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

[blowfish]

7 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Err... Um Vega was to fly with a JPL 6K Hypergolic upper stage and an ATLAS-E lower stage... Where for are you finding Solid rockets    Seriously why do countries re-use other countries rocket names?!

I think you're confusing Vega (canceled upper stage for Atlas) with Vega (all-solid LV flown by ESA)

[Pappystein]

Just now, blowfish said:

I think you're confusing Vega (canceled upper stage for Atlas) with Vega (all-solid LV flown by ESA)

Sorry that was a tongue in cheek joke...  But you just made my point   And Technically Vega was the Middle stage.   Upper Stage was JunoIV-6K

[blowfish]

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

Sorry that was a tongue in cheek joke...  But you just made my point   And Technically Vega was the Middle stage.   Upper Stage was JunoIV-6K

My recollection is that it would have flown without the 6K stage for LEO missions, but then it's more of a 2nd stage, yeah

[Pappystein]

3 minutes ago, blowfish said:

My recollection is that it would have flown without the 6K stage for LEO missions, but then it's more of a 2nd stage, yeah

Heck I am flying Mercury around the Mun with this in BluedogDB and a stock system.   In a 2.5 scale system you ALMOST need 6K stage to get a reasonable payload to a "fair" LKO.  A Baby payload (500kg range) might be possible without 6K but I had too many problems with other rockets so I discontinued 2.5x and switched to Galileo for Career.   without SSTU I would not have made it as far as I have in the Galileo verse...  

I may import some photos of my Tinker-Toy interplanetary Space Cruiser when I get home tonight.

[Shadowmage]

44 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Is it more involved than just cutting and pasting the Drogue chute data and tweaking it to my particular MM files?  Either way I am sure such a document would be useful to myself or others.

From memory -- that is about it;  copy the drogue fields/sub-nodes from one of the drogue-equipped parts, adjust the positions and scales of the parachutes so that they are correct for the new use, and profit/enjoy.

I'll look into putting together some more detailed instructions though, with examples / screenshots as to how the various position and scale parameters effect placement.

 

Edit: Wonderful forum software...

Edited September 21, 2017 by Shadowmage

[StarStreak2109]

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Err... Um Vega was to fly with a JPL 6K Hypergolic upper stage and an ATLAS-E lower stage... Where for are you finding Solid rockets    Seriously why do countries re-use other countries rocket names?!

Errr, um, I mean ESA's Vega rocket, which is a light launch vehicle with three solid stages and an AVUM hypergolic upper stage.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Launch_vehicles/Vega

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_(rocket)

[Theysen]

1 hour ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Errr, um, I mean ESA's Vega rocket, which is a light launch vehicle with three solid stages and an AVUM hypergolic upper stage.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Launch_vehicles/Vega

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_(rocket)

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_4/Atlas-Vega/Description/Frame.htm

It didn't fly once @Pappystein so I think it's okay to reuse the name for an entire rocket

Edited September 22, 2017 by Theysen

[Mike`]

17 hours ago, Pappystein said:

but I had too many problems with other rockets so I discontinued 2.5x and switched to Galileo for Career.

May i ask what problems you ran into? I heard/thought both BDB and SSTU should be fine in a 2.5x system?

 

On another note, what tech trees do you guys play with?

I tried HPT for my first SSTU career and like the unmanned before manned order.

Started to modify it though with regards to SSTU parts, placing in the tech tree purely on historicity doesn't work with some parts, for example the early Merlin engines.

[Shadowmage]

A bit of normal-map abuse, on an upcoming rework of the parachute models (and textures...).  The underlying model is a smooth sphere

When finished the new models will also support the recoloring system, and should have at least two different masks/pattern setups (stripes, checkerboard, rings, others?).

[tater]

5 hours ago, Mike` said:

May i ask what problems you ran into? I heard/thought both BDB and SSTU should be fine in a 2.5x system?

 

On another note, what tech trees do you guys play with?

I tried HPT for my first SSTU career and like the unmanned before manned order.

Started to modify it though with regards to SSTU parts, placing in the tech tree purely on historicity doesn't work with some parts, for example the early Merlin engines.

2.5 works fine with sstu, I've played 3.2 quite a bit with unaltered sstu.

[Pappystein]

10 hours ago, Mike` said:

May i ask what problems you ran into? I heard/thought both BDB and SSTU should be fine in a 2.5x system?

 

On another note, what tech trees do you guys play with?

I tried HPT for my first SSTU career and like the unmanned before manned order.

Started to modify it though with regards to SSTU parts, placing in the tech tree purely on historicity doesn't work with some parts, for example the early Merlin engines.

Several Issues.  Mostly due to my own fly by the seat of MY pants, not some physicist who never flew in space, Launch profile    (YES I AM JOKING ABOUT THE PHYSICIST!)

Also the lack of controlability of Solid upper stages (hence my initial Inquiry about the SRMs being "cut-able."  I also had several other mods that WERE not 2.5 safe causing issues.... Also I just didn't like how 2.5 felt in the campaign.   And the last is totally my opinion...  The Rockets don''t feel right to me in 2.5... But Spaceplanes feel even more comfortable.......  

I tend to stick with Stock tech Tree due to the fact that none of the alternatives have "done in right"   I have ideas for a new Tech Tree something akin to the Engineering Tech Tree but much more streamlined...  But to see it to fruition would require a total rebuild of the Career/ Science game mechanics and THAT is WELL beyond my Kin....  I am lucky to be an ALMOST passable .cfg hakor....

 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Pappystein
To make first sentenance readable

[Drakenex]

Getting ready for an upcoming mission report on building the Boeing's Cislunar Space Station proposal

 

[gmiddlemass]

First of all, thank you for making such a fantastic mod. It has completely changed the way I play Kerbal and I now can't imagine playing without it. Very much looking forward to all future releases.

 

Now on to my problem...

Has anyone tried making a 1.5 stage rocket along the lines of the Mercury Atlas launcher using SSTU?

The closest I can get is in the (terrible) test vehicle shown below using the SSTU decoupler with hollow collider enabled mounted to the interstage node of the central engine. The remaining outer engines are attached to the decoupler and use the "pyrios" mount. If I use a fuel line I can get all three engines to fire and I can stage the outer two engines but I just can't get it to look nice no matter what I try. If I use the offset tool to line everything up then all of the engines are destroyed upon staging and if I try a different mount on the tank then there is still a large gap in the structure as seen below.

Have any of you managed to build a working (and good looking) layout such as this and if so could you please share how you did it? I know BDB has working (and beautiful) parts that I could use but I wanted to try and build it using SSTU.

If this is not possible then could I request that it may be considered as a future part option? Perhaps it could be achieved by adding a hollow collider and interstage node to the "pyrios" engine mount option? I don't know how to code at all though so obviously this is just a guess and I expect it's massively more complex than that.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Test launch of 1.5 stage to orbit...

After staging, main engine still running.

[Jhorriga]

ffffffffffffffffffffff.....

Downloaded so frigging fast

broke finger

on way to hospital and play

10/10 would break again

[Mike`]

1 hour ago, gmiddlemass said:

Has anyone tried making a 1.5 stage rocket along the lines of the Mercury Atlas launcher using SSTU?

I've mostly used solid first stages in my career. While 1.5 staging might be cool to have in theory, i wonder how useful it would be, compared to the booster tanks which i would use to get something similar now. Those have the advantage that you can drop some tank mass with them and also can use a different fuel for your booster engine, for example to use a hydrolox sustainer.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mike`

[tater]

Yeah, I have made an Atlas, though a bit of a kludge...

 

 

[gmiddlemass]

3 hours ago, Mike` said:

I've mostly used solid first stages in my career. While 1.5 staging might be cool to have in theory, i wonder how useful it would be, compared to the booster tanks which i would use to get something similar now. Those have the advantage that you can drop some tank mass with them and also can use a different fuel for your booster engine, for example to use a hydrolox sustainer.

It's mainly just out of curiosity really and because I think it's an interesting looking design rather than efficiency.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, I have made an Atlas, though a bit of a kludge...

That looks like what I'm trying to achieve. Does it stage correctly (i.e. does it drop the two outer engines and the fairing leaving just the centre engine), and if so how did you manage it?

Any chance you could share the craft file?

Thanks for the replies. 

[tater]

Yeah, it kind of works, though it is VERY sensitive to staging conditions (AoA of rocket, velocity at staging, etc).

I'll have to test it with the latest version to make sure it still works. It's the main tank, with a single engine, then the interstage node is on, and attached to that is a hollow-collider separator, then the 2 engines with the shroud as the mount. A fuel pipe needs to connect the 1/2 stage for fuel flow. I experimented by putting them on a launch clamp, and staging the thing off till it worked, then tried flying it.

[Norcalplanner]

On 9/21/2017 at 3:31 PM, Pappystein said:

Heck I am flying Mercury around the Mun with this in BluedogDB and a stock system.   In a 2.5 scale system you ALMOST need 6K stage to get a reasonable payload to a "fair" LKO.  A Baby payload (500kg range) might be possible without 6K but I had too many problems with other rockets so I discontinued 2.5x and switched to Galileo for Career.   without SSTU I would not have made it as far as I have in the Galileo verse...  

I may import some photos of my Tinker-Toy interplanetary Space Cruiser when I get home tonight.

Just for the record, 2.5x GPP is a thing... a beautiful and glorious thing that I'm currently enjoying in a career with both BDB and SSTU.

[gmiddlemass]

Thanks to the tips I finally managed to get something I'm (reasonably) happy with...

The centre H1 engine (used for size) has it's thrust limited to 50% in the VAB. Just enough fuel to make it to a nice orbit but yes staging is a bit temperamental to say the least... the joys of early rocketry!

Thanks again for the help guys, it gave me the resolve to carry on knowing that others had done it.

EDIT: Just discovered the "Vert. Pos" setting... now I can use all three engines of the same type and get them to line up nicely rather than having to use a larger centre one and limit the thrust. I do feel a bit stupid for not spotting it before but I love this mod even more now. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by gmiddlemass

[Mike`]

What's the story behind the F1 engine upgrades, btw? The ISP-Upgrades are commented out, and they're all in the same techtree node. Just a test?

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mike`

[Kerbal01]

I haven't used this mod since 1.1.3, whats's new?

[Pappystein]

RE 1.5 stage rockets. 

1.5 Stage rockets are an efficent engineering solution to a problem of LOW thrust  + High Desired payload to orbit mass.   in KSP they don't make sense because well... MOAR Boosters! but IRL the 1.5 stage actually makes a lot of sense still today.   Imagine a Saturn V rocket.  Remove the 5 J-2 engines from Stage S-II, Remove the central F-1 engine.   Replace the other 4 F-1 engines with F-1As or better yet F-1Bs (Thanks for that one @Shadowmage!) and insert an M-1 where the central F-1 existed.   Now at Launch it is just the four F-1 variant rockets with a flight profile similar to an Apollo moon landing....   Once RP-1 is exhausted in the new super stage (remember I never said remove S-II's TANKAGE!) the 4x F-1 engines are jettisoned and can be recovered via Parachute.    The Monster Hydrolox M-1 now engages..... and flys the Saturn V variant in a more efficient profile than the old S-II assembly could have.

The results in this scenario are more money saved than a standard 5 F-1 5 J-2 engined Saturn V upgrade...   For a similar payload to LEO.   IRL this was one of the proposals to try to save the Saturn V from no longer being produced... Make it partially recoverable.

Atlas D/E/F/F(Hypothetical) and II are my primary satellite launcher for KSP because I can stack some chutes on the booster assembly and thanks to STaged recovery can gain some currency back.   Probably the best bang for the buck in Satellite launching.

My least used launchers are Atlas-V (BDB) and Delta IV (SSTU.)  Both are used but no where near as much as the older tech Atlas families.   Probably because I have an Agena fixation right now (Agena is the satellite bus of choice for me.)

 

1 hour ago, Kerbal01 said:

I haven't used this mod since 1.1.3, whats's new?

Too much to mention quite frankly.  

 SSTU is probably the most innovative single mod-group in KSP right now... Add the fact that Shadowmage has also created/edited/modified/continued KSPWheel and KSP now has a great wheel setup in game........    Why haven't you been playing with this!

 

 

[Theysen]

5 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

RE 1.5 stage rockets. 

1.5 Stage rockets are an efficent engineering solution to a problem of LOW thrust  + High Desired payload to orbit mass.   in KSP they don't make sense because well... MOAR Boosters! but IRL the 1.5 stage actually makes a lot of sense still today.   Imagine a Saturn V rocket.  Remove the 5 J-2 engines from Stage S-II, Remove the central F-1 engine.   Replace the other 4 F-1 engines with F-1As or better yet F-1Bs (Thanks for that one @Shadowmage!) and insert an M-1 where the central F-1 existed.   Now at Launch it is just the four F-1 variant rockets with a flight profile similar to an Apollo moon landing....   Once RP-1 is exhausted in the new super stage (remember I never said remove S-II's TANKAGE!) the 4x F-1 engines are jettisoned and can be recovered via Parachute.    The Monster Hydrolox M-1 now engages..... and flys the Saturn V variant in a more efficient profile than the old S-II assembly could have.

The results in this scenario are more money saved than a standard 5 F-1 5 J-2 engined Saturn V upgrade...   For a similar payload to LEO.   IRL this was one of the proposals to try to save the Saturn V from no longer being produced... Make it partially recoverable.

Atlas D/E/F/F(Hypothetical) and II are my primary satellite launcher for KSP because I can stack some chutes on the booster assembly and thanks to STaged recovery can gain some currency back.   Probably the best bang for the buck in Satellite launching.

My least used launchers are Atlas-V (BDB) and Delta IV (SSTU.)  Both are used but no where near as much as the older tech Atlas families.   Probably because I have an Agena fixation right now (Agena is the satellite bus of choice for me.)

 

Too much to mention quite frankly.  

 SSTU is probably the most innovative single mod-group in KSP right now... Add the fact that Shadowmage has also created/edited/modified/continued KSPWheel and KSP now has a great wheel setup in game........    Why haven't you been playing with this!

 

 

I‘d love to see some math proof for having mixed fuels in a single stage just to make a 1.5 stage. I have a feeling you’d lose on the heavier infrastructure to support dead weight once the RP-1 depleted. Also different pump pressured and injection conditions might require even more support structure? Just some thoughts going into that since the good old atlas used very similar engine specifics stemming from the same series just for different optimization purposes. 

I get the whole idea behind it, don’t get me wrong

[Pappystein]

18 minutes ago, Theysen said:

I‘d love to see some math proof for having mixed fuels in a single stage just to make a 1.5 stage. I have a feeling you’d lose on the heavier infrastructure to support dead weight once the RP-1 depleted. Also different pump pressured and injection conditions might require even more support structure? Just some thoughts going into that since the good old atlas used very similar engine specifics stemming from the same series just for different optimization purposes. 

I get the whole idea behind it, don’t get me wrong

I don't have any proof.  I was just regurgitating several "studies" mentioned here in various forums for KSP.   Ofcourse most of them are based on the Saturn V-C and V-D proposals but those were 5 F-1 engines with the S-ID Stage and a half  first stage.

The only positive is that the M-1 and the F-1 had somewhat similar LOX flow rates IIRC and thus maybe a 3 tank stage???

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Pappystein