So, has anyone built a replica of the Space Shuttle using the Vector?

[More Boosters]

I gave it a shot and I ran into the problem of Kerolox being much heavier than LH2/LOX, resulting in the ET shifting the center of mass much further. The vectors, for all their gimballing, also can't compensate for that without being rotated with the rotate tool. And the SRBs caused all sorts of trouble, eventually sending my shuttle into a flat spin. The thing is certainly more complicated than it looks and I'd like to know how it's done.

[Stoney3K]

I gave it a shot and I ran into the problem of Kerolox being much heavier than LH2/LOX, resulting in the ET shifting the center of mass much further. The vectors, for all their gimballing, also can't compensate for that without being rotated with the rotate tool. And the SRBs caused all sorts of trouble, eventually sending my shuttle into a flat spin. The thing is certainly more complicated than it looks and I'd like to know how it's done.

For the obvious record, the main engines are *supposed* to be angled inward pointing at the 50% wet CoM. That's how they are in the real shuttle as well.

The engines can only gimbal to compensate for the CoM shift as the external tank drains. They're useless after the ET is jettisoned.

[More Boosters]

Well, anyone? A video or pictures would be nice.

[KarateF22]

I did. I angle all the vectors 10 degrees upwards (towards the external tank), which seems to be enough if you have a couple kickbacks attached to the external tank early on. Like the real shuttle ascending top down (cockpit facing Kerbin) seems to be the way to go.

[ill1176]

yes the first thing that I did. Just working on the descent profile so its nose does not burn up...

I would put up a picture if I knew how to... logging 1000 plus hours in the game and don't know how to put pictures on the games forum. lol:sticktongue:

Edited November 11, 2015 by ill1176
adding on

[NoMrBond]

Well, anyone? A video or pictures would be nice.

EJ has a significant shuttle streak in his streaming

[zekes]

Any shuttle will fly with enough SAS and RCS, trust me.

[War Eagle 1]

I tired….I failed.

Granted i just threw it together just to see if it would

Ive been to busy finding ways to airdrop jeeps via cargo ramp.

I may have found the answer but want to run a few more test

[KerikBalm]

Well, I made a shuttle without the vector...

(ok, this one was a slightly different version, the mk3)

And the new baseplate has 3 nodes for engines... and is pre-angled... and 3 vectors have more thrust than 1x KR-2L... so.... I don't think it should be too hard to make a new Shuttle design with them.

Should be easier now, and more capable since one can get in more thrust on the orbiter.

[ZooNamedGames]

Well, anyone? A video or pictures would be nice.

I can provide a tutorial. But I'm more over the shoulder. If you can stream or something I'll watch and critique.

- - - Updated - - -

Any shuttle will fly with enough SAS and RCS, trust me.

Zekes, don't even MENTION your shuttle. Moreover, your right, but not always.

[rodion_herrera]

Yes. Some issues on ascent, but nothing that a good manual flying can't handle. Landings are also okay.

[ZooNamedGames]

Also, another comment. Please clarify your definition of a space shuttle. Since I have a fantastically working Saturn Shuttle replica. Works fine.

[MK3424]

Yes. Some issues on ascent, but nothing that a good manual flying can't handle. Landings are also okay.

http://i.imgur.com/mKIITRX.png

http://i.imgur.com/huNmHRV.png

http://i.imgur.com/N6Aj28O.png

http://i.imgur.com/HgDLPNo.png

http://i.imgur.com/KvZOp4B.png

http://i.imgur.com/u0gtfAr.png

http://i.imgur.com/xHwTawG.png

http://i.imgur.com/oe37YrN.png

http://i.imgur.com/A4hIXuz.png

http://i.imgur.com/2ZRHSlD.png

http://i.imgur.com/j3PgfTu.png

Did you know that there is a structural part made just for space shuttles?.. (images are from the 1.0.5 dev pics):

[ZooNamedGames]

Did you know that there is a structural part made just for space shuttles?.. (images are from the 1.0.5 dev pics):

http://i.imgur.com/catStb5.jpg

I was aware and in my 30s shuttle build I used it.

I have a compliant which may be listed as a bug- I put a vector on the top node and tried to put two on the bottom nodes in mirror- BUT it refused to attach. No idea why. Even though both parts were green it still wouldn't attach. I need it in mirror so I can angle them both equally. Since if I attach all three in radial mode, angling them just makes them point away from the center, and not just away. Grr.

[Geher]

Did you know that there is a structural part made just for space shuttles?.. (images are from the 1.0.5 dev pics):

http://i.imgur.com/catStb5.jpg

Thanks for that advice, man! I will definitely try that out.

Now, if only the NCS-Adapter would contain monoprop ....

[rodion_herrera]

Did you know that there is a structural part made just for space shuttles?.. (images are from the 1.0.5 dev pics):

http://i.imgur.com/catStb5.jpg

Well I'll be damned. Thanks!

[4 IN 1]

I just created one that can launch a 35t payload into 100k orbit, the KS-25 vector is awesom! Now, if only I can figure out the optimum re-entry profile...........

[panzer1b]

I dont really do replicas (unless they are sci-fi, and even those arent replicas but borrow particular elements from movies and other games), but i have made a shuttle that is going to be deployed by a small faction on kerbin as a makeshift warship. Shuttles just arent very good at anything though, they are not practical, hard to pilot, inefficient, and have no armor whatsoever, making them very easy to vaporize with a salvo of railguns (ibeam+sepatrons).

But yeah, i do have something that resembles a kinda minimalistic shuttle, as in cockpit, cargo bay, LFO tank, that tricoupler thing for mk3, and 3 of the new engines. That said, that tricoupler ive found much better useage for, namely extremely cool looking triple engine clusters on capital ships. Currently using them to try and make a galactica inspired assault carrier (along with them new MK3 ramps as hangar doors for the fighters.

[Col_Jessep]

Yes, first try actually. The new vectoring engines are dope, I didn't even have to balance it much:

There is enough juice left for some docking and maneuvers - or for a quick trip to Duna or Eve if I use the fuel I guess.

[GoSlash27]

My first shuttle replica for 1.05: The Shuttle Kolumbia. I went for "accurate" over "easy".

The Vector SSME's added gimbal range is definitely more of a liability than an advantage. Too much yaw with roll and vice- versa. It still has to be balanced nearly perfectly before it will act right.

Best,

-Slashy

[Stoney3K]

The Vector SSME's added gimbal range is definitely more of a liability than an advantage. Too much yaw with roll and vice- versa. It still has to be balanced nearly perfectly before it will act right.

Best,

-Slashy

Agreed, we need a limit on the gimbal authority *per axis*, so you can have a massive amount of pitch control in the engine gimbals, but only a tiny bit on pitch or yaw. Making a decent 90 degree roll so the orbiter ends up on its back on the proper heading is now almost impossible.

Also, the scale of the Kickbacks and the orange tank is quite off with the amount of power the Vectors have. Using three vectors, you can launch *without* SRBs and still have plenty of TWR to get off the pad.

I would say, nerf the Vectors and give us a pair of SRBs that are larger than the Kickbacks. I'd be happy to use the standard 3,75m tanks as external tanks if the SRBs are powerful enough to carry them. And while we're on the subject, modify the Thud so it eats Monopropellant and becomes a decent OMS.

Right now you can't make a shuttle replica that is 100% visually accurate (with two SRBs and an ET that is larger than the orbiter).

[GoSlash27]

Agreed, we need a limit on the gimbal authority *per axis*, so you can have a massive amount of pitch control in the engine gimbals, but only a tiny bit on pitch or yaw. Making a decent 90 degree roll so the orbiter ends up on its back on the proper heading is now almost impossible.

Also, the scale of the Kickbacks and the orange tank is quite off with the amount of power the Vectors have. Using three vectors, you can launch *without* SRBs and still have plenty of TWR to get off the pad.

I would say, nerf the Vectors and give us a pair of SRBs that are larger than the Kickbacks. I'd be happy to use the standard 3,75m tanks as external tanks if the SRBs are powerful enough to carry them. And while we're on the subject, modify the Thud so it eats Monopropellant and becomes a decent OMS.

Right now you can't make a shuttle replica that is 100% visually accurate (with two SRBs and an ET that is larger than the orbiter).

Stoney3k,

Yeah, I agree with all of this. It's a shame we have such awesome shuttle parts, but we don't have a proper SRB to go along with them. I can understand the tank issue, though. You just plain don't need that big a tank to orbit a shuttle from Kerbin unless you're using just 1 pair of Kickbacks like I am.

We definitely need to be able to tailor the gimbal response of our LF&O engines differently for each axis.

Best,

-Slashy

[More Boosters]

Stoney3k,

Yeah, I agree with all of this. It's a shame we have such awesome shuttle parts, but we don't have a proper SRB to go along with them. I can understand the tank issue, though. You just plain don't need that big a tank to orbit a shuttle from Kerbin unless you're using just 1 pair of Kickbacks like I am.

We definitely need to be able to tailor the gimbal response of our LF&O engines differently for each axis.

Best,

-Slashy

Well the ET does scale linearly with the payload so just lift more? I guess volume is still an issue.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Tried most, not to say all, of the stock vab space shuttle here, made it to orbit pretty easily, (what re-entry ? you don't want to know hehe) they are all very interesting with some design variations to get inspired with (seriously ? shh shh don't try them xDr).

[Vanamonde]

As this is a craft-sharing thread, it has been moved to the Exchange subforum.