[WIP][1.3] Modular Pod Extensions

[TiktaalikDreaming]

2 hours ago, lodestar said:

 

Well... this is what I'm talking about:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#plugnozzle

Or this:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#rombus

And the bottom left engine here is the one from RLA-SA I mentioned. Obviously, the nozzles are much larger on this one, but it's the same idea.

 

 

Ah.  The link to the Rombus makes it clear.  The base of the truncated aerospike being the heatshield.  I was envisioning a heatshield with a gap for a truncated aerospike, ala NAR MEM.

I found the RLA stockalike, and for the record, that's a standard, non-heatshieldy aerospike.  If you try using it for re-entry shielding you may explode.  It's also a bit simplified compared to how I tend to make aerospikes, but also more kerbally than my prior versions.

More like...

 

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by TiktaalikDreaming

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Well, it's now even textured. 

I'm running through some config tweaks (fixing the masses, making a mono only service module, changing descriptions etc) and then I'll upload the current progress.

[lodestar]

3 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Well, it's now even textured. 

I'm running through some config tweaks (fixing the masses, making a mono only service module, changing descriptions etc) and then I'll upload the current progress.

That's really nice. You just made my day. I've wanted something like that for a while.

[Problemless Mods Wanter]

Is there change log around the internet?

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Working on a revision of the Cargo/ServiceBay part.  I had to redo the doors to get them unwrapped early on, and as I didn't like the angled fold out arrangement, I switched to hinging at the top, and split the doors into more parts.

But, the base's collider isn't functioning except in the VAB.  It behaves like just the top of the part plus a bunch of folding legs, with the base being ignored by the ground.  It's definitely Convex, and I even added a rigidbody to it to see if that would help.  I'll need to search the forums for similar things.  Kinda fun raising and lowering the pod with the "pod bay doors" though, or at least Dave thought so.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Smart Parts Wanter said:

Is there change log around the internet?

Click the changelog button on the spacedock page http://spacedock.info/mod/1017/ModularPods

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Pod bay door pushups fixed.  Sort of.  I duplicated the base collider and put it at a different point in the hierarchy.  But that didn't work until I started a new craft and re-added the cargo unit.  It *seems* stable now.

But the fix makes no sense, so I don't know for certain it'll keep being stable.

[Nothalogh]

On 11/1/2016 at 9:15 PM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Podular Orbital Design (POD)

Perfect

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I've been messing with a revision of the heat-shield-aerospike based more thoroughly on the ROMBUS.  So, matching the profile of the ROMBUS's base (not the size though), adjusting the engine nozzles to match the proposed high efficiency flattened nozzles, and including a toroidal fuel tank and a bit of other tankages.  And shifting the ablative cooling resource from "Ablator" to "LiquidFuel".

The first flight was a success.  Which, is a bit unusual for me.  :-)  Took off, flew up for a bit then Hyperedited into orbit to test re-entry.  I probably could have done an SSTO cycle with some extra tankage, as I set the ISP fairly high on the engine.  But that would have involved some planning type stuff.  It definitely has enough thrust for a much bigger tankage.  TWR of a bit over 5 with this configuration.

 

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

And, for the next update, I'm planning on splitting the Science Lab off from the generic Crew quarters.  It'll include a mini science bay, and different window arrangements from the crew quarters.  Which will act as a reminder that I need to get back to doing the Interiors.

Anyway, an ununwrapped untextured (cos it's not unwrapped) new science lab science bay should look a bit like;

It's the size it is to make sure it at least fits a Goo experiment, and when I imported the goo into Blender I didn't read the config file which included "rescaleFactor = 0.6"

Still, plenty of nice usable space!  I tested the collider arrangement, and all the internal walls act fine for surface attachment.  The door is animated to pop outwards, then rotate, which all works nicely so far.

[lodestar]

Looking great. My video card fried and I'm waiting for the new one, but I'll check the new version next week.

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

4 minutes ago, lodestar said:

My video card fried and I'm waiting for the new one,...

 

That totally wasn't me.  Honest.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Version 0.6 uploaded.

Added that alternative engine/heat shield unit that's more heavily based on the ROMBUS design.  It follows the contour shape from design work by Douglas Aircraft, and uses liquid fuel as the ablative resource.  As it's deeper, designed for more thrust, and to match the Douglas design, it also includes a bit of fuel and oxidizer, plus a small amount of Mono.  The part is also not finished.  It's got a stretched, unchanged copy of the texture from the other shielding engines, and some parts of it aren't even unwrapped yet.  But, I mentioned it here, and thought I might as well include the not-finished part in this update.  The mod's a WIP anyway.  :-)  Any issues, let me know.

The science lab now also has it's own mesh and texture.  I tried to mix design elements from Squad's "Large Crewed Lab" and the Mk1-2 Pod.  I'm not 100% convinced, so let me know on the forums if you hate it.  The science lab has an inbuilt science bay (mini cargo bay) as previewed a post or three ago.  And it doesn't have a working interior yet (just borrows the crew quarters interior).  But the exterior is "finished".  In as much as I'm done with that design.  I may alter it later, but not for completeness as much as changing things.

Next on the agenda is planning some interiors.

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Some progress on interiors presented without comment.  :-D

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Science Lab interior floor plan is worked out roughly.  It's going to be fairly rich in props though, labs tend to have a lot of "stuff".

[StarStreak2109]

Looks very good!

[StevieC]

The asymmetrical position of the science-lab's bay worries me a bit. That's likely to offset center-of-mass in ways that could make it unstable in flight.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

2 hours ago, StevieC said:

The asymmetrical position of the science-lab's bay worries me a bit. That's likely to offset center-of-mass in ways that could make it unstable in flight.

It's worrying, but only mildly.  Slightly offset CoMs on re-entry pods are not unusual, or detrimental.  Large offsets are.  And offsets on the way up, or for powered descents are a pain in the rump.  People are just going to have to watch out for it.  Considering the basic shape constraints, without using two much shallower bays, there's no way (that I can think of, let's not dive directly into fallacies) of making it symmetrical and keeping any decent space on the inside.  And really shallow bays wouldn't fit some of the larger experiments.
And because it was a worry, I checked it out.  It's a storm in a teacup unless you have mods with very heavy experiments.  I couldn't get a noticeable change in CoM adding every science item that fits in there.  The masses are just too small.  I didn't try adding the big scanners as they don't really fit.  But every other bit of science I had, shoved in there, didn't change the CoM in a way I could see.

Edited November 14, 2016 by TiktaalikDreaming

[theJesuit]

 I just had a thought, a suggestion, idea.

The design and height of the modpod is great, but could you produce a variation with 'forward' ['up'?]  facing windows on one side, and the 'command pod' area only containing two kerbals that when the pod is on the ground the kerbals are effectively reclined?  This would be a great design for a mothership command pod.  EDIT: What I had in mind was the Mk2-3 crew cabin windows!

As the kerbal habitation area takes up so little of the space, the rest could be a larger cargo bay, perhaps with the door(s) simply sliding around the walls.  The hatch to exit the command area could be within the cargo bay itself.

Does any of that make sense?

Peace.

Edited November 14, 2016 by theJesuit
Editing for Clarification

[TiktaalikDreaming]

5 hours ago, theJesuit said:

 I just had a thought, a suggestion, idea.

The design and height of the modpod is great, but could you produce a variation with 'forward' ['up'?]  facing windows on one side, and the 'command pod' area only containing two kerbals that when the pod is on the ground the kerbals are effectively reclined?  This would be a great design for a mothership command pod.  EDIT: What I had in mind was the Mk2-3 crew cabin windows!

As the kerbal habitation area takes up so little of the space, the rest could be a larger cargo bay, perhaps with the door(s) simply sliding around the walls.  The hatch to exit the command area could be within the cargo bay itself.

Does any of that make sense?

Peace.

I hadn't thought of the command pod+cargo, but I had seriously considered a command pod mixed with the service module.  The only issue with command systems on the Size2-3 and above is it infers non-Command Pods in the 1-2 size.  I know I'll end up doing that, but so far, I'm concentrating on the Size2-3.

Re: EDIT:  Yeah, that was what I was aiming for on those windows, they're a stand-up guy child of the stock windows and the windows on NASA's Orion pod.  It wasn't until later when I was doing the inside that I decided to have crew sitting upright.

[theJesuit]

33 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

I hadn't thought of the command pod+cargo, but I had seriously considered a command pod mixed with the service module.  The only issue with command systems on the Size2-3 and above is it infers non-Command Pods in the 1-2 size.  I know I'll end up doing that, but so far, I'm concentrating on the Size2-3.

Re: EDIT:  Yeah, that was what I was aiming for on those windows, they're a stand-up guy child of the stock windows and the windows on NASA's Orion pod.  It wasn't until later when I was doing the inside that I decided to have crew sitting upright.

I wouldn't worry about the 1-2 size options. I just like the the look of the windows and the idea of looking over the barrel of the 2.5 metre core and docking ports.

Peace.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

6 hours ago, theJesuit said:

I wouldn't worry about the 1-2 size options. I just like the the look of the windows and the idea of looking over the barrel of the 2.5 metre core and docking ports.

Peace.

The size 1-2 options would be because you really just need the one control unit per pod.  So, once there's a size 2-3 control, you have to start to wonder why you'd join it to a module that does the same thing.  I am still vaguely tempted to just re-arrange the (inside of the) crew module to face crew forwards/upwards.  And give them some consoles and stuff to look at instead of Scott's "what KSP doesn't teach you" youtube series.  Maybe call it a secondary control system.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

This sort of arrangement?

(Very quicko test rearrangement with head clipping, only two seats, and nothing but the seats moved)

[theJesuit]

59 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

This sort of arrangement?

(Very quicko test rearrangement with head clipping, only two seats, and nothing but the seats moved)

Neato.  Yes, although my thought was to put a floor (wall?) below the seats to separate off the seats from the rest of the space.  The rest of the space would then be a cargo bay with your sliding around door, and the spawn point  (hatch) for the kerbals could be inside the cargo bay, although now thinking about it, that may not be practical if cargo bay is filled with 'stuff'.

The reasoning would be that the cargo bay would still be the 'access' through to the rest of the craft. I suppose that having an access tube/airlock may also work.  In real life not every section of a spacecraft waists mass and space with an airlock!  I'll try and put up a scale drawing in a bit.

Peace.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

FYI, the bulkheadProfiles should be "size2,size3" -- mk2 is a spaceplane cross-section.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[TiktaalikDreaming]

9 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

FYI, the bulkheadProfiles should be "size2,size3" -- mk2 is a spaceplane cross-section.

Just auditing my configs for bulkhead profiles, and the fuel tank was size1,srf, which IMHO is worse than mk2.