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

[KerbalTween]

Hi Just Re Did It AND LANDED NOW THIS TIME https://imgur.com/a/eni4b Anyone?

Edited September 30, 2017 by KerbalTween

[B-STRK]

Muchas gracias and merci tres bien for the award michel!  Like to ask: across the challenge, can we use different launch systems for the same shuttle, or does it have to be the same launch system for all launches involving the same shuttle? (Or, at least, derivatives of the LV are allowed?). Also, if I can get a shuttle out for STS-1b or 2, would it have to be the same shuttle system used across the remaining missions and the Mun missions, or similarly are derivatives allowed? Thanks again!

[Alchemist]

52 minutes ago, B-STRK said:

across the challenge, can we use different launch systems for the same shuttle, or does it have to be the same launch system for all launches involving the same shuttle?

You are allowed even to totally design a new shuttle from scratch in the middle of progression. Especially if it turns out that another mission is just plainly too much for the current design.

For example, I started it with Energia-Buran replica that (with some minor tweaks and improvements along the way) turned out capable of everything up to station assembly and Duna station deployment. But for asteroid recovery I totally designed much larger vessel, couple variants of which were used for the high-end missions (and some more variations for bonus stuff like redoing low-tier missions in some fancy ways)

[michal.don]

On 30. 9. 2017 at 12:18 AM, Kerbal Tween said:

Hi Just Re Did It AND LANDED NOW

Congratulations on the successful mission!

Here is your badge, and good luck in the next one

 

22 hours ago, B-STRK said:

Muchas gracias and merci tres bien for the award michel!  Like to ask: across the challenge, can we use different launch systems for the same shuttle, or does it have to be the same launch system for all launches involving the same shuttle? (Or, at least, derivatives of the LV are allowed?)

Il n'y a pas de quoi!

Yup, like Alchemist said, you're not limited in any way in redesigning/designing a new one. Many folks design a new shuttle almost every mission, and I'd be surprised if you managed to pull off an interplanetary mission with a starting design for STS-1

 

Michal.don

[KerbalTween]

6 hours ago, michal.don said:

Congratulations on the successful mission!

Here is your badge, and good luck in the next one

 

 

 

 

Michal.don

Thanks Btw Right Now Just 4 Hours Later Got My 40 ton lifting shuttle to work  P.S The Only Mod That I Use its parts are Kw Rocketetry Mechjeb and All the other mods with the other one are used that are not Parts mod With tweak scaled Parachute for recovery O And I Changed It so It would now have nebula decals 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by KerbalTween

[michal.don]

1 hour ago, Kerbal Tween said:

Thanks Btw Right Now Just 4 Hours Later Got My 40 ton lifting shuttle to work

Good job, looking forward to seeing the mission!

And, I noticed a mistake on my part - I accidentally awarded a wrong badge. My apologies, here is the correct one:

Michal.don

[KerbalTween]

 

Good job, looking forward to seeing the mission!

And, I noticed a mistake on my part - I accidentally awarded a wrong badge. My apologies, here is the correct one:

Michal.don

O Okay And I Changed the shuttle it know you uses those mods a listed above and spaceY Booster sepratrons on the nose cone

Edited October 5, 2017 by KerbalTween

[KerbalTween]

For Mullet dyne https://imgur.com/a/kkxN9(I Didn`t land at cape because It was Not in the right area for me to land there) Anyone? 

Edited October 6, 2017 by KerbalTween

[michal.don]

15 hours ago, Kerbal Tween said:

For Mullet dyne https://imgur.com/a/kkxN9

Hello, you got the tank to the orbit allright, and your shuttle looks great, but unfortunately, the orbit is not within the tolerances stated in the rules - for orbits of less than 1999 km, the difference between periapsis and apoapsis must be less than 100 m. So I unfortunately can not award you the badge.

And, when you try again, please don't forget to take a picture on the launchpad, and at least the SRB separation. Thanks!

Michal.don

[KerbalTween]

7 hours ago, michal.don said:

Hello, you got the tank to the orbit allright, and your shuttle looks great, but unfortunately, the orbit is not within the tolerances stated in the rules - for orbits of less than 1999 km, the difference between periapsis and apoapsis must be less than 100 m. So I unfortunately can not award you the badge.

And, when you try again, please don't forget to take a picture on the launchpad, and at least the SRB separation. Thanks!

Michal.don

Could I Get another shuttle to dock with it to refuel it And Land it back?

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

@michal.don

Off on an Adventure!

Edited October 6, 2017 by Bottle Rocketeer 500

[michal.don]

14 hours ago, Kerbal Tween said:

Could I Get another shuttle to dock with it to refuel it And Land it back?

Landing the fuel pod is the STS-2b mission, but first, you have to complete the STS-1b.

 

13 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

@michal.don

Off on an Adventure!

Nice looking shuttle! Do I suppose correctly it's completely stock? Or are there any hidden mod parts that I did not notice?

If the shuttle indeed is fully stock, here is your badge!

 

Michal.don

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

@michal.don Completely stock, unless you count a custom flag as modded.

I'm doing STS 1b now!

[B-STRK]

Aight, @michal.don, managed to figure out a redesign at least for the LKO missions. Here's my STS-1b for your consideration.  

 

[michal.don]

39 minutes ago, B-STRK said:

Aight, @michal.don, managed to figure out a redesign at least for the LKO missions. Here's my STS-1b for your consideration. 

I must admit, I really like this one, a beautiful, elegant design!

Especially the wings - are those beauties procedural? About the FMRS performance hit - I have no idea, I never played with the mod, unfortunately.

Anyway, a great mission, here are your badges:

Michal.don

[B-STRK]

5 minutes ago, michal.don said:

Especially the wings - are those beauties procedural?

Nope, they come from the OPT mod (Wing Type C I believe).  

And thanks again!

Edited October 8, 2017 by B-STRK

[G'th]

 

Noticed this topic still exists (lol), so I figured I'd share my Shuttle.  I don't think it qualifies for the challenge as I use MechJeb for ascent guidance (not the actual autopilot, just gives me a target to follow for gravity turn purposes) but even so. 

[KerbalTween]

1 hour ago, G'th said:

 

Noticed this topic still exists (lol), so I figured I'd share my Shuttle.  I don't think it qualifies for the challenge as I use MechJeb for ascent guidance (not the actual autopilot, just gives me a target to follow for gravity turn purposes) but even so. 

I Can see You Used Ssrss 

[G'th]

1 hour ago, Kerbal Tween said:

I Can see You Used Ssrss 

Indeed.

[funk]

Hey Kerbanauts,

back in v3 of this challenge I created a shuttle and did some missions. I always wanted to come back and do the rest, because I already have a design for the space station. But after the updates to fuel flow and auto-strutting I've lost track.

Eventually I found some time to update the STS/Shuttle and I'm glad to see, that @michal.don is continuing this great challenge.

 

So for the first test, mainly to check capabilities, I've done STS-1b again and brought the 40t beast back to Kerbin.

STS-1b & STS-2b Space Shuttle "Eriksson 4.0"

Installed mods: KER, RCSBA, EEX, PreciseManuever, BetterBurnTime, HullcamVDS, Realplume-Stock, MinimumAmbientLightning

 

I hope I'll find some time to fly STS 5-8 soon...

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by funk

[KerbalTween]

On 10/7/2017 at 7:51 AM, michal.don said:

Landing the fuel pod is the STS-2b mission, but first, you have to complete the STS-1b.

Um I Mean Landing The Other Shuttle That Refuel......

[michal.don]

On 8. 10. 2017 at 7:14 PM, G'th said:

Noticed this topic still exists (lol), so I figured I'd share my Shuttle. 

Thanks for sharing, a nice replica of the shuttle, and nice mission! As you said yourself, one of the rules is a hand-flown launch without MechJeb, and that indeed is the only thing preventing you from getting a badge. I might change this rule though - what do others think about allowing a "gravity-turn-helper" by MJ?

 

On 9. 10. 2017 at 7:31 PM, funk said:

Hey Kerbanauts,

back in v3 of this challenge I created a shuttle and did some missions. I always wanted to come back and do the rest, because I already have a design for the space station.

Hello, and welcome (back) to the challenge! A nice stock replica of the shuttle! The mods you use are fine, and since you don't use any part mods, I gladly award you the appropriate stock badges. Congrats!

Just one thing - you still have to complete the STS-2 comm-sat mission before moving on to STS-3 (Hubble)

 

21 hours ago, Kerbal Tween said:

Um I Mean Landing The Other Shuttle That Refuel......

I'm afraid I don't understand - which shuttle do you mean? And there isn't any refueling going on in the missions. Could you explain a bit more, please?

 

Michal.don

[KerbalTween]

2 hours ago, michal.don said:

Thanks for sharing, a nice replica of the shuttle, and nice mission! As you said yourself, one of the rules is a hand-flown launch without MechJeb, and that indeed is the only thing preventing you from getting a badge. I might change this rule though - what do others think about allowing a "gravity-turn-helper" by MJ?

 

Hello, and welcome (back) to the challenge! A nice stock replica of the shuttle! The mods you use are fine, and since you don't use any part mods, I gladly award you the appropriate stock badges. Congrats!

Just one thing - you still have to complete the STS-2 comm-sat mission before moving on to STS-3 (Hubble)

 

I'm afraid I don't understand - which shuttle do you mean? And there isn't any refueling going on in the missions. Could you explain a bit more, please?

 

Michal.don

Okay By what I Mean Is I Launch the first shuttle with the Mullet dyne Tank Then I Launch a second one with a  Full Tank Then Land The shuttle with the fuel tank and then the shuttle with mullet dyne tank Goes To The 1,000 to 1,000 Orbit and delivers it payload the Mullet dyne tank Clear for you...

[michal.don]

17 minutes ago, Kerbal Tween said:

Okay By what I Mean Is I Launch the first shuttle with the Mullet dyne Tank Then I Launch a second one with a  Full Tank Then Land The shuttle with the fuel tank and then the shuttle with mullet dyne tank Goes To The 1,000 to 1,000 Orbit and delivers it payload the Mullet dyne tank Clear for you...

I'm still not completely certain I understand, so to be sure, this is how the STS-1b and STS-2b MUST be completed:

STS-1b takes the full fuel pod to orbit, which MUST be precise enough. The tolerances are stated in the OP. Then the shuttle leaves and lands.

STS-2b performes rendezvous with the pod in its orbit. Shuttle docks with the full fuel pod, deorbits and lands. 

That's it, one flight takes the fuel pod up, another lands it back down. 

I hope it's clear now,

Michal.don

[Alchemist]

On 08.10.2017 at 8:14 PM, G'th said:

I don't think it qualifies for the challenge as I use MechJeb for ascent guidance (not the actual autopilot, just gives me a target to follow for gravity turn purposes)

21 hours ago, michal.don said:

Thanks for sharing, a nice replica of the shuttle, and nice mission! As you said yourself, one of the rules is a hand-flown launch without MechJeb, and that indeed is the only thing preventing you from getting a badge. I might change this rule though - what do others think about allowing a "gravity-turn-helper" by MJ?

As the one who made this (yup, 100% flown by kOS - replicating the way the real flight went), let me give some thoughts:

1. In any case the question is never about fully manual flying of something this complex (we do have stock SAS!), it's about how far and in what way it should be allowed to step beyond this SAS functionality
2. In the current form (unlike the very first version of the challenge) this progression of missions can be considered to be more of the engineering than piloting challenge. Including the challenge of building something you can reliably fly manually and/or with relatively simple automated/semi-automated tools. Heh, I still consider myself not that good of a pilot. Even after this insanity. And a few others. It's more like HRO is the overengineered masterpiece optimized to work with my piloting capabilities.
3. This brings us to the true point behind this kind of rule - excessively versatile externally designed autopilot capable of handling even a very poorly designed shuttle basically negates both engineering and piloting challenge. Haven't touched MJ for quite a while (once took part in a challenge where it was kinda requirement - got fed up with designing for this smartS thing, decided it's more fun to design for my skills... or to design the autopilot as well), but as far as I remember its arsenal varies from simple semi-automatic assistants to that very level of doing half the mission in couple clicks with almost any craft.
4. But there is also another aspect greatly amplified by the very nature of asymmetric craft, especially given many of us use keyboard - combination of large control deflection necessary for balancing with only small input needed for course adjustment. I'd say I don't mind any control assist system (whether it is plugged into stock SAS or uses similar-level control override) as long as the navigation input is either manual or follows a simple formula/profile (preferably, adjustable on user's end). And to be fair, apart from this sensitivity issue, ascent profile of a vertically launched shuttle doesn't differ much from that of a regular rocket.
5. For ascent I really don't mind some simple guidance/assist, since nobody pilots that manually IRL anyway and specifics of such asymmetric launch configurations go way beyond Kerbal-style full manual piloting. Besides, the main engineering challenge for this part is still here no matter the autopilot - if you don't balance it properly across the entire range of fuel levels, it will flip no matter what. By the way, my Energia-Buran replica can go all the way through ascent with just switching between hold attitude and prograde SAS modes, HRO (with more STS-like engine configuration) requires just a little initial nudge to start pitching in the right direction. At least if there is no need for doing something serious with roll. but any course adjustments are done by pulling against prograde SAS - which is not the best idea with higher thrust vector deflection.
     A little bonus: quickly made Space Shuttle replica, inclined orbit launch and me totally not used to flying something like this without halved framerate - one big mess of a launch. Well, a legit reason to send a rescue mission, isn't it?
6. Plus, I think there would be no real objections for using ascent autopilots to optimize performance needed for difficult missions, if it is already demonstrated that the spacecraft (with similar payload mass) is quite controllable during ascent using simpler means.
7. Landing, on the other hand, is exactly the part with a serious navigation (especially if you aim for KSC or any other location) and piloting challenge (plus, of course, the engineering challenge to make it controllable. I said controllable, not barely getting out of corkscrew flat spin 200 m above the ground!!! Been there, flew that. Do not recommend). This is definitely the part where it's better to be careful with allowances. I'd say, piloting assistance (like keeping/limiting AoA or some smart smoothing of control inputs) could be allowed, but no automated third-party landing navigation.

It's also rather interesting how this rule turned around from "no autopilots except couple standard solutions" to "no autopilots in atmosphere except self-made"

On 15.04.2017 at 5:10 AM, Speeding Mullet said:

Really the motivation for the rule (which I want to keep) is to stop people pressing space bar and having the shuttle fly itself to orbit without any further input, or pressing a button on orbit and having the shuttle land without having any further input.

 

Another thing to consider about allowing autopilots: what would the real crew do if if automatics failed at the particular part of the mission? If it's immediate switching to abort sequence, then maybe this is the part best given to autopilot. If it can be salvaged in manual mode - the cosmonauts would get trained for doing this operation in full manual.
Russian rule for this is "the spacecraft should be capable of doing its mission fully automated the crew should be capable of taking manual control at any point".