4x4cheesecake Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, michal.don said: In these particular missions (STS-1a and STS-2b), I chose to allow their completion in the same flight with other missions. In most cases, it was the 1a+1b combination, since it's test flight + cargo, which sounds reasonable to me. I can't remember someone doing both missions at once, at least since I started to participate in the challenge, so I thought there is no "reference case" and the decision is up to me. I try to stick with decisions you've made previously so it's fair for everyone but in this case, I would still prefer to keep missions separated for the reasons I've stated before. I appreciate sharing your thoughts on this topic 27 minutes ago, michal.don said: Nevertheless, I think your decision in this particular case was the best one you could take - point out the rules, but allow the attempt, since this particular shuttle is a nice piece of engineering and surely is capable to do both thing solo... Yep, I think so as well 25 minutes ago, Gunnerline said: it was certainly not my intention to attempt to game the system. Oh, I hope it didn't sound like I would insinuate you to use a loophole in the rules to have an easier time during the mission. That was definitely not my intent. 29 minutes ago, Gunnerline said: My thought process at the time was that, since there was no actual orbital rendezvous, my ability to complete mission STS-1b was completely dependent on my ability to complete STS-1a. Yep, definitely And one of the things I love so much about this challenge is, that a lot of things are allowed so we tend to see many different ways to solve a specific problem during a mission. Unfortunately, this also encourages people (like me ) to come up with solutions which "don't actually break the rules". We already had a few discussions about mission details and what is allowed and what is not which isn't a bad thing in particular but it slows down the progress in the mission planning and building phase. In my opinion, that's an unfortunate side effect and I actually hope that my rule to keep missions separated will help a bit to reduce the confusion about some rules without affecting the creativity in the missions Oh, and don't worry about wasting my time, none of it is wasted while reviewing mission reports 52 minutes ago, Gunnerline said: bail out of the orbiter when it was about 4 km up. I subsequently discovered that the orbiter glided calmly down into the water and was completely intact after the two test pilots managed to parachute into the water. Sounds like a well balanced orbiter though^^ 57 minutes ago, Gunnerline said: I do not wish to be considered deficient in my tasks for this challenge, so please consider the following as a supplement/redo of STS-1a: Oh wow, didn't expect that This is wonderful second flight and perfectly documented, thank you And since you managed to land on a runway this time, you actually earned the commander badge this time. Congratulations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerline Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said: Oh, I hope it didn't sound like I would insinuate you to use a loophole in the rules to have an easier time during the mission. That was definitely not my intent. I certainly don't think it came off that way. As I stated, I completely understand why that would exist, and I would understand your call in either case. It certainly makes sense in retrospect. My posts in the forum so far have usually be curated photos of my missions/adventures in KSP, and this was my first attempt at posting for a challenge. I wasn't really sure how much detail should be brought forward to the moderator, but again, in retrospect, of course it makes sense that more information and pictures would be better. Thank you again for your feedback and helping bring me up to the standards of the challenge mission reports! It feels good to start in on these challenges, Edited July 30, 2019 by Gunnerline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozelui Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) Hello everyone! It haven't been very active for about half a year or so, while I still check the forums now and then, finding the time to play has been difficult. But since the arrival of the new dlc I started playing more often, and finally managed to put together the Mun 2-4 missions. My shuttle was updated with the latest robotics and had some dV upgrades, but some flaws like heat management arose. I had some troubles too with the first flight, which ended in a complete rework of the base. Anyway, here are the mission reports, I've also included the original first mission because it worked perfectly until the kraken decided to show up: Failed STS Mun 2 STS Mun 2 STS Mun 3 STS Mun 4 * Edit: I forgot the mod list, It's in the last picture of the "STS Mun 2" album. And this is a video about how a kerbal single handedly saved the Mun 4 mission. I didn't expect this to work but it did! Spoiler Edited August 2, 2019 by Ozelui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerline Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Challenge STS-1T AKA "Falling, with Style!" Design Philosophy Spoiler The design for the carrier airplane was inspired by the real, life Shuttle Carrier Aircraft: My first iterative designs were developed through testing large-wing Mk3 air-frames and FAT lifting surfaces: The X-2, a precursor aircraft to the actual STS-1T carrier aircraft. During testing, I determined that four engines would be necessary to generate a comfortable amount of thrust. However, during testing of the X-2, the torque placed on the wing frame by the outer-most engine clusters caused the wings to droop on touch-down, leading to rapid unplanned disassembly of the engine nacelles. More importantly, however, to the STS-1T mission, the placement of all four engine clusters placed the COM far too forward to allow for comfortable placement of the wheels. This made the X-2 a useful lifting body analysis but the actual carrier would be extensively modified. Pictured is the modified X-2, the STS-1T Carrier Aircraft. For the actual carrier, the outer engine clusters were placed rear and above the wings, bringing the COM of the Shuttle + Carrier towards the rear, just before the COL. Critically, for the mission, this actually made the carrier aircraft quite forward-heavy, which would allow for easy separation from the Orbiter when approaching the decoupling phase of the test flight. The primary fuel tanks were located in the Orbiter, but the Delta-S wing surfaces only contained liquid fuel, no oxidizer. To ensure that the Carrier+Orbiter could not generate lift using the main engines, the throttle settings for the Vector and LV-601 engines were set to zero: Finally, detachment from the Carrier aircraft would be achieved through explosive bolt decoupling, with a single Hydraulic Detachment Manifold. Additional orbiter stability was achieved by placement of two pairs of struts fore and aft of the explosive bolts: Mission Profile Spoiler The test flight proceeded from the KSC. The mission profile was to lift off from the KSC, make a 180 turn to fly westward or eastward, fly over the mountain range to the west of the KSC, and then make another 180 degree turn and climb to the carrier release point. This long path is necessary to ensure that the aircraft does not attempt turns in the upper troposphere. Extensive testing showed that when attempting a bank turn at high altitudes, the reduced airflow and significant mass of the aircraft could cause an unrecoverable flat spin. Flying far away allows for the aircraft to approach the westward entrance to the runway with a gradual climb, giving the best safety margin of the approaches that allows for release of the orbiter at 5,000 m or above. Throttles for the Orbiter's main engines seen here still throttled to zero (which they would remain so throughout the flight). In fact, attempting to activate the engines, even at low settings would irrevocably destroy the careful balance of forces on the carrier aircraft, leading to rapid, uncontrollable spins. Liftoff occurs at approximately 125-130 m/s. The plane is able to lift relatively slowly, preventing a tail strike on the runway, and ensuring a smooth liftoff to the initial climb trajectory. The carrier and orbiter are able to make surprisingly sharp turns at high AOA due to the power of the four turbofan engines. Entering the western mountains at a relatively low altitude The location of the mountain pass in the previous photo Heading eastward towards KSC over the mountains Entering final approach and detach phase @ 5,300 m AGL (~5,800 m MSL) Engine cutoff moments before separation The carrier aircraft falls away very quickly Turning the control surfaces back on. Orbiter control surfaces had been disabled to prevent unexpected changes in the flight dynamics until after separation from the carrier aircraft Drifted left, having to recover and pull right Touchdown! Once again, slightly behind the runway proper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim123 Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I have made a new shuttle i had to cancel it because my pc couldn't handle it very well but i gotta a new Computer and im able to handle it. The main reasons i asked about laythe before was because if i designed it for that then i wouldn't have to make any modifications or a another new shuttle. The picture of it is Work In Progress though. https://imgur.com/a/1ZtTTcv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Jim123 said: The main reasons i asked about laythe before was because if i designed it for that then i wouldn't have to make any modifications or a another new shuttle. Whereas I'm working on a 4th shuttle and launcher design, not counting unfinished prototypes. Sometimes I like building stuff more than flying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4x4cheesecake Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Jim123 said: I have made a new shuttle i had to cancel it because my pc couldn't handle it very well but i gotta a new Computer and im able to handle it. The main reasons i asked about laythe before was because if i designed it for that then i wouldn't have to make any modifications or a another new shuttle. The picture of it is Work In Progress though. https://imgur.com/a/1ZtTTcv That's a tough goal, I've tried (and failed^^) the same thing when I started the challenge Good luck! 13 hours ago, Gunnerline said: Challenge STS-1T AKA "Falling, with Style!" This is such an important test for each orbiter and even when it looks easy on the first sight, it's actually pretty challenging to fly. Thanks again for sharing some details on the design during the construction phase. I love to read about the way someone determined an issue and how he/she found a solution for it. You already demonstrated the glide capabilities of your orbiter in the previous missions, so I'm not too surprised to see you flying this mission with ease. Do you actually land right at the beginning of the runway on purpose or is it just a coincidence you did that twice in a row? It needs some serious flying skills to do this with such an high accuracy Well done mission, congratulations to your new badge! 13 hours ago, Ozelui said: Anyway, here are the mission reports, I've also included the original first mission because it worked perfectly until the kraken decided to show up: Failed STS Mun 2 STS Mun 2 STS Mun 3 STS Mun 4 Wow, what an amazing mission! I love every aspect of it: The shuttle with a detachable cockpit, VTOL capabilities, the way you've deployed the payload and of course the station itself...just amazing and very unique! Someone might argue that the orbiter is not fully reusable since the fairing is a part of it but it is actually part of the payload, otherwise Mun STS - 3 would require a fairing as well^^ If you wouldn't already own the "Shunkworks" badge, I would hand it out to you for this flight, this is just how amazed I am. By the way, this is the first entry which actually uses the new BG robotic parts and the way you've used them to save the EEV is just brilliant I'm curious though: There was an explosion when you flown across the station to land the orbiter...what was it?^^ I just need a little reminder which mods you've used so I can reward you the correct badge. There are at least some restock parts which would be still fine for the stock badge but I made a mistake previously, so I want to be sure there are no "restock+" or other modded parts Edited August 2, 2019 by 4x4cheesecake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozelui Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Thank you! I'm glad you liked the mission! Both the Mun 3 shuttle and the Christmas shuttle do have fairings In this case it's only to make the fusselage more streamlined and there was no need to open it since the rovers were compact enough for the mk3 cargo bay. Spoiler The explosion came from two rover wheels, or at least that's all I noticed at first glance. The 4 vector engines were pushing the rover into the ground, then the small wheels fell under the pressure and exploded, or were clipping into the terrain and exploded. I don't think it's noticeable in the video, but the ground effect ( as in the visual effect, no actual ground effect ^^ ) is moving at ground level, then jumps high above the rover, just on top of an antenna If I'm not mistaken. It all made sense to me... but I can't explain how the solar panels survived. And the engines were working at a very low rate, it's Mun after all... Spoiler And here's the mod list... to be completely sure, both the gamedata folder and the downloaded zips. I also checked the restock+ mod, it goes into its own folder \ksp\gamedata\restockplus, and its way lighter that restock. ( 6mb and 103 mb ) Spoiler zips: gamedata: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4x4cheesecake Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 31 minutes ago, Ozelui said: Both the Mun 3 shuttle and the Christmas shuttle do have fairings Yeah but the point is: the fairing wasn't require to transport he payload of STS - 3 and 4 32 minutes ago, Ozelui said: It all made sense to me... but I can't explain how the solar panels survived. And the engines were working at a very low rate, it's Mun after all... It's KSP after all as well Not everything can be explained and when in doubt, you can always blame Jeb (or Jeff ). The rover still seem to be usable, may become unstable while turning left but that's ok. The mod list looks fine as well, so here is your very well deserved badge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozelui Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Thank you! I guess it's LOPG time then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Congratulations on the Munar robotics! You might have done it first, but I've still got some cool ideas ahead. Had to resolve some crashing bugs, but I think I have it under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speeding Mullet Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 On 8/2/2019 at 8:46 AM, Ozelui said: It haven't been very active for about half a year or so I've only just come back after a year out of KSP. Welcome back. You are insanely talented, the mission was excellent. I made a detachable cockpit once I think, ah yes here's the album. Great work on the mission! Well, I finished this mission on July 16, but what with time, and imgur not playing ball at all, I only just finished uploading the pictures. It was a massive mission in itself just organising the screenshots into something resembling order, as I ran two missions concurrently (but separately) for the Duna STS-2 and 3 missions. there was also a support package as allowed in the STS-2 mission. OK here goes. You will have a link and "best" picture for each part of the mission. Click on the link to view the full report from that section. Hopefully its not too onerous! Duna STS-2 Support, STS-2, and STS-3 Launches Kerbin > Duna Legs for STS-2 Support, STS-2 and STS-3 Duna STS-2 Support, STS-2 and STS-3 plane changes Duna STS-2 Sunrise Module Drop off and Ike landing Duna STS-3 Duna arrival Duna STS-2 Duna landing operations Duna STS-3 Von Braun Ground Operations Duna STS-3 - Eve Operations Duna STS-2 - The return home! Duna STS-3 - The return home! The gag reel: I'm running a few other missions at the moment, and toying with the idea of a couple of interesting missions, but I think I'm also eyeing up the Laythe missions. When I set them originally I never thought I'd actually be good enough to do them, but you never know. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4x4cheesecake Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 6 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said: Hopefully its not too onerous! Don't worry, it's a simple equation: more pictures = more fun Anyway, I just came back home after a pretty exhausting weekend, I hope it's fine for you when I'll do the review of your entry tomorrow I'm sorry for the little delay, but I promise, it is at top of my to-do list for tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Well it turns out that the rotating nacelles can't stand up to aero forces at reentry speeds. The concept might work for a lighter VTOL craft, but not for my standard 100t payload orbiter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbolitto Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 10 hours ago, sturmhauke said: Well it turns out that the rotating nacelles can't stand up to aero forces at reentry speeds. The concept might work for a lighter VTOL craft, but not for my standard 100t payload orbiter. Do you autostrut them once they're at the correct angle ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Yeah, but it's not enough. As soon as I try to turn even a little, they pop off. I could maybe experiment with different attachment methods though, since the actual servo remains attached to the main craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4x4cheesecake Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 @Speeding Mullet You did a great job on these missions and there are some really nice screenshots in each album Had some troubles to actually spot Gilly though, it's just so tiny The fuel management on STS - 3 is very impressive. I think it's perfectly fine to take a 4 years long trip to land a shuttle precisely at the KSC with almost no fuel Did you "just" add the drill and an ISRU to your shuttle to do these missions? I kinda expected some additional lifting surfaces to help during the landing but you actually managed to land it without huge design changes Thanks for sharing some pictures of the successful litho-breaking as well, that's the stuff everyone who went through the same struggle wants to see Congratulation to your new badges! On 8/4/2019 at 3:38 PM, Speeding Mullet said: I'm running a few other missions at the moment, and toying with the idea of a couple of interesting missions, but I think I'm also eyeing up the Laythe missions. When I set them originally I never thought I'd actually be good enough to do them, but you never know. Well, it will probably require some heavy shuttle modifications or a complete new design but after reviewing these missions, I'm pretty sure you can do the Laythe mission as well If you feel confident to do multiple flybys, you may want to check out the lambert spreadsheet, available in the FF thread: It contains some pre-calculated values for an Kerbin - Eve - Kerbin - Kerbin - Jool flyby, which saves a lot of fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 I think I've solved the servo-mounted nacelle problem. I was surface attaching stuff to it, but that wasn't strong enough. So instead I attached the engine adapter to the aft node, a cone piece to the fore node, and then offset them together to remove the gap. Kerbal engineering at its finest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Reentry and landing test with the new nacelles was successful! There are some other changes from the last screenshot also, namely smaller side tanks and more wing area. Oh and, you know, a tail. I feel that's generally kind of important. In other news, I've started using Restock and Restock+. They make everything look a little crisper, and of course they look nice together with the Near Future suite I've been using. Now it's time for the payload and launch system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozelui Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 @sturmhauke It's nice to see the nacelle's issue has been solved. A fantastic design that would be extremely steady on vtol mode! @Speeding Mullet Thanks! Welcome back too! Duna 2 and 3, planting a flag on Ike, and finally a return from Eve using only 500 dV. Those are some serious navigational skills! Small sneak peek and questions: Spoiler I'm following this design, but I was wondering if it will be valid for the mission? i.e: It doesn't look like the U.S. habitation module has any docking capabilities, could that one and the multi-purpose module count as a single module for the purposes of the challenge ? (Asuming both of them were delivered in the same flight). The main docking hub appears to be the international habitation module in this drawing. And this veteran shuttle deserved an update Early WIP, the canadarm 2 occupies too much room. Not sure about the solar pannels either, they look ok on the SPH but we'll see how well they perform out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Ozelui said: @sturmhauke It's nice to see the nacelle's issue has been solved. A fantastic design that would be extremely steady on vtol mode! Thanks! That means a lot coming from a Skunkworks badge holder. And yeah, my Munar testing so far has shown its potential. I do have to be careful when switching directions though. I have to shutdown the engines, unlock the servos, activate, let the vibrations die down, lock, then activate engines afterwards. If there is too much force acting on the nacelles during the switch, it can lead to permanent warping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozelui Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 44 minutes ago, sturmhauke said: Thanks! That means a lot coming from a Skunkworks badge holder. And yeah, my Munar testing so far has shown its potential. I do have to be careful when switching directions though. I have to shutdown the engines, unlock the servos, activate, let the vibrations die down, lock, then activate engines afterwards. If there is too much force acting on the nacelles during the switch, it can lead to permanent warping. lol, I don't think I did anything really spectacular to deserve the badge, I only built a base on Duna instead of just landing. The forums are full of people doing impossible things that make my jaw drop to the ground everyday. I followed the same sequence as you for the nacelles. However, I don't recall any heavy bouncing after turning the servos. They are aligned with the CoM ( dry and wet ), and the engine gimbals are disabled. No KAL-1000 on board. Spoiler What action groups are you using? My setup had three, one to toogle the lock, another to set maximum angle on the servos and a third one to set the minimum, three keystrokes felt short enough. ( Yet the toogle group only worked when locking them, I should look into that ). I assume you have the same or something very similar to handle the servos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, Ozelui said: I followed the same sequence as you for the nacelles. However, I don't recall any heavy bouncing after turning the servos. They are aligned with the CoM ( dry and wet ), and the engine gimbals are disabled. No KAL-1000 on board. Reveal hidden contents What action groups are you using? My setup had three, one to toogle the lock, another to set maximum angle on the servos and a third one to set the minimum, three keystrokes felt short enough. ( Yet the toogle group only worked when locking them, I should look into that ). I assume you have the same or something very similar to handle the servos. I'm using a Nerv cluster with a 4-way adapter and a fairing base (for its nodes so I can mount other stuff for launch stages), so they're longer overall, maybe a bit heavier also. I'll post a closeup screenshot when I get a change. My action groups are like so: engage locks disengage locks, shutdown Nervs set servos to horizontal position, set control point to cockpit set servos to vertical position, set control point to a vertically-aligned probe core toggle Nervs on/off I had a scheme like yours on a lighter test craft, but I found that using a single toggle for the servo locks wasn't always reliable - if there is any residual motion in the parts, the locks won't engage, and then you have to go do it manually. This way, you can just press 1 again to lock anything that didn't engage the first time. You also don't have to wonder which way the toggle just went, since the game doesn't give you any feedback unless it can't lock a part for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmhauke Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Here's some details on my rotating nacelles. In the first pic you see the final assembly and what parts I used. Spoiler The second pic shows the actual attachment method, before I offset stuff around. In my previous version I surfaced attached the nacelle's tank to the servo, which turned out to be too weak even with autostruts. Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozelui Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) I will check it after work, but I'm pretty sure I used the servo's central node to attach the fuel tank and left the radial ones empty, then rotated the tank 90º and attached the rest of the stuff to the fuel tank. Actually, the tank is attached to the surface of the servo, and all the nodes are free. Edited August 8, 2019 by Ozelui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts