Space Shuttle Atlantis

[Amloris]

Atlantis 2 is finally being released to the public. It has been complete for well over 6 months now (long before .23 came out) and is better than the original version in almost every way. It has a better TWR on takeoff, looks better, has superior aerodynamics, is equipped with a more realistic TWR in orbit and is far easier to control (it only has 1 action group!).

Download (VAB)

Now that those obligatory pictures are out of the way let us talk about Space Shuttle Atlantis. The Atlantis is a derivation of a prior Space Shuttle's that I worked on. It is designed to carry a crew of 3 to low Kerbin orbit and is not payload capable. It was designed with ease of use in mind and was developed to replace my prior payload capable shuttle, the Endeavour. Project Endeavour is a much more capable shuttle in many regards, it lifted a 3 man orbiter that was nearly twice as heavy as the Atlantis as well as a 7.5 metric tonne payload using the same amount of fuel. Project Endeavour however was canceled; it suffered from chronic fuel dispersion issues, was nearly impossible to control, and had a 34 step pre-launch protocol. But in its place Atlantis does its job, and does it well.

Atlantis has the standard components of a space shuttle: two SRB's, three SSME's, two OME's, a orbiter, and a expendable external fuel tank. The launch vehicle weighs 147 metric tonnes and the orbiter weighs 27 metric tonnes before burning off fuel. Bi-propellant and mono-propellant are stored inside the fuselage of the orbiter and is not designed to be refueled in orbit to extend its operational range. Contrary to conventional shuttle design I opted to use non-gimballing main engines (SSME's) due their higher power to weight ratio. This design decision was a necessity in order to stay true to a realistic Space Shuttle, both from an aesthetics perspective and an engineering perspective. Atlantis has a power to weight ratio of less than 1.5 for a short period after booster separation; without non-gimballing main engines the gravity losses would have been considerably worse. Upon re-entry Atlantis is stable and acts like a glider; it can glide for over 40km from an altitude of 8km and stalls out at about 30m/s. But that is enough talk about design, let's talk about how to fly this thing!

Action keys

1 - Shuts down main engines

Launch

*Stage SSME's

*Ignite SRB's and release launch clamps

*Tilt back 5 degrees (maintain this until 8km)

*Stage when the first SRB's burn out.

*Jettison SRB's on burnout

*Follow typical ascent profile

*2/3 throttle after 20km

*Shutdown engines when the external fuel tank runs out

*Jettison ET, toggle AG1 (Apogee should be 80-85km at this point)

*Circularize orbit (100km x 100km)

Landing

*Refer to video for retro burn initiation location

*Burn at 1/3 throttle

*Turn off engines when your trajectory hits just east of the island

*Land using a gliding approach (-20 degree glide path)

*Survive landing

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Behold the limit of my artistic skill in Microsoft paint. Above is an illustration of a very important observation. Due to the placement of the Orbital maneuvering Engines (OME's), they must be tilted downwards to coincide with the center of mass. This means that the direction that the cockpit is pointed does not indicate the direction that the thrust is accelerating you in! After booster separation you must keep your nose about 5-10 degrees above the prograde marker to keep your thrust lined up with your velocity vector. After external tank separation and main engine cutoff you must keep your nose about 15 degrees above the prograde marker!

Random Thoughts

*Always keep ASAS engaged

*Always point above the prograde marker

*Add the rollover maneuver for even more realism

*If you accidentally shut off your main engines on ascent you will most certainly die

*If you use mechjeb ascent autopilot it will most likely fail, and then you will die

*If the launch goes wrong in the first 15 seconds you will die

*If you pull an RTLS maneuver, you will probably die

*There is no abort, hand the controls to Jebadiah and hope for three consecutive miracles and two acts of God.

*DO NOT DISENGAGE ASAS!!!

*Sanitation kits are provided in the cockpit

*???

*Profit

Video

Note: This is an older video. Atlantis 2 now launches from the Launchpad and doesn't require fuel burn-off during prelaunch.

Any feedback you guys can provide would be much appreciated. Suggestion and questions are certainly welcomed!

Have a good day!

Edited March 2, 2014 by Amloris

[Spaceisbeautifulul]

Nice man, this is one of the better spaceshuttle replicas.

The only flaws are the engine under the tank and those small orange boosters, other than that, all accurate, all functional, and all good work! Have some rep.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Best shuttle I have seen yet!

However, I think the docking port should be on the top (wasn't it?) and I don't think the orange tank ever dropped its engine.

Also, post that Endeavor! When did nightmares prevent Jeb from strapping himself to a SRB? Or diving into the sun on only solid fuel? (challenge forum reference, anyone?)

[Ace_Of_Spades]

say wasn't Jeb on the space shuttle challenger?

[Giggleplex777]

Best shuttle I have seen yet!

However, I think the docking port should be on the top (wasn't it?) and I don't think the orange tank ever dropped its engine.

Also, post that Endeavor! When did nightmares prevent Jeb from strapping himself to a SRB? Or diving into the sun on only solid fuel? (challenge forum reference, anyone?)

The orange tank doesn't have an engine. The engine on the bottom was to empty the jet fuel from the shuttle.

[Amloris]

Nice man, this is one of the better spaceshuttle replicas.

The only flaws are the engine under the tank and those small orange boosters, other than that, all accurate, all functional, and all good work! Have some rep.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, those small orange boosters are there out of necessity. I tuned the shuttle to fly well at the end of its flight instead of at the beginning since I had to use non-gimballing SSME's. To remove them, I suppose I could switch the SSME's to the gimballing engines, but then you get the unpleasant side effect of death inducing oscillations at one point in the ascent.

Best shuttle I have seen yet!

However, I think the docking port should be on the top (wasn't it?) and I don't think the orange tank ever dropped its engine.

Also, post that Endeavor! When did nightmares prevent Jeb from strapping himself to a SRB? Or diving into the sun on only solid fuel? (challenge forum reference, anyone?)

The docking adapter was indeed on the top on the real one. If there was an inline docking adapter for the mk3 fuselage, I would use it in a heartbeat; but to preserve the aesthetics I placed the docking port on the nose instead. My other choice was to put a parachute on the nose, which would have been an accident waiting to happen.

I may PM you the craft file if I find it (buried on a .18 version on a flash drive somewhere) but you will not get it to work without modding it into orbit. I made it, and it didn't get into orbit consistently. There were many reasons why the project was cancelled and it was flown unmanned.

@Both of you: To clarify, the auxiliary tank and engine that are underneath the external tank are there solely for the purpose of removing jet fuel from the orbiter fuselage prior to liftoff. Before taking off, you disconnect the auxiliary fuel tank and engine from the launch vehicle. This assembly is ultimately left behind after the launch vehicle is disengaged from the launch clamps.

Have a good day.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Amloris

[DisarmingBaton5]

The orange tank doesn't have an engine. The engine on the bottom was to empty the jet fuel from the shuttle.

To clarify, the auxiliary tank and engine that are underneath the external tank are there solely for the purpose of removing jet fuel from the orbiter fuselage prior to liftoff. Before taking off, you disconnect the auxiliary fuel tank and engine from the launch vehicle. This assembly is ultimately left behind after the launch vehicle is disengaged from the launch clamps.

Have a good day.

Ah. Thanks! I did not know that, now I do!

The more you know

[steffen_anywhere]

WOW... Nice Design and Functionality!!!

Your thread and video helped me a lot with my own shuttle design which I have yet to complete. I will post it in the Spacecraft Exchange once it works (center of mass with the external tank is messing me up badly ). I used KW Rocketry for the large SRBs, otherwise it's mainly stock as well (main orbiter engines are KW Rocketry tho to combat the problem of non-gimbaling engines, which I'm sure you're familiar with ). I will name my design Discovery (because it was arguably the "star" of the shuttle fleet and because yours are named Endeavour and Atlantis...on the other hand... if Jeb is flying the thing, Challenger might be more suitable as a name ).

BTW: I enjoyed ur vid on YouTube and liked it... Keep up the work, it's awesome!!!

[SDIR]

I have to say, building a shuttle by itself is already difficult, but making it realistic is even harder. Your shuttle Atlantis gave me enough inspiration and motivation to build my own, and looking at your design helped a lot! Keep up your hard work!

And @steffen, Jeb should have been in Columbia, since Columbia exploded on take off.

Edited June 23, 2013 by SDIR

[fenderzilla]

don't these shuttles have chutes to slow down their landing?

[Supernovy]

Really neat. The only thing I'd change is make a taller tail - I usually put a structural wing on top of a tail fin to make the shuttle vertical stabiliser look.

Maybe add a docking port that's rotated the correct 15 degrees, so that you can 'control from here' for your burns? Still, this is replica-tacular.

[M5000]

My question for this one is as follows: I see you made the main fuselage, where the cargo bay would be, out of the Mark 3 fuel tanks. Do these tanks actually supply LiquidFuel to any engine? If not, would it be better for the launch system to simply attach a small engine and drain off the fuel by itself prior to launch.

In another light, would it be possible to replace the tanks with a cargo bay designed for the Mark 3 form factor, such as those made by TouhouTorpedo?

[Amloris]

Sorry for my prolonged absence ladies and gentlemen. My main hard drive bit the dust and it took nearly a month to get it replaced! My apologies for the neglect.

don't these shuttles have chutes to slow down their landing?

You are absolutely correct; the Space Shuttles did utilize chutes to slow them down on the runway. I have no idea how that detail completely escaped me. I will be sure to add one on my next version!

Really neat. The only thing I'd change is make a taller tail - I usually put a structural wing on top of a tail fin to make the shuttle vertical stabiliser look.

Maybe add a docking port that's rotated the correct 15 degrees, so that you can 'control from here' for your burns? Still, this is replica-tacular.

Making the Shuttle more aerodynamically realistic is also one of my main goals for my next Shuttle; a taller vertical stabilizer would certainly contribute to the realism!

Also, your docking port suggestion is an excellent idea! I will see if I can incorporate that concept into my next shuttle.

My question for this one is as follows: I see you made the main fuselage, where the cargo bay would be, out of the Mark 3 fuel tanks. Do these tanks actually supply LiquidFuel to any engine? If not, would it be better for the launch system to simply attach a small engine and drain off the fuel by itself prior to launch.

In another light, would it be possible to replace the tanks with a cargo bay designed for the Mark 3 form factor, such as those made by TouhouTorpedo?

The Mk3 fuselages do not feed the orbiter's engines at any point during the flight. Instead, a small auxiliary fuel tank and engine are used to burn off excess jet fuel stored in these fuselage sections prior to liftoff.

*****

As always, thanks for all of your suggestions! I really appreciate the feedback.

[SDIR]

I haven't tried, but does the new SAS logic make the shuttle easier to fly? And does it make the Endeavor control easier as a result?

[iDan122]

Btw the landing chute might not even open if it is too low to the ground. And the chute is opened only after touchdown btw. Anyway cool shuttle man!

[wasmic]

And @steffen, Jeb should have been in Columbia, since Columbia exploded on take off.

Nope. Challenger exploded 73 seconds into its flight, while Columbia was damaged by a piece of foam during ascend, which damaged the thermal protection tiles, which, in turn, allowed superheated gas to enter Columbia during reentry.

EDIT: This is possibly the best space shuttle replica that I have seen in Kerbal Space Program.

[L3GO]

After trying to launch this many times with the new update it does not work. Could we get an Update?

[Amloris]

I haven't tried, but does the new SAS logic make the shuttle easier to fly? And does it make the Endeavor control easier as a result?

The new stability control system has had some notable effects on this Space Shuttle, some of them good, and some of them bad. Shortly after liftoff the Atlantis is a challenge to fly because it simply lacks enough reaction wheels to keep it under control. The effects of this are easily apparent; the reaction of the Shuttle to control input could be described as lethargic at best seeing that the cockpit is one of the only forms of stabilization. The upright maneuver is equally more challenging now due to the same reason. One good effect is that the leanback maneuver is much easier to do now.

The Endeavour is now impossible to control now sadly, even if you follow the pre-launch protocol to the letter. It does however make a glorious explosion at about 1500m as it loses control and desegregates.

Btw the landing chute might not even open if it is too low to the ground. And the chute is opened only after touchdown btw. Anyway cool shuttle man!

If a drogue chute can not be opened on the ground due to game constraints it may not be feasible to include it at all. The Atlantis already flies like a brick with lead weights attached to it, I would hate to see what would happen if you deployed the chute prior to landing...

-snip-

EDIT: This is possibly the best space shuttle replica that I have seen in Kerbal Space Program.

Thanks, but there is always room for improvement!

[Amloris]

The Atlantis has been a good shuttle, and does its job exceptionally well. Many people have made very worthy suggestions on how to improve it, but unfortunately it looks like I will have to do a complete rebuild to include many of them. I still plan on updating Atlantis to make it more user friendly after .21 came out (most notably adding more reaction wheels, batteries, and RTG's). I also plan on developing a more capable shuttle, one that is capable of transporting a crew of 3 and carry a potential 30 metric tonne payload while still being easy to control. However, this will require a more heavy duty launch system, which leads me to the following presentation.

Behold, the GLV/M-I/A. It is a heavily modified first stage of my Gemini Launch Vehicle, featuring an extended fuselage for additional fuel capacity, an elliptical cross section as opposed to a circular one, and an aerodynamic nosecone. It is designed to be a Liquid Rocket Booster (LRB). Two of these LRB's will be embedded into an larger integrated external tank to create the Thorium Launch System for the new shuttle. Unfortunately, the LRB has an issue that needs to be fixed before I can proceed to designing the external tank.

I need the help of the community to analyze this LRB and fix its fuel flow problems.

The problem is: the LRB does not supply any fuel to the engines properly. I am trying to fix this issue while preserving its current functionality and aesthetics of the booster. I am at a loss on how to go about fixing this, so I am calling upon the community to assist in the development of the GLV/M-I/A.

Download: GLV/M-I/A

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Have a good day!

[ashrid]

Thanks for posting this, it's given me some pointers to solving some issue with the shuttle I am trying to build (the parts-inside-parts was an eye opener)

I do have one question though, how did you angle the strut sections the rear engines connect to in order to get the angle, I've tried disassembling yours but I still can't figure it out.

Thanks

[ashrid]

Double post - ignore

Edited August 8, 2013 by ashrid

[Sesni]

And @steffen, Jeb should have been in Columbia, since Columbia exploded on take off.

Columbia blew up during landing. Challanger blew up during takeoff.

[SDIR]

I need the help of the community to analyze this LRB and fix its fuel flow problems.

The problem is: the LRB does not supply any fuel to the engines properly. I am trying to fix this issue while preserving its current functionality and aesthetics of the booster. I am at a loss on how to go about fixing this, so I am calling upon the community to assist in the development of the GLV/M-I/A.

Download: GLV/M-I/A

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Have a good day!

I looked into the problem and the reason why the engines don't work is because the structural 1m to .5m adapters don't cross feed from the tanks to the engines. I added four fuel lines and embedded them as well so they were hidden Now nobody has to know!

https://app.box.com/s/pfqckp19hunls85ccufj

Edited August 8, 2013 by SDIR

[Amloris]

Thanks for posting this, it's given me some pointers to solving some issue with the shuttle I am trying to build (the parts-inside-parts was an eye opener)

I do have one question though, how did you angle the strut sections the rear engines connect to in order to get the angle, I've tried disassembling yours but I still can't figure it out.

Thanks

Are you referring to what hot-key that you use to slightly angle the struts, or the concepts of of physics that I used to choose their correct orientation? If it is the later, I would be ecstatic to show you how I went about doing it as I am sure that others would also be curious to know.

I looked into the problem and the reason why the engines don't work is because the structural 1m to .5m adapters don't cross feed from the tanks to the engines. I added four fuel lines and embedded them as well so they were hidden Now nobody has to know!

-snip-

-snip-

https://app.box.com/s/pfqckp19hunls85ccufj

A thousand thanks SDIR! I'm not sure how after playing this game for hundreds of hours that a simple fuel routing logic such as that escaped me.

Now work can begin on the upgraded external tank for the Thorium Launch System!

[ashrid]

Are you referring to what hot-key that you use to slightly angle the struts, or the concepts of of physics that I used to choose their correct orientation? If it is the later, I would be ecstatic to show you how I went about doing it as I am sure that others would also be curious to know.

I guess it's the hot key as I'm not so much worried about the actual angle (yet) as the fact that when I place engines on mine they point straight down (although having tried flying yours I may leave them that way )