Jump to content

Dream Chaser Shuttle [0.23.5]

iDan122
 Share

Recommended Posts

iDan122

iDan122

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey guys,

Here's the Dream Chaser

15s0WeH.png

It is a 1-man shuttle launched atop an Atlas V 402.

It has a docking port in the back and to thrusters for orbital maneuvering.

ouuEh2A.png

Launcher thanks to Giggleplex777 !

ggHMV32.png

ERWiECY.png

Download

UPDATE:

Solar panel removed, RTG placed instead.

Ugly parachute removed, installed a better one which is hidden.

Removed unnecessary ASAS.

Launcher optimised.

Useless liquidfuel removed.

Control surfaces tweaked.

Edited by iDan122
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iDan122

iDan122

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Updated! Giggleplex's launcher now included! 1612 I suggest you don't waste time designing a space shuttle because in KSP it is very hard to make one. I think less than 5 stock shuttles exist out there and they are a lot bigger than yours. It you want to launch that tiny plane, just put it on top of a rocket, you will need less fuel than with this thing. Do not be fooled by how easy it looks, centering thrust with a shuttle is close to impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sgt_flyer

sgt_flyer

Posted
Posted (edited)

idan's correct - and it's not only thrust - offcentered mass is a pain too (notably if you try to make a buran like shuttle, which have no main engines on the shuttle, unlike the american shuttle.) shuttle like elements are easier when on top of rockets (you only have to limit the thrust at liftoff to prevent the wings from generating lift - which was a long time a headscratcher for my kliper - too much powerful a rocket, and when i passed a certain speed (the required speed goes up with altitude) the wings started to create lift and made the rocket tumble (extra caution required if you tilt your control surfaces in the VAB :P)

Edited by sgt_flyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iDan122

iDan122

Posted
  • Author
Posted
idan's correct - and it's not only thrust - offcentered mass is a pain too (notably if you try to make a buran like shuttle, which have no main engines on the shuttle, unlike the american shuttle.) shuttle like elements are easier when on top of rockets (you only have to limit the thrust at liftoff to prevent the wings from generating lift - which was a long time a headscratcher for my kliper - too much powerful a rocket, and when i passed a certain speed (the required speed goes up with altitude) the wings started to create lift and made the rocket tumble (extra caution required if you tilt your control surfaces in the VAB :P)

Yes I agree. If you still want to have a go, try replicating Buran, it will be WAY easier to center everything there since the Energia launcher has engines on the fuel tank. Considering the SS, people who made copies put alot of extra engines on it to center the thrust with mass. Also it has to be dynamic since fuel is drained and the center of mass shifts all the time. NASA'S shuttle has thrust vectoringg engines i think.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amloris

Amloris

Posted
Posted (edited)
*snip* I suggest you don't waste time designing a space shuttle because in KSP it is very hard to make one. I think less than 5 stock shuttles exist out there and they are a lot bigger than yours. It you want to launch that tiny plane, just put it on top of a rocket, you will need less fuel than with this thing. Do not be fooled by how easy it looks, centering thrust with a shuttle is close to impossible.

While you are correct in many regards, I disagree with you on dissuading 1612 from trying to construct a functional shuttle. They are challenging to make, but as long as you have a decent grasp on the concepts of thrust vectoring, COM displacement, and torque they are substantially easier to engineer. There are many valuable physics lessons to be learned during the creation of a shuttle (plus they are just plain cool!).

On the contrary; because it is hard, it is the reason why it must be done! :)

4no8zQj.jpg

@1612: Excellent shuttle you have there!

@Henry Von Braun: I believe that the SSME's have a 10.5 degree gimbal range. In fact, here is a excerpt from a document from Nasa (<----Click here!) to back it up! "Each engine can be gimbaled plus or minus 10.5 degrees in the yaw axis and plus or minus 10.5 degrees in the pitch axis for thrust vector control by hydraulically powered gimbal actuators."

Edited by Amloris
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...