[1.0+] CORE Solutions [19JAN16]

[spaceminer47]

I also like how your boosters look, I don't think you should change them.

[Nutter]

Aye. The design is nice and there's nothing really broken in the general idea.

So why waste time 'fixing' that as well?

And it allows for ships with a bit of an "Atlas V" look.

[Deltac]

I also approve of the current design. However, I wouldn't be averse to seeing what you can come up with

[Gaius]

I was trying to make them stand out from the crowd by not doing the classic "cone on top of a cylinder" shape and thus came up with the sci-fi inspired "nacelle" shape. I know they are a little bland at the moment...

The shape is great. If they're at all "a little bland", it's not due to the shape. The texturing could possibly be given a bit more love, though...

[Tyrope]

I'm loving the mod, but it appears your PDF has a mistake in the appendix, payload values seem to be off...

[Gaius]

I'm loving the mod, but it appears your PDF has a mistake in the appendix, payload values seem to be off...

...and the pictures, and everything else. In fact, it's an Anvil V on the page labeled IV, and a IV on the page labeled V. The names got reversed.

[Absolution]

I'm loving the mod, but it appears your PDF has a mistake in the appendix, payload values seem to be off...

Maybe this is a case of being unable to see the forest through the trees but I've proof-read the document again and can only find one error. That being the titles on the last two pages. On page 11 it should be titled "ASSEMBLY ANVIL V" and on page 12 it should say "ASSEMBLY ANVIL IV". Anvil V is my 2m, lighter payload, rocket and the IV is my 4m, heavier payload, rocket.

Can anyone give me a hand and point to a specific instance where you think I erred? I feel like the document is just too confusing or poorly arranged and people are seeing something I do not intend them to see that way. Nothing will happen over night but I've worked too hard on this not to do a good job and I want to do better if I can.

---

Update on my current project:

I've run across a significant problem. All of the proof of concept tests I did weeks ago are now invalid and my docking parts are no longer working. I can't figure out what's wrong. This is so frustrating because I was just about to cross the finish line. I will continue to bang my head against the desk for a few more days but if nothing happens I will just post a few pictures of "what could have been" and move on.

[Deltac]

Do your docking parts have two docking ports? A part can only have one docking port. We learned this over at the ISS thread with the PMA.

[MainSailor]

Informal survey time:

What are your thoughts on the latest SRB designs? I was trying to make them stand out from the crowd by not doing the classic "cone on top of a cylinder" shape and thus came up with the sci-fi inspired "nacelle" shape. I know they are a little bland at the moment so I plan on putting more effort into them but then I began to doubt the direction I have taken.

So... should I stick with the current design and improve it or should I just go back to a classic SRB shape?

Personally I like the current design in terms of shape. I like that they are flatter and more compact so to speak than a traditional round cylinder, and anyway I have dozens of round ones from other packs...but I still use CORE boosters on anything I build anyhow.

My biggest complaint is how CORE stuff doesn't blend well with stock parts, but really, I've really stopped mixing parts from packs anyway...my go-to booster is a Delta Heavy style with three CSB-209s (light asparagus crossfeed to central booster) with two SRBs each on the outer boosters (if needed.) I can launch ridiculously large assemblies with this combination, and if I need more, a nearly-stock Anvil V works just fine.

[Absolution]

I know a lot of people like to mix and match so in the future I am considering adding some specific transition parts to allow for a seamless matching with stock parts. It was never my intent to be a rebel and develop parts with unique diameters but KSP is a little confusing when it comes to dimensions. The whole KSP universe is scaled by 125%... or was it 80%... or... whatever. So a 1m diameter part isn't exactly 1m in game. Plenty of people figured it all out and I can too but I was too lazy to care back in the day (I started Anvil a year ago). My assumption was that my parts were not meant to be mixed and matched. I've softened to the idea lately so I will make an effort... someday.

Do your docking parts have two docking ports? A part can only have one docking port. We learned this over at the ISS thread with the PMA.

One of my parts did have two nodes inside of it so I took out the second one and it still didn't work. I guess there is more than one problem with my parts which makes everything so much more painful to figure out. I've tried several different things to get this thing to work and nothing is panning out yet. My current two options are to, first, develop a dedicated docking part to eliminate any other variables and, second, to incorporate stock docking parts into my design. Both of those will require some research and development time so my release window just got blown out of the water.

However, it's unfair to keep teasing so without further fanfare here is my, less than exciting, project reveal:

The "First Light" interplanetary spaceship.

Project intent is to build the ship using unmanned drones (not shown) and launch a crew of 8 on a separate rocket. The First Light will be capable of delivering that crew and a mission payload to any planet in the system with an on-board capacity of 8000 m/s Delta-V (subject to change).

I would have shown textured pictures but my problems prevented me from finishing the last two so I just left them all plain for now. The only things missing at this point are those last few textures and a working docking mechanism. Everything else is ready for full scale testing. The large craft set off to the side is the resupply ship which is meant to deliver crew and supplies for a full mission. It turned out a little bigger than I imagined it so that may get redesigned later. Also, my supply section turned out a little smaller so that too will need some work.

The First Light modules are based on a 5m diameter payload capability which is why I developed a 5m standard for the Anvil IV. There are 5 separate modules (Command, Habitation, Docking Hub, Supply, Engines) which will require 4 different configurations of Anvil IV to launch. In an effort to keep the numbers reasonable I needed to keep the ship as light as possible. Despite that when fully fueled and mission capable the First Light weighs a whopping 173 tonnes; 100 of which is just fuel. The three engines produce approximately 1500kN of thrust which is sufficient to accelerate the First Light to transit speeds in under 5 minutes. I did that intentionally to limit the amount of time you had to sit there and manage the burns.

The engines have an Isp rating of 950s which is well in science fiction territory for a chemical rocket but if I had kept it realistic (~350s) the fuel requirements would have been staggering requiring three refueling trips, at least, by the supply ship. I found that unreasonable so the compromise was made.

I did investigate alternative, realistic, propulsion methods and I strongly considered a VASIMIR type system. It's got more than enough Isp to do the job but, like all electric engines, produces very little thrust. I don't want to make people sit there for several hours while such a system nudges the spacecraft to the desired velocity. Maybe I can revisit that when a smart auto-pilot system is developed for KSP but not before. I could of scaled the system up to meet my needs but the power requirements were comical. I needed to find a way of producing ~60MW for a sustained 5 minute burn. That requires a large nuclear reactor or some scary large batteries.

So considering all that I went with a more believable chemical rocket.

[betaking]

@Absolution:

I think you might be interested in the looking at some commercial crew vehicles for inspiration.

such as Blue Origin's design for a re-entry vehicle, a lifting body (but very conical). or Boeings CTS-100

something like it could be made to fit with the sort of design-style of the CORE rockets..

I also think that it would be interesting to see inflatable components.. where like you have the pannel texture split down each row of panels as the station inflates, possibly having windows and other hard-points on said panels.

However I'm just spouting ideas.

Edited July 13, 2013 by betaking

[Absolution]

Time for an update:

I've limited my time for the last week to rest and research and what I've come up with isn't encouraging. Docking nodes are an underdeveloped feature at this time and although there are options for me to work around the system to get the First Light to work right it won't function the way I want it to. Plus, with the game still undergoing regular, save breaking, updates I think it's too soon to focus on a mod that relies so heavily on persistent saves. I've decided to shelve the First Light for now and let KSP develop further. I'll still play around with it from time to time but for now it's back to Anvil.

I want to give Anvil IV its long planned face-lift as well as develop parts to create universality with stock parts. There's also some fine tuning I want to do with the part properties and experiments I want to run on other part types.

Expect to see some preliminary results in a week or two.

[Gaius]

Expect to see some preliminary results in a week or two.

Awesome, looking forward to it.

[Absolution]

I've read through the patch notes for KSP 0.21 and it does not appear that Anvil was affected in anyway so we are good to go. However, I didn't actually test anything yet so if you see anything, of course, you know where to find me. I'll be adding a small bit of mono-propellant to any CSBs that do not have it yet just in case. I am also thinking about adding reaction wheels to some of the parts to aid in maneuvering. However, realistically that's not a practical solution for objects so big and heavy... we'll see.

I've learned a lot since originally doing Anvil IV eight months ago so this face-lift is going quick. CSB-412 is already modeled and the texturing shouldn't take more than an hour or three. That would only leave CSB-406 and their config files. Easy-peasy.

[Gaius]

Yeah the only thing that I can think of that might need changing is the SAS/torque parameters for the "probe" cores that I usually don't use anyhow...

EDIT: Heh, just looked at the current ones -- they don't use any of the old rotPower/linPower settings, so I guess they don't need to be updated, since they never had any torque to begin with.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Gaius

[Absolution]

Small Update:

I am probably a week away from releasing Anvil 1.7.0. I've got all the parts modeled up and most of the textures done. Next tasks are to finish up the new video intro, balance and test the rockets. I'm really happy with the results so far and I am glad I've taken the time to make it happen.

One problem is that I can not log into my spaceport account so I might have to release 1.7 via dropbox. I've submitted a tech support email but who knows if they will be able to fix the problem by release time.

[shadowsutekh]

Ooh exciting! Can't wait to see/use redone stuff!

[MainSailor]

I am probably a week away from releasing Anvil 1.7.0.

Just in time! I was thinking about rebooting my space program and cleaning up the cruft that built up and got messed up from the .20 to .21 conversion. Looking forward to building new boosters with 1.7!

[foxgguy2001]

Also want to chime in and say I'm rather excited for the new release! This has always been my go-to mod for liftoff!

[wasmic]

I made a very unimaginative icon for anvil for PartCatalog. Anyone know a good image hosting site?

[MainSailor]

I made a very unimaginative icon for anvil for PartCatalog. Anyone know a good image hosting site?

Imgur is great. You don't even need an account.

[wasmic]

Okay, here they are:

A note on usage: They must be named CORE_ANVIL_162_On and CORE_ANVIL_162_Off, respectively. When anvil updates to 1.7.0, they must be renamed to CORE_ANVIL_170_On/Off. This renaming wouldn't be needed if the folder was just called CORE_ANVIL without version number.

Edited August 6, 2013 by wasmic

[Benzschwagel]

awesome, will wait for 1.7

[Legendary Emu]

Kind of disappointing that the fairings aren't compatible with FAR.

[Benzschwagel]

hey man, before you release 1.7.0, can you rename the part folder as "Parts", please? It's really playing havoc on mod managers since it doesn't follow the standard. also, with the current naming scheme of "Part", will it cause issues if I were to rename it as "Parts"?