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

[tater]

I might try a redo of that ATV using a reversed MUS tank on top, but at a smaller diameter than the COS part. With recoloring, I can make it blend in, then I will have RCS on both fore and aft, and no extra parts  .

It would be nice to have at least one really tiny OMS type engine using either mono (if that's going to be a thing for RCS), or Aerozine 50. (in which case maybe we think of "mono" as being cold gas thrusters.

[Jimbodiah]

I just use the ascent engine. If you want smaller you could use the Draco engine.

[tater]

Yeah, I already changed to the draco. The front has another MUS, so it has the RCS built in. An added tank, but I dumped 6 RCS parts for that 1 tank  .

Hard to tell, but it's all white.

Also, it has a bunch of clipping on the 2 top tanks because of the minimal possible height of tanks.I just changed the load on the front 1 entirely to rocket parts and emptied the other one. I also clipped the antenna entirely inside unextended (think that part on the ATV is actually a camera).

Edited July 1, 2017 by tater

[CatastrophicFailure]

Ok I'm a bit confused here going thru the Github... What's the latest good release for KSP 1.2.2, and does it including the recoloring stuff?

[tater]

No idea, I'm doing recoloring on 1.3.

[Jimbodiah]

Recoloring is on the 1.3 version only (release versions x.135 and x.136)

Last 1.2.2 release here: https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.5.34.134

[tater]

This is the 1.875m booster version, I ended up reducing it to 1.5m, but was too lazy to screenshot it:

 

 

 

The petal fairing is reversed, just because I wanted to play with that (makes no sense to carry the extra mass, but it looked like a shuttlecock until I reset it to drop the side panels after deployment.

Partially, I also like the structure underneath the capsule. Shame about the terrible shroud on the stock heat shield.

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by tater

[Shadowmage]

14 hours ago, tater said:

(in which case maybe we think of "mono" as being cold gas thrusters

Yes... (on thinking of mono as being cold-gas thrusters).

 

10 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Ok I'm a bit confused here going thru the Github... What's the latest good release for KSP 1.2.2, and does it including the recoloring stuff?

 

4 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Recoloring is on the 1.3 version only (release versions x.135 and x.136)

Last 1.2.2 release here: https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.5.34.134

^^^ Exactly what Jim said

 

 

 

14 hours ago, tater said:

It would be nice to have at least one really tiny OMS type engine using either mono (if that's going to be a thing for RCS), or Aerozine 50.

Smaller than the superdraco?

I could probably come up with a variant/derivative of the regular 'draco' engine; I believe it is still NTO/Az50 though.  And much, much smaller (400n vs 73kn).  Really its more of a hypergolic RCS thruster than an engine.

 

 

15 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Alternatively, a procedural ring with configurable RCS around it would also do the job.

Sadly I have not been able to come up with a workable concept for the 'RCS-Ring' setup.  Unless used as a regular stack part (and thus subject to stack-placement limitations), KSP/Unity's joint setup would play hell with them if they were mounted on the side of a part.

Hmm... I have not yet investigated if I can hack the origin point for the joints / surface-attach nodes after things are placed... that might be an idea to investigate when I'm working on the modular-rcs bits.

One other option to investigate would be to leave them as standard stand-alone parts, but set them to be physicsless; this would be nearly as good as having them integrated.

[tater]

At first I was thinking of monoprop since if I slapped on rcs, I needed that anyway, and the stock part is that radial engine.

I ended up using Draco.

Given that in SSTU we end up using SpaceX parts as a whole range of engines in the timeline, perhaps Draco can happen earlier in the tree, but with lower stats that upgrade to the modern version? Assuming the Isp and thrust match earlier, historical engines roughly, maybe the early one has higher mass, or even just higher cost...

[Jimbodiah]

7 hours ago, tater said:

Partially, I also like the structure underneath the capsule. Shame about the terrible shroud on the stock heat shield.

Dude, use the SSTU heatshield    Doooohhh  

 

[tater]

42 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Dude, use the SSTU heatshield    Doooohhh  

 

LOL, I actually forgot about it since I use mostly the SSTU capsules.

[Jimbodiah]

So what you are saying is, that Mage needs to add an alternative for a one man pod?

[RedParadize]

18 hours ago, tater said:

The front has another MUS, so it has the RCS built in. An added tank, but I dumped 6 RCS parts for that 1 tank  .

I also use upside down MUS for its RCS, sadly it sometimes create weird inverted lift during reentry, and I still have to figure out a way around this. @Shadowmage If you end up integrating top/bottom RCS option to other tanks it would be awesome. You can add that to my 3 miles long wish list...

[tater]

I'd only reenter it to destroy it.

[Jimbodiah]

Ghe, I just made a 1.25m Orion pod woth bpc to replace the mkI

[tater]

mk1 pods should be early, clunky things anyway. Honestly, If I was going to mess with a new 1.25m pod, I'd just add an integral heat shield, then make a cylindrical chute part for the top, and be done. The mk1 looks pretty decent, actually.

[Jimbodiah]

Oh, how can you resist this?

 

I made a 2,5m 3-man version, mainly for the Orion SM (sort of like a modern apollo mission). I'd use the apollo capsule, but the port would become so small as to look weird.

BTW: The mkI does not need a stand-alone heatshield for re-entry from Kerbin orbit or Moon returns.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Jimbodiah

[tater]

Because it's too small. EVA a kerbal. The hatch is too small, etc.

[Jimbodiah]

Works fine. A kerbal head is about the same size as the entire mkI pod, so lets forget realism

[tater]

I still really want a radial docking port that is linear. For things like adding boosters on orbit that can be dropped.

[RedParadize]

4 hours ago, tater said:

I still really want a radial docking port that is linear. For things like adding boosters on orbit that can be dropped.

Yeah, Its on my wish list as well. I had a setup allowing me to do that quite a while ago, but it required 2 part per radial booster. I would prefer a single part to be able to mount radial booster using KIS

[Jimbodiah]

You mean like this?

Spoiler

 

[Shadowmage]

16 hours ago, tater said:

I still really want a radial docking port that is linear. For things like adding boosters on orbit that can be dropped.

 

12 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Yeah, Its on my wish list as well. I had a setup allowing me to do that quite a while ago, but it required 2 part per radial booster. I would prefer a single part to be able to mount radial booster using KIS

The good news on this front is that I'm in the process of helping @riocrokite figure out pretty much the exact same setup for use in his mods -- radially attached multi docking ports; one part, two ports; ensures proper alignment between the parts with docking port angle snapping and multiple ports being used, and I am also investigating options to disable the docking port 'search' functionality except when explicitly enabled (e.g. an 'enable/disable magnetics' toggle) (this is important, as the docking port 'search' code is one of the more intensive code blocks on stations, often accounting for 25-50% of the CPU used by a station that has lots of un-occupied docking ports).

Sadly that is about as far as things have gotten on it -- concept development and figuring out what problems need to be solved.  One of the biggest problems to solve will be dealing with the stock docking port UI code; cleaning it up and hiding it in favor of a single module that would run the UI for multiple port modules (and keep them in synch somehow).

 

Edit:  This particular implementation also doesn't solve needing a total of two parts per booster-to-be-mated; solving that would require that the docking ports (both models and code) be integrated directly into the fuel tanks... which I don't think will be happening.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Shadowmage

[tater]

Yeah, that's obviously going to be a part sink, you need symmetric ports on the core, and then one on each tank.

 

[blowfish]

I think the stock docking module may support some sort of alignment check now.  I forget exactly how it works, but my recollection is that you can set it to only dock if the ports are aligned within some angle difference (which can be specified).  It's not used on the stock docking ports of course.