The Official Realism Overhaul Craft Repository.

[Matuchkin]

20 hours ago, Nerfclasher said:

someone should upload a craft file

Indeed. When RO gets updated.

[DrLicor]

Today I started with a new series of crafts, the voyager family. I started with the voyager 1A

This is a 4 staged version of the rocket which contains the 3 staged launcher and a final stage for maneuvering and deorbiting. It is designed to get a MK-1 cockpit to a circular polar orbit of 7000km.
I had a sat which didn't like to transmit a big amount of science, and I felt more to launch and get it with a scientist than for restarting the game etc, the bugfinding thing..

The first stage has 5 RD-253 (11D43) engines, it uses UDMH and NTO, it has a total thrust of 8.175Kn and burns for 2 minutes and 30,1 seconds.
The second stage has 2 RD-0210 engines, it also uses UDMH and NTO, it has a total thrust of 1.185,65Kn and burns for 4 minutes and 6,8 seconds. When launched right, the first 2 stages can bring the remaining 21 ton into a LEO.
The third stage is used for reaching its desired apoapsis and because it has 6 ignitions, it can finish the orbit.
The fourth stage has 12 1Kn engines providing a total thrust of 21,4Kn that can burn for 9 minutes and 29,3 seconds. This stage can be used to rendezvous with the target and deorbit the command module.   

Spoiler

 

[Matuchkin]

14 hours ago, DrLicor said:

*snip*

Looks smooth. Why do you need to put the craft in such a high orbit?

[DrLicor]

@Matuchkin, the sat was in a orbit of 6500 x 6500 km... And I needed to get a scientist there..,  to get the science haha. Not the most efficient mission but it was something else than the normal missions. And is was also a training for me to rendezvous 2 vessels with low tech parts

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by DrLicor

[Karol van Kermin]

Hey guys, I'm sorry for being very inactive recently. Currently busy with school and my PCI-E Slot broke, so I have to buy a new motherboard and I'm also going to buy a new graphics card, which will provide you better images of my spacecraft . I'll start playing KSP soon. And also make sure this thread doesnt die!

[winged]

New workhorses of my space program:

 

Ares I

Gross mass: 915 000 kg

LEO Payload:  28 000 kg

RP-0 cost:  206 mln (in 2016 USD)

 

 

 

 

 

Ares V

Gross mass: 3 080 000 kg

LEO Payload: 140 000 kg

RP-0 cost: 930 mln (in 2016 USD)

 

 

 

 

 

SLS with Dark Knight boosters and J-2X upper stage

Gross mass: 2 870 000 kg

LEO Payload: 127 000 kg

RP-0 cost: 918 mln (in 2016 USD)

 

[Phineas Freak]

@winged Out of curiosity, what was the max G-Force on the Ares I? I got at least 5+ G the last time i replicated one and that cannot be correct (crew launchers must be limited below 4 G).

[winged]

I'm not usually posting planes here but i think this one is totally worth it:

 

 

More here:

 

 

9 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@winged Out of curiosity, what was the max G-Force on the Ares I? I got at least 5+ G the last time i replicated one and that cannot be correct (crew launchers must be limited below 4 G).

3,25 G for I stage and 3 G for J-2X at maximum throttle. My thrust curve for the SRB is from Macollo's SLS mod.

[DrLicor]

@winged, looks amazingly smooth. Custom configs for the ALG I assume?

[winged]

3 hours ago, DrLicor said:

Custom configs for the ALG I assume?

No, just 1.0.5 installation for planes.

[winged]

Delta II 7925H

Gross mass: 288 000 kg

LEO Payload: 7 200 kg

RP-0 cost: 83mln (in 2016 USD)

 

[winged]

It seems like I'm the only one person who is posting here. Anyway today I've finished my R7 family built with Procedural Parts:

 

R7 Semyorka

 

Molniya 8K78

 

Soyuz FG

[Ravenchant]

Ooh, a thread I can contribute to  @winged, I'm going to copy your posting style if you don't mind. The rockets are great btw!

Here's a link to a Dropbox folder with the couple of crafts I feel are good enough to share. I only have pictures for a couple of them right now though, so I'll "present" the rest later.

 

Rhea A+

So, this one is a workhorse. 3.35m wide core with 4 LR89-NA-5 engines on stage 1 and a matching fixed LR-105 with 4 LR-101 verniers for attitude control on stage 2. 3m wide payload fairing when flying cargo. Hot-staging.

Payload: roughly 4 000 kg to LEO -or- advanced Gemini for station mission, as pictured below.

GLOW: 222.8 t

Cost: varies, but 60 million in 2017 $ for cargo version.

 

Rhea B

A 1.8m diameter restartable upper stage with an AJ10-118E engine on top of the Rhea A+ stack for GTO and lunar/interplanetary missions. It does look a bit weird though, and the fairing space is very limited.

Payload: ~1 000 kg to GTO or ~600 kg to TLI

GLOW: ~225 t

Cost: 65.4 million in 2017 $

Here's the upper stage in action

 

 

Iapetos 1A10/1A00

4.57m core diameter, 4m fairing, 2 UA-1204 solid motors serve as its first stage. The two LR87-H2 vacuum engines ignite about 15 seconds before burnout. Version 1A00 has no upper stage and can place...well, I never tested, but I'd guess 7 or 8 tons in LEO. 1A10 has a hypergolic upper stage with 2 XLR-81 engines as used on Agena B. The thingy could be built around 1965. Probably. It also has some issues with low core TWR, but not that bad. The version on Dropbox has a long fairing for station lifting, I used a shorter one for lunar probes.

Payload (1A10): ~10 000 kg (LEO), ~3 000 kg (GTO), ~2 600 kg (TLI)

GLOW: varies, 526 to 536 t (1A10) 

Cost: varies, 248 million in 2017 $ for 1A10. These solid boosters are suspiciously expensive.

Upper stage in action

 

G-8 "Grom"

So, this one launches from Yasny in Russia. 8 NK-9 engines propel the first stage and are arranged in a flared base around the 3.6m diameter tank to avoid sticking out at the edges. Stage 2 uses a NK-9V engine along with a LR-101 for roll control and, like the Rhea rockets, uses hot separation. The fairing is 3m in diameter and can contain a 11D33-powered third stage for GTO missions and beyond.

Payload: ~5 500 kg to LEO (2-stage), >1 000 kg to TLI (3-stage)

GLOW: ~211 t

Cost (2-stage/3-stage): 58/65 million in 2017 USD

Test of 3-stage version with engineering payload:

 

[winged]

Delta Cryogenic Second Stage made of Procedural Parts and Fairings:

 

Separation from Comon Booster Core:

 

Delta IV Heavy:

Gross mass: 740 000 kg

LEO Payload: 29 000 kg

RP-0 cost: 390mln (in 2016 USD)

23 hours ago, Ravenchant said:

These solid boosters are suspiciously expensive.

I have the same feeling and I'm going to create later a couple of PRs on Github to sanify their prices.

[Ravenchant]

3 hours ago, winged said:

I have the same feeling and I'm going to create later a couple of PRs on Github to sanify their prices.

I'm fairly certain the issue is due to the way part costs are applied: in the RP-0 tech tree, there's no issue (except for the ridiculously expensive Castor 120), but those prices are for the case + propellant. In the game, when you place a part, you pay the RP-0 cost for the empty part plus the propellant cost, and HPTB & co. aren't exactly cheap (I just checked the UA-1204: from 4600 to 7500-something funds).

[winged]

Today I've finished "Rockets of the World" project  - collection of ~50 launch vehicles from real life or alternative history. There are still a couple of interesting rockets which I haven't done so far but I think that collection is large enough to share it with other people. Project started in December 2014 when I've built my first RSS launcher - Saturn IB. All of the vehicles are updated to latest RSS/RO version :

 

Here is link to the album with entire collection:

http://imgur.com/a/ZIf1j

[Nittany Tiger]

On 2/9/2017 at 0:18 PM, winged said:

It seems like I'm the only one person who is posting here. 

I was going to post my own stuff, though my main build right now is something you posted already.  Identical stats, just different looks.

Note: Thrust stats are for a single engine.

Saturn VB (Saturn MLV-V-4(S)) (Stats include Ares Mission Module (AMM) and Apollo CSM, exclude MEM):

• Boosters:
  • UA-1564 x4
  • Fuel: PBAN
  • Burn Time: 101 s
  • Thrust: 19430.21 kN (Sea Level) -  21471.198 kN (Vac)
  • ISP: 238 s (Sea Level) - 263 s (Vac)
• First Stage (MS-IC):
  • F-1A x 5
  • Fuel: RP-1 x LO2
  • Burn Time: 2 m 21 s (at continuous 100% throttle)
  • Thrust: 8003.845 kN (Sea Level) - 9189.599 kN (Vac)
  • Throttle Range: 60% - 100%
  • ISP: 270 s (Sea Level) - 301 s (Vac)
• Second Stage (MS-II):
  • J-2S x 5
  • Fuel: LH2 x LO2
  • Burn Time: 6 m 14 s (actual burn time shorter)
  • Thrust: 522.248 kN (Sea Level) - 1138.5 kN (Vac)
  • Throttle Range: 76% - 100%
  • ISP: 200 s (Sea Level) - 436 s (Vac)
• Orbital Maneuvering Module (OMM):
  • AJ10-137
  • Fuel: Aerozine50 x NTO
  • Burn Time: 2 m 41 s
  • Thrust: 97.86 kN
  • ISP: 314s
• Service Propulsion System:
  • Identical engine and fuel to OMM.
  • Burn Time: 10 m 4 s
• AMM RCS:
  • 2 kN 3-port RCS Thruster Blocks x8 + 890 N RCS Thruster Blocks x 16
  • Fuel: MMH x NTO
  • ISP: 280.84 s (2 kN 3-port RCS), 187.2 s (890 N RCS)

Parts for the Saturn VB all come from @frizzank's FASA mod with ullage motors from the Real Scale Boosters mod and possibly stock.  Added throttling capability to F-1As for Max Q.  The F-1As in the novel did throttle, so this is canon.  The SRBs also have a modified thrust curve where it throttles back to 60% thrust for Max Q.  Both of these throttling measures are necessary to keep dynamic pressure under 40 kPa during ascent.  FAR won't blow the craft up if it goes over 40 kPa, as I've had the Saturn VB endure 60 kPa on ascent and not fail, but I want to keep things real concerning vehicle stresses on ascent.  I also shut down the center F-1A 25 seconds before MS-IC burnout to keep g-forces manageable, though they do reach 4 Gs before SRB tail-off and about 4.2 - 4.3 Gs before MS-IC burnout even with the center engine cutout.  I'll likely throttle the F-1As back before burnout to keep g-forces below 4Gs.  Again, this is an option measure, but one that adheres to realism.  MS-II stage has vents provided by Smart Parts that activate when the MS-II is jettisoned after orbital insertion to vent the remaining hydrolox fuel and lower the orbit of the MS-II stage.

OMM is a SPS engine and procedural tank.  AMM is procedural parts plus solar panels and IVA from @raidernick's Skylab mod.  Radiators are stock and purely for decoration.  Venus probe is actually the Huygens probe from @raidernick's US Probe's pack plus procedural parts.  Comms dish is the Pioneer 10/11 dish from Remote Tech and moves out thanks to an Infernal Robotics Hinge. Also contains a large reaction wheel hidden in the top of the AMM.  This isn't really breaking canon from Voyage I don't feel because the real Skylab had reaction wheels (I think they were CMGs).  The reaction wheels are better for roll authority and minor attitude control than anything else. 

CSM and LES is from FASA.  Docking ports are stock.  Uses @linuxgurugamer's Vapor Vent mod for launchpad effects.

Ares Propulsion Module: 

• First Stage (MS-II):
  • Main Propulsion:
    • J-2S x 4
    • Fuel: LH2 x LO2
    • Burn Time: 21 m 47 s
    • Thrust: 1138.5 kN
    • ISP: 436 s
  • Secondary Propulsion:
    • Lunar Module Descent Engine x 2
    • Fuel: Aerozine50 x NTO
    • Burn Time: 9 m 27 s (might be inaccurate)
    • Thrust: 43.9 kN
    • ISP: 311 s
  • Primary Ullage (J-2S Ignition):
    • S-II Ullage Motor x 24 (Fire eight at a time)
    • Fuel: HTPB
    • Burn Time: 6 s
    • Thrust: 102 kN
    • ISP: 257 s
  • Secondary Ullage (LMDE Ignition):
    • Generic Separation Motor x6 (Stock motor, real counterpart unknown)
    • Fuel: PSPC
    • Burn Time: 6 s ?
    • Thrust: 98 kN
    • ISP: 250 s
  • RCS:
    • 2 kN 3-port RCS Thruster Blocks x 2 + 890 N RCS Thruster Blocks x 4
    • Fuel: MMH + NTO (from AMM)
    • ISP: 280.84 s (2 kN 3-port RCS), 187.2 s (890 N RCS)
• Second Stage (MS-IVB):
  • Primary Propulsion:
    • J-2S x 1
    • Fuel: LH2 x LO2
    • Burn Time: 7 m 8 s
    • Thrust: 1138.5 kN
    • ISP: 436 s
  • Secondary Propulsion + Ullage:
    • Auxillary Propulsion System
    • Fuel: MMH x NTO
    • Burn Time: 19 m 44 s
    • Thrust: 320 N
    • ISP: 280 s
  • RCS
    • Auxillary Propulsion System
    • Fuel: MMH x NTO
    • ISP: 280 s

Core of the MS-II and MS-IVB created using FASA parts.  Tank types were changed from "Default" to "Cryogenic" to mitigate LH2 boil-off, and boil-off rate was tested  Fueling port is a procedural part and a large docking port.  External tanks are procedural tanks.  Ullage motors are from Real Scale Boosters, stock, and FASA.  LMDE fuel tanks are procedural with stock caps.  ET caps are from RSB and procedural fairings.  MS-II/MS-IVB interstage is RSB as well.  Solar Panels are from the Skylab mod.

The MS-II J-2Ss have three ignitions, and ullage for each ignition is provided by eight sets of ullage motors.  The first ignition will be used for trans-Venusian Injection, the second Mars Insertion Orbit , and the final for part of the Trans-Earth Injection. I used S-II ullage motors, though these are actually more than needed to settle the propellants for MS-II ignition.  The smaller ullage motors for the LMDE course correction motors will do the job as well, but I'm trying to make the APM as close to the novel as I can.  It mentions eight ullage motors at the base of the MS-II for one of the MS-II ignitions, so I put three sets of eight for each ignition.  The LMDEs also have three ignitions and thus three sets of two standard ullage motors of their own.

The MS-IVB's J2-Ss also has three ignitions, but I don't see but two being used: one for the Trans-Earth Injection, and the second for the Earth Orbital Insertion.  Course corrections are currently provided by the APM, but the APM is quite weak.  It has trouble settling propellants for MS-IVB ignition, so I may exchange the APM for something stronger.  MS-IVB contains a reaction wheel just like the AMM.

This is pretty close to what @Chris P. Bacon created for his video, and mine was created from looking at his APM from his video and adding parts he omitted while trying to get it closer to what it might have been in the novel.  I am concerned about the ET caps adding dead weight to the Ares craft, and those may be removed if needed.

Overall, I haven't worked on the Ares Propulsion Module near as much as I have the Saturn VB and Ares Mission Module, and that's because the propulsion module hasn't needed as much work I feel as the mission module.  The APM may be tweaked as I fly the Ares mission to make sure it can handle the entire mission without cheats.

Mars Excursion Module:

• De-orbit Stage:
  • Solid Rocket Motor (unknown real-life equivalent)
  • Fuel: Solid Fuel (generic)
  • Burn Time: 20 s
  • Thrust: 204 kN
  • ISP: 325 s (this seems high for a solid motor)
• Descent Stage:
  • Toroidal Aerospike Descent Engine (unknown real-life equivalent)
  • Fuel: Liquid Methane x FLOX88
  • Burn Time: 2 m 41 s (max throttle and max fuel use)
  • Thrust: 568.783 kN (Sea Level) - 621.448 kN (Vac)
  • Throttle Range: 4% - 100%
  • ISP: 345.6 (Sea Level) - 377.6 (Vac)
• Ascent Stage:
  • Toroidal Aerospike Ascent Engine (unknown real-life equivalent)
  • Fuel: Liquid Methane x FLOX88
  • Burn Time: 5 m 45 s (max throttle and max fuel use)
  • Thrust: 121.456 kN (Sea Level) - 132.8 kN (Vac)
  • Throttle Range: 4% - 100%
  • ISP: 345.6 s (Sea Level) - 377.6 s (Vac)
• Reaction Control System:
  • MEM Base and MEM Ascent Vehicle (unknown real-life equivalents)
  • Fuel: CIF5 x Hydrazine
  • ISP: 260s (Sea Level) - 336s (Vac)

The MEM is all thanks to @TiktaalikDreaming's North American Rockwell Mars Excursion Module mod.  The MEM in the novel is somewhat different, but I went with Tik's mod since it saved a lot of time figuring out how to make a functional lander.  I probably could make a lander like Challenger, but this is good for now and I don't want to throw Tik's hard work away.

Tik did a lot work improving his mod so that it would work in Realism Overhaul.  He also included an airbrake system, which could be attributed to an idea I had to slow the MEM and which isn't canon to the novel, but it's kind-of necessary since the MEM won't land without it unless you like crash landings.  The real MEM proposed used ballutes and chutes to slow down before descent engine ignition, but the MEM in the novel didn't use these features.  I included a small rover that folds out on Infernal Robotics hinges and pistons, and unfolds out.

Might add another couple of solid descent motors depending of if I need them or not.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Nittany Tiger

[Firemetal]

Sad that I got to the end of this thread.  So many good rockets here... Hopefully I will be adding to them soon!  

Fire

[Nittany Tiger]

I forgot to mention in my large post that with my Saturn VB, I never stretched my MS-IC stage.  One, I forgot that the real-life Saturn MLV-V-4(S) had stretched stages.  I think F-1A throttling negates the need for the stretching though, as the stage + SRBs get me plenty of thrust on launch, and the rocket itself has more than enough delta V to loft the payload to orbit.

My MS-II is stretched, but not to hold more fuel.  It just has a modified forward skirt to house the OMM and bottom of the MEM housing.

My Saturn VB will loft an empty MS-II stage into orbit just fine, so I think it doesn't need stage stretching.

Also, I made a variant of the Saturn VB with J-2T aerospikes in place of the J-2S engines.  This was created to show the guys at the NASA Spaceflight.com forum a Saturn MLV-V-4(S)-B.  It makes orbit just fine.

[Epox75]

Hello Everyone! Here's my launcher for a Mars Lander, payload 1686 kg 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Epox75]

Some landing footage! Everything went smooth until the parachutes cut. Basically I forgot to apply the cut settings to both parachutes so one did cut at 50 mt as I wanted, the other one did not cut at all. So I found myself with a totally unbalanced probe with engines on at 50mt from the ground. Very luckily the attached parachute and the engines on didn't flip the probe and the touchdown was slow enough. 

Spoiler

 

 

[quasarrgames]

Just started playing with Realism Overhaul. I'm not going to play to create replica rockets, i'm going to play to explore space the way i see fit, but with every accomplishment just that bit more satisfying. 

Got to orbit today. Used a J2 second stage (wow it has kick!) a nuclear orbital engine, and an x1 cockpit. It was very fun. look forward to more.

...also, if it's okay to ask here, how do i use procedural fairings? I want to be able to click and place them like in stock, but im not sure how in RO. using the procedural tank interface to make fairings isn't exactly intuitive.

...also, could someone please quickly explain ullage to me? I've been operating with my fuel tanks at 95% full just because, but i'd like to know any advantages leaving more of the tank empty might bring.

[Nittany Tiger]

14 hours ago, quasarrgames said:

...also, if it's okay to ask here, how do i use procedural fairings? I want to be able to click and place them like in stock, but im not sure how in RO. using the procedural tank interface to make fairings isn't exactly intuitive.

  You really can't use Procedural Fairing to build fairings in the same way as the stock game, and I think it always tries to create bulged fairings automatically based on whats inside.  You can turn off auto-shape and mess with different dimension parameters, but I don't know if you can get the same amount of shape flexibility as with the stock game's fairing creation tool.  On the upside, Procedural Fairings gives you a lot of texture options.  It was perfect for making parts of my Saturn VB.

14 hours ago, quasarrgames said:

...also, could someone please quickly explain ullage to me? I've been operating with my fuel tanks at 95% full just because, but i'd like to know any advantages leaving more of the tank empty might bring.

  I don't think the game cares if a tank is full or empty when simulating fuel distribution in RO.  Simply put, no matter how full your tanks are, if you're in a zero-g or negative-g situation, you'll get a less-than-stable propellant situation and your engines won't fire.  You'll have to use ullage motors to settle your tank propellants so that you can get fuel to them.  Leaving your tanks with less fuel just means less mass to carry around, but in my opinion, if you're going to launch with less mass, you might as well shrink your tank sizes so you're not carrying around more mass that's doing nothing useful.  There's no in-game advantage to carrying around more empty space, and likewise there's no advantage in real rocket science to carrying around more empty space.

  In real life, liquid fuels float around in tanks without some sort of acceleration present, while engines are connected to the tanks through piping that opens at one side of the tank (usually the "bottom", or the end of the tank closest to the rocket).  This means that to get fuel to the engines, you have to get the fuel through the pipes.  On the ground, gravity provides the means to accelerate the fuel through the pipes to the turbopumps and such.  In space, the acceleration has to come from other means.  Usually, this is accomplished through using ullage motors, which are motors that give the rocket a gentle nudge forward just enough for liquid propellants to be pushed towards one end of the fuel tanks, preferably the end where the piping is connected. In KSP, you can do this with SRBs, RCS, rotating the craft (inducing centrifugal acceleration), or using engines that don't require propellant settling.

  It's best to think of any situation where your liquid fuel might lurch forward due to inertia or float around so you know when you need to use ullage.  For example, if you're staging during an ascent, your rocket will lose acceleration and stop, but your fuels will keep flying forward into the front of the tanks.  This means that you have to think about a way to keep the fuel in your next stage collected at the rear so that when you ignite your engines, you don't end up with a lack of fuel.  In real life, rocket engineers either used ullage engines, or they ignited the next stage while the previous stage was still firing, which is known as hot staging.  You can do this in KSP as well.

In conclusion, when it comes to ullage and propellant settling, remember you're playing Realism Overhaul, so think about what happens to liquid fuel in tanks in reality because RO tries to simulate this behavior as close to reality as possible.

[Phineas Freak]

On 2/17/2017 at 3:48 AM, quasarrgames said:

how do i use procedural fairings?

Just place them on the designated points of the payload/interstage adapter. Right-click the adapter and disable the auto-shape option for custom-shaped fairing forms. With a bit of work you will get every fairing shape and size that was ever used in a launch vehicle.

Alternate PF packs also help a lot. Procedural Fairings For Everything is highly recommended, especially for RO.

On 2/17/2017 at 3:48 AM, quasarrgames said:

ullage

Depending on the definition, ullage can be:

• The empty space in a fully-filled propellant tank. You cannot fill a tank and expect it to have a 100% utilization (the Centaur upper stage comes close with ~92%, the ACES upper stage will have ~95%). It is also required for cryogenic fuels, since they turn from liquid into gas (and gas requires a larger volume to expand without ruptuting the tanks).
• The condition of the propellants while in microgravity. Liquids tend to form spheres in microgravity and this means the propellants will be away from the engine inlets. @Nittany Tiger explains it in depth.

The utilization for the procedural parts is there as a way to adjust the propellant mass ratio to make it possible to create replicas. It depends on the tank type (default, cryogenic, service module, balloon, all theoretically have different utilization factors) and on the application (main propellant tanks, life support storage, ACS propellant tanks etc). The default value of 86% is a nice average value between all these. 95% puts it in the same category as a balloon-type stage (Atlas-Centaur), a bit unrealistic for your every-day launcher.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Phineas Freak
Typos

[Nittany Tiger]

I did not know there was another definition of ullage.  I always knew of ullage having to do with propellant settling, which I referred from ullage motors being for propellant settling.  I learn something new every day.