Apollo Mission Pack Development (Beta version released!)

[Guest]

This thing is going to be a monster.

I'm in agreement with Dragon and Netris. She was a massive beast in real life, so it's only appropriate she be a massive beast in KSP!

[iamaphazael]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm definitely going to size them up to the proper scale.

Also, I know everyone is probably busy downloading 0.20 and planting flags everywhere, but i thought I'd give you a glimpse at the Lunar Module interior.

I think it's going to look awfully pretty once it's done. Sorry the lighting isn't better for this pic. I had a hell of a time lining things up so you could see the CSM out the window, and then I realized that I've got the interior oriented differently from the exterior orientation. That's one I'll have to take care of at some point.

Anyway, happy flags!

[WCOLE360]

Iam, you compiled it yet?

[Trekky0623]

You are AWESOME!

[Ph34rb0t]

You seem unhappy about the idea of doing them together.

Well, I wanted to do the whole bunch myself and now we - at least for the S-IVB - basically have a double effort...

Are you doing the parts to Apollo-scale or to KSP-scale (there's a difference)?

Don't worry though, I'll still at least check out the CM and LM in 3ds Max.

- Edit:

In case you're wondering...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/29085-Kerturn-HBI-Edition

Edited May 23, 2013 by Ph34rb0t

[Nobody_1707]

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm going to end up doing. This thing is going to be a monster.

Of course, it's the Saturn V!

[Logan.Darklighter]

This is a little quote I found somewhere on TVTropes. I use it as a .sig from time to time. Sounds like a very Kerbal thing to say, what?

The Saturn V rocket! Want to get into space?

We don't **** around, we don't try anything

fancy, we just punch the sky and try to kill it!

[dfscott]

Is the version on the Spaceport (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/apollo-lmcsm-replica/) functional in 0.20? I'm getting ready to start simulating the entire Apollo mission series (including the unmanned series) and was wondering if it was practical to try and incorporate any of this?

[Ph34rb0t]

Is the version on the Spaceport (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/apollo-lmcsm-replica/) functional in 0.20? I'm getting ready to start simulating the entire Apollo mission series (including the unmanned series) and was wondering if it was practical to try and incorporate any of this?

If you fix it up to be 0.20 compliant I don't see a problem (see stick thread at the top of the forum).

[dfscott]

If you fix it up to be 0.20 compliant I don't see a problem (see stick thread at the top of the forum).

Cool - thx. I'll give it a shot.

[iamaphazael]

Cool - thx. I'll give it a shot.

The folder structure should be fine. You should be able to drop them into /Parts/ and /Plugins/ as usual, but I'm pretty sure that some of the parts in that version did use a rescale factor, so you will probably have to go in and edit the scale lines in the cgfs as described at the bottom of that sticky. Let me know how it goes.

I think that by the end of this week, I ought to be in a place where I can put out a new development release. The textures still won't be in place, but I think I'll be able to finalize the model scaliing and the cfgs to a point where I should be able to put out a 0.20 compliant version for people to mess around with. I will keep you all posted about that.

[iamdigitalman]

I was editing some of the part.cfg files in your pack (don't worry, I have since deleted them), trying to match the mass and propellant amounts of each stage to the real Saturn V exactly. Needless to say, it was a fail. It kept imploding on it's self, and the only way I got it off the ground was to use the hack gravity option in the debug menu. It took off, but veered sideways, flopping like a fish. Clearly the physics in KSP are nowhere near the same as they are on earth.

Now I am going the other way, trying to make stock versions of the V and IB as accurate as possible. I even have the launch sequence down on the V, having the engines start in pairs, the burn time at least on the first stage is the same, and something I did not know, shutting down the center engine early on the first and second stages. I know on 13 the second stage center engine cutout early, but I had no idea they did that on purpose, just a bit later than it did on that mission.

[iamaphazael]

I was editing some of the part.cfg files in your pack (don't worry, I have since deleted them), trying to match the mass and propellant amounts of each stage to the real Saturn V exactly. Needless to say, it was a fail. It kept imploding on it's self, and the only way I got it off the ground was to use the hack gravity option in the debug menu. It took off, but veered sideways, flopping like a fish. Clearly the physics in KSP are nowhere near the same as they are on earth.

Now I am going the other way, trying to make stock versions of the V and IB as accurate as possible. I even have the launch sequence down on the V, having the engines start in pairs, the burn time at least on the first stage is the same, and something I did not know, shutting down the center engine early on the first and second stages. I know on 13 the second stage center engine cutout early, but I had no idea they did that on purpose, just a bit later than it did on that mission.

No worries about editing configs. You're welcome to do whatever you want with the parts for your own use. All I ask is that you don't share your modifications with others (at least not without asking first).

Yeah, the game doesn't seem to like dealing with large masses. I'm in the process right now of going through and rebalancing the pack to try to reduce weight a little bit so it's s little less wobbly on takeoff. I want to give the parts just enough fuel to do a mun mission, so it will actually be a challenge to fly the Apollo mission with this, rather than just having it be a cakewalk.

A user on reddit tried to do something similar to what you were trying, making a replica with real-world values. I believe his approach was to try to match the actual thrusts and burn times, which yielded a rocket that was wildly overpowered for a ksp mun mission, but was an interesting project (http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1dl8d4/i_built_a_saturn_v_not_a_kerbal_equivalent_a/).

I also just found out recently about that center engine cut-off, but I didn't know that they started up the main engines in pairs. I briefly considered breaking down these Saturn engine parts into individial components, which would make all that stuff possible, but I think simplicity is more important for the time being. Maybe once the basic set is complete I'll go back and do a more realistic set.

Thanks for taking a look. Keep an eye out over the next couple of days. I'm getting ready to release an updated version with the new config balance, updated models, and 0.20 file structure

[dfscott]

Since my family was out of town this (holiday) weekend, I took the opportunity to start my Apollo journey. I started at AS-201 and made it as far as Apollo 11 (skipping Apollo 1, of course). Here's some feedback from a rookie, fwiw. My installation consisted of simply dropping the parts in and copying the ships into the stock ships folder and tweaking from there.

I simulated the Saturn 1B by simply removing the 2nd stage -- the 1st stage has more than enough power to get you into orbit (almost too much!) and the third stages were pretty similar anyway. I also found that any major changes to the upper stages were tricky and often resulted in explosions (although this is as likely do to my inexperience with rocket building than anything). The built-in ASAS does a good job holding you on course and I had no trouble with MechJeb doing just about anything, including ascent and landing. I ran *very* tight on fuel on the LEM ascent stage from Mun, but that's probably pretty accurate (retrograde orbit makes it even more expensive). It's also very tricky to maneuver -- it's spins like a top if you're not careful. RCS is in short supply as well - with 2 docking maneuvers, you can't fool around. (While MechJeb will dock you, it's very wasteful on RCS fuel, so I would use it just to get lined up and then turn it off.)

It also bounced around a lot on initial Kerbal ascent, but that reminded me of the pogo issue in the real Saturn V, so I actually kind of liked that. And my pre-teen sons got a huge laugh out of the parachutes when viewed from above (since they're not textured yet, apparently). Try and you'll see what I mean.

Definitely a very nice pack -- great to fly as well as look at. Thanks!

[Razorcane]

Thanks for your input. I take your comments in the spirit they were intended. As Ph34b0t points out, all the textures you see are placeholders that I've made just to have something to look at. Most of them are simply full-frame washes of a solid color. I've got a collection of reference images, and hopefully myself or someone else will be able to do a better rendition than I've got so far. As far as fairings go, I'm not using fairing factory, and the ones you see are custom-made. Although, mine also have the problem that they don't attach to anything at the top. I've tried to make the collider meshes as small as possible to reduce wobble on them, and we'll have to see how that holds up. The worst case scenario will be that they'll have to be strutted together from the inside. Time will tell.

I actually have a few ideas for those fairings. If you look at renditions of the apollo spacecraft(including the fairings), you can see that the fairings do not take up the entirety of the Lunar Module Adapter. I actually modeled the Apollo Spacecraft and Saturn V launcher for a project in school, so let me get a picture for you.

http://i.imgur.com/krBQknm.jpg

As you can see, part of the lunar module adapter is attached to the third stage. So perhaps it is possible to attach the fairings directly to the service module? I've never done mods for KSP, so I'm unsure how possible this is, but if you attach the fairings to the Apollo craft, and then attach the rest of the adapter to that, perhaps it could work? Then of course the Lunar Module itself would go somewhere in there, possibly have a snap point below the adapter, though I'm not sure how that will work. Again, I'm not a mod developer.

[Guest]

To supplement what Razorcane is describing (very nice render, by the way), here is a sketch that shows the demarcation between the LEM compartment and its fairings:

[Razorcane]

To supplement what Razorcane is describing (very nice render, by the way), here is a sketch that shows the demarcation between the LEM compartment and its fairings:

Yes that's a much better version. Perhaps instead of attaching the lunar module below the full adapter, both the bottom part of the adapter and the lunar module can be attached to the bottom of the fairings. Perhaps make one of the fairings have a centralized snap point or something.

EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, how would the fairings decouple? For stability purposes it makes sense to attach them directly to the service module, and then the rest of the adapter underneath, but how would it decouple? It would be attached to the ship at two points.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Razorcane

[iamaphazael]

That is a really nice render, Razorcane, and the diagram that Jack provided is very useful too. The fairings are something I'm going to have to think carefully about. Maybe the answer is to make them work like they were originally designed to do: the panels stay attached to the adapter and open up like flower petals. That way, I could do it as just a single part and set it up as an animation. That would avoid the wobble issue, and make it so it didn't need to attach at two places.

As much as I like the idea of jettisoning the panels, and as much trouble as animations give me every time I touch them, that might be the best solution to the problem. What do you guys think?

[Guest]

I feel the "flower petal" approach is a good solution to the problem. As you say, it will eliminate the inherent wobbling, decrease the complexity, and consolidate five parts into one. Plus it prevents this from becoming a development hurdle.

Razorcane, I had to go back and look at your render again. Excellent job! Being able to see it on my home monitor instead of a bollocks laptop screen allows me to appreciate the effort you put into it.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Jack Wolfe

[Razorcane]

That is a really nice render, Razorcane, and the diagram that Jack provided is very useful too. The fairings are something I'm going to have to think carefully about. Maybe the answer is to make them work like they were originally designed to do: the panels stay attached to the adapter and open up like flower petals. That way, I could do it as just a single part and set it up as an animation. That would avoid the wobble issue, and make it so it didn't need to attach at two places.

As much as I like the idea of jettisoning the panels, and as much trouble as animations give me every time I touch them, that might be the best solution to the problem. What do you guys think?

Well I've been thinking about it all day(in fact, I got very little work done because of it! But, no worries.) and I think the flower petal idea might work. You make the fairings decouple from the service module, and then the other part of the adapter has a decouple effect on it, to disconnect those. It makes a sort of sense, since the adapter stays attached to the third stage, so it really has no use. That's really the only compromise I can think of.

EDIT: Is it possible to have 4 decouplers on one piece? Hm.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Razorcane

[tygoo7]

I would love to help you!

[Razorcane]

Apologies for the external link, but I made a quick model/animation of what I was talking about earlier.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41300233/scene_preview.avi

Should clear up any confusion.

[iamaphazael]

Apologies for the external link, but I made a quick model/animation of what I was talking about earlier.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41300233/scene_preview.avi

Should clear up any confusion.

Yep, that's pretty much what I've got in mind, except that the panels won't detach at the end; they'll just stay connected to the adapter.

In other news, I've been working on the lander legs, and trying to figure out what makes them so wobbly, especially when coming back from the tracking station. I've discovered that the stock legs have the same problem on returning focus, although with the stock parts you sometimes need to give them a little push to make them wonk out. So, I'm not going to worry about it too much more, and assume that it's a problem with the game that will eventually get fixed.

So, once I make the new fairing adapter (tomorrow, or maybe the next day), I'll be pretty much ready to do a beta release, that way everyone can go play with it and help me find things that need more work.

Keep your eyes peeled!

[Razorcane]

Yep, that's pretty much what I've got in mind, except that the panels won't detach at the end; they'll just stay connected to the adapter.

In other news, I've been working on the lander legs, and trying to figure out what makes them so wobbly, especially when coming back from the tracking station. I've discovered that the stock legs have the same problem on returning focus, although with the stock parts you sometimes need to give them a little push to make them wonk out. So, I'm not going to worry about it too much more, and assume that it's a problem with the game that will eventually get fixed.

So, once I make the new fairing adapter (tomorrow, or maybe the next day), I'll be pretty much ready to do a beta release, that way everyone can go play with it and help me find things that need more work.

Keep your eyes peeled!

Did you flesh out the edge smoothing problems and the textures?

[Ph34rb0t]

Having four decoupling fairings works just fine (not this mod, obviously).

The only drawback is that symmetry modes won't work, i.e. you'll have to rotate and attach each fairing separately.

IIRC the flower petal method was exclusive to Apollo 7 and got rid of after one petal did not fully open (not-quite-as-angry-alligator).

- Edit:

Method:

Set up four attachment points on the fairing base and just add a decoupler to the fairing. Make sure that the high gain antenna is not extended and then sinply decouple when needed.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ph34rb0t