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

[StickyScissors]

28 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Shadowmage does not like dependency to other mods. Soon he might even get rid of KSP dependency!

Holy god this game would be so much better with Shadow's modding logic applied to the base of this game.

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, mechanicH said:

Well because mechjeb does not work in 1.2 ... i have tried it a few times and its not functioning correctly. 

unless i doing something wrong putting it in the gamedata folder.

Mechjeb is not ready for the lime-lite YET in 1.2  But I am MORE THAN CERTAIN that there will be a release of 1.2 compliant MechJeb once 1.2 goes live

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Pappystein
Rush FTW!

[Shadowmage]

18 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Yeah, these one are closed and much longer that the open one you already made. I think it would be nice to have them as a stand alone or mesh switch, is it possible to have this without causing too much trouble for you?

Hmm... I could possibly make them as secondary variants for the MCB-A (as the bays just use the fuel-tank module behind the scenes, they also support the tank-variant setup).  The models don't actually exist by themselves; so I'll have to setup the models for them, model definitions, texture sets, and add them to the MCB-A part.  However they won't be any longer than the existing ones;  so will be 20m x 5m, 10x2.5, 5x1.25 etc... same as the existing bays (longest will still be a 4-0 length).

 

16 hours ago, Pappystein said:

RE Tank Variants,   By Variants I assume differing textures based on tank selected, we can then choose to swap out say KLox for NTO?

[...snip...]

 

 

Tank variants are... the equivalent of B9 PartSwitch parts, but wrapped up into a single module including length and diameter switching.  Basically the new MFT-A can now switch between the models for MFT-A, MFT-B, or two new sets of models.  The old MFT-B part no longer exists.  ^^That is what I mean by tank variants.  Different visual variants of the same length of fuel tank.  I will not be tying fuel type to the mesh variants in any fashion; the modules for each work entirely independently aside from communications about volume changes, and I like it that way.

 

Engines -- not really.  I'm referring to simple one-time upgrades for the engines, more akin to the F-1 / F-1A upgrade, or how the SSME was upgraded and uprated throughout its lifetime.  What you are referring to are actual variants (and different engine model #s), which I represent with different parts, and I would agree that those are poor candidates for the PartUpgrade system (they would need a PartVariant system).  No, I will not be doing engine variants such as those; they belong in more in RO.

Engine clusters --  No I'm not going to lock the # of engines behind upgrades, that is just forcing people to build the clusters with multiple parts, which goes against the entire purpose of the mod (part-count reduction).  Note how I'm also not locking fuel tank -length- behind upgrades -- I believe forced tank stacking is wrong, and only serves to artificially increase part-count.

 

 

 

Interesting bit of info from the pre-release patch notes today:

"Support non-bendy joints on parts via a 9th value in attach node declarations. Apply it to the 3.75m decoupler so it can be no longer physicsless."

Wondering how they set this up on the code/physics end of things..... does it to an actual hierarchy-parenting of the model transforms (removing the joint entirely), or is it a special configuration of the joint (as existing joints, but stronger)?

I was under the impression that 'non-bendy' joints simply wasn't a thing in Unity/PhysX -- if it had a joint it could wobble, bend, be displaced, only the amount of wobble/bend/displacement could be somewhat limited (but never eliminated or even close).

However if they have set this up as direct hierarchy-parenting... that could have pretty large performance implications as well, especially if applied to an entire vessel (almost a form of part-welding; afaik the joints were one of the major CPU limiting bits of the physics calculations).

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Shadowmage

[falken]

Just wanted to double check something. In even my testing sandbox save, my fuel tanks can't exceed 5m, x5 F1 engines in a Saturn V engine mount seem to want 6.25m, as going down to 5m makes the engine bell mounts clip out the side.

Also, I think having a 5m saturn V with the power of the F1 is a bit mad, seeing as even with my ISP mods which reduce ISP and thrust by 50% or so, my saturn V has a TWR of 1.8 on the pad, and I recall that the Saturn V had a TWR of like... 1.15 or something in real life. Damn thing crawls off the pad.

[Cheesecake]

KSP has a Rescale-Factor of 0.64. So, the Diameter of a Saturn First Stage will be 6,4m. I have build one with this Diameter and the TWR was 1.2-1.3, when I remember correctly.

[Matuchkin]

Is there any way you can add more orbital manoeuvre engines to this mod? How about some 1000kn range launch engines? Like, I'd like to hear what you're thinking of adding. Please, this is the best and most beautiful mod I have ever downloaded. I really want this to turn into another KW or FASA.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Matuchkin

[falken]

8 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

KSP has a Rescale-Factor of 0.64. So, the Diameter of a Saturn First Stage will be 6,4m. I have build one with this Diameter and the TWR was 1.2-1.3, when I remember correctly.

Yeah, but for some reason even in sandbox, the SSTU tanks only go to 5m for me.

[SpaceBadger007]

2 hours ago, falken said:

Yeah, but for some reason even in sandbox, the SSTU tanks only go to 5m for me.

Do you play career mode as well? I did have the problem where if started playing career, then changing to a different save that was sandbox, then the tank size you had in career transfered over to sandbox (in my cas it was 3.125) however this only happened once for me. So if thats the case just restart the game then go straight to a sandbox save.

Edited September 22, 2016 by SpaceBadger007

[StickyScissors]

Re-fueling over Dres

[Shadowmage]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM, falken said:

Just wanted to double check something. In even my testing sandbox save, my fuel tanks can't exceed 5m, x5 F1 engines in a Saturn V engine mount seem to want 6.25m, as going down to 5m makes the engine bell mounts clip out the side.

Also, I think having a 5m saturn V with the power of the F1 is a bit mad, seeing as even with my ISP mods which reduce ISP and thrust by 50% or so, my saturn V has a TWR of 1.8 on the pad, and I recall that the Saturn V had a TWR of like... 1.15 or something in real life. Damn thing crawls off the pad.

Should be 6.25m for the 'scaled' S-V, but ~6.4 is doable as well.  When built at those diameters it ends up with a ~1.2 TWR on the pad, with ~12km/s dV.

Re: Max diameters -- are you using a custom tech-tree by chance?  I think I have the 5-10m unlock setup on a custom tech-node (Experimental Rocketry?).  There is also the bug that others mentioned regarding switching into sandbox from career -- it'll retain the limits from the career game.  Try starting up and going directly to sandbox mode and you should have the full range of diameters available.

 

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Matuchkin said:

Is there any way you can add more orbital manoeuvre engines to this mod? How about some 1000kn range launch engines? Like, I'd like to hear what you're thinking of adding. Please, this is the best and most beautiful mod I have ever downloaded. I really want this to turn into another KW or FASA.

Yes, more engines are planned.  I'll be doing proper models for the LMAE and LMDE, and potentially a couple more AJ10 variants.  That about finishes off the small engines.

1000kn engines -- sorry, nothing else exists in that range once rescaled for KSP.  There closest available are the RS-25 and RS-68.  BE-4 is another potential candidate, but last I checked the information on that one was minimal/inconsistent.  However, keep in mind that all of these engines are clusterable, so achieving a specific desired thrust is much easier than stock setups with many potential options for a given thrust range.   ~1000kn could be done with 5xMerlin-1C, 3xH1, 1xRS-25, or a few other combinations.

There are a few other engines planned as well, though I won't be making any progress on them for likely a few months at least.  Would like to get the Station Core series of parts mostly wrapped up before I move onto much else.

 

 

In general development news -- Finished off an initial series of spherical tanks, MFT-S (new part).  Added an enclosed body variant to the MCB-A parts.  Moving on to reworking the MST part a bit and the initial set of blanket-style solar panels.  Still waiting on an official 1.2 version of ModuleManager before I'll be posting any updated testing versions.  I'm in no rush though, have plenty of things to keep me busy.  Will likely spend a day or two investigating the custom wheels stuff to see if I can help Lo-fi out on the KSP integration.

[Matuchkin]

Just now, Shadowmage said:

1000kn engines -- sorry, nothing else exists in that range once rescaled for KSP.  There closest available are the RS-25 and RS-68.  BE-4 is another potential candidate, but last I checked the information on that one was minimal/inconsistent.  However, keep in mind that all of these engines are clusterable, so achieving a specific desired thrust is much easier than stock setups with many potential options for a given thrust range.   ~1000kn could be done with 5xMerlin-1C, 3xH1, 1xRS-25, or a few other combinations.

There are a few other engines planned as well, though I won't be making any progress on them for likely a few months at least.  Would like to get the Station Core series of parts mostly wrapped up before I move onto much else.

You can find a load of info on spaceflight101.com. Other than that, I'll be more than willing to spam you with sources.

Oh, and why can't you scale the engines to the size of their real life equivalents when playing with RO? I'm an RO player, FYI.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Matuchkin

[Theysen]

2 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

You can find a load of info on spaceflight101.com. Other than that, I'll be more than willing to spam you with sources.

Oh, and why can't you scale the engines to the size of their real life equivalents when playing with RO? I'm an RO player, FYI.

Put RO dependant questions over in the RO Thead please  

 

afaik all SSTU engines have correct configs and correct scale. If there is some odd sizes report them there  

[Jimbodiah]

Mage, would a CTT patch be of any help? I am using CTT lately which has 3-4 extra steps in the tree (up to 4000 science I think) and was already thinking of making a patch. Might also make a better progression as the J2X is at the same level as SciFi propulsion in the stock tree, making it obsolete by the time you get to unlocking it.

[Duski]

On 20/09/2016 at 10:10 AM, tater said:

The I_sp is spot on. Just use that LH2 before it boils off.

not sure if boiling off is a problem in a vacuum, but it still feels OP for me. Is the Thrust relatively accurate?

[Shadowmage]

18 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Mage, would a CTT patch be of any help? I am using CTT lately which has 3-4 extra steps in the tree (up to 4000 science I think) and was already thinking of making a patch. Might also make a better progression as the J2X is at the same level as SciFi propulsion in the stock tree, making it obsolete by the time you get to unlocking it.

Sure   Would be appreciated.

I was considering giving CTT a try for my next career game and doing the initial balancing at that time, but if you've already got a patch set that should give me at least a good place to start.

 

3 hours ago, Duski said:

not sure if boiling off is a problem in a vacuum, but it still feels OP for me. Is the Thrust relatively accurate?

Thrust is ~41% of the real article, and is scaled the same as the rest of the engines (0.64 x 0.64, square scaling for thrust).  TWR is 25% of the real article to match up with the rest of the stock KSP engines.  Shouldn't be any more or less 'overpowered' than any of the other SSTU engines.

However, keep in mind that the J-2X is cutting-edge technology, was never fully built, and the stats only existed on paper.  So I would expect it to be relatively better than most of the older engines merely due to the advances in technology, -and- the stats might be a bit off from real performance due to them being purely theoretical/derived values.

 

[blowfish]

Actually, the J-2X was ground tested.

[StickyScissors]

The design for the Marduk Fueling Vessel has been solidified. Basically just an Arion-class service module with solar panels and a big fuel tank. More on Arion later..

-

Launch Mass (fairings Included): 69.193 Tons
Unit Price (fairings Included): 57,040 Krubles

Also working on an E^(xtended) variant, which uses a stretched Arion service module so i can fling it at other planets and use SM fuel to slow down -and- maneuver/dock rather than a third stage or a bigger launcher

 

[falken]

[Duski]

Hey @Shadowmage, are you planning on adding extra spacecraft to this mod? If you are could you please do a Dragon 2? There's the Tundra Exploration one, but it seems bit too stock-alike for my taste. I reckon you do an excellent job at making one of these.

[Pappystein]

On 9/24/2016 at 11:59 AM, blowfish said:

Actually, the J-2X was ground tested.

Not only was it ground tested, there was room for improvement and the stats are accurate.

the J-2X design takes into account all that was learned starting with the original J-2, then the J-2x (First use of the designation) the J-2S uprated J-2, the J-2T Torriodial J-2, the RS-2200 Linear Aerospike, the HG-3 Advanced J-2 Replacement, and finally the RS-25 (SSME)    The J-2X is the most advanced engine in it's class as far as design and economics.  

 

Now if only the US Congress would stop meddling in NASA the way they were, we could replace the expensive RS-25 engines with a Sea Level rated  J-2X variant....   Moar Thrust= MOAR Payload!

then again if Congress would have stopped the meddling then the F-1B equipped Pyrios booster would have finished development.   A Throttleable F-1 class engine *WOW!*

PS @Shadowmage  Thanks again for the Pyrios shroud for a two engine mount!  Now I Just need to add it to a few other SSTU engines that do not offer that style!

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Now if only the US Congress would stop meddling in NASA the way they were, we could replace the expensive RS-25 engines with a Sea Level rated  J-2X variant....   Moar Thrust= MOAR Payload!

A sea level rated J-2X would probably have about the same performance (Isp, TWR), as the RS-68 (maybe slightly worse).  There's only so much performance you can squeeze out of a gas generator cycle.  The RS-25 might be expensive, but almost no other engines come close in terms of performance.

[RedParadize]

4 hours ago, blowfish said:

A sea level rated J-2X would probably have about the same performance (Isp, TWR), as the RS-68 (maybe slightly worse).  There's only so much performance you can squeeze out of a gas generator cycle.  The RS-25 might be expensive, but almost no other engines come close in terms of performance.

I can't find the j-2x turbopump spec. But I don't think you could get more trust out of it than it currently do. So I would say a bit less than 1/2 the trust of RS-68, for probably similar ISP. I would suspect that it would proportionaly cost more than other option. I am a big fan of the less effective but much cheaper kerolox engines, Russian and Spacex got that part right.

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

I can't find the j-2x turbopump spec. But I don't think you could get more trust out of it than it currently do. So I would say a bit less than 1/2 the trust of RS-68, for probably similar ISP. I would suspect that it would proportionaly cost more than other option. I am a big fan of the less effective but much cheaper kerolox engines, Russian and Spacex got that part right.

Aerojet Rocketdyne lists it as 1380 psia, or 9.515 MPa.  Compare to the RS-68 at 10.26 MPa, and the RS-25 at 20.64 MPa

[RedParadize]

@blowfishIsn't that the chamber pressure?

[blowfish]

47 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@blowfishIsn't that the chamber pressure?

Yes, what were you looking for?