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

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Introducing the Data Return Capsule

FWIW, I would love to see a simple, all-in-one solution like this in more of a squat cone shape, like the Genesis return pod. 

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

You mean a RUD?

Given that it’s only a single part, disassembly is far less likely than a mere sudden stop. 

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

I'd go one step further and make the inline storage into a all-in-one science unit that gains every new experiment once the techtree unlocks a new stock experiment (that is plugin work, or I'd have done it already with the radial version of your science bay).

I would keep that as a separate part.  The science experiments will be much larger (and have more mass) than the data that needs to be returned.  I would like an all-in-one + upgradeable science part... just not sure if its doable considering the limitations on stock modules/code.

24 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

in more of a squat cone shape,

Working with what I have on this one, at least during its concept development phase.  Was just something I slapped together a config for because I needed it in my current play/testing career game.  When I get to the ProbeCore/SatelliteCore series of parts in earnest, it will likely get its own model/textures/etc.

 

 

[tater]

The tks reentry pod would work. Made smaller, no crew, no window.

[Jimbodiah]

I tried making a single part that unlocks new experiments using the upgrade system, but could't get that to work. You can't add modules via upgrades it would appear. 

Maybeyou can disable a module in a plugin using required tech?

Re the return pod, are there any real-life versions besides Dragon or manned pods?

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Jimbodiah

[CatastrophicFailure]

7 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

I tried making a single part that unlocks new experiments using the upgrade system, but could't get that to work. You can't add modules via upgrades it would appear. 

Maybeyou can disable a module in a plugin using required tech?

Re the return pod, are there any real-life versions besides Dragon or manned pods?

 

Genesis. Complete with unplanned lithobraking. 

Corona Lithobraking avoided by way of midair catch by airplane. 

Hyabusa. Not the motorcycle. (This one was actually much faster.)   And they're working on a sequel.

[Shadowmage]

10 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Maybeyou can disable a module in a plugin using required tech?

Nope; that was the whole problem with the 'optional docking ports'.  Or anything that uses stock modules.  Only a very small number of them support being disabled;  ModuleRCS and... well, that's the only one I know of that actually works.  (which is what has allowed me to have optional RCS ports; I can actually disable that stock module)

[RedParadize]

@ShadowmageAre these part are still on the list:

Spoiler

• SC-TANK-MSM - Service Module Fuel Tank - Customizable service module, integrated solar, fuel, rcs, probe-core, reaction-wheel, possible integrated engine. Includes selectable top and bottom adapters. Possible just re-use the ModularStationCore setup with solar panel and docking port switching. Part should be usable stand-alone as a propulsion (fuel?) module, and as a complete cargo-delivery part (minus engines)
• SC-TANK-MCB-B - Modular Cargo Bay - Round, flap
• SC-TANK-MCB-C - Modular Cargo Bay - Round, rotate
• SC-TANK-MCB-D - Modular Cargo Bay - Round, drop bay

 

I am asking because as I see it there is common ground with Data Return Capsule (excluding heat shield). If you end up doing the Data Return Capsule model. I will most likely use it more often as a regular cargo bay. Just brainstorming, let me explain: 

To start, I have to say that while I like cargo bay, I kind of hate the stock system. Stock caped versions works fine but are not to my taste aesthetically, open ended version require a part with the same bulkheadProfiles in order to work properly (incompatible with SSTU scaling). For me, they always have been painful to work with. Now, your SSTUAirstreamShield work 100% of the time regardless of the context and is not CPU intensive. Could not ask for more.

With the planed MCB-B C and D we could simply add a para-docking port on top and a shield under (built or pre-built trough config) to get the Data Return Capsule while being able to built cargo-ed ship. Now, a conic variant would be absolutely awesome. Something like a modified petal adapter with a top cap and only one opening panel it would do the job quite well I think. The bottom section would probably need to have a flat top but there is already some end cap that would fit quite well.

What do you think?

 

 

[Shadowmage]

16 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@ShadowmageAre these part are still on the list:

• SC-TANK-MSM - Service Module Fuel Tank - Customizable service module, integrated solar, fuel, rcs, probe-core, reaction-wheel, possible integrated engine. Includes selectable top and bottom adapters. Possible just re-use the ModularStationCore setup with solar panel and docking port switching. Part should be usable stand-alone as a propulsion (fuel?) module, and as a complete cargo-delivery part (minus engines)
• SC-TANK-MCB-B - Modular Cargo Bay - Round, flap
• SC-TANK-MCB-C - Modular Cargo Bay - Round, rotate
• SC-TANK-MCB-D - Modular Cargo Bay - Round, drop bay

[...snip...]

What do you think?

 

The cargo bays are scheduled to be included with the horizontal landers.  As one of the lander variants will be aero-shell based, the cargo bays will be a large portion of its 'free-form' part selection.

The service modules (and probe-core buses) have been a bit problematic to settle on a feature set for.  Most of the features that I would want them to have can't be easily integrated into a modular part, and would cause other problems even if they were from compatibility/patches/etc.  As it stands, everything that could be done for the service modules is already available (tanks/engines/rcs/solar/probe), and with more freedom than if it were combined into a single part.  They are still on the long-term plans (except the docking port switching bit), but I've got to sort out exactly what they will do before I can do any real work on them.

[Jimbodiah]

Just brainstorming, aka thinking out loud. Squash or praise where applicable.

 

You'd have to make a list of criteria what you would use the SM for. Is it to build a sattelite, a main core instrument unit or to make an actual SM for a pod? I don't think these can be combined because of the different looks and functionalities.

Instrument unit:
- this is already planned on github and probably the "easiest" to make right now as we already have the PPC which will get replaced by a new model I presume.
 

Satellite:
- 0.625m to 1.875m?
- solar panels or rtg
- fixed/folding dish (maybe 2-3 styles depending on range = size)
- battery
- tank
- optional ion/mp engine (allow 3rd party engines)
- sas, reaction wheels, rcs, xmitter, kerbnet, science modules
- space to add a future science bay?
 

Service Module:
- 1.25-5m
- probe core
- rcs
- decoupler
- solar panels or fuel cell
- battery/tank
- no engine (use SSTU or 3rd party engines, or even none for LEO tugs etc)

A modular Orion SM would be perfect for a model

 

 

 

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

 

The cargo bays are scheduled to be included with the horizontal landers.  As one of the lander variants will be aero-shell based, the cargo bays will be a large portion of its 'free-form' part selection.

The service modules (and probe-core buses) have been a bit problematic to settle on a feature set for.  Most of the features that I would want them to have can't be easily integrated into a modular part, and would cause other problems even if they were from compatibility/patches/etc.  As it stands, everything that could be done for the service modules is already available (tanks/engines/rcs/solar/probe), and with more freedom than if it were combined into a single part.  They are still on the long-term plans (except the docking port switching bit), but I've got to sort out exactly what they will do before I can do any real work on them.

I am not sure if I understand your answer.
Does it mean we will have a cargo bay that can open/close?
Does the 'free-form' part mean that conic shape will be possible?

[Shadowmage]

5 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I am not sure if I understand your answer.
Does it mean we will have a cargo bay that can open/close?
Does the 'free-form' part mean that conic shape will be possible?

Yes, there will be cargo bays with open/close functionality, with several door types.  Including end-cap/adapters that can open/close (or be solid, or empty like stock for part-stacking).

Cones -- not likely, and certainly not procedural types.  I was referring to free-form in the stock lego-rocket sense; you'll be able to mix-and match parts to create your own lander design, rather than being limited to an CM+SM+cargo type setup.

[Pappystein]

22 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

I tried making a single part that unlocks new experiments using the upgrade system, but could't get that to work. You can't add modules via upgrades it would appear. 

Maybeyou can disable a module in a plugin using required tech?

Re the return pod, are there any real-life versions besides Dragon or manned pods?

 

Um just about every Spy satellite prior to Digital Cameras?  Most famous western world version being KH-9 Corona.  It had 3 (I think) film return canisters.

 

Ok so I have repeated this experiment twice.

I launch a space plane.   Orbit Kerbin and return to land at the Space center.   On touchdown the game locks up for about 5 seconds and then I get an explosion sound (no graphics) and the message is that every part of my space plane has collided with SSTU Shader probe.

before I start posting log files is this a known issue?

The only SSTU part on the plane were landing gears that are affected by KSP wheel IIRC (LY35 and the LY25 variant via MM file.)

[Shadowmage]

22 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

I tried making a single part that unlocks new experiments using the upgrade system, but could't get that to work. You can't add modules via upgrades it would appear. 

Send me a PM on this please.. have some notes laying around that might let you do what you are looking for (add modules via upgrade).  Just don't want to clog up the thread with it.

 

5 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I launch a space plane.   Orbit Kerbin and return to land at the Space center.   On touchdown the game locks up for about 5 seconds and then I get an explosion sound (no graphics) and the message is that every part of my space plane has collided with SSTU Shader probe.

Update your SSTU and/or TexturesUnlimited versions (more the TU end).  There were some collider issues in the first release.  If it still persists with TU 0.9.0.3, please open an issue ticket with log files, as I haven't had any other reports of problems with the newer releases.

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage Thanks.

It occurred to me that I might be able to do what I want myself. Well... with some explanation from you.

I would like to have a Petal adapter that do not decouple the top node and is reusable/closeable. Looking at the config of the Petal adapter. I believe I can have it not decouple the top node. But is there a way to toggle the fairing back and have the SSTUAirstreamShield work again?

[Shadowmage]

10 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

But is there a way to toggle the fairing back and have the SSTUAirstreamShield work again?

Not yet  -- https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/623

It was never intended to be allowed to close... so it will be a bit complicated to adjust the code to allow it.  Planned, but not yet scheduled.

[RedParadize]

Just now, Shadowmage said:

Not yet  -- https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/623

It was never intended to be allowed to close... so it will be a bit complicated to adjust the code to allow it.  Planned, but not yet scheduled.

Yay! 

I have a party tonight but tomorrow I will do a mockup of I intent to do with it. I think some people might be interested by it.

[tater]

Regarding cones, there is perhaps a way to achieve a cone within the current system that is not strictly procedural. Imagine a standard MFT-A tank, where the length is allowed to be 0, but it has a nose or mount part that is conic. (these already exist, only the min tank length needs change, assuming 0 is a possibility)

I'm not sure what I'd do with such a thing, though I could see it being useful to make something akin to the Gemini SM. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by tater

[tater]

You can see that if the actual tank was zero height, the final tank would be a frustum of a cone.

Edited November 25, 2017 by tater

[vossiewulf]

Can someone explain how the construction ports work? Not having any luck docking them armed or disarmed.

New section now all cattywampus after bouncing off again.

[Jimbodiah]

You might have them the wrong way around?

[vossiewulf]

18 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

You might have them the wrong way around?

This seems to be the only way they attach, unless most of them is intended to stick inside the part to which they're mounted.

[Shadowmage]

 

A bit of fun with the new science part(s) that I made (DRC, SRF).  Picture spam, and abuse of shiny things.

 

 

See spoiler for the full mission...

 

Spoiler

 

Full rocket stats:

Carrier rocket on the pad

Only 40m/s left on the ascent stage once in orbit

Here's the actual fun bits -- robotic surface return probe + transfer stage/relay (3 stages shown)

The full spacecraft in Mun orbit, scanning for a landing site.

Preparing for de-orbit burn

Lining up for suicide burn

 

Surface-sample drill deployed, scooping up some rocks and dust.

DRC Sample Return stage lifts off

DRC Sample Return stage in orbit, and return-to-kerbin burn stats.

DRC jettisoned once capture trajectory is confirmed

Hey.. theres the KSC~

Capsule wobbles a bit, but orients itself for reentry

17g's and 3 minutes later, it splashes down at the far end of booster bay.

Certainly not biome-farming type returns, but good for the investment

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Can someone explain how the construction ports work? Not having any luck docking them armed or disarmed.

You've got em backwards....

 

17 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

This seems to be the only way they attach, unless most of them is intended to stick inside the part to which they're mounted.

Yes, that is why they are resizable.  When 'retracted', the ring should sit flush with the top of the part it is mounted on.

Get two of them close together, the rings should keep them from docking fully, but magnet should keep them together.  Retract the two of them... and then you can weld

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Shadowmage

[Jimbodiah]

^Ohhh.. Mage is showing off his recoloring of stock parts. See how he ninjad those in

 

The only disappointment is the use of a MJ case 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Jimbodiah

[Shadowmage]

15 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

The only disappointment is the use of a MJ case

Yeah, for some reason its not on the PPC.  (or wasn't... I fixed it just now )

[vossiewulf]

43 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

You've got em backwards....

Ugh. Will it still work if the parts are undersized if I just flip them around on EVA?