[1.12.5] Cormorant Aeronology - Mk3 Space Shuttle

[Pak]

@Cdw2468 Were you staging the parachutes at the same time maybe? The SRB-4 Return System part has a top decoupler that'll go off with the chutes

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

@damonvv Where do you find enough documentation on the shuttle missions to make so many? My usual method of googling "STS xx payload" isn't always the most effective

[Damon]

3 hours ago, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said:

@damonvv Where do you find enough documentation on the shuttle missions to make so many? My usual method of googling "STS xx payload" isn't always the most effective

I'm not. Those are my missions, I don't compare them to the original STS missions. Whenever I need a shuttle, it will get the next STS number.
Other words, yup, I flew 128* shuttle missions since 1.1.3.

*flew 2 more after that post.

Edited February 24, 2017 by damonvv

[mrh]

Could someone point me to a current craft file for this? The one on the 1st or second page is not loadable, it has parts that are not in the current release.

Thanks!

[Pak]

@mrh Not sure which file you're referring to. The only craft file I've put out is in the OP. Just checked and it works just fine. Here's the link, good luck in space.

[mrh]

Thanks Pak. I feel silly. The link I referenced was in the threads on someone's post. I didn't realize that the banner is also a link. Thanks again, I'll check this out when I get home.

Thanks,

MRH

Edited February 27, 2017 by mrh
Consisentancy

[oversoul]

Bravo my friend. I started playing with this today, and I got to orbit, deorbit, reentry, glide, and right back to runway on first shot based on your brief tips.

Here's to many more missions!

http://imgur.com/a/Lgh2l

Edited February 28, 2017 by oversoul

[Nhawks17]

Hey @Pak, I'm working on updating RealPlume-Stock and I noticed you now have patches directly in your download now. I went over them and noticed the booster pack needs a little update. Below is an updated config for it which makes the plumes look much better than before since RPS uses a new particle system! Hope this can get in a future update!

@PART[CA_boosterPack]:FOR[RealPlume]:NEEDS[SmokeScreen]
{
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
    {
        @name = ModuleEnginesFX
        %powerEffectName = Solid-Sepmotor
    }
    PLUME
    {
        name = Solid-Sepmotor
        transformName = thrustTransform
        localRotation = 0,0,0
        localPosition = 0,0,0
        fixedScale = 0.4
        energy = 0.5
        speed = 1.2
        emissionMult = 1
    }
}

 

[Pak]

@Nhawks17 Ah thanks a lot. I'll put that in my next update

[Nhawks17]

1 hour ago, Pak said:

@Nhawks17 Ah thanks a lot. I'll put that in my next update

Also I should note, RPS syntax is changing in the next update that's why the ModuleEngines portion looks different than the other configs.

[VenomousRequiem]

6 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

Hey @Pak, I'm working on updating RealPlume-Stock and I noticed you now have patches directly in your download now. I went over them and noticed the booster pack needs a little update. Below is an updated config for it which makes the plumes look much better than before since RPS uses a new particle system! Hope this can get in a future update!

I'm sorry the configs I wrote aren't good enough for you

[Nhawks17]

10 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I'm sorry the configs I wrote aren't good enough for you

Heh, the rest were, that one was just abnormaly large

[VenomousRequiem]

8 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

Heh, the rest were, that one was just abnormaly large

I seem to remember having some trouble with it... I don't remember. You're talking about the little sepratron three pack?

[Nhawks17]

38 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I seem to remember having some trouble with it... I don't remember. You're talking about the little sepratron three pack?

Yep!

[Avalon304]

Has anybody made any RealChute compatibility patches for the drag chute and the SRB chutes yet?

 

EDIT: Also have a pretty picture of one of my test flights:

 

http://imgur.com/5a3bcfw

Edited March 4, 2017 by Avalon304

[TDplay]

Awesome mod, but none of the parts hold enough monoprop.

I've never been able to build anything propelled by monoprop because nothing stores enough monoprop and monoprop engines eat though it as fast as I eat through oranges (and that's waaay too fast)! How am I supposed to use the OMS engines with a reasonable amount of monoprop available after circularisation? I'm doing a buran-style shuttle with only 3 OMS engines, a CRG-100, a Mk3 cockpit, Model B lifting body, a shuttle nosecone and an airlock inside the CRG-100 on the orbiter (all that is left when I start circularisation). No payload and it *barely* deorbits. I think a station mission would have it out of fuel and unable to deorbit.

I find ALL monoprop engines kill my monoprop stocks, the stock O-10 "puff" included, so it's not your mod that's the problem.

So, can anyone enlighten me with knowledge of how monoprop engines can be used a bit more effectively at all, as now I still find the Terrier the overall superior engine.

[smotheredrun]

Hmm... Not sure how the Buran worked on ascent, so correct me if I am wrong please, but I understand that you don't engage the OMS engines until after ET separation, correct?  So far I have found that the Shuttle version has plenty of mono to do a good number of maneuvers after circularizing.  I believe there is mono prop storage in the airlock part too.  whoops!  

I just did a build-out like you mentioned above.  There is mono prop storage within the the OMS engine mount (300), Aft Reaction Control (long Buran RCS sticks?) (100), Forward Reaction Control (350), and in the lifting body too (1400).  

That gives you 605 deltaV. My practice (using Shuttle variant and shooting for 80 km Ap) is to hang onto the ET stack as long as possible, usually until my Pe is about 30-35 km (the instructions say 20-30 km, but if I have fuel left, I'll use it   ).  This will usually mean I need something like 300 dV to circularize.  305 dv remaining should be enough to do a few maneuvers or even a small 2-4 degree plane change even.  Rendezvous with another craft is also possible.  Even with that, you should only need about 50 - 75 dv to deorbit from even 100 km. 

So, saying all of that, can you provide some further info?

-Is your stack a Buran replica (Liquid boosters x Moar - I mean 4 + 5m ET with Moar rockets on the bottom)?

-What orbital altitude are you shooting for?

-In between the circ maneuver and your deorbit, what sort of spacy type things are you up to?

 

[Daelkyr]

Buran did but use OMS to circularize. The Energia second stage carried it to a elliptical low orbit and the OMS rised and circularized after. Buran also only had two OMS engines. Pak also included a Buran tank butt with extra Monopropellant for the end of Buran style shuttles.

Just changing the launch profile to have the booster do the orbital insertion will make a huge difference in performance.

[Avalon304]

5 hours ago, TDplay said:

Awesome mod, but none of the parts hold enough monoprop.

I've never been able to build anything propelled by monoprop because nothing stores enough monoprop and monoprop engines eat though it as fast as I eat through oranges (and that's waaay too fast)! How am I supposed to use the OMS engines with a reasonable amount of monoprop available after circularisation? I'm doing a buran-style shuttle with only 3 OMS engines, a CRG-100, a Mk3 cockpit, Model B lifting body, a shuttle nosecone and an airlock inside the CRG-100 on the orbiter (all that is left when I start circularisation). No payload and it *barely* deorbits. I think a station mission would have it out of fuel and unable to deorbit.

I find ALL monoprop engines kill my monoprop stocks, the stock O-10 "puff" included, so it's not your mod that's the problem.

So, can anyone enlighten me with knowledge of how monoprop engines can be used a bit more effectively at all, as now I still find the Terrier the overall superior engine.

Buran flew a little differently from the US Shuttle. The Energia lifter had 4 LFBs and an additional 4 engines on the main tank itself. The shuttle was only equipped with its 2 main OMS engines. Energia carried it to its insertion point and then Buran used the OMS to insert. If youre using the OMS during ascent, you shouldnt be. That would be taken care of by the lifter. OMS are only used for insertion and on orbit maneuvers as well as deorbiting.

 

If you have a lifter set up like Energia, and the orbiter set up to mimic Buran then the ascent profile in the OP should be similar, just with the main engines on tank and not the orbiter.

[Frednoeyes]

Hey, Pak. I noticed something funny about the Refurbished Aft RCS while building a Buran-alike.

I'm assuming this is texturing flub, noticed it a while ago and thought I'd bring it to your attention.

[Moiety]

On 1/2/2017 at 8:01 PM, damonvv said:

I just can't stop using the shuttle, even tho I can do it much cheaper!

http://imgur.com/gallery/Prjfd

Love it.

At what altitude is your station? If its below 250 KM you might want to put it a little higher. KSP switches to a different render mode at a certain altitude (which escapes me now, but it’s below 250 ). That could help with your FPS.

[Avalon304]

If anyone is interested, Ive made a RealChute compatability patch for the 2 CA chutes. Ive only done some minor testing to make sure the chutes deploy and function, and they do, so I thought Id put them here for others if they want it:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9kHaQ6-c9GxSGJld0huVlNfdzA

[Damon]

11 hours ago, Moiety said:

At what altitude is your station? If its below 250 KM you might want to put it a little higher. KSP switches to a different render mode at a certain altitude (which escapes me now, but it’s below 250 ). That could help with your FPS.

My station is just above 150km. I don't like having my station around 250km, then Kerbin feels so small. But I think I'll try it out, tho I have to find a way to boost it up 100km without using "cheats"

[Moiety]

20 minutes ago, damonvv said:

My station is just above 150km. I don't like having my station around 250km, then Kerbin feels so small. But I think I'll try it out, tho I have to find a way to boost it up 100km without using "cheats"

Oh, I just found that the altitude required for the different render mode is actually 160 KM, that would certainly make it a more manageable undertaking.

Something else to think about is part count, from the Wiki:

Quote

This lag problem exists because each part in a ship has its own physics attached to it. Normally this isn't problem, but when there are hundreds of parts it becomes really annoying.

Let’s say your trusses are all made of a bunch of the small octagonal truss, then it might be better to replace them with a mod that has the same shape but is a lot longer. That way you reduce the amount of parts considerably. This is just an example of course.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Moiety

[Damon]

12 minutes ago, Moiety said:

Oh, I just found that the altitude required for the different render mode is actually 160 KM, that would certainly make it a more manageable undertaking.

Something else to think about is part count, from the Wiki:

Let’s say your trusses are all made of a bunch of the small octagonal struts, then it might be better to replace them with a mod that has the same shape but is a lot longer. That way you reduce the amount of parts considerably. This is just an example of course.

After that mission with the use of KAS I removed most of the docking ports, which got me 10 fps back. I don't think I can lower the part count on the trusses, those are 4 parts each (incl. 2 solar panels). I have 20fps average without the shuttle. But the project is mostly done so I think I'll leave it for what it is. Thanks anyway for the information. Will definitely keep it in mind for the near future!

Edited March 7, 2017 by damonvv