[1.12.5] Cormorant Aeronology - Mk3 Space Shuttle

[Spartan-S63]

On April 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, tg626 said:

Last shuttle I made I put on two rudders, about half clipped into each other, then set the deploys appropriately and linked then to the brakes action key.  Worked like a charm.

Oh, and the drag chute, I think you can get a real chute to attach on the base of the rudder, or you can pop a regular one on the center attachment node between the engines.

My problem with this idea is that half the time, I end up with control surface reversal and the two rudders deploy the same direction or opposite directions from what I expect. I do fly with FAR as well, so maybe that's the cause of it. But either way, I occasionally get control surface reversal (even landing gear reversal) that's really really weird and usually causes me to lose control in atmosphere.

 

I would love a split-tail Big-S tail part, if possible. It would definitely be a great way to slow down in FAR. The biggest issue is that the shuttle's profile doesn't generate enough drag without flaps or air brakes. Having a split tail would definitely help that.

[tg626]

Seems my old design can't cut it in 1.1.2 anyway, I've had to abandon these parts, with 3 Weasley I used to be able to hold altitude at 5km or so (buran type), but these bits are too heavy and I can't pinpoint my reentry well enough to glide to ksc.  

[Pak]

Keep on keepin' on, tg626. You'll figure it out.

I can't speak for other 1.1 changes but on my end the new parts are significantly lighter than they used to be and have a bit less aerodynamic effect as well with the stock body lift changes.

Cormorant parts or not, let me know how it goes. That was a great looking Buran!

[sharpspoonful]

So I made a thing. Took me several hours today (The B9 Wings fork has some wonkiness to it unfortunately), but i think that this is the most faithful reproduction of the original that I can make. Flight tests have been...interesting. It almost got into orbit, but the OMS are just too weak to finish the circularization burn. Probably need a shallower ascent angle. Thanks for the new and pretty parts @Pak.

 

Mods: Tweakscale, B9 Procedural Wings - Fork, Color Coded Tanks, Fuel Tanks Plus, EDIT: KW Rocketry (struts), and Pak's shuttle parts (of course).

Edited May 3, 2016 by sharpspoonful

[Spartan-S63]

12 hours ago, sharpspoonful said:

So I made a thing. Took me several hours today (The B9 Wings fork has some wonkiness to it unfortunately), but i think that this is the most faithful reproduction of the original that I can make. Flight tests have been...interesting. It almost got into orbit, but the OMS are just too weak to finish the circularization burn. Probably need a shallower ascent angle. Thanks for the new and pretty parts @Pak.

Mods: Tweakscale, B9 Procedural Wings - Fork, Color Coded Tanks, Fuel Tanks Plus, and Pak's shuttle parts (of course).

Is that a single wing piece? That looks amazing with the B9 procedural wings.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Spartan-S63

[sharpspoonful]

No, the wing is made up of 5 7 individual pieces per side, if you include the flaps.

I also saw someone a page or two ago suggest using RealChutes to create a drag chute for landing. Seeing as I already had it installed...

I was able to put the above orbiter into a stable orbit, raise AP and get halfway through a rendezvous style burn before running out of Monoprop. But it required 470 extra units of MP. (I also learned that you need to "lock" the control surfaces on ascent. Made the ascent profile SO MUCH EASIER.)

Edited May 3, 2016 by sharpspoonful
I CAN COUNT TO POTATO! \o/

[Sgt.Shutesie]

6 minutes ago, sharpspoonful said:

No, the wing is made up of 5 7 individual pieces per side, if you include the flaps.

I also saw someone a page or two ago suggest using RealChutes to create a drag chute for landing. Seeing as I already had it installed...

I was able to put the above orbiter into a stable orbit, raise AP and get halfway through a rendezvous style burn before running out of Monoprop. But it required 470 extra units of MP. (I also learned that you need to "lock" the control surfaces on ascent. Made the ascent profile SO MUCH EASIER.)

Wait, you have to lock the control surfaces? That explains a lot...

[sharpspoonful]

Yeah, by simply disabling the control surfaces, you reduce vectoring to just the engines. Otherwise the flaps will cause you to overcompensate the orbiters direction.

[Pak]

Could be a lot of different factors, Sharpspoonful

Sounds like you might be pushing the OMS engines too hard though. I usually drop my ET at at 20 Pe just so it gets removed by the game, but the real shuttle dropped its ET when it was almost in circular orbit. (Something like 98% of the way there)

Could be something to look at.

 

[sharpspoonful]

yeah, i might need to add more fuel to the ET. I have it 2/3rds full so I can keep a TWR of 1.45 on takeoff.

[Crash_Adam]

1 hour ago, sharpspoonful said:

Yeah, by simply disabling the control surfaces, you reduce vectoring to just the engines. Otherwise the flaps will cause you to overcompensate the orbiters direction.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to provide the craft file for your Space Shuttle? I tried replicating from the pictures but it's damn hard.

[sharpspoonful]

Sure! Would you like Just the orbiter/wings or the whole modded mess?

[Spartan-S63]

13 minutes ago, sharpspoonful said:

Sure! Would you like Just the orbiter/wings or the whole modded mess?

I'd take a craft of the whole thing. I should have all the mods installed that you use (I have a ton installed right now).

In one of your pictures on the runway, it looks like you have flaps enabled on your control surfaces. Does that mean you're using FAR?

[sharpspoonful]

No FAR, but they do slow you down. KSP does account for drag, just not in the same way FAR does.

Craft Files below:

STS, NO ET.

STS WITH the ET.

Note: apparently I used KW Struts for the ET linkage. My bad.

[StevieC]

@Pak I also think that the airlock is a bit too heavy. In their "Stockalike Station Parts" mod, Nertea has a 2.5m airlock with retractable docking-port that is bulkier than your airlock, but which weighs less. I'll add pictures to this post in a moment or two once I launch KSP again.

[sharpspoonful]

4 minutes ago, StevieC said:

@Pak I also think that the airlock is a bit too heavy. In their "Stockalike Station Parts" mod, Nertea has a 2.5m airlock with retractable docking-port that is bulkier than your airlock, but which weighs less. I'll add pictures to this post in a moment or two once I launch KSP again.

The extra weight helps keep the CoM more towards the lower-front of the craft, Which helps out a ton.

[Pak]

33 minutes ago, StevieC said:

@Pak I also think that the airlock is a bit too heavy. In their "Stockalike Station Parts" mod, Nertea has a 2.5m airlock with retractable docking-port that is bulkier than your airlock, but which weighs less. I'll add pictures to this post in a moment or two once I launch KSP again.

I know the part, that's fine.

The CA Airlock is lighter than a MK1 crew cabin and holds a battery as well. So I'm good with it, and the COM shift is a bonus.

 

I don't think there's a lot of value to comparing stats on mod parts. Most of this stuff is spit-balled anyway.

[StevieC]

so I guess I shouldn't bother holding my breath for the Cormorant airlock to gain a retractable docking-port?

[tg626]

1st visit take a structure fuselage with a port on each end, instant shuttle adaptor.  Leave it behind.

That's what they did on Mir.

[Pak]

Definitely no breath holding. I like and use all kinds of weird and futurey mods but for this pack it'll stay more on the side of realism.

 

You can make yourself a PMA for your station or plan an extended shuttle dock area

Or check out HabTech. I love what benjee10 is doing over there.

[davidy12]

19 minutes ago, Pak said:

Definitely no breath holding. I like and use all kinds of weird and futurey mods but for this pack it'll stay more on the side of realism.

 

You can make yourself a PMA for your station or plan an extended shuttle dock area

Or check out HabTech. I love what benjee10 is doing over there.

Or Tantares Docking compartment.

[cxg2827]

23 hours ago, StevieC said:

so I guess I shouldn't bother holding my breath for the Cormorant airlock to gain a retractable docking-port?

Dont know how much retracting you need, but if the Clamp-O-Tron docking port fits on Pak's shuttle bay airlock, I have a retractable docking port that might fit the bill in my mod pack:

Spoiler

 

[Goat Master]

For me, the engines don't show up in the parts list, however everything else does. This is confusing me.

[StevieC]

If I may recommend a small tweak to the ShuttleBottomLong.cfg file, change the "stackSymmetry" number from 1 to 2, that way you can fit the space-shuttle main engines in 3x radial symmetry to the attachment nodes that are arranged in a triangle at the rear and have them show in the staging-icons as a unified group of three.

[MelancholyFlapper]

I'd really like it if the bottom patches could be brought back - I'm told they were removed? I'd like one in the standard Mk3 fuselage lengths - specifically the short fuselage (the one that's larger than the monoprop fuselage but shorter than the long one). I tend to want more DV in my shuttles and therefore I add an additional fuel segment between the rear and the cargo bay.

Edit: also, as far as retractable docking ports go, the SSTU mod has a retractable docking port/airlock that fits in both its shuttle and the Mk3 cargo bay.

Edited May 5, 2016 by MelancholyFlapper