[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[NemesisBosseret]

@frizzank I read it lol.   I'm just paintently waiting for all of my favorite mods to update so I can play it uninterrupted.    I just wish you guys could make mod packs like they did on silent hunter 5 wolves of steel.     Has about ten to fifteen guys made about 80 mods and put them together perfectly and into one download.     They use a generic patcher and modify some of the game config files to make the game more stable.     Might be worth a shot to look into for someone like @NathanKell.      That way us gamer mod illiterate fools who love the work you guys do with very minor understanding on how it functions could have a simple download with less chance to screw it up.....   just a thought.

[helcustom]

Were are the MM configs on the latest release?

[iammr_schuck]

Got an odd issue with the Gemini Titan 5 Segment Solid Rocket Booster: It seems permanently gimballed to port. Even in the VAB I can see the thrust nozzle is hard to the left. Killing me because I really want to use this part, but it cartwheels out of control the second I activate it. Any ideas?

[raidernick]

13 hours ago, iammr_schuck said:

Got an odd issue with the Gemini Titan 5 Segment Solid Rocket Booster: It seems permanently gimballed to port. Even in the VAB I can see the thrust nozzle is hard to the left. Killing me because I really want to use this part, but it cartwheels out of control the second I activate it. Any ideas?

uhhh the booster is supposed to have off center thrust....that was the entire point of the design, it is not meant to be used by itself but as part of a pair and the off center thrust helps keep the rocket stable.

[frizzank]

You missed a perfect opportunity to say...
"As Designed!"

[CobaltWolf]

23 hours ago, iammr_schuck said:

Got an odd issue with the Gemini Titan 5 Segment Solid Rocket Booster: It seems permanently gimballed to port. Even in the VAB I can see the thrust nozzle is hard to the left. Killing me because I really want to use this part, but it cartwheels out of control the second I activate it. Any ideas?

10 hours ago, raidernick said:

uhhh the booster is supposed to have off center thrust....that was the entire point of the design, it is not meant to be used by itself but as part of a pair and the off center thrust helps keep the rocket stable.

34 minutes ago, frizzank said:

You missed a perfect opportunity to say...
"As Designed!"

Well, there WERE proposals to have inline UA12xx SRMs, as a low cost replacement for the first stage of the Titan. BDB has them in several flavors as a result.

 

[frizzank]

I did offset the angle to the thrust but you could easily change the gimble angle in the config to something like 15 degrees and it would fly strait at that point.

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, frizzank said:

I did offset the angle to the thrust but you could easily change the gimble angle in the config to something like 15 degrees and it would fly strait at that point.

are you sure? It would have fifteen degrees of corrective steering but still treats 'straight' as the original (6 degree?) off set.

[frizzank]

Dont know for sure, have not tried it, but when I rotate engines in the VAB it still tries to correct its flight path and go strait so it should work.

Edited July 12, 2016 by frizzank

[undercoveryankee]

20 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

are you sure? It would have fifteen degrees of corrective steering but still treats 'straight' as the original (6 degree?) off set.

If you fired the engine with SAS off and controls neutral, it would fire on the original 6-degree offset regardless of how much gimbal angle it has. But if you have an autopilot trying to hold a specific heading, it will apply enough steering input to bring the engine from its "center" position to a position that makes the rocket fly straight.

[Virtualgenius]

I cant seem to get any of the fasa rockets to fly straight anymore they flip out at about 8000m  or straight away with the big SRB's I am using the version from github

[Pappystein]

On 7/11/2016 at 2:58 AM, Virtualgenius said:

I cant seem to get any of the fasa rockets to fly straight anymore they flip out at about 8000m  or straight away with the big SRB's I am using the version from github

 

I can confirm with the Gemini.   It seems to be related to the pods or their ancillary parts (EG the SM parts for the Gemini)   I built a Titan III rocket with the Gemini capsule and it would spin in at various altitudes but at approximately 350m/s VERTICAL speed.   The speed seems to be consistent (in 4 tests sofar).   If I swap out for say the SSTU Apollo analog capsule and SM, or the Stock 2.5m capsule, on the same (FASA Titan III) rocket.  No issues.   I put huge wings on the rocket in a Circumform pattern (to leave room for the UA1205s) and the rocket bent in half....  

Mods installed:

Tweekscale

SSTU (release 4.31.118)

Module Manager

Dmagic science mods (all of them)

FASA 6.0 test + Additional configs by me (not Modmanger files so I know I tested the parts "correctly")

SVE

Station parts extended

PEBKAK

Common Core Pods (soon to be eliminated)

Heat Control

KSO Dauntless (Crew Escape Shuttle

Smokescreen

Firespitter (just the DLL)

With the exception of SSTU all files are up to date as of this AM.   I had planned on doing some more testing sans most of those mods but since it was already posted I thought I should share some more detailed information.

Oh that was on KSP 1.0.3 x64 with stock Aero.  

I failed to mention above I have RealChute and SafeChute installed

Edited July 12, 2016 by Pappystein
Additional info Additional mods mentioned

[Pappystein]

13 hours ago, frizzank said:

Dont know for sure, have not tryed it, but when I rotate engines in the VAB it still trys to correct its flight path and go strait so it should work.

Pre 5.4x I routinely did a single stack UA12xx URM for first stage.   I have not had the Inclination since.   On some launches there was some lateral drift but nothing major (IE not a control-ability issue.) But that depends on the Rockets actual configuration.   Since my rockets were all jettisoning the UA1205 early in the gravity turn (or before) it didn't matter to me.   I never tried to make the UA1207 1st stage Titan.

Still, after all this time I think the FASA UA12xx URMs are one of the best looking out there.   I just wish Frizzank had the time (and the inclination) to make the USRM in the same look )  Of course that would require finding documents on the beast (I have found very little on the Internet around graphics or pictures of the USRM showing any detail.)

The Titan/Gemini Titan system is my favorite SLV family....   In no small part thanks to  @frizzank .  

@CobaltWolf,  The Document you have posted shows UA1206 Rockets, not the UA1205 that the text talks about.  I don't know if that is because when the document was written up (Early 1970s) the UA1205 was the only one being used actively or what.   UA1205 has 5 rocket segments, 1 Hydraulic Injection Cylinder (the add on cylinder on the side of the rocket,) the upper nose structure including the top of the rocket making 6 segments total.  This is not counting the Engine bell.     The UA1206 has 6 rocket Segments with the topper being a 7th.   I have never seen a picture of a UA12xx Rocket with two Hydraulic injection cylinders.

 

For everyone who wants to know what the UA12xx Hydraulic injection cylinder is;

The UA12xx series of rockets has a gimbal built into it's Nozzle This gimbal is powered by a Hydraulic injection cylinder that is strapped onto the side of the rocket.   It is a loss system so after the Hydraulic fluid is used in the Engine bell it is vented into the engine flame where it provides a slight boost to the overall thrust of approximately 50kn Kerbal scale until spent.  .

Conversely the USRM has the hydraulic bottle built into the lowest segment (which also has the engine nozzle and it is a closed loop system so hydraulic fluid is not burnt off like in the UA12xx family.)

Please note on the USRM above, the different Nozzle area, the 4 total segments (Nose cone, Upper tank mid tank and lower tank.) and no hydraulic injection tank.  The USRM had Engine bells that gimballed for roll control but were fixed at approximately 5 degrees off of center-line (based launch photos.)    USRM has no shutdown capability (unlike UA120x SRMs) so could not be used for manned flight.   The UA120x would explosively fracture it's nosecone to shutoff the rocket.  There was no relight capability.       The UA1205s on the right (5 full segments, the half segment at the top is the rocket top.) has ONE bright orange hydraulic cylinder on the side (right rocket.) The Left rocket has ONE cylinder hidden from view.

Both the USRM and the UA1205 SRM shared a similar Aero-nosecone with ejection rockets set at 45degress from the mounting point.    The noses however are rotated 90 degrees from each other.   Facing the Core stage, the USRM ejects to the LEFT and the UA120x SRM ejects to the RIGHT.

Hope this is interesting.   Back to testing 6.0

 

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

@CobaltWolf,  The Document you have posted shows UA1206 Rockets, not the UA1205 that the text talks about.  I don't know if that is because when the document was written up (Early 1970s) the UA1205 was the only one being used actively or what.   UA1205 has 5 rocket segments, 1 Hydraulic Injection Cylinder (the add on cylinder on the side of the rocket,) the upper nose structure including the top of the rocket making 6 segments total.  This is not counting the Engine bell.     The UA1206 has 6 rocket Segments with the topper being a 7th.   I have never seen a picture of a UA12xx Rocket with two Hydraulic injection cylinders.

The document/scan is from Ed Kyle, and they are UA1205s, as is the SRM in the screenshot I posted. I actually had never heard of UA1206's until very recently. The dual TVC tanks would have been used on the straight 'stick' configurations, as the single booster would have needed more TVC to steer itself, rather than splitting the load between two at once. The accompanying caption, from Ed Kyle's post on the subject (emphasis my own):

Quote

For the early-1970s Mathematica economic analysis of the proposed space shuttle system, The Aerospace Corporation proposed a family of potential space shuttle alternative expendable launch vehicles. Since it was Aerospace Corporation, the USAF systems engineering contractor for missiles and space, the family was largely based on Titan. An interesting proposal for a medium payload launch system was the "Five Segment Solid Rocket Motor/Core 2" system. These would have used a suitably modified UTC-1205 five-segment motor from Titan 3C/3D/3E as a first stage topped by a Titan 3-series second stage. (A second TVC tank would have been added to provide enough fluid for 3-axis control.) Agena or Centaur or a Burner 2 type kick stage could have topped the vehicles.

The idea seemed to be to replace every Atlas variant in the national fleet with Titan based launchers. SRM/Core 2/Centaur would have flown from a rebuilt Cape Canaveral LC 36. SRM/Core 2/Agena D and, presumably Centaur too, would have flown from VAFB SLC 4W. An SRM/Core 2 with a Star 37 type kick stage would have been relatively cheap. An SRM/Core 2/Centaur would have outmatched all Atlas Centaurs up to the 1980-s Atlas G/Centaur D1AR series. Growth versions using 7-segment SRMs were, of course, possible.

This Titan-centric view of the future, of course, never materialized.

http://spacelaunchreport.com/titannot.html

Titan is also probably my favorite lifter family, though I get far more joy from the unflown variants than the ones that actually flew. As of right now, I've made 40 Titan-specific parts, covering nearly every single conceivable variant apart from the Large Diameter Core proposals.

[Pappystein]

8 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Titan is also probably my favorite lifter family, though I get far more joy from the unflown variants than the ones that actually flew. As of right now, I've made 40 Titan-specific parts, covering nearly every single conceivable variant apart from the Large Diameter Core proposals.

Then you should know there were UA1204 (Tested, Not flown) the 5 the 6 and the 7.  UA1204 was a 4  segment rocket,  UA1206 is a 5.5 segment rocket The half segment being a different Non man rated rocket top piece giving almost the same fuel increase and the same thrust increase as a full segment.  UA1206 is NOT man rated.  It has no way to shut it down in flight.

In the 1960s it was thought that the next generation of Recon satelite would need more thrust than the LR87-AJ-5 was capable of producing and the USAF was not sure about upthrusting the engine...  That is the start of the UA120x family and their long assoication with the Titan.   UA1204 would have been used to launch agena based Spy satellites larger than the existing Titan II could launch. 

 

 

 

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

Then you should know there were UA1204 (Tested, Not flown) the 5 the 6 and the 7.  UA1204 was a 4  segment rocket,  UA1206 is a 5.5 segment rocket The half segment being a different Non man rated rocket top piece giving almost the same fuel increase and the same thrust increase as a full segment.  UA1206 is NOT man rated.  It has no way to shut it down in flight.

In the 1960s it was thought that the next generation of Recon satelite would need more thrust than the LR87-AJ-5 was capable of producing and the USAF was not sure about upthrusting the engine...  That is the start of the UA120x family and their long assoication with the Titan.   UA1204 would have been used to launch agena based Spy satellites larger than the existing Titan II could launch. 

I actually don't have a UA1204. I have a UA1202 (3?) as a result of this adorable piece of artwork, which apparently WAS proposed at one point:

I don't have a 1204, but I have made two flavors of SOLTAN boosters, the 100in solids that got developed into the UA12xx series. My understanding is the SOLTAN's weren't capable of lifting an entire Titan 2 core on their own, which was the whole point of the Titan III; having minimal modifications to the core and basically just lofting the whole thing on SRBs.

 

[Virtualgenius]

@Pappystein I think your right all the manned command  pods are causing the rockets to flip its like they have lost there aerodynamics

Edited July 12, 2016 by Virtualgenius

[Cheesecake]

Quote

@Pappystein I think your right all the manned command  pods are causing the rockets to flip its like they have lost there aerodynamics

It´s not the Pod itself. It`s the parachutes. Titan + Gemini + Gemini-Parachutes = Launchers flip around. Also the Pod slow down to only 30-40m/s in freefall without activation of the parachutes. Titan + Gemini + Stock or other parachutes are OK. Looks like it produces a lot of drag and the nodes are not very strong because at ~200m/s the Nosecone glitches backyards into the Pod. Without the Parachutes everything is OK for me.

I haven`t tested the Apollo-Pod but I think it`s the same thing.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Cheesecake

[Pappystein]

 

19 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I actually don't have a UA1204. I have a UA1202 (3?) as a result of this adorable piece of artwork, which apparently WAS proposed at one point:

 

I don't have a 1204, but I have made two flavors of SOLTAN boosters, the 100in solids that got developed into the UA12xx series. My understanding is the SOLTAN's weren't capable of lifting an entire Titan 2 core on their own, which was the whole point of the Titan III; having minimal modifications to the core and basically just lofting the whole thing on SRBs.

 

Only the Titan IV when equipped with the LR-87-AJ-11 or -11A could air-start the engine.   The -11A has a different bell to take advantage of the Height of ignition (Worse ISP at SL. Better at Vac).   The Titan III's AJ-9 engines were started on the ground.    In Real Life, a 3.05m Payload fairing carrying a 3rd Stage (say Centaur) and a payload on that 3rd Stage, was too heavy for the UA1205 to lift alone *EFFECTIVELY*.   It was not until the addition of the UA1207 in the Titan IVA that Airstart **COULD** be used when carrying a load.   The USRM was designed to take advantage of the full payload capabilities of the Titan Rocket.  All IVB launches were air starts.  MOST IVA launches were air starts.   The Picture I posted above of a Titan III shows the LR-87s lit and running at launch.  

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

It´s not the Pod itself. It`s the parachutes. Titan + Gemini + Gemini-Parachutes = Launchers flip around. Also the Pod slow down to only 30-40m/s in freefall without activation of the parachutes. Titan + Gemini + Stock or other parachutes are OK. Looks like it produces a lot of drag and the nodes are not very strong because at ~200m/s the Nosecone glitches backyards into the Pod. Without the Parachutes everything is OK for me.

I haven`t tested the Apollo-Pod but I think it`s the same thing.

Well, I was running Realchute so....

I can confirm that my edited CFG Mercuy capsule has no issues.   I got distracted the conversation above so I failed to test the RIGHT capsule last night.  After work today I will take a second stab at it.  @Cheesecake, Are you Running Real Chute or Safe Chute?   If you are, then it could be the MM files from RealChute are the actual culprit..  

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Pappystein
Readability after forum merged postes

[Cheesecake]

Yes, I use Realchute. I will remove the MM files from Realchute and test it again. Thanks

[Wildcat111]

I tried to launch my Apollo 9 mission, but on the pad the LM started twitching inside the fairing. I put a Saturn V with no fairing on the pad, and the same thing happened, but the LM detached itself from the launcher. After hitting the ground upright, the LM just started levitating. Amy solutions to this problem?

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Wildcat111

[Phineas Freak]

1 hour ago, Wildcat111 said:

Amy solutions to this problem?

At this time not really, although i think that some of the part colliders have been fixed in the dev version: https://github.com/KSP-RO/FASA-RO/releases

Please do note that these are also dev releases and your mileage may vary (but better than nothing).

[Wildcat111]

1 hour ago, Phineas Freak said:

At this time not really, although i think that some of the part colliders have been fixed in the dev version: https://github.com/KSP-RO/FASA-RO/releases

Please do note that these are also dev releases and your mileage may vary (but better than nothing).

I use the dev version though.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Wildcat111

[Phineas Freak]

1 minute ago, Wildcat111 said:

I use the dev version though

In that case then there is nothing you can do...

[Wildcat111]

4 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

At this time not really, although i think that some of the part colliders have been fixed in the dev version: https://github.com/KSP-RO/FASA-RO/releases

Please do note that these are also dev releases and your mileage may vary (but better than nothing).

The problem is in the LM because it keeps twitching in the fairing and levitating on the ground. I will give you a modlist later.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Wildcat111