FusTek Station Parts Dev Thread (continuation of fusty's original work)

[sumghai]

Just a thought, but could you arrange the sleep stations such that there were two horizontal ones using each of the outer viewports, with the center one used for the conference table? so that each kerbal had his feet by a module end-hatch, and his head pointing to the center of the module? I know is is a big change to the internal, but it would mean that we could keep the lined up windows (which look WAY better), and still have horizontal sleeping, so our poor abused guys can still get a good night's sleep when they're in a surface base.

*Whips out calculator and consults Figure 17*

Assuming an idealized sleep station height/bunk length of 1000 mm and reserving 550 mm for the shower / toilet blocks, that leaves at most 825 mm - if we also factor in the 200~300mm required at both ends for life support / emergency response equipment common to all full-length modules, that leaves 225~425 mm - not even enough room for a single Kerbal, let alone a galley or a table.

[TheCardinal]

Progress Report, 12 August 2013

At the time of writing, around 60% of voters have opted for the horizontal bunk configuration with viewports. While I would prefer to wait a little longer and gather more opinions, here's a quick-and-dirty doodle in Unity to illustrate what the revised version might look like:

Fig 31 - (Revised?) FusTek Karmony Habitation Module

To be perfectly honest, I doubt that this arrangement would look as good (if not better) than the current one with the three equally-spaced viewports and vertical sleep stations - remapping the textures for module surfaces to account for the shifted viewports is going to be troublesome, too.

You guys sure you still want this?

I like the design (which means, please continue development), however i wonder if Kerbals would like to wake up with a view of a rotating universe. I suspect it would worsen the disorientation for Kerbals just after wakening up.

[Kimberly]

I don't like the idea of vertical sleep stations. It would be plain weird on a planet's surface! But the windows for horizontal bunks are weird (and I predicted as much, so I voted against it). I say we have equally spaced horizontally-oriented windows, but have horizontal bunks as well.

[smunisto]

A few things, since FusTek is loosely related to the real ISS:

1. Vertical or horizontal are not applicable directions in space, technically if the bunks are perpendicular to the module length(as in the real ISS) there is more internal space for utilities.

2. Having illuminators next to the bunks - if you have seen the real ISS you know that illuminators in space bring very bright sunlight inside, which is why most of the time they have closed shutters. Now if the hab module with bunk illuminators have shutters it would be ok.

In my personal opinion no illuminators near the bunks + shutters on a pair of illuminators on the far side of the hab module would looke perfectly.

The irregularity - just a pair of illuminators on one end of the hab module will make it look even more polished and distinguish it.

[betaking]

I must say that I do not like the horizontal bunks with horizontally set windows, I would prefer to have vertical bunks and evenly placed windows, or horizontal bunks with no windows(as it seems to be a fair compromise between aesthetics and varied use; personally I think its also a little more realistic).

In any case, I think that such a ground-based module could wait for another parts pack as Sumghai has kindly provided us with the raw models and textures to make our own fusTek-derrived modules from.

but whatever, it seems the majority of votes are in favor of it.

[sumghai]

i wonder if Kerbals would like to wake up with a view of a rotating universe. I suspect it would worsen the disorientation for Kerbals just after wakening up.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. These modules aren't self-spinning centrifuges or O'Neill cylinders.

I don't like the idea of vertical sleep stations. It would be plain weird on a planet's surface! But the windows for horizontal bunks are weird (and I predicted as much, so I voted against it). I say we have equally spaced horizontally-oriented windows, but have horizontal bunks as well.

Unfortunately, the latter suggestion would result in the (highly undesirable) described in this post, where there would be no room for a galley at all.

1. Vertical or horizontal are not applicable directions in space, technically if the bunks are perpendicular to the module length(as in the real ISS) there is more internal space for utilities.

I believe the latter is what I have here. I used the term vertical orientation liberally because I've assigned distinctions between floor and ceilings within the modules.

2. Having illuminators next to the bunks - if you have seen the real ISS you know that illuminators in space bring very bright sunlight inside, which is why most of the time they have closed shutters. Now if the hab module with bunk illuminators have shutters it would be ok.

I'd imagine that the viewports in the bunks will have internal shutter (like on passenger airliners).

In my personal opinion no illuminators near the bunks + shutters on a pair of illuminators on the far side of the hab module would looke perfectly.

The irregularity - just a pair of illuminators on one end of the hab module will make it look even more polished and distinguish it.

Bad. BAD BAD BAD.

If the Hab module had only a single pair of viewports towards the galley end, then it would look exactly the same as the Utilities module (definitely no distinguishing there ). Besides, having no viewports in sleep stations may lead to claustrophobia.

I must say that I do not like the horizontal bunks with horizontally set windows, I would prefer to have vertical bunks and evenly placed windows, or horizontal bunks with no windows(as it seems to be a fair compromise between aesthetics and varied use; personally I think its also a little more realistic).

In any case, I think that such a ground-based module could wait for another parts pack as Sumghai has kindly provided us with the raw models and textures to make our own fusTek-derrived modules from.

but whatever, it seems the majority of votes are in favor of it.

Here's the dilemma regarding polls - on one hand, polls are a good way to seek opinions, whilst on the other, the person running the poll (i.e. myself) may feel obliged to go for what the majority voted for, even if they personally disagree with it. I suppose I'm lucky that I've phrased the question as "Which Hab module configuration would you prefer?" rather than "Which Hab module configuration should I make?"

Conclusion

Since the original premise of this mod was for space stations, I'll opt for the vertical bunks and evenly-spaced viewports. If I can figure out a design with horizontal bunks, then perhaps I'll release a variant one day.

[CleverClothe]

- While waiting for more results from the Hab IVA poll, I've been prototyping some parts for a whole new pack, a stockalike system of Orion MPCV-like accessories for the Mk1-2 Pod (service module, fairings and command pod aero shroud). As part of this hypothetical pack, I'm planning on making docking ports with built-in parachutes - one will be the standard Clamp-o-tron with an appropriate stock parachute, while the other will be a slightly-dirtied IACBM with its own (customizable) parachute.

Yes, please! I've pieced together my own from stock and mod parts, but there are some things that are still very hard to do.

[nothke]

I lol'd! I guess this means I really gotta come back to developing KASPAR, Kerbals are really suffering from blending everything into juice xD

[sumghai]

-snip-

I lol'd! I guess this means I really gotta come back to developing KASPAR, Kerbals are really suffering from blending everything into juice xD

---

(Somewhat Lack Of) Progress Report, 15 August 2013

I've been a bit busy for the last couple of days dealing with some real life stuff, so I barely had time to work on the IACBMs.

So far, I've added a special feature that enables/disables the main docking port collider, so that Kerbals can actually EVA out through the docking ports (a first I believe in KSP modding). I've also put in another animation that toggles between Active/Passive modes, where the APAS-style alignment fins would automatically reconfigure themselves accordingly, which I believe is a marked improvement over fusty making separate Active and Passive parts.

One other intention is for them to force roll alignments between docking ports in increments of 90°, so that the hatches and possibly any electrical/data/fluids connectors would lineup nicely (besides, real CBMs do this anyway). I am aware of and regularly use the roll alignment feature in sarbian's MechJeb2 fork, but I figured it would be nice to feature also available for those who don't use MechJeb. Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck with getting the docking PartModule to recognize the alignment spline colliders, as documented in the following thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/46165-Self-aligning-docking-ports-and-convex-colliders-assistance-required

Worse case scenario for R0.04a would be to only keep the visual effect of switching between Active/Passive, and leave actual non-MechJeb enforced docking alignment to an undetermined future release if and when I manage to figure this out.

[Starwaster]

I don't like the idea of vertical sleep stations. It would be plain weird on a planet's surface! But the windows for horizontal bunks are weird (and I predicted as much, so I voted against it). I say we have equally spaced horizontally-oriented windows, but have horizontal bunks as well.

I always wake up to a spinning universe. Most unpleasant.

Since the original premise of this mod was for space stations, I'll opt for the vertical bunks and evenly-spaced viewports. If I can figure out a design with horizontal bunks, then perhaps I'll release a variant one day.

Suggestion:

Instead of two round portholes next to each other, how about 1 large (about the dimension of two side by side portholes) rectangular one with rounded bevelled edges. (so a soft rounded rectangle)

[sumghai]

Instead of two round portholes next to each other, how about 1 large (about the dimension of two side by side portholes) rectangular one with rounded bevelled edges. (so a soft rounded rectangle)

That would greatly increase the danger due to micrometeorites and debris.

[MainSailor]

So far, I've added a special feature that enables/disables the main docking port collider, so that Kerbals can actually EVA out through the docking ports (a first I believe in KSP modding). I've also put in another animation that toggles between Active/Passive modes, where the APAS-style alignment fins would automatically reconfigure themselves accordingly, which I believe is a marked improvement over fusty making separate Active and Passive parts.

Sounds fantastic! Would the docking port part itself act as the hatch? Or is it just that it wouldn't block access to the hatch on the pod?

[sumghai]

Would the docking port part itself act as the hatch? Or is it just that it wouldn't block access to the hatch on the pod?

It simply unblocks any hatches it is installed over (i.e. the top EVA hatch in all crewed modules).

[Helix935]

That would greatly increase the danger due to micrometeorites and debris.

why not use blast shields like your cupola?

Edit: although you probably would not want to but you can also try adding a label or something on it that says that the glass has been re enforced for safety or make it look stronger by adding something to outline the portholes that gives it that look of strength

Edited August 16, 2013 by Helix935

[sumghai]

why not use blast shields like your cupola?

Little to no room to hide the shutter leaves.

The Kupola's large windows are justified by the module's use for station observation, and would have been designed with blast shutters in mind. The rest of the Karmony modules have viewports cut into them after the fact, and at most rely on internal shutters for privacy.

Edit: although you probably would not want to but you can also try adding a label or something on it that says that the glass has been re enforced for safety or make it look stronger by adding something to outline the portholes that gives it that look of strength

Even if reinforced, very large panes of glass are inherently weaker than their smaller counterparts (stress due to internal pressure, bending moments due to lever arm effects, other materials engineering excuses, etc). They also become rather heavy, which adds to the cost of getting them into orbit.

But personally, I prefer a certain visual consistency in my designs, so no funky combos of window shapes and sizes unless absolutely necessary.

---

Progress Report, 18 August 2013

The model and functionality for the 1.25 m IACBM is mostly done:

Fig 32 - (WIP) FusTek IACBM 1.25 m

The first thing to note is that the IACBM is thicker / deeper than the corresponding-sized CBM fusty made, mainly so that two Nodes can be docked side by side (often requested by users to fusty). This and the intention to make use of the Karmony module's existing hatches results in a large hollowed-out section within the docking port.

I've also decided not to bother with the invisible alignment colliders, so as such the guidance fins are purely cosmetic only, and will pass right through each other if they intersect. For now, folks will have to make do with sarbian's MechJeb 2 fork with the roll alignment feature, or petition SQUAD to improve ModuleDockingNode to include optional parameters for roll alignment / valid orientations.

Finally, I tossed in some additional details in the form of four Motion Control Assemblies to add visual interest, but each of their components also serve certain in-universe functions:

- The Guidance fin ring drive motor & gearbox rotates the Guidance fins between active (+) and passive (x) modes.

- The Latching controllers drive the bolts and latches that mechanically lock the two docked ports together to provide a secure airtight seal.

- The Intermodule Power / Data Interface contain retractable MILSPEC power/data connectors for crew to manually connect between modules after docking.

- The LED light banks provide illumination during docking. One of the four light banks will have additional red indicator lights to mark docking port orientation.

- The Power/EMI module provides power to run the Motion Control Assemblies and related subsystems.

TODO before I finally start work on IVAs: Texturing the IACBMs, 2.5 m variant.

[Prime flux]

Looks great!

[BFGfreak]

I have to say, that looks pretty cool.

looking at those guide fins, I had an idea for a completely redundant docking port, this one shaped so that it would look as if it fits with the stock sized ports that looks kind of like this 30 second blender I made. Granted I'm not sure if such a thing is worth the effort right now, but I figure what's the harm in sharing thoughts at 1 in the morning.

[czokletmuss]

<promising great things>

That looks fantastic

[johnsonwax]

Sumghai, we need to get you and Semni (author of THSS) together to make some adapters and integrated parts. For station building your sets compliment each other extremely well. Not a lot is needed, but a THSS 6-way hub with a Kerbal tunnel to connect Karmony nodes would really be a fantastic addition along with trusses with Karmony styled tunnels. I see a lot of stations built with both sets and I'll soon put up photos of mine using both sets.

[Helix935]

Little to no room to hide the shutter leaves.

The Kupola's large windows are justified by the module's use for station observation, and would have been designed with blast shutters in mind. The rest of the Karmony modules have viewports cut into them after the fact, and at most rely on internal shutters for privacy.

Even if reinforced, very large panes of glass are inherently weaker than their smaller counterparts (stress due to internal pressure, bending moments due to lever arm effects, other materials engineering excuses, etc). They also become rather heavy, which adds to the cost of getting them into orbit.

But personally, I prefer a certain visual consistency in my designs, so no funky combos of window shapes and sizes unless absolutely necessary.

---

Progress Report, 18 August 2013

The model and functionality for the 1.25 m IACBM is mostly done:

Fig 32 - (WIP) FusTek IACBM 1.25 m

The first thing to note is that the IACBM is thicker / deeper than the corresponding-sized CBM fusty made, mainly so that two Nodes can be docked side by side (often requested by users to fusty). This and the intention to make use of the Karmony module's existing hatches results in a large hollowed-out section within the docking port.

I've also decided not to bother with the invisible alignment colliders, so as such the guidance fins are purely cosmetic only, and will pass right through each other if they intersect. For now, folks will have to make do with sarbian's MechJeb 2 fork with the roll alignment feature, or petition SQUAD to improve ModuleDockingNode to include optional parameters for roll alignment / valid orientations.

Finally, I tossed in some additional details in the form of four Motion Control Assemblies to add visual interest, but each of their components also serve certain in-universe functions:

- The Guidance fin ring drive motor & gearbox rotates the Guidance fins between active (+) and passive (x) modes.

- The Latching controllers drive the bolts and latches that mechanically lock the two docked ports together to provide a secure airtight seal.

- The Intermodule Power / Data Interface contain retractable MILSPEC power/data connectors for crew to manually connect between modules after docking.

- The LED light banks provide illumination during docking. One of the four light banks will have additional red indicator lights to mark docking port orientation.

- The Power/EMI module provides power to run the Motion Control Assemblies and related subsystems.

TODO before I finally start work on IVAs: Texturing the IACBMs, 2.5 m variant.

how about using the viewing ports that are found on the karmony hatches instead of blast shields or re enforcement and maybe assemble them in a row per bunk

this you are allowing for visual consistency in that they are already present in the karmony modules and are also smaller and as you have said above stronger than there larger conterparts

[Unikraken]

When will this docking port be released? I downloaded your mod, started putting together a station and then realized they couldn't EVA. lol

Also, general question about docking and EVA, if I attach another part with an available hatch will I be able to use that to exit the station, or does have to be on the specific chunk my kerbals are on? Are they just stuck in there forever now?

[Gristle]

When will this docking port be released? I downloaded your mod, started putting together a station and then realized they couldn't EVA. lol

Also, general question about docking and EVA, if I attach another part with an available hatch will I be able to use that to exit the station, or does have to be on the specific chunk my kerbals are on? Are they just stuck in there forever now?

I use Crew Manifest to move my Kerbals around in the station.

[Unikraken]

I use Crew Manifest to move my Kerbals around in the station.

Sorry to ask about this on another mod's page, but do I need a part to do this? If so can I just dock it to the already built station to move them around? Like, is my current station screwed or can I recover my little guys?

[Sapphire]

Sorry to ask about this on another mod's page, but do I need a part to do this? If so can I just dock it to the already built station to move them around? Like, is my current station screwed or can I recover my little guys?

Crew Manifest is part-less.

[sumghai]

When will this docking port be released?

When it (and the module IVAs) are done.

---

Progress Report, 21 August 2013

75% of the IACBM 1.25 m variant is textured - the remaining 25% is for the inner and outer faces of the main ring chassis, and the surface all the details sit on will need paneling work and snaking cables for the motion controllers. I also need to toss in a normal map as well.

Fig 33 - (WIP) FusTek IACBM 1.25 m (2)