs the interstage node, and the decoupler needs to be the same diameter as that tank's node (I think).

My goal was not just the engine bell in the "hole" of the LF tank, but to make the lander stack less tall/top-heavy.

What is the difference between the MFT-A and the MFT-B, aside from the texture?

Why do none of the command pods or upper stage (MUS, etc) parts have SAS, and the tanks that do don't have target tracking?

Edited March 20, 2016 by tater

[blowfish]

9 hours ago, SpaceBadger007 said:

This is probably a stupid suggestion but would there be a chance in adding in the M-1 rocket engine?

It's on the list but personally there are a lot of engines I'd rather see first.

[Shadowmage]

49 minutes ago, tater said:

What is the difference between the MFT-A and the MFT-B, aside from the texture?

Why do none of the command pods or upper stage (MUS, etc) parts have SAS, and the tanks that do don't have target tracking?

MFT-A/B = Fuel mixture/ratio differences/placement of the intertank geometry.  MFT-A = Tank geometry represents a Hydrolox tank. ~3:1 volume ratio.  MFT-B = tank for Kerolox, ~3:2 volume ratio.

There is also going to be an MFT-C set of tanks without the intertank/side piping, to represent single-fuel tanks (gold foil cryo-tanks; e.g. for nuclear propulsion), likely with texture-switch options for plain white as well for use for aircraft.

 

Command pods -- simply because I use MJ and have no need for the stock SAS, so have likely never noticed that it is lacking.  Open up an issue ticket with details on the specific parts and what it is lacking; all command pods and upper-stages should have full unmanned capability, even in stock.

[JoseEduardo]

that MFT-C will be handy to make common bulkhead tanks like S-II and S-IVB

[Jimbodiah]

I patched all the command pods and the CB/ST to have level 3 SAS instead of level 2 and also a low power reaction wheel in the tanks (I always add one, so it saves me parts to have it in the CB/ST when I make a drone/tug. I only wish I could add solar panels to the CB/ST 

But in the end it is a fuel tank, not a command pod, you can simple add a stock probe core (or patch it like I did).

[tater]

Will do, shadowmage. 

Another option might be an MFT-(D?) that would be the tanks without the aerodynamic shell, but perhaps with a fairing option for the whole tank...

[Shadowmage]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, changing the cfg is not a big deal, I know,

One thing that needs some work/thought is staging he LF tanks (I posted about this above a ways).

So my immediate thought with the LEM engine(s) was to make a LEM. Since the LF tank wouldn't work, I made a 1.25m mono tank, and used the stock little landercan. Now I have an ascent stage. The "hollow" LF tank would fit around it, and I could make a descent stage... except staging would result in it staged high, instead of "fire in the hole."

The problems are are running into are exactly the reasons I'm not touching the lander-stuff at the moment.  The concept was a good one, but the implementation into KSP is.... troublesome.  It doesn't like hollow parts and it really doesn't like attach nodes in the same place, even if they are facing opposite directions.

Am going to look into cleaning up the current iteration of those parts during the 1.1 update, to at least make sure they are working as-is after I fix all the other module stuff.  Don't expect fuel switching/etc... as the modules driving all of those parts are.. ancient and full of cracks (read: terrible coding); if I look at them funny the whole thing will probably collapse. 

Have already planned to rework them entirely (to add fuel switching/etc), but that is likely several months out.  This will see a geometry update for the pods, rework of the fuel tanks into a single-part modular-fuel-tank type setup, and general 'modernization' all around.

1 minute ago, tater said:

Will do, shadowmage. 

Another option might be an MFT-(D?) that would be the tanks without the aerodynamic shell, but perhaps with a fairing option for the whole tank...

 

Sounds like that would be more applicable to the Modular Cargo Bay series of parts.  There will be several which are basically just frames-with-fairings; others which are more stock cargo-bay like, and...well... thats as far as I've gotten on the concept dev on that stuff :).  Will be tackling these, at least a few variants, shortly after 1.1 and the mod is updated / stable.

Round tanks are also planned (MFT-C is actually the round/spherical tanks, MFT-F is the cylindrical single-fuel cryo tanks).

So... that would be very doable, but would require 1 extra part for the cargo-bay

[Shadowmage]

Did a quick check on the LC stuff; it all appears to be working as it should.  At least I didn't have any problems constructing sleeved-stages (inner/outer).

Album / Instruction Manual for Lander-Core parts. 

Edit: With that said, there is still room for improvement in the node-handling that would enable more variants to be constructed easier.  Currently you have to flip the decoupler around in some instances, and I could add an option to invert one/both of its attach nodes.  Optional secondary top/bottom/middle nodes for the tanks might be nice, as well as options to invert those nodes (or all nodes).

Additionally, when I do the rework, the fuel tanks will be more optimally setup, with less wasted space when using a hollow tank (option to fill the bottom half).

Edited March 20, 2016 by Shadowmage