Orange 5m Tanks

[RocketSimplicity]

So, 1.8 is here and we now have Space Shuttle styled tanks - except they're the wrong size. The Space shuttle's main tank is bigger than the shuttle by a fair amount. This is not the case with the 3.75m orange tanks. The orange tanks are about the same size as the Mk3 shuttles themself, and so these tanks cannot be used for even closely accurate replicas. The Shuttle styled SRBs are also too big to be used with these tanks. These tanks however do suit all the SLS-styled parts, apart from once again, the Shuttle styled SRBs which are again too big. My request is that we get 5m Orange tank variants. This would result in accurate Shuttle replicas, as well as accurate SLS replicas made with the new parts.

Edited November 2, 2019 by RocketSimplicity
GRAMMAR!!! Their Vs They're. Sorry!

[Jestersage]

The problem is that 3.75m tanks fulfill the range from 6m (IE S-IVB) to 8.4m (SLS AND SSET). The 5M is of course for Saturn-V, which are 10.1meter.

That being said, considering the Gemini Service Bay, forget about how big they are suppose to be.

[RocketSimplicity]

7 hours ago, Jestersage said:

The problem is that 3.75m tanks fulfill the range from 6m (IE S-IVB) to 8.4m (SLS AND SSET). The 5M is of course for Saturn-V, which are 10.1meter.

That being said, considering the Gemini Service Bay, forget about how big they are suppose to be.

KSP Scale is quite out of whack.

[T1mo98]

8 hours ago, Jestersage said:

The problem is that 3.75m tanks fulfill the range from 6m (IE S-IVB) to 8.4m (SLS AND SSET). The 5M is of course for Saturn-V, which are 10.1meter.

That being said, considering the Gemini Service Bay, forget about how big they are suppose to be.

I'd say the 5m parts fit a lot better with a Mk3 Space Shuttle replica than the 3.75m do.

[RocketSimplicity]

16 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

I'd say the 5m parts fit a lot better with a Mk3 Space Shuttle replica than the 3.75m do.

In this image you can see that the fuel tank is about the same size as the shuttle itself (not my image, it uses 3.75m tanks and 2.5m boosters)

And here is the real life space shuttle. The tanks are far bigger than the orbiter. Considering the only bigger tanks we have are 5m, the 5m tanks would be a better fit. But, it all comes down to personal taste on what looks better in your opinion, and whether you want to do a perfect replica or not. (Image: NASA) 

[IncongruousGoat]

1 hour ago, RocketSimplicity said:

But, it all comes down to personal taste on what looks better in your opinion, and whether you want to do a perfect replica or not. (Image: NASA) 

The problem here is that the Shuttle's LH2/LOX propellant combination is a heck of a lot less tense than KSP's Lf/Ox. A proportionally-sized Shuttle tank in KSP would be way too heavy, and you'd end up needing to mount oversized engines on the orbiter (or doing something more resembling Energia/Buran) to get the T/W ratio above 1. Which would spoil the perfect replica.

[linuxgurugamer]

15 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said:

The problem here is that the Shuttle's LH2/LOX propellant combination is a heck of a lot less tense than KSP's Lf/Ox. A proportionally-sized Shuttle tank in KSP would be way too heavy, and you'd end up needing to mount oversized engines on the orbiter (or doing something more resembling Energia/Buran) to get the T/W ratio above 1. Which would spoil the perfect replica.

If you want the looks, use the bigger tank, but don't fill it up all the way.  Just put in it  the same amount as the smaller tank would hold

[RocketSimplicity]

2 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

The problem here is that the Shuttle's LH2/LOX propellant combination is a heck of a lot less tense than KSP's Lf/Ox. A proportionally-sized Shuttle tank in KSP would be way too heavy, and you'd end up needing to mount oversized engines on the orbiter (or doing something more resembling Energia/Buran) to get the T/W ratio above 1. Which would spoil the perfect replica.

Talking about the density of the fuel, I wonder what is the closest liquid fuel/oxidizer in real life compared with the ratio for the in game fuel/oxidizer.

Also, as @linuxgurugamer also states, you could just drain fuel and ox. I find that it's easier to use more, long drained tanks than one big fat tank for aerodynamic reasons.

[IncongruousGoat]

2 minutes ago, RocketSimplicity said:

Talking about the density of the fuel, I wonder what is the closest liquid fuel/oxidizer in real life compared with the ratio for the in game fuel/oxidizer.

Nothing is even close. KSP's O/F ratio (oxidizer to fuel) is ~1.2. After doing some digging, the closest real-world figure I can find to that number is Titan II's O/F ratio, which is 1.9.

The reasons why KSP's O/F ratio is unrealistic are complicated and involve a non-trivial amount of chemistry and physics, and also are 100% off-topic, so that's all I'm going to say about it here.

[klesh]

Why we're not "making history" with STS replica orange tanks is really mind boggling.  It seems to make perfect sense that if you want the proper replica tanks to go with the shuttle, that they'd be in the historical themed dlc.

 

4 hours ago, RocketSimplicity said:

 

To complicate the hodge podge even further, they've put given us these exact extra pointy SRB nosecones ... except they chose them for the 1.875m form factor, which to me says that they are intending us to use the 3.75m tank as the main orange tank... except they made the 2.5m SRBs look exactly the part of the STS boosters.

This looks reasonably proportional, until you attach a Mk3 orbiter to it; then you see its way too narrow.

And with all of this, we still have to make the bottom end with a fairing that messes up the entire aesthetic anyway.

[T1mo98]

1 hour ago, klesh said:

To complicate the hodge podge even further, they've put given us these exact extra pointy SRB nosecones ... except they chose them for the 1.875m form factor, which to me says that they are intending us to use the 3.75m tank as the main orange tank... except they made the 2.5m SRBs look exactly the part of the STS boosters.

And with all of this, we still have to make the bottom end with a fairing that messes up the entire aesthetic anyway.

They added the 1.875m nosecone to give that size a proper nosecone.

For the 2.5m SRB's, you can easily use the C7 Brand Adapter with an Advanced Nosecone, it looks perfectly fine.

 

With the bottom fairing you can use a smaller size en clip it into the fuel tank. It doesn't look seamless, but atleast better than now. 

P.S. Am I the only one a bit disappointed that the 1.875m SRB's don't have gimbal?

P.S.2. Did they change the geometry of the fairings? I swear they look a lot less bulky, or is that all due to the new shaders?

Edited October 18, 2019 by T1mo98

[KerikBalm]

5 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

A proportionally-sized Shuttle tank in KSP would be way too heavy, and you'd end up needing to mount oversized engines on the orbiter (or doing something more resembling Energia/Buran) to get the T/W ratio above 1. 

The orbiter engines are oversized. Consider 3 vectors + 2 Clydesdales, the 3 vectors supply a much higher thrust percentage than the 3 SSMEs.

I was able to get that combo to work with a jumbo 64 as a payload, but lift off TWR was terrible, and dV was way more than needed (but I'm trying to make it work in 3x, as soon as kopernicus updates). It works much better with 4x clydsdales, as far as lift off TWR (and dV for use in 3x). 

[T1mo98]

1 minute ago, KerikBalm said:

The orbiter engines are oversized. Consider 3 vectors + 2 Clydesdales, the 3 vectors supply a much higher thrust percentage than the 3 SSMEs.

I was able to get that combo to work with a jumbo 64 as a payload, but lift off TWR was terrible, and dV was way more than needed (but I'm trying to make it work in 3x, as soon as kopernicus updates). It works much better with 4x clydsdales, as far as lift off TWR (and dV for use in 3x). 

I've made a perfectly functional Space Shuttle replica with 5m tanks and 2 Clydesdales by just emptying the tanks to 40% and thrusting down the Vectors a considerable amount. It's more than enough fuel for orbit, however I still need to test it with a heavy payload.

[klesh]

5 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

They added the 1.875m nosecone to give that size a proper nosecone.

 

They gave the 1.875m nosecone a separate look than every other nosecone in the game, which is very specifically a STS booster nosecone.  They could've simply rescaled the 1.25m cones, which have a very different shape, but they very specifically didn't.  It's so odd that they seem to be providing incomplete versions of 2.5m, 3.75m, and 5m based shuttles.  You pick any size and there are some parts that are very specifically inspired and intended to be for shuttles, but something is always missing.  Pick another size, and there will be something else missing, and some other very specific nods to the shuttle.  Its a hodgepodge of close enoughs.  They got me running STS1 missions with the white tank out here.

[Jestersage]

Can we stick with the fact that KSP are just bad at scaling and looks, using the SM-18 as example, and a lack of short-A218 [snip]?

Edited October 18, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Snark]

Various content has been removed and/or redacted due to gratuitous nation-bashing.

Folks, please keep politics out of the forum.  It never ends well, which is why it's specifically prohibited by the forum rules (2.2.b).  If you want to talk politics, there are plenty of other places on the internet where you can do so to your heart's content.  Please let's keep it out of discussion about our friendly little rocket-ship game.

Thank you for your understanding.

[RocketSimplicity]

4 hours ago, Snark said:

gratuitous nation-bashing.

Jeez, this is about a fuel tank, how did nationality even get involved? 

8 hours ago, klesh said:

It's so odd that they seem to be providing incomplete versions of 2.5m, 3.75m, and 5m based shuttles. 

Anyway, I feel like they need to do a full on revamp with all shuttle-based parts changed as a feature update. Maybe even a DLC? For example, the Vectors are slightly too small, we need new nose cones, as well as shuttle OMS engines, among other things.

But, for now, 5m Orange tanks may be good enough.

[Snark]

1 hour ago, RocketSimplicity said:

Jeez, this is about a fuel tank, how did nationality even get involved?

^ Exactly.  An excellent point, taken as a rhetorical question only.

Non-rhetorically, though, let's please let the matter drop.  What's done is done.  Nothing to see here, citizens, move along. 

[KeranoKerman]

Yes, I want an orange tank option for 5m

[Guest]

The STS tank was originally painted white and used this way on its first two missions, so replicas are only 99% wrong.

 

On 10/18/2019 at 5:38 AM, RocketSimplicity said:

Talking about the density of the fuel, I wonder what is the closest liquid fuel/oxidizer in real life compared with the ratio for the in game fuel/oxidizer.

Also, as @linuxgurugamer also states, you could just drain fuel and ox. I find that it's easier to use more, long drained tanks than one big fat tank for aerodynamic reasons.

An oxygen & cyanogen engine with a stoichiometric ratio of 0.975 would closely match KSP rockets' ratios, propellant densities, and in theory Isp, though cyanogen is not the most sane fuel to confine to an engine. Ammonia is a more plausible candidate, at a stoichiometric ratio of 0.85 again with oxygen, but is less dense than Kerbal LF.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest