Shuttle Challenge v4 - The STS thread [Stock and Mod Friendly] [THREAD CLOSED 06.08.17]

[regkoestoer]

@53miner53 yes the CoM and CoL problem really bugs me lately. I simulated all conditions in the SPH (empty, fulltank, RCS full or not) to make sure the CoL always stays behind the CoM so it doesn't flip, but I think the "arrow flying backwards" thing is the one that got me

@AeroGav ahh yes I never really considered L/D ratio in my shuttle designs (my design philosophy was: any brick with wings is a shuttle if we strap it on big enough boosters)....gotta try that inclined strakes trick...thanks for the enlightment! That's a really clean and clever design you have there. Btw, congrats on the STS-2a run! I never knew we could cram so much stuff in the cargo bay

@Scabank whoaa...those fists are just....awesome. Mazinger-level awesome

@StahnAileron one solution I found in the past is having 2 fuel tanks, one in front and one in the back, and then pump fuel around like submarine ballast tanks to modify CoM during reentry (or any other flight situation). For my more recent shuttle designs (with no ballast systems), I just had to stick to flying with very low AoA (<10 degrees, perhaps 5) during reentry

[Scabank]

i have discovered something i want to share with you all if you like to hear it.

 

The problem with CoM and CoL.

it is a real problem and i figured out the momentum that is produced  by the CoM can be a bit compensed when your center of lift also is angled a bit.

The CoM also slides up in my imagination so that means the CoL doesnt go through the CoM but below. (because the CoM of the Asteroid is so high up)

If you now change the angle od the overall Liftrating it helps with the reentry... of course the changes are slightly.

 

This is not proved... it is just a feeling that this could be the right way to fly this mission.

Please tell me if it worked for you as well.

 

Greetings

[StahnAileron]

So another test confirms my lifting body issue.

I did a re-entry with F12 the whole way. The moment AoA is high enough to generate a bit of body lift causes a positive feedback loop. My shuttle flips and becomes uncontrollable until I hit the lower atmo and well below subsonic speeds.

I either need to keep AoA reasonable until I hit speeds/atmo density where my wings can generate enough lift to readily shift prograde path (thereby preventing too much body lift in the first place), or redesign the shuttle to somehow always have more lifting-surface lift that possible boby-lift, uh, lift.

UPDATE: Workaround for my problem...

 

I shifted the main wings back a bit and added a wing extension under the main engines with additional control surfaces (pitch). This afforded me some leeway to add forward canards for even more pitch control. I now have a bigger tolerance before starting to flip and better able to counteract it. MUCH easier to fly now. I can even get out of dives better and safer. I still need to make sure I don't just yank on the pitch controls though. I have absurd lift though. Coming from 100km to 30km for re-entry and I'll start climbing again around 40km. (I set SAS to prograde on hitting the atmosphere than switch to hold attitude.) Not a terrible problem to have at this point. My test run with this current design landed easily enough in the desert.

Album with a handful of pics: http://imgur.com/a/U9YoW

Edited March 5, 2017 by StahnAileron
Update

[Captain_Rex33]

 

Well, this is actually my first post, but I figured since I've had a likely excessive amount of experience with rockets and practically none with shuttles that I'd go ahead and make some submissions;

shuttle name: Icarus

STS-1a:

I did lose track of my altitude a little when waiting for circularization so jebs play time did cause me a minor panic... I also forgot I shut down the main fuel tanks at first to prevent accidently burning that fuel with the booster. my reentry was sloppy but I did manage to land at the KSC so I guess I can't complain. I have a decent amount of excess fuel in both the booster and shuttle so carrying some payloads shouldn't cause me too many problems.     

STS-1b

 

I'll add spoilers for future submissions now;

sts-2a

Spoiler

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Captain_Rex33

[Speeding Mullet]

Right, Lots of tea on the go and am just about to start reading through the entries and judging!  Also got a second monitor going now so I'll be partly listening to music and watching fail videos

Check in soon for much adjudication

SM

[Speeding Mullet]

On 2/24/2017 at 6:10 AM, 53miner53 said:

Here is STS-3 complete!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0eMT8zRijNmek44ZkJ4QzNXb2c

Boom nice work!  Here's a badge!  Interesting solution to re-entry with the giant white umbrella!   

 

On 2/24/2017 at 8:42 AM, BubbleWrap said:

The telescope is a telescope part from Hullcam VDS, moved down inside a pair of stock structure tube things.

 

We now perform the last ever launch of a Mk.1 shuttle, and the first ever mission with two orbiters in space at once: STS-4/4R. http://imgur.com/a/DHuKM

Ahhh I get it.  I used to use Hullcam VDS for nice views of the launch etc.  Need to pick it up again I'm thinking of making my first cinematic.  Right to your mission.  Another great report and good touch using the port adapter module ono the shuttle.  Well done!  

 

On 2/24/2017 at 8:55 AM, Scabank said:

Hello, i finished up to challenge 8, but no.9 is going to be hard, i need to build it with different engines and different boostersystem, this will need a while

 

here is the last video so far, dunno if i can do the asteroid on the shuttle.

Sure you can!  In fact you might already have done it.  Right let me prepare my eyes for the rapid fire video .  3 minutes and my eyes are destroyed.  Well done haha.  Seriously though, Once I'd picked it apart I can see that you have passed on both      

 

On 2/24/2017 at 0:22 PM, wrench-in-the-works said:

I am the happiest (and the angriest) wrench in the world right now. STS-4 is complete, at the cost of some of my remaining sanity. After fudging the docking 2 3 8 god knows how many times and the landing twice, (i stalled and crashed into some mountains on the way back and i wanted to kill myself) but after approaching from the ocean and missing the runway by about 50 meters (its the thought that counts), and besides the point, I would have rolled off the edge of the runway so its probably for the best.

I would like to apologize in advance, as the video is well over four hours, because I can't space all that good. 

Link: https://youtu.be/5isPTqrj7P4

Teaser trailer: 

I don't apologise for not sitting through 4 hours of video, but I did cut through rapidly in about 2 minutes to see that you had fulfilled the requirements for the commander badge.  Also you landed a crazy huge shuttle on top of another crazy huge shuttle so big points to you      I hope you enjoyed the cream soda!

 

On 2/24/2017 at 4:13 PM, JVMES said:

Shuttle Cadmus completing STS-1a and STS-1b:

Hey that's neat it's like a giant dreamchaser or something!  Welcome to the challenge and congratulations on your first two missions (in one).  Look forward to seeing more from this.        I will update the OP shortly.

 

On 2/25/2017 at 1:16 PM, vladd148 said:

Finished the Mun mission! (To Iota, due to the modded planet pack).

 

Re-worked the shuttle completely, as well as the launch system

As always a super smooth mission report there!  I'll have to move you over to the modded category for this mission report as your payload was modded.  Your shuttle is really well designed clearly as it maintains a really nice AoA on re-entry.  Well done on your Mun mission!  

 

On 2/25/2017 at 2:04 PM, BubbleWrap said:

The three Orbiters have undertaken four new missions and deployed the Kerbin Orbital Space Station and delivered its first crew: http://imgur.com/a/MGBGG (56 images).

53 images, I can totally cope with that  .  Coll station, and I enjoyed the report and seeing it all being assembled by MMU's.  Here have a badge!  

 

Right, tea break then on to the next page of mission reports!!

SM

[Speeding Mullet]

On 2/26/2017 at 7:16 AM, michal.don said:

Well, it was along these lines in the v3 of this challenge. So it's quite possible that Speeding Mullet will make these sub-missions again. The thing that bothered me a bit wat that the 168t pod was a clipped nightmare of several ore tanks so it could fit in the standart MK3 bay

To be honest, I take these bonus missions just as a thing to do in the meantime, before the next full mission is released, so If this is the way it goes, I don't really mind.

Plus all the other quotes on this topic:

I think I might remove them from being B missions and just put them into their own category as Heavy Lift Missions, so the 40t pod would be first then upwards from there.  TBC though, and to be honest, I don't really like the ore pod missions much, they feel like clutter in their present form.

 

On 2/26/2017 at 0:46 PM, BubbleWrap said:

Since there is a 40 day lead time on the asteroid I ordered for STS-9, I thought I'd send out Mun STS-1 so I could get the album ready.

Nice little base you have there   I like that mod, there should be expandable things in stock imho.

 

On 2/28/2017 at 6:27 AM, vladd148 said:

Finished the "Duna" mission 1 with my own little twist to it. In the Galileo Planet Pack, the closest planet is Niven, a Venutian planet.

Good to see you venturing into the next missions!  I know it's not Duna, but it's close enough for the purposes of a modded entry   

 

On 3/1/2017 at 2:52 AM, regkoestoer said:

Hi, this is my first post! I saw this exciting thread and thought one of my old designs might be up for the challenge for STS-1a. It's called the Extension Mk.2. It has a simple traditional shuttle layout (nothing fancy yet). Originally, I made it for Duna missions, hence the nuke engines.

album link is here: http://imgur.com/a/iuRNS

What a first post and welcome to the challenge!!  Nice shuttle you have there, and yes landing at the island airstrip is perfectly fine!  Have a badge and look forward to seeing you progress through the missions!  

@AeroGav - Would you mind editing your post to remove all of the pictures that you quoted from @regkoestoers post please?  Just trying to keep things looking nice

 

On 3/2/2017 at 6:34 AM, AeroGav said:

Next compulsory mission is the Hubble telescope mission.

Which you passed with flying colours!     I was wondering and wondering what you were talking about with the engineer hitching a ride back.  Then you opened the cargo bay at the end.  That must have been one wild ride hanging upside down there!

 

On 3/2/2017 at 7:38 AM, 53miner53 said:

STS-4 Complete! Do I get extra points for landing the rescued shuttle at the island runway?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0eMT8zRijNmSWhWSXQxWVNRRFE

Haha unfortunately not!  Well done on the mission, good seeing two of these huge shuttle near each other in space isn't it!  

 

On 3/2/2017 at 9:25 AM, Scabank said:

Hello, i want to get Badge 9 as well. There is not an aswer yet on my 4-8 post i linked before... anyway ;)... I think it is approved so i will post the last challenge for me atm, eventually i will come back in a few weeks with more. Greetings

 

OMG !!  HAVE YOU EVER WANTED A CONTAINERSHIP GO TO SPACE SO BADLY YOU JUST BUILD 2 GIANT FISTS OUT OF FIRE AND THUNDER TO PUNCH IT RIGHT THROUGH THE SKY !!

OMG !! HAVE YOU EVER WANTED A SKUNKWORKS BADGE SO BADLY YOU JUST BUILD 2 GIANT FISTS OUT OF FIRE AND THUNDER PUNCH YOUR SHUTTLE TO AN ASTEROID?!

Because you did and you earned the badge!  

Also you earned the other badge, because you completed the mission.  Well done and enjoy your break!     I will update the OP soon!

 

SM

12 hours ago, Captain_Rex33 said:

Well, this is actually my first post, but I figured since I've had a likely excessive amount of experience with rockets and practically none with shuttles that I'd go ahead and make some submissions;

shuttle name: Icarus

That's how you do a first post!  Welcome to the challenge!  Good work on designing your first shuttle it looks pretty capable!  Here's a few badges to get you started, and I will update the OP soon!

 

Sorry for not getting involved in some of the discussions over the last few pages.  It's too much to keep up with on top of spending all this time reviewing entries.  Good to see it happening though

SM

[Captain_Rex33]

I had accidently misread sts-2a for commander level as having two in geosync  I have the shuttle equipped now to set up the proper constellation, while I'm at it here is sts-2b:

 

[AeroGav]

15 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said:

I was wondering and wondering what you were talking about with the engineer hitching a ride back.  Then you opened the cargo bay at the end.  That must have been one wild ride hanging upside down there!

Actually 10-11 seconds into my "re-entry" video the camera clips through the cargo bay showing a brief shot of our intrepid handyman.   There's quite a bit of plasma in there considering it's a closed bay but he seems to be enjoying himself anyway.    Pity I dropped him on his head at the end.

[53miner53]

17 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said:

Haha unfortunately not!  Well done on the mission, good seeing two of these huge shuttle near each other in space isn't it!  

Dang it.

[Speeding Mullet]

14 hours ago, Captain_Rex33 said:

 

I had accidently misread sts-2a for commander level as having two in geosync  I have the shuttle equipped now to set up the proper constellation, while I'm at it here is sts-2b:

 

I must have missed this.  At 15:51 you show the resource panel of the fuel pod and appear to have used a substantial amount of fuel from the pod lifting it up there in the first place, which would mean your Flight Director 1b run was invalid.  I hate to have to do this and of course correct me if I've missed something, but that also means your 2b flight doesn't count for the purposes of the mission.  Sorry

 

7 hours ago, 53miner53 said:

Dang it.

Yeeeeup, sorry haha!  Do something ultra crazy like thunderpunching a shuttle into the sky with two fists of fire and you might make the halls of Skunkworks

SM

[53miner53]

12 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said:

Yeeeeup, sorry haha!  Do something ultra crazy like thunderpunching a shuttle into the sky with two fists of fire and you might make the halls of Skunkworks

SM

What about having three of my shuttles next to each other in orbit, constantly switching between them to cancel velocity and dock two of the three to the station I'm building?

 

edit: I'll take that as a no, then. Or you just have been busy all day.

Edited March 6, 2017 by 53miner53

[Jestersage]

Question: is Star Clipper type shuttle valid, or considered as SSTO and this not valid?

[Speeding Mullet]

39 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question: is Star Clipper type shuttle valid, or considered as SSTO and this not valid?

Can you furnish me with some more details, pictures of an example craft or something, then I'll let you know!

SM

 

[septemberWaves]

51 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question: is Star Clipper type shuttle valid, or considered as SSTO and this not valid?

I think the general idea of the challenge is that anything which has a winged orbiter that is separate from its launch vehicle is considered a space shuttle. As far as I can tell from a quick google search, a shuttle design like the Lockheed Star Clipper (which is what I can only assume is what you're referring to) should be acceptable. I suspect it would also look very good, which is a plus.

There's nothing in the rules that mandates a NASA-style or Buran-style shuttle; it can be literally anything which fits the description given.

Actually, thinking about the rules in detail, I do have a question: the rules state that " The Orbiter must be lifted into space by a Launch System that decouples or un-docks once expended, allowing the Orbiter to land entirely under it's own power. " but is the launch system allowed to also be a spaceplane-like vehicle that can be flown to the surface and recovered? If so, I have some ideas which might be interesting to explore...

Edited March 6, 2017 by eloquentJane

[Speeding Mullet]

11 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

Actually, thinking about the rules in detail, I do have a question: the rules state that " The Orbiter must be lifted into space by a Launch System that decouples or un-docks once expended, allowing the Orbiter to land entirely under it's own power. " but is the launch system allowed to also be a spaceplane-like vehicle that can be flown to the surface and recovered? If so, I have some ideas which might be interesting to explore...

Oh right the Lockheed Star Clipper, yep @Jestersage that's perfectly acceptable.  anything really that isn't an SSTO is good, I'm pretty flexible.  I made a copy of the JSC Shuttle IIc a while back which is a similar(ish) concept:

@eloquentJane yep totally fine.  @Alchemist did this very well with the HRO.  In fact both his shuttle were capable of SSTO, but one carried the other to space for the purposes of the challenge

Look forward to seeing what you come up with!  Also how's the reboot of the Duna challenge coming along?

 

SM

 

[septemberWaves]

5 minutes ago, Speeding Mullet said:

loquentJane yep totally fine.  @Alchemist did this very well with the HRO.  In fact both his shuttle were capable of SSTO, but one carried the other to space for the purposes of the challenge

Look forward to seeing what you come up with!  Also how's the reboot of the Duna challenge coming along?

This is good to know. I'm already getting a few ideas for a fully reusable shuttle system.

The Permanent Outpost Mission Architecture challenge is taking a while because it's so complex. I haven't made any edits to the actual forum post for a while but I have been looking into the rules and considering the suggestions I've had. It hopefully shouldn't take too much longer before it's playable, but it might take me longer than I'm anticipating.

[BubbleWrap]

Nothing new to report on this front yet - it's 27 days until the asteroid arrives, and aside from a second failed mun-landing attempt (we did at least make it back into Munar orbit before running out of fuel this time), I've mostly been iterating designs to give the Mk.2 nuclear engines. Unfortunately, it's rather heavy with its internal LFO tanks and the resultant on-orbit delta-v is not sufficiently high to make it worth the extra complexity over just using pure chemical engines. So, a new Mk.3 Orbiter Number 12 has been produced, based off the recently deployed Mk.2b/M Orbiter Number 11 (which gave us a second VTOL capable shuttle for munar rescue missions), which has had its internal tanks replaced with pure LF ones, and uses a heavily modified booster. The design is promising but the first launch saw the core booster break apart 2km up and we had to abort - this is about the worst abort mode to do, as I have to break up the stack and get the Orbiter from vertical to horizontal without crashing into all the boosters and then get it moving fast enough to generate enough lift not to just crash into the ground . Still, progress has been made, and a nuclear option would be preferable to a chemical one once we leave Kerbin's SoI, even if I can't get it ready in time for the asteroid capture.

 

[53miner53]

I am having a bit of trouble with my station building-the docking modules are stuck in the cargo bay of their shuttle, and I need to launck new ones that will actually be able to be removed from the cargo bay. Luckily for the crew of the shuttle that launched this module pair, they arrived at the station approximately 20 minutes before the next shuttle will arrive, though that shuttle does somewhat need the extra liquid fuel carried on the docking modules. 

Other than my module size problem, which also claimed one of the 4 communotron 88-88s on the core module, this mission is one of the things Columbia was designed for! 

[AeroGav]

On 01/03/2017 at 7:34 PM, AeroGav said:

 

I'm still not convinced with 3b either TBH,  it's getting a bit too "Kerbal" in my opinion, I think this all stems from my reluctance to use an external tank on account of balance issues, but i've ended up tying myself in knots trying to get enough cargo onto a properly proportioned orbiter that also has to carry fuel internally.

Fortunately , I have an idea for overcoming the centre of mass issue.  I'm going to use vacuum engines on the orbiter, and atmo engines on the bottom of the external tank.   As fuel burns off, CoM will move closer to orbiter, so the pitch up moment from the engines on the tank get stronger.  But, at the same time the orbiter is getting higher , so it's vacuum engines get stronger relative to the atmo engines on the tank and boosters, counteracting the effect.  I am also arranging it so that half the external tank's engines can be decoupled when the pitch up effect gets too strong.    Still tuning it but looks to be a wild ride.   So far we're talking 6 kickbacks,  6 Reliants, 3 terriers and a NERV.   The ET is made of Kerbodyne parts, the launch cost of this thing's going to be staggering.  Just as well we're in Sandbox eh!

Testing of my external tank equipped launcher stack. ..  

[Ribby Kerman]

Speeding mullet, may I use ksp beta/0.90? I dont want to lose all my progress in my game and idk if my cpu can handle 1.2. Also my current shuttle always blows up at 10,000 meters. Do you know if all the tiny wings im using could be the problem? Also, i don't have RS-25 engines at my disposal and have to use mainsails that are tilted to the right angle. Could any of these be the problem? I have conducted 5 tests that all ended with the same result. Thx in advance

-Ribby Kerman

[AeroGav]

8 minutes ago, Ribby Kerman said:

Speeding mullet, may I use ksp beta/0.90? I dont want to lose all my progress in my game and idk if my cpu can handle 1.2. Also my current shuttle always blows up at 10,000 meters. Do you know if all the tiny wings im using could be the problem? Also, i don't have RS-25 engines at my disposal and have to use mainsails that are tilted to the right angle. Could any of these be the problem? I have conducted 5 tests that all ended with the same result. Thx in advance

-Ribby Kerman

You can install the current version of KSP to another folder on your hard drive and run that in sandbox mode for the challenge, that way your 0.90 career game can continue unaffected.    So much has changed since 0.90, i've no idea how you'd build something for it.

I understand that earlier versions of KSP had physicsless parts which maybe is why it used less cpu.  Just try to keep your part count low, you should be ok.

I've never used the Vector engine in any of my shuttles.   You can either keep the main engines and liquid fuel tanks within the body of the orbiter, with symmetrically placed SRBs all around the fuselage, so there is no off-axis thrust to worry about, therefore you don't need engines with extreme gimbal range

Spoiler

 

example -

.

.

 

Or, you build something complex like this .  As the fuel burns off, the centre of mass moves upwards away from the tank and up towards the orbiter.  This engines end up further and further below the CoM , so the pitch up tendency gets stronger and stronger. By jettisoning the bottom engines one at a time i can keep the pitchup tendency to a manageable level.     Also, the orbiter carries vacuum engines that produce almost no thrust at sea level (terrier and nerv) but become quite strong higher up, which compensates.    Apart from that i'm just using reliants - that don't gimbal at all !

Spoiler

 

 

.

 

.

 

[Speeding Mullet]

6 hours ago, Ribby Kerman said:

Speeding mullet, may I use ksp beta/0.90? I dont want to lose all my progress in my game and idk if my cpu can handle 1.2.

Hi there!  Unfortunately the challenge is for 1.2.x as this creates a level playing field for all shuttle designers.  there have been some massive changes between 0.90 and now, and some missions require the most recent version.  As @AeroGav mentioned just install 1.2 in a separate directory so it doesn't affect your current game.  Also I wouldn't worry about speed between 0.90 and 1.2.x.  I think there's even been efficiencies made so it may operate faster.  It's a very stable major release with many improvements.

Regarding your exploding issue, it's hard to say without seeing pictures etc.

Cheers

SM

 

[53miner53]

STS-5-8 complete! The station has a core module, 2 science modules, 1 crew module, and 2 docking modules.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0eMT8zRijNmZDZqS1pVRjBhN0E

I had some trouble with the docking modules being stuck in the cargo bay of the shuttle. I used that as an opportunity to test KAS/KIS and see if I knew how to use them. I then landed that shuttle, so moving the docking port was kinda pointless. One of the docking modules escaped the cargo bay while I was rendezvousing another shuttle, so it was docked with the station and I left the replacement module behind before launch.

I think I'm not going to try STS-9 until I go through some of the missions with a second shuttle I'm designing. You'll see it tomorrow.

[jonny]

Hello all together,

Meet my Space Tuck

here is my attempt for the STS 1b mission: http://imgur.com/a/HbK9G

I'm not sure if this will disqualify my attempt of the challenge, but I had to leave the Space Tuck in order to save some fuel. Anyway I still had Jeb to perform the Orbital Activation. If it does disqualify my attempt I will just call the mission a Extended STS -1a.

Mods:

RCS Build aid

Edit:

I'm not sure if this is necessary but I just read the OP again and thought I should probably do a STS-1a mission as well if the STS-1b mission does not count as STS-1a + STS-1b.

And here is the mission: http://imgur.com/a/iMgsY

I copied a very early shuttle from my heavily modded Career save.

new Mod list:

RCS Build aid
Planet Shine
Kerbal Engineer redux
Docking Port Alignment Indicator

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by jonny