[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[tmikesecrist3]

Any one else having an issue with the Saturn rocket tumbling in the gravity turn?

[Pappystein]

Any one else having an issue with the Saturn rocket tumbling in the gravity turn?

1) are you using FAR?

2) Are you attempting hard or shallow turns?

I have not built a full Saturn V yet but I did build my Saturn II INT 18. No issues on the gravity turn and I was hauling 4 White Titan SRBs.

I hope this helps

[sp1989]

That's why I am saying spacex has the right idea!

[tmikesecrist3]

I am using FAR. and I have been using Mechjeb

[frizzank]

Far compatibility is tricky, I have some weirdly shaped meshes in FASA that freak FAR out (Pipes and other cool details). I talked with Faramm and he said he was going to try and make a module that would let me define a mesh as the aerodynamic shape for the more weirdly put together stuff. Most of the cases that just going to be the collision mesh and it should help a lot with far.

Its a huge rocket, you can't just pitch it over like a fighter plane at 10k meters.

DO NOT gravity turn at your normal place. Point strait up and starting at about 21,000 m turn SLOWLY 5 or 10 degrees at a time keeping just slightly ahead of your prograde circle. This will let you get far enough out of the atmosphere that FAR will not strait up disintegrate you at the slightest movement.

[Motokid600]

It's a great shame to subject this work of art to the stock aerodynamics. Forgive me for sounding pompous, but 10km gravity turns are so.. unsightly. Proper pitch maneuvers with FAR just look so right. Wish it was standard..

[tmikesecrist3]

yeah Far was my issue

[sirkut]

Far compatibility is tricky, I have some weirdly shaped meshes in FASA that freak FAR out (Pipes and other cool details). I talked with Faramm and he said he was going to try and make a module that would let me define a mesh as the aerodynamic shape for the more weirdly put together stuff. Most of the cases that just going to be the collision mesh and it should help a lot with far.

Its a huge rocket, you can't just pitch it over like a fighter plane at 10k meters.

DO NOT gravity turn at your normal place. Point strait up and starting at about 21,000 m turn SLOWLY 5 or 10 degrees at a time keeping just slightly ahead of your prograde circle. This will let you get far enough out of the atmosphere that FAR will not strait up disintegrate you at the slightest movement.

Could always break the look of the rocket and add fins to it but then again I'm no purist I just go for functionality.

[Guest]

Actually, Saturn V had fins precisely for this purpose. They should be functional, IMO, it's really annoying to have fins that don't do anything but look nice. They were added by NASA for a reason...

[tmikesecrist3]

I didnt think the Saturn V had fins?

[Guest]

Look again, then. On the 1st stage, right above the engines. It has 4 fins to help keep the entire thing stable.

[Deltac]

I didnt think the Saturn V had fins?

Then I guess you ignored all of those images showing the full Saturn V

[frizzank]

Actually, Saturn V had fins precisely for this purpose. They should be functional, IMO, it's really annoying to have fins that don't do anything but look nice. They were added by NASA for a reason...

They ARE functional, as stated before the rather complicated and detailed meshes from the engines and the mounting plates are messing up far.

As for the stock game it works beautifully.

The wings are tiny compared to the cross section of the rest of the rocket so they don't do much. NASA even considered removing them to save on drag, but without complex drag models that were beyond the technology at the time, they had no definitive way of determining what the effect would be without launching a rocket and seeing the result. That would have been a very expensive test just to save a relatively small amount of fuel, so they decided if it isn't broke don't fix.

So you see it is actually fairly realistic that they don't really do anything. They do look cool though!

Edited April 25, 2014 by frizzank

[Virtualgenius]

Agreed they do look cool the whole thing was an amazing piece of engineering, I am glad I was around to watch it lift off even if it was from a tv screen as a small boy it was very exciting.

[Motokid600]

Was it just the Mercury pod that was fixed in the last FAR update? Because Gemini still wants to reenter prograde.

[frizzank]

Was it just the Mercury pod that was fixed in the last FAR update? Because Gemini still wants to reenter prograde.

I suspect this is because I did not include the word fairing or cargo bay in them, I will include that in the next update.

This is the basic drag override module if someone wants to plug these in the parts that are messed up with far and see if it helps. If it works I will include it in the next update.

MODULE  
{  
	name = FARBasicDragModel  
	S = 1				//Surface Area  
	CdCurve				//Drag coefficient at various angles  
	{  
		key = -1 0		//backwards  
		key = 0 0.3		//sideways  
		key = 1.0 0		//forwards  
	}  
	ClCurve  
	{  
		key = -1 0		//Lift coefficient  
		key = -0.5 -0.03  
		key = 0 0  
		key = 0.5 0.03  
		key = 1 0  
	}  
	CmCurve				//Moment coefficient  
	{  
		key = -1 0  
		key = -0.5 -0.01	//keeping angle and moment signs the same results in pitch instability; it will try to flip over  
		key = 0 0		//making them opposite signs results in pitch stability; it will try to angle fully forward  
		key = 0.5 0.01  
		key = 1 0  
	}  
	localUpVector = 0,1,0		//a unit vector defining "up" for this part; 0,1,0 is standard for most stock-compliant parts  
	localForwardVector = 1,0,0	//a unti vector defining "forward" for this part; 1,0,0 is standard for msot stock-compliant parts  
	majorMinorAxisRatio = 1		//the ratio of the part's "forward" length to its "side" length, used for drag and lift calculations  
	taperCrossSectionAreaRatio = 0;	//the part's tapered area projected on a plane normal to the "up" vector, divided by surface area; used to handle changes in drag at hypersonic speeds  
	CenterOfDrag = 0,0,0		//a vector defining the part's CoD  
}  

[tmikesecrist3]

yes it does work vary well with out FAR, now i am still have issues with Mech jeb..... it dont seem to like my LEM... but I did make it to the mun

[tmikesecrist3]

I do have a question. I know the Gemini docking cone would dock with half meter docking ports. what about the Apollo docking cone?

[mwlue]

what about the Apollo docking cone?

Apollo docking cone only works with apollo CSM docking device, iirc.

[tmikesecrist3]

I was worried about that. I hope that in time it would become more comparable with other parts. considering I don't think I could put any other docking device on the Apollo capsule. I wonder maybe I could use the lem docking port... on other things, can any thing else dock with it?

[frizzank]

Apollo docking cone only works with apollo CSM docking device, iirc.

This is incorrect. It is a size0 port so any other size0 port will dock with it. There are no male an female docking ports in Kerbal so you could have them both be the same and it would still work.

The collision on the ports is a little wonky and they do work best with each other but it is possible to dock with other ports including Gemini....

[mwlue]

This is incorrect. It is a size0 port so any other size0 port will dock with it. There are no male an female docking ports in Kerbal so you could have them both be the same and it would still work.

The collision on the ports is a little wonky and they do work best with each other but it is possible to dock with other ports including Gemini....

Arr thanks for clarify this.

[wasmic]

Arr thanks for clarify this.

Arr? Are you a pirate?

[tmikesecrist3]

thank you vary much frizzank, for clearing things up. so it would fit with any docking port that a Gemini will mate with that is vary good to know and makes thats more versital bit I could likely use the LEM docking port on other things.

[rdfox]

Side note, anyone using FASA *and* MechJeb should know that the docking autopilot only reliably works in one way for the Gemini and Apollo docking ports.

With the Gemini/Agena docking arrangement, attempting an automatic docking to the Agena docking port will see the Gemini try to dock at right angles to it, if you use the Gemini as the "hunter" in the arrangement. Having the Gemini stay put and the Agena attempt to automatically dock with it will resolve the issue just fine; it docks correctly. With the Apollo docking gear, it's the same--attempting to automatically dock the probe-equipped vehicle to the drogue (cone)-equipped one will end with an attempt to dock at 90 degrees to the docking axis; however, having the drogue-equipped vehicle automatically dock with the probe-equipped one will work just fine.

This is not a bug report (it's long been known that the funky collision models needed screw up MechJeb when it comes to auto-docking), just informing people. There's also another workaround using MechJeb, so long as both spacecraft can be controlled at the time (meaning that you need a probe core in the unmanned craft). First, switch to the drogue-equipped vehicle, control from the drogue, set the docking probe as your target, and activate Smart A.S.S. in the "+TGT" mode, so it aims the docking port directly at the other one. Switch back to your probe-equipped vehicle, control from the probe, target the drogue, activate +TGT, roll to whatever roll attitude you want relative to the target, and then manually close in and dock with the RCS; this makes the alignment automatic and only requires the manual approach.