United Launch Alliance

[Guest]

No, it also deploys in flight on the A-4. It's not photographed with it, usually, but it's there:

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_3/Centaur/RL-10A-4N.jpg

[AngusJimiKeith]

Interesting. I'd never even seen reference to extendable nozzles on Atlas V. That's going to be a problem in the man-rating process....

[Guest]

Why would that be a problem? It's a proven technology. They were used since Atlas IIAS and worked quite well.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Nevermind, I (stupidly) based that statement on old data. Supposedly, the extendible nozzle was going to be removed from the SLS icps stage for man-rating reasons, but that idea appears to have been dropped. Oops :/

Edited April 11, 2014 by AngusJimiKeith
grammar

[CluelessModeler]

I appreciate the compliments fellas! I just wish I had more time and knowledge of Unity in order to get it into KSP!

I've tried a couple times, but even with the tuts available, I haven't been able to get the animations to appear!!!

WRT the SLS ICPS, it's my understanding that the Extendable Nozzles weren't ever really a concern for man-rating, it was just that they wanted to reduce the amount of things that could go wrong during the launch. (As a not fully deployed nozzle would be a bad thing and trigger an abort.)

[AngusJimiKeith]

That's pretty much the definition of a concern for man-rating. That said, it was determined that a non-fully-deployed nozzle actually would not trigger an (immediate) abort. The mission would be compromised, but Orion and crew could reach a stable orbit and reenter from there. And that's all now moot, because there's a pretty good chance SLS won't fly manned with the ICPS. (Only 2 ICPS ordered, strong possiblity of an SLS cargo flight after the first test, manned flight would be is third.)

However, back on topic: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2574.0

Nope, Atlas V doesn't have an extendable nozzle. Older Centaurs did, but the AV Single Engine Centaur does not. Still hasn't flown a DEC, so not sure on that yet.

Even if you don't trust forum posts (I wouldn't blame you), the linked pictures pretty clearly show a fixed extension on the AV Centaur and deployable ones on the Atlas II Centaur.

[Guest]

Interesting. So it doesn't need to have an extendable nozzle, but it can have one if necessary. Indeed, the DEC would probably fly with a movable extension (less space in the interstage), but on the SEC, a fixed nozzle can be used, but doesn't have to.

Well, it's up to CluelessModeler then. Unless we get a plugin to customize engine nozzles, it's a matter of making another RL-10 with a fixed nozzle. As far as I'm concerned, KSP is just fine with using the more expensive variant (there's nothing preventing you from using an extendable nozzle with a SEC, it's just a waste of money to do so).

[Captain_Party]

Arebyou making the rockets full-scale and then resizing them down? That'd be cool.

CP, realism

[AngusJimiKeith]

Interesting. So it doesn't need to have an extendable nozzle, but it can have one if necessary. Indeed, the DEC would probably fly with a movable extension (less space in the interstage), but on the SEC, a fixed nozzle can be used, but doesn't have to.

Well, it's up to CluelessModeler then. Unless we get a plugin to customize engine nozzles, it's a matter of making another RL-10 with a fixed nozzle. As far as I'm concerned, KSP is just fine with using the more expensive variant (there's nothing preventing you from using an extendable nozzle with a SEC, it's just a waste of money to do so).

Fair enough. And who knows what'll happen with the switch to RL-10C? At the very least, there will be one DEC flight, too, so we'll see what happens with that. (DreamChaser test flight in 2016. They already signed the launch contract and bought the rocket.)

[CluelessModeler]

You would be right AngusJimiKeith! I didn't really think of it that way, thought it would just be a simplification for simplicities sake!

Anyways, if you guys want me to, I'll make the nozzle on the Centaur stationary! I'm still trying to find decent pictures/drawings of the dual engine centaur for the AV. It would make sense that it'll be pretty similar to the old DEC, but I want to be sure! There's no pictures of the new DEC in the AV users guide!

I'll keep looking! Just let me know what you guys want, and I can do it!

[AngusJimiKeith]

DEC for Atlas V is still being designed. The last I heard (6 months ago) was that Critical Design Review is set for sometime this spring. Until then, you're unlikely to find any official drawings, much less pictures. I'd guess it's pretty similar to the old DEC.

Atlas V/DEC isn't scheduled to fly until 2016 at the earliest, so it may be a while before we see any actual hardware.

EDIT: I (sort of) lied. Bottom of this article has a concept image. Not a great picture, but it's something.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/dream-chasers-ksc-vision-2016-debut/

Edited April 11, 2014 by AngusJimiKeith

[CluelessModeler]

Good enough for me! I just didn't know if there was going to be another segment slightly below the main tank in the interstate area or if they'd be more or less bolted onto the centaur!

I'll just take some creative liscense on it for the mean time until more accurate drawings come out! Sound fair?

[CluelessModeler]

Oh, and the rockets are modeled 1:1, so if you want to scale it to 64% or whatever you can!

If there's more interest in a slightly kerbalized part size, I can whip up things that would be more compatible with the traditional sizes! I'm open to discussion on that front!

This weekend I might get more of a chance to get into unity and try to figure things out! Don't get excited for a release anytime soon though! I'm just going to see if I can wrap my brain around it!!!

[AngusJimiKeith]

Totally fair! Can't accurately make what you can't see...

64% makes the CCB *slighty* less than the 2.5m of stock parts (2.44m), so a rescale to 2.5m for Kerbal-sizing seems best. The Centaur wouldn't really fit into any kerbalized standard size, though. I'd just as soon scale it to 64% exactly or fly the thing full scale!

[CluelessModeler]

I was kinda thinking that if it came down to it, I'd do the CCB at 2.5m, and the Centaur at 2-2.25m. I know it doesn't match anything really, but, it'd keep the look of what the AV is supposed to be, and the Payload base would bring it back up to 2.5m for all the payloads anyways.

Delta IV would be easier, I could do it either 2.5 or 3.25? I think that's the bigger size, could be wrong. But, that's only if people like what we can put out there! I'm open to suggestions!

[NathanKell]

Hah! For once we RSS-ers get to not have to rescale, and instead those stock folks have to do the legwork.

[CluelessModeler]

Haha, that's the goal!

I don't hate, I love everybody!

[Kerbal01]

Any plans for an atlas v heavy? It would only require an additional nosecone for the CCB and a wider/more powerful. decoupler.

[CluelessModeler]

There's plans in the mix. But, I want to get the current series out first. Then I'll worry about making AVH. Plus, it's only a drawing board concept, I don't think there's going to be much of a market for it in the long run... But it will get done eventually.

Well, in other news. I'm going through and trying my hand at Unity like I promised!

I've actually managed to get the Thor EELT into KSP. However, I'm drawing a blank here, because I can't think of a way to get the Delta K stage seperate from the Thor tank without introducing another part that's not actually there...

Kinda wondering if there's a way to make a part a decoupler and a fuel tank, and an engine at the same time. Anyone got any ideas? Is there a config trick I can do?

I'll have some pictures to show off in the next couple of days, but, I'm not going to put anything near a date on a release of an pre-release sneak peak.

On a side note, would it be bad form to make a "range safety" device for the Delta III? And make some sort of a plug-in that destroys it 66% of the time? (Totally kidding, not even considering it. Just trying to lighten the mood as progress is made!)

[Guest]

Don't try to stuff too many things into a single part. Try making Thor EELT into a decoupler which would decouple it's upper node (IIRC, the engine is separate from that one?). A decoupler and an engine on a single part is just asking for trouble, unless we're talking an SRB. Also, keep in mind that two stacked fuel tanks will crossfeed fuel. Always. So unless you use monoprop on the Delta K (not an unreasonable decision), you'd get fuel crossfeed from Delta K to EELT.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Guest

[CluelessModeler]

Monoprop for fuel for Delta K wouldn't be a bad idea at all... But I'm going to do like we talked about, and just cut the top of Thor off to be a decoupler for Delta K!

[CluelessModeler]

Well, I'd call today a successful-ish day. I got most of Delta II and III into KSP! Working out some kinks, and adding more detail...

However, I am taking suggestions on how to import animations into unity. I've read the tutorials and can't seem to get it figured out...

I'll post some pictures a little later on, but I've got some astronomy homework calling my name!

Further bulletins as events warrant!

[CluelessModeler]

Alright Folks! I've decided to take a break from Calculus, in order to post this new picture of updated modelling/texturing styles!

Let me know what ya think!

Kinda figuring out how to incorporate more detail, and normal maps and such!

Working on Delta K over the next few days, but here's an inprocess with the Star 48 attached and all the adapters and stuff neccessary!

Just gotta get the other rockets done!

Edited April 17, 2014 by CluelessModeler

[NathanKell]

Wowsers. A+ would launch again.

[CluelessModeler]

Thanks Mr. Kell! After Finals next week, I'll have a week or so before class starts up again, and no wife at home. What will I be doing you ask?

KERBALLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw, forget Gimp, I'm using CrazyBump from now on! So much easier!