Shuttle Challenge v5 - The STS thread [Stock and Mod Friendly] - MAJOR CHALLENGE ANNOUNCEMENT! - 30.3.2020

[qzgy]

8 hours ago, AeroGav said:

Is there any clarification on the rules of this thing,  as to what precisely constitutes a "space shuttle"?   I feel as though i should make it resemble the historic system as much as possible,   but there's three things i always struggled with

1.  vertical launch..    is it ok to take off horizontally instead,  that way you don't need your highest twr right when your vessel is at it's heaviest  (Partially solved with an ungodly huge cluster of Fleas and Thumpers for a "stage minus one" , that only gets you to 100 m/s   .  

2.   no jet engines on launch (jets for landing are ok ) ... is that right?    Makes for ginormous rocket fuel tanks 

3.  does it have to have external tank underneath and boosters either side of the external tank..  or is it ok go with more symmetrical layouts clustered around the fuselage :-)

Would love to do the Duna challenge someday :-)

1 - Did that for my early space shuttle missions. My earliest designs were basically a jet/rocket powered plane which released the shuttle at a high enough apoapsis.

2 - As with above, I also used jet engines on the same launch vehicle. Specifically rapiers. actually I can show an image here.

Both the jets and horizontal takeoff were fine.

3 - No restriction there. I also used symmetrical layouts around a main shuttle.

 

Shuttle deisgn rules are in general pretty lax, so long as you ditch something and part of it comes back.

Edited October 21, 2018 by qzgy

[Kerbolitto]

6 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

In comparison, traditional shuttles certainly have balance issues, but once you figure that part out the actual flying isn't really that hard.

there's also the cool factor +25 points.

[Artienia]

20 hours ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

1) There is a definition of an Space Shuttle in the OP, followed by some rules and most of them will answer your questions. After re-reading them, I have to admit that there is no rule or definition which describes the launch direction (vertical or horizontal), but I have the gut feeling that you have to launch vertically. The defintion is no very restrictive (which is good), so everything that can be launched into space on a launch vehicle and return to kerbin in one piece, on its own power and land there horizontally, is already a shuttle

2) I cannot find a rule which prohibit jet engines during launch (or any other moment). Actually, the Artemis Shuttle of @Artienia got some jet engines, if you want to take a look. Since they are dead weight in space, jet engines are just uncommon.

3) The Launch Vehicle can be everything you want but you have to get rid of it at some point during the flight I've also seen some symetrical designs already (I'll add a link as well if I can find the correct page^^)

edit: Ozelui got a pretty symetrical design

hey look mama its me

i added jjet engines because 1) it looks cool and 2) i cant really glide not because the shuttle is very heavy, but also that i am somewhat of a begginer

 

but you inspired me to do the space station one

GET READY FOR ARTEMIS V

 

EDIT: I have to admit i also developed a system to lift a shuttle into orbit with a horizontal launching system. It was very unstable sadly. After days it became stable enough but that is a gray zones, and didn't save that much fuel so i dumped the idea. Although tthat was powered by rockets

Edited October 21, 2018 by Artienia

[Artienia]

Artemis V-I Shuttle Launch

Gonna be short. Part one out of four for the final mandatory badge on kerbin. I took a lot of pictures here so don't expect this much next time. Went for a small stations instead of a massive one

no image promos because noone watches the albums so you have to go there to see it

 

motivation by @4x4cheesecake

thanks

 

V-II is coming soon

[4x4cheesecake]

1 hour ago, Artienia said:

motivation by @4x4cheesecake

thanks

I just missed my BFF

Glad to see you back flying shuttles and you didn't forget how to do it

(Btw: most of my imgur albums got 0 views, I just don't care^^ )

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, Artienia said:

so you have to go there to see it

If you don't provide a link and show us where, how would we?

[Artienia]

Just now, hoioh said:

If you don't provide a link and show us where, how would we?

why do you think the title is blue?

[Kerbolitto]

36 minutes ago, Artienia said:

why do you think the title is blue?

Because it's a beautifull and soothing color.

[hoioh]

2 hours ago, Artienia said:

why do you think the title is blue?

We may have just resolved why nobody watches those albums then, maybe make it a bit smaller and more obvious you are sharing a mission report.

Something simple like:

Mission report here: (insert link to album)

 

The thing is, it looks like a massive title, not neccesarily a link to an album

Anyway, nice launch! I like the weird look of that cargo bay on the front of your shuttle by the way

[Artienia]

42 minutes ago, hoioh said:

We may have just resolved why nobody watches those albums then, maybe make it a bit smaller and more obvious you are sharing a mission report.

Something simple like:

Mission report here: (insert link to album)

 

The thing is, it looks like a massive title, not neccesarily a link to an album

 Anyway, nice launch! I like the weird look of that cargo bay on the front of your shuttle by the way

thats been present since Artemis I

 

all of my missions had links  through titles

[hoioh]

27 minutes ago, Artienia said:

thats been present since Artemis I

 

all of my missions had links  through titles

Yes, and like you said yourself: nobody clicked them

[Petrovich]

Note to self: Get more batteries.

STS-3: https://imgur.com/a/obUCKjo

Mods:

Cormorant Aeronology

Bluedog Design Bureau

CactEye

[michal.don]

Looks like you were quite busy again, let's take a look what's awaiting my approval  

On 10/20/2018 at 6:54 AM, Petrovich said:

I'm curious of where refueling at the station at the beginning or end of interplanetary missions stands in the rules.

In the missions so far, you can refuel only by launching the "support packages", where allowed. No refueling from the station (yet)  

On 10/20/2018 at 9:32 PM, 4x4cheesecake said:

My original plan was to launch a proper support package in a rocket (because I haven't build a rocket for a long time ) but after a quick test, I found out that I'm just missing ~400m/s dV so it's easier to put some aditional fuel into the cargo bay and park it at the space station while landing on Duna.

That's some serious lift the wings provide, landing on Duna at 70 m/s? Certainly makes things easier and more comfortable, I remember landing/falling/crashing at about 130 m/s, quite the horror  Perfectly executed mission (apart from the first landing "simulation"  ), and a well earned badge for you:

On 10/20/2018 at 10:37 PM, AeroGav said:

Is there any clarification on the rules of this thing,  as to what precisely constitutes a "space shuttle"?   I feel as though i should make it resemble the historic system as much as possible,   but there's three things i always struggled with

The rules try to be pretty non-restrictive as far as design goes. Some people aim for the original STS resemblance, others have the same principle, but make it enormously huge, and others don't follow the original, at all, and make their own, often brilliantly crazy thing  

Specificaly to your issues:

1) it's perfectly ok to launch horizontally (as long as there is a dedicated launch system present)

2) jets are allowed even on takeoff. No problem there either.

3) the ET and booster configration are completely up to you, and creativity is strongly encouraged around here  

Duna challenges are quite far down the line of missions, but the Kerbin system missions are fun too, so I hope I (and the guys here) answered all your questions, and I'll see you flying shuttles here soon  

 

(EDIT: After reading through the answers to your question, I feel I should add a bit to my answers.  The horizontal takeoff is a bit controversial, because it would tempt people to claim their spaceplanes and SSTOs are shuttles. After me ruling their entries as invalid, they would just add a small booster or two, and claim that it's certainly a shuttle now. No, it still isn't, in my book  This is not a spaceplane or an SSTO challenge, there are many others around the forums for these. On the other hand, I try my best to be as little restrictive about design creativity as possible. So, if you have an awesome design in mind, that uses horizontal takeoff and has a complex and specialised launch vehicle, you're more then welcome to fly it here and will get shiny badges and eternal glory. However, if it's just a spaceplane (or even worse, an SSTO  ) strapped to a quickly built booster, shame on you  )

 

On 10/21/2018 at 1:52 AM, Petrovich said:

After clawing our way from the shady dimension, we got back underway

STS-2B: https://imgur.com/a/9a1jTR5

Good job landing the MulletDyne failure back home  The robotic arm is a nice thing to have, I wonder how useful it will be in the station building missions. I guess we'll see soon enough

About the Skylab for the "test pilot" mission - as long as it has all the parts to fulfill all the objectives (I can't tell from the screenshot), you're good to go.

Here's your badge, congratulations:

 

(next page of reviews coming very soon)

 

[michal.don]

16 hours ago, Artienia said:

Gonna be short. Part one out of four for the final mandatory badge on kerbin. I took a lot of pictures here so don't expect this much next time. Went for a small stations instead of a massive one

Looking good! There's no reason (apart from being cool  ) to build massive stations, when a small one does the job. Looking forward for more!

7 hours ago, Petrovich said:

Note to self: Get more batteries.

Yeah, the holy trinity - more boosters, more batteries, more reaction wheels  I'm not sure if you were aiming for the commander level, but if you were, the mission is missing KSC landing, and more inclined orbit. But it's perfectly fine for the pilot level. I do not know, if that was the intention, but here's your pilot badge, congratulations!

Michal.don

[4x4cheesecake]

12 hours ago, michal.don said:

Looks like you were quite busy again

Yep, we need to keep the challenge on page 1 to attract even more potential Shuttle pilots

In order to do so, I've finished Duna STS - 3^^
I had some serious issues to set up the flyby maneuver...it is already a tough maneuver on its own but for some (unknown) reasons, the maneuver node always glitched which was really annoying (undo changes to values doesn't result in the previous patched conic and just changing the target from Eve to Kerbin affected the patched conic really bad, which doesn't even make any sense. Probably a mod issue, not sure yet).
Also, I've build a pretty unusual lander design, I hope you like it

 

Duna STS - 3

Since this is a really complex mission, just a few highlights:

Spoiler

Lift-off!

Transfer to Duna:

Aerobreaking:

Docking to the outpost:

Yes, this is actually a lander (Quiet tricky to fly)

Planting a flag and posing for a picture:

The IRL Shuttle got described as a flying brick...I guess this lander is pretty similar

Docking to the outpost:

Setting up the flyby of Eve to return to Kerbin:

Deploying the ComSats, right after reaching Eves SOI:

Getting the equatorial ComSat captured:

And the polar ComSat as well:

Final orbit of the equatorial ComSat:

Meanwhile, I have to perform a correction burn with the orbiter:

Than, I can put the polar ComSat into its final orbit:

Pretty hot reentry at Kerbin:

Almost there:

Done!

Album: https://imgur.com/a/8vYxD0x
(Since this mission got so many stages, the album contains 83 pictures!)

Maybe it's hard to read the numbers on the screenshots, so here are the important orbital paramaters of the ComSats:

Eve-Relay-1 (polar):
Ap: 2200.027 km
Pe: 2197.270 km
Inclination: 90.00258°

Eve-Relay-2 (equatorial):
Ap: 139.999 km
Pe: 139.991 km
Inclination: 0.06249°

Edited October 22, 2018 by 4x4cheesecake

[michal.don]

11 hours ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

Yep, we need to keep the challenge on page 1 to attract even more potential Shuttle pilots

And in that, you are doing a really great job - I can't even remember when was the last time the challenge left the first page  

Regarding the mission - great job, the Eve flyby aneuver is a tricky one indeed, and you managed just fine! And while the lander looks not that practical, it certainly works alright  Nice planetary navigation, good job!

So, Laythe's next to go?  

[4x4cheesecake]

1 hour ago, michal.don said:

Regarding the mission - great job, the Eve flyby aneuver is a tricky one indeed, and you managed just fine! And while the lander looks not that practical, it certainly works alright  Nice planetary navigation, good job!

Thanks
Well, the lander wasn't intended to be practical, just to be different
 

1 hour ago, michal.don said:

So, Laythe's next to go?  

 

Yep and I'm really curious how the orbiter will perform on this one, especially during aerobreaking on laythe. Also, it looks like I have to go back to KSP 1.4.3, otherwise my atmospheric exploration aircraft will suffer from some bouncy landing gear. On the other hand, the design is not even close to be finished, so maybe it will work properly anyway. We'll see

Btw.: I'm a little bit confused that the commander badge doesn't require a landing at the KSC/Airfield/other Airport....is that correct or just a mistake no one noticed so far?

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

suffer from some bouncy landing gear.

Use the "world stabilizer" mod to fix all your bouncing problems even 151

[4x4cheesecake]

4 minutes ago, hoioh said:

Use the "world stabilizer" mod to fix all your bouncing problems even 151

Good idea, totally forgot this mod. Thanks

[michal.don]

1 hour ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

Btw.: I'm a little bit confused that the commander badge doesn't require a landing at the KSC/Airfield/other Airport....is that correct or just a mistake no one noticed so far?

That would be a mistake. Of course, no ditching the shuttle into the sea  I'll have to edit the post, and probably include the Dessert airfield as a possible location for landings... Maybe tomorrow  Thanks for the tip!

[4x4cheesecake]

Checklist for Jool STS - 1:

Atmospheric Exploration Aircraft - check
Ground outpost - ugly (kinda check)
Landing on Laythe - pretty dead crispy Kerbals

Well, I'm getting tired of burning up in Laythes atmosphere, so I startet planning the Skylab boost mission as well, to get some variation^^
Quick question for this one: 'Deorbiting the solar/comm array' does not require to load them into the cargo bay and land them on Kerbin, does it? It is more like: put a rocket engine on it and fly it into the atmosphere?

[Mr. Peabody]

1 minute ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

<snip>

What is the difficulty re-entering in Laythe's atmosphere? I would think it would be fairly easy as it is quite thin.

(I'm only asking because I may try that mission before too long myself.)

[4x4cheesecake]

12 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

What is the difficulty re-entering in Laythe's atmosphere? I would think it would be fairly easy as it is quite thin.

(I'm only asking because I may try that mission before too long myself.)

Actually, It's not quiet thin, more like the opposite (at least it seem to be) and it's pretty hard to reach as reasonable speed without spending a dV of ~1000m/s. The most promising attempt seems to be to get a Laythe encounter while beeing close the the Ap around Jool but if you are not lucky, the timing can be tricky.

Most of my test flights got a speed between 3,5km/s and 4km/s when hitting the atmosphere and the orbiter burns up really quick, even though I'm just touching the atmopshere at ~45km altitude.

Edited October 26, 2018 by 4x4cheesecake

[Alchemist]

Laythe atmosphere is quite the brick wall. It's barely less draggy than Kerbin's (difference corresponds to a few km altitude difference), but it ends abruptly at lower altitude - you may slam into a huge surprise barely below complete vacuum.

[sturmhauke]

The real difficulty with Laythe is not so much the atmosphere itself, but that you tend to have a very high orbital speed when you get there compared to Kerbin. If you aerobrake gently, or start from LLO, it's really not that bad.