Kerbin Mini Shuttle

[Requiem762]

Is this going to be released when .22 drops so it can be part of career mode?

[ZRM]

It's very,VERY hard to balance shuttles,so,can you use Engine Torque Compensation(it's a plugin)in making this?That or make a special launcher.

Balancing the shuttle was taken care of even before the shuttle was brought into Unity - we're using my analytical thrust balancing plugin KerbCom Avionics (see my signature). Unfortunately for the time being my plugin does not support SRBs, so we're using liquid boosters, which work well enough. The shuttle is very stable using the plugin, during all stages of ascent and orbital manoeuvres, as well as under RCS control. This has all been discussed at length earlier on in the thread.

[satcharna]

Balancing the shuttle was taken care of even before the shuttle was brought into Unity - we're using my analytical thrust balancing plugin KerbCom Avionics (see my signature). Unfortunately for the time being my plugin does not support SRBs, so we're using liquid boosters, which work well enough. The shuttle is very stable using the plugin, during all stages of ascent and orbital manoeuvres, as well as under RCS control. This has all been discussed at length earlier on in the thread.

What would be wrong with using liquid boosters instead of solids anyway? The Buran shuttle's Energia launcher used liquid boosters, and it was far better than the NASA shuttle.

[drtedastro]

What would be wrong with using liquid boosters instead of solids anyway? The Buran shuttle's Energia launcher used liquid boosters, and it was far better than the NASA shuttle.

Say "WHAT"?, Better? At sitting in farmers field, maybe.

[SargeRho]

Better at everything. Higher payload, higher return payload, could fly fully automated from the start, higher atmospheric flight range, and less toxic fuels.

[drtedastro]

Ok, lets see here.. 135 "Manned" flights for shuttle, and what was it????? oh,yes.. ONE unmanned flight...

While the Buran might have "talked the talk", the shuttles "Walked the walk".

[satcharna]

Ok, lets see here.. 135 "Manned" flights for shuttle, and what was it????? oh,yes.. ONE unmanned flight...

While the Buran might have "talked the talk", the shuttles "Walked the walk".

The Buran's single flight nonetheless demonstrated its complete superiority. The fact that budget cuts made it the only flight doesn't affect that.

[Kerbart]

While bitchslapping one another over what shuttle is better is tremendous, I think the one Helldiver is making is, from a KPS perspective, superior to the both of them and since this thread is dedicated to that version I would encourage any Buran vs US Shuttle fanboy discussions to be continued in a separate thread.

[drtedastro]

First, yes, this shuttle is fantastic. Looks great and will have been created with more care and consideration than most others. Next, YES, a forum / conversation regarding and hopefully separating facts from fiction would be great.

Just hit me wrong, prior to first cup o java. I will leave it at that, as i would never wish to muddle or befuddle anything on this forum. Helldiver and ZRM have done are are doing a fantastic job on this one...

[czokletmuss]

Say "WHAT"?, Better? At sitting in farmers field, maybe.

Abort system which "Challenger" lacked? Anyways, let's focus on this shuttle which is neither STS nor Buran.

[Psycho529]

What would be wrong with using liquid boosters instead of solids anyway? The Buran shuttle's Energia launcher used liquid boosters, and it was far better than the NASA shuttle.

Well the reason for that was that the Energia Was originally an ICBM, and if you ask me it's a pretty f*****g big one xD. None the less this shuttle mod is awesome

[finkmac]

Well the reason for that was that the Energia Was originally an ICBM, and if you ask me it's a pretty f*****g big one xD. None the less this shuttle mod is awesome

No, the Energia wasn't an ICBM… It was designed for space launches.

[MaverickSawyer]

Quick aside from topic: Solids are an absolute pain. Yes, they're extremely reliable, have really high T/W ratios, and are cheap. But they can't be shut down short of bursting the casing (yes, that is an option), they run "rough" (lots of unburnt fuel chunks flying out the nozzle, uneven burn pattern), and they're extremely hard to transport. Liquids provide throttle, smooth burning, and better fuel economy, and they can not only be shut down, but restarted.

Back on topic: Helldiver, any chance of creating a "Getaway Special" and/or "Hitchhiker Program" package? These would be a lot of fun when 0.22 comes out.

[Guest]

No, the Energia wasn't an ICBM… It was designed for space launches.

While earlier Soviet superboosters were "sold" as ICBMs, the rationale for Energia was building a competitor to the Space Shuttle. And it was indeed better than Shuttle, due to much better flexibility (Buran was merely a payload, not an essential part of the system) and being completely liquid fueled. While solid rockets are cheap, they're generally dangerous and much less controllable than LRBs. Also, Buran had limited powered flight capability and was generally a newer design than the Shuttle. On the other hand, Buran was more expensive than the Shuttle (though a reusable Energia could've changed that). Their capabilities were quite similar, but I think Buran would've been safer overall, and Energia had enormous potential.

[Gaius]

The Buran was obviously superior, it had metric controls.

/ducks

[helldiver]

Before I can do laboratory space station modules (or modules you can park on a moon or planetoid) I need to know what Squad has in mind.

Putting together the 3D models for that sort of stuff takes maybe a few hours at best. It's all in the programming really.

Really wanted squad to animate the Kerbals inside the IVA of the lab modules. That way you could see the Kerbals doing their little experiments inside the thing.

Alternatively, I could make my own Kerbals and animate them. Then, through plugin control, ZRM can flag them so that if there are no kerbals in that module, none are displayed. The more kerbals there are inside the more of them are made visible.

Since all Kerbals look the same, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Only we would know.

I build the interior of the module. Fully textured and all. I build four kerbals inside, fully animated and textured and all. Each one is flagged so that ZRM can make them visible or not.

if ZRM has problems with animation calling (loading two animations sets on a kerbal and calling either by their key frame start and end time), I can instead make 8 kerbals inside. ZRM would just flag which ones he wants visible. The first set of 4 is flagged Idle. They just do their idle animation. The next set of 4 is flagged doing work. ZRM just makes the idle kerbal invisible, the working kerbal visible. The player can load up to 4 kerbals into the module. Each time another kerbal is moved into it, ZRM flags another to be visible.

What's all that for?

So you set your module up in space somewhere or on moon or on a station. You click on it and select "Commence Research". When you hit IVA on it, you can see your Kerbals working inside

I would LOVE to do this.

Once I get the shuttle and all, I'll start working on all that.

[DerekL1963]

Quick aside from topic: Solids are an absolute pain. Yes, they're extremely reliable, have really high T/W ratios, and are cheap. But they can't be shut down short of bursting the casing (yes, that is an option)

No, you don't need to burst the case. In fact, you don't even need to shut them down - you generally just need them to produce zero net thrust, which can be done by opening some relatively small ports in the forward dome. Nor is this theoretical, SUBROC, ASROC, Polaris A-1 and A-2, and Poseidon all used this technique. (Every so often you'll come across a picture of a Titan-II or -III from the 60's with oval 'bevels' on the nose fairing of the solids - these were ports on the fairing that could be opened to vent the case and were built for Dyna-Soar, which also would have used this technique, and were recycled when that program was cancelled.) The Shuttle didn't use this technique because the sudden cessation of thrust tore/tossed the Orbiter off of the ET the same way Challenger was when her ET broke up. NASA planned on using a solid fuel escape rocket mounted on the Orbiter to power it away from the ET in the even of SRB shutdown, but even if that motor was used for boost after the SRB's were jettisoned, it was too heavy.

[MaverickSawyer]

So THAT's what those were for. OK, I stand corrected.

[Psycho529]

While earlier Soviet superboosters were "sold" as ICBMs, the rationale for Energia was building a competitor to the Space Shuttle. And it was indeed better than Shuttle, due to much better flexibility (Buran was merely a payload, not an essential part of the system) and being completely liquid fueled. While solid rockets are cheap, they're generally dangerous and much less controllable than LRBs. Also, Buran had limited powered flight capability and was generally a newer design than the Shuttle. On the other hand, Buran was more expensive than the Shuttle (though a reusable Energia could've changed that). Their capabilities were quite similar, but I think Buran would've been safer overall, and Energia had enormous potential.

I thought so, the Energia seemed a bit big for an ICBM, especially when compared to the R-7 Semyorka ICBM.

[satcharna]

I thought so, the Energia seemed a bit big for an ICBM, especially when compared to the R-7 Semyorka ICBM.

Most Soviet launchers were also sold to the politicians as ICBMs or other weapon systems, because it made them more likely to receive funding. For instance, the Vostok capsule was occasionally fitted with cameras to operate as an imaging satellite, the Salyut-series of space stations also produced several military Almaz stations, and the Buran was considered a "strategic weapons system" to the military, such as its capability to launch MIRVs (which any spacecraft can do, it was just used as rationale for the massive budget compared to other projects in the space programme). The Soviets never really spent a lot of money on their space programme, it was the competition between the design firms that made it so successful.

[Fonso]

The Buran was obviously superior, it had metric controls.

/ducks

Oh dang, I lol'd

[Bartybum]

Ok, lets see here.. 135 "Manned" flights for shuttle, and what was it????? oh,yes.. ONE unmanned flight...

While the Buran might have "talked the talk", the shuttles "Walked the walk".

The only reason the STS made 135 flights was because NASA and Congress had their heads too far up their asses to notice the extremely overpriced budget for the shuttle. The Russians on the other hand, noticed this after the Buran's first flight and cancelled the project as it was too expensive.

[Exposure]

Are we seriously still having this argument?

[Guest]

...For instance, the Vostok capsule was occasionally fitted with cameras to operate as an imaging satellite...

Occasionally? The Zenit spy satellite, which is what you're referring to, had over 500 launches. It's the most produced spacecraft in the world, BTW, and indeed based on the Vostok capsule. The early Soviet space program was primarily military oriented. Buran was an example of that, a lot of things it was supposed to do were military in nature. Part of the reason it lost it's funding was the fact Shuttle was, at this point, no longer likely to be used for such purposes (it was also designed with some military goals in mind). Also, the fact Soviet union was rapidly moving towards it's collapse contributed a lot. Russian government actually wanted to revive Buran a few times, but couldn't afford that.

[Sapphire]

So, to change the subject... roughly how big (MB) will this be on first release? Or is it to be determined?