totm apr 2024 [1.12.x] Shuttle Orbiter Construction Kit | Stockalike Space Shuttle Orbiter! | (Tubes!) | v1.1.8

[DaveyJ576]

I would like to correct an earlier post that I made concerning the shuttle rolling to the heads down and later to the heads up position during launch. It turns out I was badly misinformed. It really had nothing to do with SRB separation.

The shuttle rolled to a heads down position immediately after launch for several reasons (in order of importance):

1. It greatly reduced the effect of aerodynamic forces on the wings. The shuttle was flying at the absolute limit of its structural integrity during launch. Trajectories were very carefully planned so that the structural limits would not be exceeded, which would very quickly lead to a loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew incident. Rolling to heads down greatly aided in this effort.

2. It resulted in significant reductions in drag and thrust vector losses, resulting in a nearly 20% increase in payload to orbit performance.

3. It allowed the shuttle to align itself with the correct and desired launch azimuth. Very nearly all rockets perform a roll maneuver for this reason. The reuse of the Saturn launch pads forced the shuttle stack to be oriented with the vertical stabilizer (tail) pointed south, thus making a roll maneuver a necessity in order to launch to the east.

4. It made RTLS aborts easier as the pilots would already have a view of the horizon, saving precious time in aligning the vehicle in an abort situation. 

5. It provided the S-band comms antennas that were (by necessity) mounted on the upper sections of the orbiter's forward fuselage with a clear line of sight to the communications stations at Merritt Island and Bermuda. This enabled a continuous comms link on the ride uphill. Staying in a heads up orientation would have blocked these stations by the bulk of the orbiter/ET stack.

Staying in the heads down position all the way to MECO was the normal procedure for all flights up to STS-87. That flight (in November 1997) was the first to use the Roll-To-Heads-Up (RTHU) maneuver at the T+6 minute mark, which enabled communications through TDRS 2.5 minutes sooner and allowed NASA to close the Bermuda tracking station. Renowned historian Dennis R. Jenkins stated that "most" flights after STS-87 used the maneuver, but he did not list which ones did not. I believe it to be a reasonable assumption that very nearly all of them did.

The original post that prompted my earlier and now incorrect post was in regards to a theoretical shuttle/ET stack launched on a Saturn S-1C stage. Given the statements above, it would have still been necessary to roll the vehicle to a heads down position immediately upon launch, even without the side-mounted SRBs. It would only be advantageous to perform a RTHU maneuver when sufficient TDRS coverage had been obtained. @Blufor878, I apologize for the confusion concerning your cool  Saturn/Shuttle pics.

By the way, has anyone ever tried an RTLS abort using SOCK in game?

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by DaveyJ576

[hugoraider]

Damn, I absolutely love the new Buran parts! Fantastic work as always @benjee10! Btw, are there more Buran parts planned, such as payload bay stuff and cargo parts?

[Blufor878]

4 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

I would like to correct an earlier post that I made concerning the shuttle rolling to the heads down and later to the heads up position during launch. It turns out I was badly misinformed. It really had nothing to do with SRB separation.

The shuttle rolled to a heads down position immediately after launch for several reasons (in order of importance):

1. It greatly reduced the effect of aerodynamic forces on the wings. The shuttle was flying at the absolute limit of its structural integrity during launch. Trajectories were very carefully planned so that the structural limits would not be exceeded, which would very quickly lead to a loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew incident. Rolling to heads down greatly aided in this effort.

2. It resulted in significant reductions in drag and thrust vector losses, resulting in a nearly 20% increase in payload to orbit performance.

3. It allowed the shuttle to align itself with the correct and desired launch azimuth. Very nearly all rockets perform a roll maneuver for this reason. The reuse of the Saturn launch pads forced the shuttle stack to be oriented with the vertical stabilizer (tail) pointed south, thus making a roll maneuver a necessity in order to launch to the east.

4. It made RTLS aborts easier as the pilots would already have a view of the horizon, saving precious time in aligning the vehicle in an abort situation. 

5. It provided the S-band comms antennas that were (by necessity) mounted on the upper sections of the orbiter's forward fuselage with a clear line of sight to the communications stations at Merritt Island and Bermuda. This enabled a continuous comms link on the ride uphill. Staying in a heads up orientation would have blocked these stations by the bulk of the orbiter/ET stack.

Staying in the heads down position all the way to MECO was the normal procedure for all flights up to STS-87. That flight (in November 1997) was the first to use the Roll-To-Heads-Up (RTHU) maneuver at the T+6 minute mark, which enabled communications through TDRS 2.5 minutes sooner and allowed NASA to close the Bermuda tracking station. Renowned historian Dennis R. Jenkins stated that "most" flights after STS-87 used the maneuver, but he did not list which ones did not. I believe it to be a reasonable assumption that very nearly all of them did.

The original post that prompted my earlier and now incorrect post was in regards to a theoretical shuttle/ET stack launched on a Saturn S-1C stage. Given the statements above, it would have still been necessary to roll the vehicle to a heads down position immediately upon launch, even without the side-mounted SRBs. It would only be advantageous to perform a RTHU maneuver when sufficient TDRS coverage had been obtained. @Blufor878, I apologize for the confusion concerning your cool  Saturn/Shuttle pics.

By the way, has anyone ever tried an RTLS abort using SOCK in game?

 

 

 

I appreciate the apology, but it's not necessary. I'm just here to entertain me and everyone elses delusions (and sometimes the AI art stuff, but that's another bridge). Truth be told I had completely forgotten about this topic.

I think my favorite abort scenario is still Abort-to-orbit. "We have problems? TOO BAD WE'RE GOING TO SPACE ANYWAY!"

[DaveyJ576]

2 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

I appreciate the apology, but it's not necessary. I'm just here to entertain me and everyone elses delusions (and sometimes the AI art stuff, but that's another bridge). Truth be told I had completely forgotten about this topic.

I think my favorite abort scenario is still Abort-to-orbit. "We have problems? TOO BAD WE'RE GOING TO SPACE ANYWAY!"

On 26 June 1984, STS-14 (41D) experienced the first post-ignition, pre-launch abort since Gemini 6A. The SSME start sequence was aborted after only one engine had started. In the immediate aftermath of the abort, while still strapped in his seat on the flight deck, astronaut Steve Hawley deadpanned, “Gee, I thought we would be a lot higher at MECO!”  

[Ultim32]

Hi,

If I wanted to launch an empty shuttle (No payload, empty cargo bay, etc.) to orbit in stock scale ksp, would I use the instructions provided by the manual, or would I have to try something else? Thank you in advance.

[benjee10]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:08 AM, BlackDinoShadows said:

Want to see the new update soon

And i'm exited for the buran with the folder Buran_WIP

15 hours ago, hugoraider said:

Damn, I absolutely love the new Buran parts! Fantastic work as always @benjee10! Btw, are there more Buran parts planned, such as payload bay stuff and cargo parts?

So, just to clarify some things with the Buran parts, I am not intending to work on them further or add them to the base install, they will remain in the Extras folder. I initially thought I had overwritten the files for them, but found them the other day so thought I would put them on the GitHub for people to experiment with. As it stands it is just the cockpit and the OMS section; it is simply too much work to get the rest of Buran finished when KSP2 is just around the corner. At least now there is the possibility a 3rd party mod could pick it up if they wanted to (similar to SOCK recolored) with the parts on GitHub. 

The new orbiter for KSP2 is being designed with Buran (and other alternate configurations) in mind from the outset. Here is some very early work on that:

Since I made the original SOCK model in 2019, the Smithsonian have released an extremely high-quality 3D scan of Discovery, so I am basing the proportions on that - it should be far more accurate than the current model. 

22 hours ago, Kurld said:

I guess while we are talking docking... is there some  real-world document somewhere that describes a particular way that the APAS ports should be installed?  I'm imagining something that says "all the ports on the station that face nadir should be rotated this way" or "all the ports on the station that face prograde should be rotated that way."

I've made up some rules for myself that seem to work, because I had an issue come up when I was docking Node 1 to the FGB where I didn't have them lined up properly and of course the relative angles matter for the APAS.  But is it proscribed anywhere?

To confuse me even further, the CBM rings have little tabs that stick out, but these don't seem to interfere with anything.

I haven't seen any documentation like that but perhaps it exists somewhere. What I do is look at the orientation of the APAS on the shuttle IRL and work from there, ensuring ports on stations are rotated 180 degrees relative to the position I want the shuttle to dock in. 

As for the CBMs, in game they can dock in any angle. The guide fins don't have colliders and are just decorative. That model is pretty old now and I intend to make a more accurate (visually and functionally) version for KSP2. 

17 hours ago, Kurld said:

Current status:

I love this ISS/shuttle configuration. Such an unusual docking position compared to the usual forward APAS port docking (unique to this mission I think?)

Nice to see the new HabTech truss parts used in that 'power-tower' config!

16 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

By the way, has anyone ever tried an RTLS abort using SOCK in game?

I tried it a few times during testing. It is definitely possible, not sure I ever nailed a runway landing but quite a bit of fun to try it out. 

8 hours ago, Ultim32 said:

If I wanted to launch an empty shuttle (No payload, empty cargo bay, etc.) to orbit in stock scale ksp, would I use the instructions provided by the manual, or would I have to try something else? Thank you in advance.

It should work, but you will end up with a lot of fuel to spare in the ET (I think I tested this once and at stock scale you have enough delta-V to do a direct launch to the Mun) and probably a pretty crazy trajectory using MechJeb PVG. Give it a go but you might have better results using the 'stock-style gravity turn' setting or just flying it manually.

[hugoraider]

Oh ok, that's understandable. Thanks for clarifying

[Kurld]

2 hours ago, benjee10 said:

Since I made the original SOCK model in 2019, the Smithsonian have released an extremely high-quality 3D scan of Discovery, so I am basing the proportions on that - it should be far more accurate than the current model. 

I'm pretty much in awe of anybody who can model complex surfaces at all.  I made some Saturn V parts and anything beyond the basic cylinder of the tanks and thrust structure gave me fits. I feel like I spent about a year modeling the Rocketdyne F-1.  About that time BDB showed up and so I threw up my hands in celebration that I could finally stop what I was doing 
 

2 hours ago, benjee10 said:

I love this ISS/shuttle configuration. Such an unusual docking position compared to the usual forward APAS port docking (unique to this mission I think?)

Nice to see the new HabTech truss parts used in that 'power-tower' config!

I think it was unique to STS-98.   The HabTech parts look amazing and playing with them was the reason I pulled the trigger to start this project to assemble the Kerbin Space Station.  Only about 35 missions to go now, lol.   So far nobody has died returning to Kerbin, but the landing after this mission was over was not pretty.

Here is another gratuitous screenshot of some SSRMS action. I forgot to put a kerbal on EVA on the Z1 to serve as a "moan backer."


 

OK, one more:

[Ultim32]

3 hours ago, benjee10 said:

So, just to clarify some things with the Buran parts, I am not intending to work on them further or add them to the base install, they will remain in the Extras folder. I initially thought I had overwritten the files for them, but found them the other day so thought I would put them on the GitHub for people to experiment with. As it stands it is just the cockpit and the OMS section; it is simply too much work to get the rest of Buran finished when KSP2 is just around the corner. At least now there is the possibility a 3rd party mod could pick it up if they wanted to (similar to SOCK recolored) with the parts on GitHub. 

The new orbiter for KSP2 is being designed with Buran (and other alternate configurations) in mind from the outset. Here is some very early work on that:

Since I made the original SOCK model in 2019, the Smithsonian have released an extremely high-quality 3D scan of Discovery, so I am basing the proportions on that - it should be far more accurate than the current model. 

I haven't seen any documentation like that but perhaps it exists somewhere. What I do is look at the orientation of the APAS on the shuttle IRL and work from there, ensuring ports on stations are rotated 180 degrees relative to the position I want the shuttle to dock in. 

As for the CBMs, in game they can dock in any angle. The guide fins don't have colliders and are just decorative. That model is pretty old now and I intend to make a more accurate (visually and functionally) version for KSP2. 

I love this ISS/shuttle configuration. Such an unusual docking position compared to the usual forward APAS port docking (unique to this mission I think?)

Nice to see the new HabTech truss parts used in that 'power-tower' config!

I tried it a few times during testing. It is definitely possible, not sure I ever nailed a runway landing but quite a bit of fun to try it out. 

It should work, but you will end up with a lot of fuel to spare in the ET (I think I tested this once and at stock scale you have enough delta-V to do a direct launch to the Mun) and probably a pretty crazy trajectory using MechJeb PVG. Give it a go but you might have better results using the 'stock-style gravity turn' setting or just flying it manually.

Ok, thank you!

[DJ Reonic]

@benjee10 Is the revised rudder model you mentioned a while back available, or will it be a KSP2 thing?

[benjee10]

46 minutes ago, DJ Reonic said:

@benjee10 Is the revised rudder model you mentioned a while back available, or will it be a KSP2 thing?

Not sure what you're referring to exactly, but not planning on any changes to the orbiter model in KSP1. 

Unless you mean the Columbia SILTS pod, which is SOCK Recolored adds.

[Razgriz1]

49 minutes ago, DJ Reonic said:

@benjee10 Is the revised rudder model you mentioned a while back available, or will it be a KSP2 thing?

 

Just now, benjee10 said:

Not sure what you're referring to exactly, but not planning on any changes to the orbiter model in KSP1. 

Unless you mean the Columbia SILTS pod, which is SOCK Recolored adds.

Might be asking about splitting the rudders and the vertical stabilizer into separate parts so that they can work with FAR?

[Entr8899]

16 hours ago, benjee10 said:

So, just to clarify some things with the Buran parts, I am not intending to work on them further or add them to the base install, they will remain in the Extras folder. I initially thought I had overwritten the files for them, but found them the other day so thought I would put them on the GitHub for people to experiment with. As it stands it is just the cockpit and the OMS section; it is simply too much work to get the rest of Buran finished when KSP2 is just around the corner. At least now there is the possibility a 3rd party mod could pick it up if they wanted to (similar to SOCK recolored) with the parts on GitHub. 

The new orbiter for KSP2 is being designed with Buran (and other alternate configurations) in mind from the outset. Here is some very early work on that:

As for the CBMs, in game they can dock in any angle. The guide fins don't have colliders and are just decorative. That model is pretty old now and I intend to make a more accurate (visually and functionally) version for KSP2.

It is so depressing and disheartening for me to watch as KSP modding slowly dies.

[benjee10]

6 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

It is so depressing and disheartening for me to watch as KSP modding slowly dies.

It's the end of an era for sure, but lots of exciting new things to come!

[dave1904]

Such a relief knowing this mod or the successor is coming to Ksp 2. Honestly without this and bluedog i wouldn't play the new game. I really hope the new game is worth the effort and not some mess 

Edited January 30, 2023 by dave1904

[Kurld]

@benjee10 from your perspective as a modder, what are some of the biggest limitations you'd like to see removed in a new engine?

Or to ask it another way.. assuming you are playing with it in early access... what are some of the biggest improvements you've see for modders?

6 hours ago, benjee10 said:

It's the end of an era for sure, but lots of exciting new things to come!

 

[benjee10]

3 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Such a relief knowing this mod or the successor is coming to Ksp 2. Honestly with this and bluedog i wouldn't play the new game. I really hope the new game is worth the effort and not some mess 

If all it is is KSP1 but more stable and with better graphics I will consider that a win, but it looks like it will be a lot more than that. I'm very optimistic about what we'll be able to do in the new game as both players and modders!

2 hours ago, Kurld said:

@benjee10 from your perspective as a modder, what are some of the biggest limitations you'd like to see removed in a new engine?

Or to ask it another way.. assuming you are playing with it in early access... what are some of the biggest improvements you've see for modders?

No one has early access as far as I'm aware, certainly not me anyway! I'll be picking it up at the same time as everyone else, so no unique insights so far. 

The biggest thing we know of for sure is the switch to PBR shaders/textures. That will be a major graphical upgrade and it should take parts mods to the next level. 
In terms of what I'd like to see most, it is a pretty boring one which is just the ability to reload specific parts/models/textures while inside the game. It would speed things up a whole lot if you didn't have to reboot the entire game to see a minor change. I have probably lost days of my life waiting for KSP to reload after I made a typo in a part config!

[Kurld]

I thought it was in early access already, for some reason.

I hear you about reloading parts without restarting the whole dang thing!  So much time watching those loading screens!

 

[Jim123]

On 1/29/2023 at 7:38 AM, benjee10 said:

So, just to clarify some things with the Buran parts, I am not intending to work on them further or add them to the base install, they will remain in the Extras folder. I initially thought I had overwritten the files for them, but found them the other day so thought I would put them on the GitHub for people to experiment with. As it stands it is just the cockpit and the OMS section; it is simply too much work to get the rest of Buran finished when KSP2 is just around the corner. At least now there is the possibility a 3rd party mod could pick it up if they wanted to (similar to SOCK recolored) with the parts on GitHub. 

The new orbiter for KSP2 is being designed with Buran (and other alternate configurations) in mind from the outset. Here is some very early work on that:

Since I made the original SOCK model in 2019, the Smithsonian have released an extremely high-quality 3D scan of Discovery, so I am basing the proportions on that - it should be far more accurate than the current model. 

I haven't seen any documentation like that but perhaps it exists somewhere. What I do is look at the orientation of the APAS on the shuttle IRL and work from there, ensuring ports on stations are rotated 180 degrees relative to the position I want the shuttle to dock in. 

As for the CBMs, in game they can dock in any angle. The guide fins don't have colliders and are just decorative. That model is pretty old now and I intend to make a more accurate (visually and functionally) version for KSP2. 

I love this ISS/shuttle configuration. Such an unusual docking position compared to the usual forward APAS port docking (unique to this mission I think?)

Nice to see the new HabTech truss parts used in that 'power-tower' config!

I tried it a few times during testing. It is definitely possible, not sure I ever nailed a runway landing but quite a bit of fun to try it out. 

It should work, but you will end up with a lot of fuel to spare in the ET (I think I tested this once and at stock scale you have enough delta-V to do a direct launch to the Mun) and probably a pretty crazy trajectory using MechJeb PVG. Give it a go but you might have better results using the 'stock-style gravity turn' setting or just flying it manually.

Great mod cannot wait to finally fly the new shuttle ksp-2!!!

[Doc Shaftoe]

7 hours ago, benjee10 said:

I have probably lost days of my life waiting for KSP to reload after I made a typo in a part config!

I felt this deep in my soul.

[Kurld]

So. . . what kinds of stuff can you do to speed it up?   I'm on a hefty PC workstation and it still takes over 2 minutes to load a stock game where I trimmed out 2/3 of the parts... this seems... slow.

My modded game: forget it and go get some coffee and maybe clean up around the house for a bit.

[Ultim32]

On 1/31/2023 at 5:36 AM, Kurld said:

My modded game: forget it and go get some coffee and maybe clean up around the house for a bit.

Same thing with my other pc. It takes about 20 to 25 minutes to load ksp.

[Richmountain112]

Only takes 5 minutes for me to load my heavily-modded install of KSP

Edited February 5, 2023 by Richmountain112

[Kurld]

Your mother must be proud 

I find that not loading parts that I never ever use speeds things up quite a bit. The Janitor's Closet mod's "perma prune" feature helps a lot with managing this.  As much as I'd like to have all the parts loaded up all the time.. some parts packs can add big chunks of time all by themselves.

[Emilius73]

I just realized that htRobotics is now gone from the Github page. Is it deprecated, in the main parts folder now, or getting replaced by HT2? @benjee10

Edited February 6, 2023 by Emilius73