Jump to content

Horizon Aeronautics - Development Thread


stubbles

Recommended Posts

The RD-170's have a gimbal range of 1 right now, just like on the Zenit. But they don't have independent gimbal/roll/trim functionality. I can try to increase the range with the static module a bit and see if that helps, but I'm not sure if it will fix the roll issue. Since there are no reaction wheels on these boosters, they have to rely solely on thrust vectoring for trajectory changes.

I tried, but that addon crashes my KSP for some reason.

Edited by stubbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RD-170's have a gimbal range of 1 right now, just like on the Zenit. But they don't have independent gimbal/roll/trim functionality. I can try to increase the range with the static module a bit and see if that helps, but I'm not sure if it will fix the roll issue. Since there are no reaction wheels on these boosters, they have to rely solely on thrust vectoring for trajectory changes.

What about the integrated lower trim-tab/rudder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm what is this you speak of? :D

In the Urugan picture I put above the strap-on LRB's seem to have twin winglet/rudder/trim surfaces at the bottom, if you were looking for more control authority during ascent it seems like NPO-Energia perhaps toyed with the same idea

gk175-3.jpg

uragan3m.jpg

Check out some of the other crazy ideas that were floated for the LRB strap-on's too, like each one having deployable wings, independently flying back to land at a conventional airstrip after sep

Edited by NoMrBond
accidentally a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The small fins are the folded tail surfaces for the fly-back variant of the LRB. The rudders would not be functional during mated flight because they are not properly aligned to the slipstream to properly work. In fact, if a rudder were to move, it would likely be ripped off as that is not the direction of strength for the structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes more sense

Perhaps just more gimballing then? Not sure if the single axis gimballing for the RD-170's is possible without using something like Firespitter though

[Edit] Maybe just handwave that a little and use stock gimballing, maybe not the full 6º though, that might cause some SAStacular wibble

Edited by NoMrBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, other than the fact that the stock gimbal is roll-blind and *will* roll your craft accidentally when pitching/yawing, 6 degrees is no problem at all; SAS can handle *lots* of gimbal now. But I really do recommend using a mod gimbal, since it's such a revelation to fly with gimbal roll control, and this is *the* application for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just DL'ed this...

My God, what a spectacular piece of work. This is an absolute BEAUTY. Instantly one of my must-have mods.

But I really do recommend using a mod gimbal, since it's such a revelation to fly with gimbal roll control, and this is *the* application for it.

Any in particular you recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already broken out the second stage's RD-0120 engines into their own parts (which are working with the gimbal plugin) but that still leaves a huge roll detriment to the first stage burn.

First, you need to enable roll control on Dtobi's gimbals before you can use it. (enableRoll = True, or use tweakables) Also, you can the add gimbal plugin to RD-170s, too. That should help with roll control. Also, I'd prefer having RD-170s split off, so we might replace the booster engines with something else, if necessary. Well, that, or use RD-170 on Zenit, for emulating Zenit-2 configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stubbles,

Your engines show NaN/0.0 for electric charge in the VAB. It causes kerbal engineer to stop calculating delta-v values. I looked in AIES engine configs and he uses: "isTweakable = false hideFlow = true" under the electriccharge resource, though if I use that in your engines I still get NaN so I'm not sure what's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boamere - just default orientation I think. The way it works right now is really hack anyways - I believe Sarbian & Nothke are trying to work on a solution for that.

Kiwiak - Yeah it's definitely not how I'd like it, but people are already complaining about performance issues. We also don't have a ton of control over every aspect of the particle systems. The KSP stuff is pretty limited compared to base Unity particle systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll is closed but it looks like the nays beat the yays. I may still do a version of the RD-58m in the future that has that functionality, but simplicity has won out for the time being. Can't satisfy everyone :(

Still working on the Energia system, been having issues with the gimbal system from dtobi who has yet to answer my questions about it. I'm also working on some Zenit fixes for a 1.3 release, maybe next week.

For the Energia, are you all wanting the tank system to be modular? It has a very distinctive top and bottom section, so it would be at least 4 pieces for the tank: cone/upper/center (tileable)/lower, then there's the engine mount or tank cap, depending on what you're doing at launch. Part of me wants to keep it a single tank, for the sake of authenticity, but I know a lot of you like the lego building aspect of things.

The RD-170 tanks I suppose could be made modularly, but that seems pretty wasteful. I'll likely break their engines off so they can use the gimbal plugin, however.

Edited by stubbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll is closed but it looks like the nays beat the yays. I may still do a version of the RD-58m in the future that has that functionality, but simplicity has won out for the time being. Can't satisfy everyone :(

Still working on the Energia system, been having issues with the gimbal system from dtobi who has yet to answer my questions about it. I'm also working on some Zenit fixes for a 1.3 release, maybe next week.

For the Energia, are you all wanting the tank system to be modular? It has a very distinctive top and bottom section, so it would be at least 4 pieces for the tank: cone/upper/center (tileable)/lower, then there's the engine mount or tank cap, depending on what you're doing at launch.

The RD-170 tanks I suppose could be made modularly, but that seems pretty wasteful. I'll likely break their engines off so they can use the gimbal plugin, however.

Really glad you are working on more and thank you!

(especially due to how much time you are putting into it!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll is closed but it looks like the nays beat the yays. I may still do a version of the RD-58m in the future that has that functionality, but simplicity has won out for the time being. Can't satisfy everyone :(

Still working on the Energia system, been having issues with the gimbal system from dtobi who has yet to answer my questions about it. I'm also working on some Zenit fixes for a 1.3 release, maybe next week.

For the Energia, are you all wanting the tank system to be modular? It has a very distinctive top and bottom section, so it would be at least 4 pieces for the tank: cone/upper/center (tileable)/lower, then there's the engine mount or tank cap, depending on what you're doing at launch. Part of me wants to keep it a single tank, for the sake of authenticity, but I know a lot of you like the lego building aspect of things.

The RD-170 tanks I suppose could be made modularly, but that seems pretty wasteful. I'll likely break their engines off so they can use the gimbal plugin, however.

I agree with the modular system of the center build :D honestly with the side LRB's whatever you choose to do with them will satisfy me like always :D and hey stubbles, I was just curious, what kind of color palette you were thinking of using for the Energia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just curious, what kind of color palette you were thinking of using for the Energia?

Probably just the typical paint scheme it had in real life. Various tones of white/grey/tan with some splashes red here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some splashes red here and there.

It shouldn't have any red. Besides the USSR flag patch on Buran, everything red is to be removed before flight. It's a general rule in rocketry. All red parts are safety covers and caps, external pressurization tanks, protective blankets, stuff like that. None of that is actually supposed to get off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't have any red.

I'm not talking about red on the boosters and stuff like that. That's all protective paint and such. I'm talking about just small decals, lettering and the like. Similar to what I did with the Zenit's RD-171 nozzles.

As an example of the tanks lettering: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/SuperKungFu/Buran5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...