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

[Sudragon]

Is it possible to make RCS clusters with switchable fuel? 

[rasta013]

20 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Most of these are... very... OP for the stock system, even the 'short' versions:

I've been building these as cores for myself also.  The OPness of them I can testify too but as long as I use appropriate payloads for them they work great as default lifter bodies.  Although sometimes the payload can look funny if it happens to be long LOL.  My version of your SC-C- Full B2 will lift a launch capsule/SM core to Duna  

4 hours ago, Sudragon said:

Is it possible to make RCS clusters with switchable fuel? 

Should be I would think.  While ModuleRCS is used to call the action the resource definition and curve definition is the same as ModuleEngine.  I've never tried mind you but it should work similarly.

[Shadowmage]

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 0:53 AM, GoldForest said:

@Shadowmage As for the suggestions:

1) Resizable probe core with the model based off the Saturn V third stage Avionics Ring
2) Station parts. I thought of a way to make these resizeable. Basically take the IVA from w/e model you use, and the outside model, and just dupiclate them per stretch. For example, the hitchhiker, when someone goes to make it from MFT-1 to MFT-2, it will just look like two hitchhikers welded together.
3) Proton main engines, or at least a mount that will put the six engines like the Proton, I.E. protruding past the internal tank.
4) Modular/Resizable rcs thrusters with the ability to make ports appear on any side of the rcs
5) Modular Parachutes? Like the ability to make one to five parachutes deploy from one canister, also, to change the shape of the parachute. The stock models are fine, but I would like something like the Ares/Orion parachutes, the red white and blue ones.
6) Stock engine mounts with modularity. I would like to have 9 mainsails, or skippers, on one mount. Jebidiah wants to go crazy. *Is already thinking of giant rockets*

1.) Doable, but I've never seen the point in it; I do not use probe cores, instead I just slap a mech-jeb case on the side and call it good.  This also harkens back to the 'low-part-count' theme, in that it is counterproductive to add extra parts just for a probe core.  I would have to hear some extremely compelling arguments for use-cases that the existing stock probe-cores or a mech-jeb case cannot fulfill.
2.) Yep, those are next on the TODO list, as soon as I get out of wheel-fixing-hell.
3.) No clue what engine that is... but as I've said in the past, this mod doesn't exist for 'recreation' purposes.  What engine is it, what stats does it have, are there sufficient diagrams/schematics available, and does it fill a unique purpose in the engine lineup compared to what I already have?
4.) Actively works against the 'low-part-count' theme of the mod.  Doable, but I would rather my RCS be integrated into... well.. anything (as opposed to adding 4 more parts to a craft just for RCS).  I would have to hear some extremely compelling arguments for use-cases, ones that the existing RCS blocks cannot fulfill.
5.) See #4; would rather they be integrated into the parts that need them.  Completely doable (as that is what I wrote the SSTUModularParachte module for originally), but would need some good use-cases that the existing stock parachutes cannot fulfill.
6.) As others have commented, stock engines are less than ideal for clustering.  I will not be making stock cluster configs (except as placeholders until I can make real models), but nothing is stopping you from making them yourself (see the LV-N cluster config for example).

For # 1, 4, and 5 -- basically I would never use the parts even if I made them... so why should I make them?  What unique functionality would they bring that is not already available elsewhere?  If you can convince me that I need them and that they open up new game mechanics or opportunities, you might see them made at some point.

5 hours ago, Sudragon said:

Is it possible to make RCS clusters with switchable fuel? 

In theory, yes.  With stock code / existing modules, no.  It would require a special plugin / partModule / more code to manage the fuel-switching.

[Shadowmage]

Updated release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.4.31.117

Updated geometry for the saddle-truss models, and added some gold-foil textures for MFT A/B tanks.  I'm not entirely happy with the gold-foil as-is, so may be revising it in the near future.

Going to spend a bit of time today working on a few craft files.  Will post up a link when I have them available, likely only here on the thread initially until they have been tested a bit.  If they all work as advertised/intended, I'll start adding them to the release zips.

[Sudragon]

Re: resizeable avionics ring.

Having a resizable avionics ring, including those odd, intermediate, sizes would be very helpful for those of us who use parts recovery mods. If it had probe core (with MJ capability) reaction wheels and a small battery it would allow for 'off-screen' recovery of lower stages, whether by powered landing or parachute, in one part, not 3 or 4 (mechjeb case, battery, and reaction wheel part(s)) or (mechjeb case, rcs*4 and monoprop tankage). It thus is in agreement with your 'low part count' arguement. 

Also, having a one probe core in sizes from .625m to 5m would remove the need to spam adaptors in the creation of 'off size' vehicles. 

[StickyScissors]

5 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

3.) No clue what engine that is... but as I've said in the past, this mod doesn't exist for 'recreation' purposes.  What engine is it, what stats does it have, are there sufficient diagrams/schematics available, and does it fill a unique purpose in the engine lineup compared to what I already have?
 

That'd be the RD-253 and later versions of it being RD-275. Engines that would require a different fuel type other than LF/OX, Monoprop, or NTO to be realistic. It uses that nasty N2O4/UDMH stuff.

Also, to figure out that performance gap thing, i saw a while ago you posted a spreadsheet full of existing and potentially planned engines with all their stats and whatnot, and im curious if that is still updated, because i assume that's what you compare new engine additions to.

Edited June 19, 2016 by StickyScissors

[StickyScissors]

 

On 6/17/2016 at 11:53 PM, GoldForest said:

3) Proton main engines, or at least a mount that will put the six engines like the Proton, I.E. protruding past the internal tank.

You can already make a layout of engines in proton's shape. I wouldn't really count on a completely custom fuel tank and mount for it though, if it's only a single-use thing, shadow probably wont mess with it. He was hesitating even bothering with Soyuz for a while.

[GoldForest]

7 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

1.) Doable, but I've never seen the point in it; I do not use probe cores, instead I just slap a mech-jeb case on the side and call it good.  This also harkens back to the 'low-part-count' theme, in that it is counterproductive to add extra parts just for a probe core.  I would have to hear some extremely compelling arguments for use-cases that the existing stock probe-cores or a mech-jeb case cannot fulfill.
2.) Yep, those are next on the TODO list, as soon as I get out of wheel-fixing-hell.
3.) No clue what engine that is... but as I've said in the past, this mod doesn't exist for 'recreation' purposes.  What engine is it, what stats does it have, are there sufficient diagrams/schematics available, and does it fill a unique purpose in the engine lineup compared to what I already have?
4.) Actively works against the 'low-part-count' theme of the mod.  Doable, but I would rather my RCS be integrated into... well.. anything (as opposed to adding 4 more parts to a craft just for RCS).  I would have to hear some extremely compelling arguments for use-cases, ones that the existing RCS blocks cannot fulfill.
5.) See #4; would rather they be integrated into the parts that need them.  Completely doable (as that is what I wrote the SSTUModularParachte module for originally), but would need some good use-cases that the existing stock parachutes cannot fulfill.
6.) As others have commented, stock engines are less than ideal for clustering.  I will not be making stock cluster configs (except as placeholders until I can make real models), but nothing is stopping you from making them yourself (see the LV-N cluster config for example).

For # 1, 4, and 5 -- basically I would never use the parts even if I made them... so why should I make them?  What unique functionality would they bring that is not already available elsewhere?  If you can convince me that I need them and that they open up new game mechanics or opportunities, you might see them made at some point.

In theory, yes.  With stock code / existing modules, no.  It would require a special plugin / partModule / more code to manage the fuel-switching.

1) Well, sticking a box on the side of a rocket isn't always appealing to the eyes, and some people don't play with mechjeb, so it makes deorbiting 3m stages a little hard. Fitting a 2m probe core to a 3m tank with a 3m fairing on top is also kind of hard to achieve without the fairing either being ontop of the probe core and making a giant gap between the fairing and tank, or putting the core on the inside of the fairing where it could get ejected accidently. Also, see Sudragon's response to Avionics Rings.
2) Awesome!
3) Not a Proton engine, the Proton rocket's engines. Preferable the first stage engines. The Proton is Russia's heavy lifter rocket, much more powerful than the Soyuz, and it can deliver stations up into LEO.
4) Then can you add rcs pods to the fuel tank code? I mainly ask for this so I can recreate the Saturn I/V which had 3/2 rcs pods on the second/third stage.
5) Stage recovery is the big thing. It really helps in KSP when you have the mod installed during career mode. Given, it's a task to recover the Saturn V first stage or the SLS's core stage, but if done, it saves a lot of money for you.
6) Yeah, I realize that now.

Edited June 19, 2016 by GoldForest

[helcustom]

I have a question what is the ksp wheel folder for?

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, helcustom said:

I have a question what is the ksp wheel folder for?

Oh, heh... that should not have made it into the release.  I checked the release zip, but apparently missed the texture sets.

You can safely ignore it / delete it / not install it.  I'll be re-uploading the texture sets shortly sans extra folder.

[Shadowmage]

17 hours ago, GoldForest said:

1) Well, sticking a box on the side of a rocket isn't always appealing to the eyes, and some people don't play with mechjeb, so it makes deorbiting 3m stages a little hard. Fitting a 2m probe core to a 3m tank with a 3m fairing on top is also kind of hard to achieve without the fairing either being ontop of the probe core and making a giant gap between the fairing and tank, or putting the core on the inside of the fairing where it could get ejected accidently. Also, see Sudragon's response to Avionics Rings.
2) Awesome!
3) Not a Proton engine, the Proton rocket's engines. Preferable the first stage engines. The Proton is Russia's heavy lifter rocket, much more powerful than the Soyuz, and it can deliver stations up into LEO.
4) Then can you add rcs pods to the fuel tank code? I mainly ask for this so I can recreate the Saturn I/V which had 3/2 rcs pods on the second/third stage.
5) Stage recovery is the big thing. It really helps in KSP when you have the mod installed during career mode. Given, it's a task to recover the Saturn V first stage or the SLS's core stage, but if done, it saves a lot of money for you.
6) Yeah, I realize that now.

1.)  JoseEduardo suggested that I add a ProbeCore/avionics functionality to a clone of the procedural decoupler... which I consider to be an acceptable compromise.  So, you may see these in a release in the near future.  Note, it will -not- come with any EC storage or reaction wheels; it will simply be a pure avionics part (SAS level 2/3/whatever the max is).  As I would never use the part, I'm not going to spend time making new models for it, sorry.

3.)  Again, I have no idea what engine that is, or why I should make it?  What are its stats?  Mass, thrust, ISP, fuel type, dimensions?  What purpose does it fill that the existing engines cannot?  If it is just for 'recreation' purposes... well... see below...

4.)  I already have fuel tanks with integrated RCS; the MUS tanks, which stands for Modular Upper Stage, and are intended for exactly those uses -- as second / third stage tanks with integrated RCS and integrated probe cores (#1).  Otherwise, no, I will be not add RCS to the main fuel tanks.  What is so special about what you are trying to do that it cannot be done with the existing fuel tanks and RCS blocks?  However, please keep in mind that this mod does not exist for 'recreation' purposes; if you want historically accurate recreation rockets, you should probably look elsewhere (FASA is a good place to start, BDB also does a few in a bit more of a kerbal style). 

5.)  What part of stage recovery needs new parachutes?  I must be missing something, or playing wrong... but stock parachutes always worked fine for me.  Additionally, StageRecovery (the mod) -cannot- use SSTU parachutes (as it only checks for the stock parachute module and derives drag from drag cubes; my parachutes use neither the stock module nor drag cubes), so even if I did make the parts, they would be useless for StageRecovery purposes.  Your choices for StageRecovery are stock parachutes, or.. stock parachutes.

[Jimbodiah]

Not sure, but I don't think you even need chutes for SR. If it has a probe core and enough fuel, it will recover it as if it did a landing burn. Elso just use tweakscale and add stock chutes. Looks fugly, but you don't recover so muhc money anyway (75% of first stage usually, but I find stock contracts reward so much that it is not necessary to recover anything) .

[Shadowmage]

12 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Not sure, but I don't think you even need chutes for SR. If it has a probe core and enough fuel, it will recover it as if it did a landing burn. Elso just use tweakscale and add stock chutes. Looks fugly, but you don't recover so muhc money anyway (75% of first stage usually, but I find stock contracts reward so much that it is not necessary to recover anything) .

Pretty much; stage recovery has only mattered to me on 'hard' mode games where contract rewards are far less and every tiny bit of funds matters (~20-50% contract rewards).

I'm not discounting it as being useful in other games, as it certainly can be, merely that I don't find it as 'necessary' unless I reduce contract funding substantially.  In the end I'm okay with slightly higher contract payouts as a trade-off for -not- recovering stages; reduced complexity and part-count (from not spamming parachutes on every stage) and just 'imagining' that some of the rewards/advance from the contract -are- from the stage recovery.

Now, if they changed the career system to be more of a 'space program management' simulation, my feelings on that might change (where as opposed to gaining funds from 'contracts', you would gain yearly/monthly 'stipends' depending upon your reputation or other progress metric; less 'commercial space program' and more 'government space program').  But that is a topic for a completely different thread.

[Shadowmage]

20 hours ago, GoldForest said:

3) Not a Proton engine, the Proton rocket's engines. Preferable the first stage engines. The Proton is Russia's heavy lifter rocket, much more powerful than the Soyuz, and it can deliver stations up into LEO.
 

Re: #3 -- as was pointed out, the main engine of the Proton rocket is the RD-253 (and later RD-275).  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-253 ).  Given the stats on it, it help would fill in a gap in the engine lineup between the 400kn and 1000kn range (~650kn when scaled to KSP), and has decent ISP for a lifter engine (esp. for hypergolics) (285-315).  Sadly I cannot locate any diagrams or schematics, so the likelihood of me making this engine is pretty close to zero.

If you can find me some diagrams/schematics with detail similar to the one posted below, I will consider making it.

(this is one of the diagrams I used when designing the geometry for the J-2 engine... which I would consider to be one of my best looking engine models; mostly due to the level of detail available in the diagrams it was based on!)

 

[Jimbodiah]

Rescale the J2 as a placeholder, it looks pretty similar. I'm also still looking for a Hydrolox gobetween for the J2 and RS25 suited for lifting.

[StickyScissors]

an hour of searching and the only think i could find -resembling- a schematic of the RD-253 was written in russian and doesn't even look very helpful.

Close up images, however, ho lee fük those are easy to find.

[blowfish]

Heh ... in searching for RD-253/275 references, I actually found a better RD-180 reference.  Might redo some of the geometry I have, however little it may be...

Spoiler

E: Goldmine https://www.google.com/patents/US6170258

Edited June 21, 2016 by blowfish

[Shadowmage]

45 minutes ago, StickyScissors said:

an hour of searching and the only think i could find -resembling- a schematic of the RD-253 was written in russian and doesn't even look very helpful.

Close up images, however, ... those are easy to find.

Indeed   Finding diagrams on some of these engines is a nightmare, and I'm convinced that publicly available information simply does not exist for some of them.  BTW, I'm fine with Russian diagrams, or german, or chinese, or.. whatever it takes to get a decent diagram.  The writing is generally just callouts to specific parts, which at this point I can mostly infer given the engine cycle, layout, and look of most of them.  And little of that info is needed to actually model it

In this case however, you are in luck as @Dragon01 managed to dig up a set of quite usable diagrams from some Russian site; including multi-view diagrams of the turbopump assembly, and sub-diagrams/detail views for most of the other bits as well.  Good stuff.  ( http://lpre.de/energomash/RD-253/index.htm : Caution, its all in Russian )  Combined with the information and actual images that are available (lots of them...), this should give me enough data to do the modeling on it.

So you may well see that engine modeled and added in the near future, or at least the possibility is much higher today than it was yesterday   I already have a small selections of engines I need to make first (those with placeholder models/cloned models): Lunar module ascent and descent engines, Bell 8048-39/LR-81, and a real NTR engine model.  There have also been requests for the Atlas and Titan motors (RD-180, LR-87), of which there seems to be a decent amount of info available; though I haven't checked where they sit in the engine lineup yet.

[StickyScissors]

4 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Indeed   Finding diagrams on some of these engines is a nightmare, and I'm convinced that publicly available information simply does not exist for some of them.  BTW, I'm fine with Russian diagrams, or german, or chinese, or.. whatever it takes to get a decent diagram.  The writing is generally just callouts to specific parts, which at this point I can mostly infer given the engine cycle, layout, and look of most of them.  And little of that info is needed to actually model it

In this case however, you are in luck as @Dragon01 managed to dig up a set of quite usable diagrams from some Russian site; including multi-view diagrams of the turbopump assembly, and sub-diagrams/detail views for most of the other bits as well.  Good stuff.  ( http://lpre.de/energomash/RD-253/index.htm : Caution, its all in Russian )  Combined with the information and actual images that are available (lots of them...), this should give me enough data to do the modeling on it.

So you may well see that engine modeled and added in the near future, or at least the possibility is much higher today than it was yesterday   I already have a small selections of engines I need to make first (those with placeholder models/cloned models): Lunar module ascent and descent engines, Bell 8048-39/LR-81, and a real NTR engine model.  There have also been requests for the Atlas and Titan motors (RD-180, LR-87), of which there seems to be a decent amount of info available; though I haven't checked where they sit in the engine lineup yet.

I..wha...i linked to the website via the image and didn't bother checking the website itself... My google-fu needs some recalibrating.

Also, is it just me or does Russia not have an ITAR of their own, because they give out lots of inner details about their engines(it's not like anybody is duplicating them, though). Unlike in the US, where if you give out rocket engine info the US government will fry your ass to the best of their abilities

Edited June 21, 2016 by StickyScissors

[Shadowmage]

5 minutes ago, blowfish said:

Heh ... in searching for RD-253/275 references, I actually found a better RD-180 reference.  Might redo some of the geometry I have, however little it may be...

E:Goldmine https://www.google.com/patents/US6170258

Very nice find.  Wish there was that kind of detailed diagrams available on all of the engines

I also have the other side-view of the RD-180 if you are interested in that; though I believe I came across it from a standard google-images search, so it is likely readily available.

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Indeed   Finding diagrams on some of these engines is a nightmare, and I'm convinced that publicly available information simply does not exist for some of them.  BTW, I'm fine with Russian diagrams, or german, or chinese, or.. whatever it takes to get a decent diagram.  The writing is generally just callouts to specific parts, which at this point I can mostly infer given the engine cycle, layout, and look of most of them.  And little of that info is needed to actually model it

In this case however, you are in luck as @Dragon01 managed to dig up a set of quite usable diagrams from some Russian site; including multi-view diagrams of the turbopump assembly, and sub-diagrams/detail views for most of the other bits as well.  Good stuff.  ( http://lpre.de/energomash/RD-253/index.htm : Caution, its all in Russian )  Combined with the information and actual images that are available (lots of them...), this should give me enough data to do the modeling on it.

So you may well see that engine modeled and added in the near future, or at least the possibility is much higher today than it was yesterday   I already have a small selections of engines I need to make first (those with placeholder models/cloned models): Lunar module ascent and descent engines, Bell 8048-39/LR-81, and a real NTR engine model.  There have also been requests for the Atlas and Titan motors (RD-180, LR-87), of which there seems to be a decent amount of info available; though I haven't checked where they sit in the engine lineup yet.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd275.htm Here's some info about the engine, thrust, isp, etc.

[blowfish]

6 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

I also have the other side-view of the RD-180 if you are interested in that; though I believe I came across it from a standard google-images search, so it is likely readily available.

The one I have is this one.  It's a bit blurry though - if you have something better I'd definitely be interested.

[Shadowmage]

6 minutes ago, blowfish said:

The one I have is this one.  It's a bit blurry though - if you have something better I'd definitely be interested.

Looks to be the exact same one I have, down to the file-name; was worth a try though

 

[Phineas Freak]

5 hours ago, StickyScissors said:

it's not like anybody is duplicating them, though

It is not the easiest thing to do, especially for their top - notch Kerolox engines.

[Sudragon]

13 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Pretty much; stage recovery has only mattered to me on 'hard' mode games where contract rewards are far less and every tiny bit of funds matters (~20-50% contract rewards).

I'm not discounting it as being useful in other games, as it certainly can be, merely that I don't find it as 'necessary' unless I reduce contract funding substantially.  In the end I'm okay with slightly higher contract payouts as a trade-off for -not- recovering stages; reduced complexity and part-count (from not spamming parachutes on every stage) and just 'imagining' that some of the rewards/advance from the contract -are- from the stage recovery.

Now, if they changed the career system to be more of a 'space program management' simulation, my feelings on that might change (where as opposed to gaining funds from 'contracts', you would gain yearly/monthly 'stipends' depending upon your reputation or other progress metric; less 'commercial space program' and more 'government space program').  But that is a topic for a completely different thread.

I use SR in conjunction with Kerbal Construction Time, so it also about getting the parts back for reuse.