[0.22] B9 Aerospace Pack / R4.0c / New pods, IVAs, engines, fuselages & structures

[protoz]

I'm not late too submit my WIP entry of 350 ton SSTO to anywhere am i? 40 nuclear engines w. 15 mins of fuel.

[moxzot]

Damn what a monster

[Railgunner2160]

Here's my series of interplanetary Explorer ships, still working out the bugs though: [WARNING Image Heavy]

This is the Faal-Corum, It unfortunately met with a rather tragic end when only one of it's 2 Sabre M's ignited and pulled it apart(It was built in sections...)

This is the Kuun-Lan, the Faal-Corum's successor. Please Note that I actually launched it from the Ground, No cheats, Just some parts from the KW Rocketry pack, plus some NP struts!!!

And this is a creative solution to forgetting to put kerbals in the habitat pod before sending to the Mun, I shuttled it to the Kuun-Lan......

And Finally the Third Explorer class revision, The Clee-San, I revised it to solve some problems I encountered in the Kuun-Lan's Design, namely it taking to long with only 1 240KT Fatman. I would've preferred to use a Sabre M but It won't stack with a decoupler+Launch stage, so that excluded it from being used as the center engine.... [Again launched with no Cheats]

[viperwolf]

I'm not late too submit my WIP entry of 350 ton SSTO to anywhere am i? 40 nuclear engines w. 15 mins of fuel.

Again nice work, You make some really big crafts. You need video

[gumwars]

Alrighty, if someone would be so kind as to explain how to put something in a cargo hold I would be super grateful. I mean, if I but the docking adapter on either the fore or aft bulkhead, doesn't then become the attachment node for the cargo bay proper? Then if I uncouple from it the whole back half of the ship will come off, right?

[protoz]

Viperwolf, A 400-600 part craft mixed w. fraps/stream thats like watching paint dry, 1 irl second takes 40 seconds in KSP. Unity engine, is Stone Age technology.

I can post the craft instead if you like. Its stable in the atmosphere but trying to center stage 2 engines w. limitations imposed by the game is a lot of work.

Edited June 11, 2013 by protoz

[mikailborg]

I'm having the same problem of many parts not loading.

This is an example of the dozens of errors in my KSP.log file:

[LOG 22:36:53.192] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'B9 Aerospace Pack R3-1c/GameData/B9_Aerospace/Parts/Structure_Ladders-Railings/R4_Railing/B9_Structure_R4_Railing'

[ERR 22:36:53.193] PartCompiler: Cannot clone model 'B9_Aerospace/Parts/Structure_Ladders-Railings/R4_Railing' as model does not exist

[ERR 22:36:53.193] PartCompiler: Model was not compiled correctly

[ERR 22:36:53.193] PartCompiler: Cannot compile model

[ERR 22:36:53.193] PartCompiler: Cannot compile part

The B9 Aerospace Pack R3-1c folder is sitting right next to the Squad folder in the GameData folder. Moving it to the Kerbal Space Program root does not correct the problem.

I'm running OS X 10.8.4. If I can provide any more information, please let me know.

[PringleMan]

Alrighty, if someone would be so kind as to explain how to put something in a cargo hold I would be super grateful. I mean, if I but the docking adapter on either the fore or aft bulkhead, doesn't then become the attachment node for the cargo bay proper? Then if I uncouple from it the whole back half of the ship will come off, right?

You might have to clarify what you mean.

Just in case: Build the ship, THEN put a docking port inside the cargo bay. The interior of the cargo bay is not just a noclip or something like that, it actually does not have a hitbox that covers the opening. If you place the docking port in there AFTER you connected both ends of the bay to something else, then the docking port is just treated like any old docking port.

[gumwars]

You might have to clarify what you mean.

Just in case: Build the ship, THEN put a docking port inside the cargo bay. The interior of the cargo bay is not just a noclip or something like that, it actually does not have a hitbox that covers the opening. If you place the docking port in there AFTER you connected both ends of the bay to something else, then the docking port is just treated like any old docking port.

That's just it, I don't see an attachment node for anything once the cargo bay is in place. I'm a total noob to spaceplanes and the B9 pack looks to be the ticket for doing it in style. The craft I built has the H2 cargo bay (long one) but it seems like there's no place for a port once it's in place. Do I just stick one in there? If you could indulge me by showing a pic of something you've put together that would probably set me right side up.

[TonboIV]

I was pretty disappointed that the S3 cockpit doesn't retract. Much rather have that then the lights. It was said the animation for that still exists, so would it be possible to offer a version of that part with the retraction instead of the light? Is it something I can just modify in the part cfg somehow if the animation is still there?

Thanks guys, and I'll say like everyone else here, epic awesome!

[Dimitriye98]

For some reason the "S2 Fuselage Section 2m" part's model is 6 meters long as opposed to the correct 2 meters. The collision box is correct, but it looks just plain ugly when it intersects with other parts. Also, I can't quite figure out how to retract the "S3 Hypersonic Front Section" cockpit, can anyone explain the problem?

[PringleMan]

That's just it, I don't see an attachment node for anything once the cargo bay is in place. I'm a total noob to spaceplanes and the B9 pack looks to be the ticket for doing it in style. The craft I built has the H2 cargo bay (long one) but it seems like there's no place for a port once it's in place. Do I just stick one in there? If you could indulge me by showing a pic of something you've put together that would probably set me right side up.

Docking ports can be attached radially to the inside of the bay. That is to say, they do not need a node. Just stick it in there

I suggest doing it without angle snap, will make it easier.

[bac9]

does somebody aleready notice that?

You have R3.1, not R3.1c and that message shows up because the part failed to load properly. It's a KSP placeholder description. Download the fixed version.

The B9 Aerospace Pack R3-1c folder is sitting right next to the Squad folder in the GameData folder. Moving it to the Kerbal Space Program root does not correct the problem.

I'm running OS X 10.8.4. If I can provide any more information, please let me know.

Honestly, I don't understand how it's possible to install this thing wrong. You already have GameData folder in KSP root, you have GameData in the archive, just move all the content from one to another.

I'm not late too submit my WIP entry of 350 ton SSTO to anywhere am i? 40 nuclear engines w. 15 mins of fuel.

These engines can't go faster than 300m/s and aren't really the best choice for SSTO.

Edited June 11, 2013 by bac9

[gumwars]

Docking ports can be attached radially to the inside of the bay. That is to say, they do not need a node. Just stick it in there

I suggest doing it without angle snap, will make it easier.

Thank you!

[moxzot]

These engines can't go faster than 300m/s and aren't really the best choice for SSTO.

lol bac let him have his fun tinkering

[protoz]

These engines can't go faster than 300m/s and aren't really the best choice for SSTO.

Im not sure which ones your referring to? Nuclear or CF34? Either way what im going for is efficiency, i want to get to orbit w. enough fuel to go to Duna. I did 4x Sabre M for their thrust vectoring but the CF34 have better thrust to weight & ISP then Sabre M, and I don't plan on using Sabre Ms in vacuum, anything lower then 800 isp is just awful imo.

I guess i could use 100% Sabre M & nuclear combo, which will reduce part count but increase ISP consumption drastically which shouldn't matter it'll go from having the possibility of 3 hour sustained flight to 1 and a half. Either way im designing this flying fortress for kerbin/duna not to get to orbit over and over, but it will have that ability w. 40 some nuclear engines.

I make my SSTOs w. fuel to go to other planets like this one for example, a lighter rover'ier model, it can go to orbit & make it to the Mun but no fuel for landing, & it has lots of flaws

This time around i'm trying an improvement but no rover wheels cause 350 tons.

Edited June 11, 2013 by protoz

[bac9]

CF34 won't give you any thrust beyond 300m/s, which makes them pretty unsuitable for SSTO. You generally never want to start rockets before going at least 1200m/s. Not to mention they aren't particularly efficient at air intake at high altitudes.

[Van Disaster]

Mmm, I hope the real SABREs turn out like these debating using them vs NERVAs for small spaceplanes just because they get you from the atmospheric transition to LKO in a few seconds, not quite sure if that beats out the several minutes of much more efficient nuclear yet.

Launchers seem trivial though, has anyone tried them on a pure rocket?

That pWing is absolutely fantastic...

[mrrpamplemousse]

Te SABREs are here for the style

EDIT: B9 should do a ramp for the bigger and the smaler cargo bay (or a hollow adaptator)

Edited June 11, 2013 by mrrpamplemousse

[protoz]

How come i can never get the engine's max power besides the Sabre? All the turbojets & fan engines give 50% less then whats listed in the description, D-30F7 capped out at 120 for me before it started declining but its listed as 225. Also CF34 & TFE731's intakes are 10x greater they let me climb additional 10-15,000 meters even if i just use them solely for their intakes.

[Van Disaster]

Te SABREs are here for the style

EDIT: B9 should do a ramp for the bigger and the smaler cargo bay (or a hollow adaptator)

I'm just going to use a crane of some sort, docking ports and/or quantum struts. What I really want is a bigger cargo fuselage than the Mk4 - maybe some sort of lifting body shape.

Not sure about SABREs yet, they kinda make most other spaceplane engine choices redundant... which I admit is the point of the real thing, but there's not a lot of compromise involved.

[Digestif]

I love making authentic Shuttle Systems with this pack!

[a.g.]

Also CF34 & TFE731's intakes are 10x greater they let me climb additional 10-15,000 meters even if i just use them solely for their intakes.

Did you install the latest fix release? That problem is supposed to be fixed there, unless I misunderstand what you mean.

[Dermeister]

SInce we are posting shuttle pics i shall post a design that made it to space but i'm tweekign it a bit more adding utilitys i nthe bay ect

And

Unmanned test bed .. this needs a bit of work though.. but Damn that engine is efficiant O_O! 2 in 1..... i can almost SSTO with that UAV ... ALMOST but its meant otbe launched in fairings.. which is why the wings need to be small.. so that it fits i nthe KW fairing set to be put o nthe tip of a rockette

P.S to save any of you frustrations.. IF you try to copy my design and it dosen't work Be warned you have to MOd the SRBs to have abit more power. Other than that that Shuttle works amzinly.. it surprized me O_O!

Edited June 11, 2013 by Dermeister

[Climberfx]

SInce we are posting shuttle pics i shall post a design that made it to space but i'm tweekign it a bit more adding utilitys i nthe bay ect

And

Unmanned test bed .. this needs a bit of work though.. but Damn that engine is efficiant O_O! 2 in 1..... i can almost SSTO with that UAV ... ALMOST but its meant otbe launched in fairings.. which is why the wings need to be small.. so that it fits i nthe KW fairing set to be put o nthe tip of a rockette

P.S to save any of you frustrations.. IF you try to copy my design and it dosen't work Be warned you have to MOd the SRBs to have abit more power. Other than that that Shuttle works amzinly.. it surprized me O_O!

Great Design!