Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[Majorjim!]

Hi all,

I thought I would share some Ibeam fairing techniques. I spent a good while doing it and noticed a few things that make it easier.

Ok, so I have only tried it when working on an early "Selene". so an Apollo craft will be the example.

To start the fairing I attach some cubic struts to the CSM underside in 4x and attach a seperatron:

Then place a cubic strut to each seperatron and then one Ibeam onto the cubic strut facing down. At the bottom of that Ibeam place a cubic strut in the center on the inside. And attach two more cubic struts either side of it and build a scaffold the same shape as the stage below.

The Ibeams will be attached to the struts like this:

It doesn't have to be perfectly lined up to look smooth. You just need to move your mouse very slowly to get them lined up. It helps to work on a tilted fairing when it is vertical, then tilt it. Sometimes its better to tilt before rotating. And sometimes it helps to rotate before tilting.. That can be annoying.

Here you can see the fairing in 4x around the payload with the First Ibeam in the center:

Here you can see the method I used for the in between stage fairings. This is much easier than tilted fairings.

And the finished result:

But I decided not to use the Ibeams simply for the accrued part count and the weight. Which is great. Great Meaning large or immense. I use it in the pejorative sense!

Thanks for reading and I hope this helps.

MJ

Edited December 1, 2013 by Majorjim

[Rune]

Hi all,

I thought I would share some Ibeam fairing techniques. I spent a good while doing it and noticed a few things that make it easier.

[...]

Holy boop. I mean, great guide, and I mean it. But did you know that there is a mod called "Editor extensions"? Among other things, it allows you to do unlimited symmetry, like x100 for example. And that should save you ages building these kinds of fairings.

Rune. I also hope this helps

[Woopert]

Thanks for the help with the fairings. Did you update the craft? Last time I saw it used structural panels, good job with the I-beams if you did (they look smoother than structural panels you had previously). Do you have advice for "inline" fairings, like on the Antares rocket? Just a quick example, I'm trying to replicate the Antares so fairings are an issue. Here's some pictures. (the craft is stock, the B9 Aerospace and Space Shuttle Engines parts in the background are for other projects)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited December 1, 2013 by Woopert

[Majorjim!]

Thanks for the help with the fairings. Did you update the craft? Last time I saw it used structural panels, good job with the I-beams if you did (they look smoother than structural panels you had previously). Do you have advice for "inline" fairings, like on the Antares rocket? Just a quick example, I'm trying to replicate the Antares so fairings are an issue. Here's some pictures. (the craft is stock, the B9 Aerospace and Space Shuttle Engines parts in the background are for other projects)

Hi Woopert.

Originally I was using those Ibeam fairings for the rocket I released recently. They are so heavy that the rocket wouldn't make orbit. Even with this MONSTER first stage:

The second and third stages didn't have enough thrust to push into orbit. To do it they would have to have been much larger and that would defeat the object of my 'smaller' Saturn V Launch vehicle. You should see what Mulbin had to do to Munbug after adding Ibeam

fairings. Its crazy! So only use them on big rockets and try not to use them for between stage fairings too.

About your fairings, by inline fairings do you mean in between stage or the nose cones? If its in between stages try and use rover bodies or the panels. Its just not worth the extra weight of the Ibeams.

For the nose cones I have nothing to give.. It may be possible with stock parts to make large smooth fairings for nose cones but I have no idea how it would be done. Ive seen lots using structural panels but you are always left with sharp edged parts poking out that just don't look right.

Anyway, let me know about those fairings.

MJ

Edited December 1, 2013 by Majorjim

[Majorjim!]

Holy boop. I mean, great guide, and I mean it. But did you know that there is a mod called "Editor extensions"? Among other things, it allows you to do unlimited symmetry, like x100 for example. And that should save you ages building these kinds of fairings.

Rune. I also hope this helps

I have heard of this Rune but have never used it before. I can see that it would indeed save time! I had forgotten about this mod. Ive been strictly keeping my KSP game stock. But as you could open the .craft from any stock install I don't see a problem with it. Cheers!

MJ

[Woopert]

Thanks for the help. It's a shame that rocket was too heavy, the aesthetics are beautiful. By inline, I mean fairings that go straight up from the base. See here. On an Atlas V, the fairings "bubble" around the payload, while on a rocket like the Antares, the rocket is shaped as basically a cylinder with a pointed tip (just trying to simplify things).

Atlas V: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/images/2008/02/08/atlas_v_401mro_liftoff_2.jpg

Antares: http://www.topnews.in/files/Antares-Launch-Vehicle.jpg

Edited December 2, 2013 by Woopert

[Majorjim!]

Thanks for the help. It's a shame that rocket was too heavy, the aesthetics are beautiful. By inline, I mean fairings that go straight up from the base. See here. On an Atlas V, the fairings "bubble" around the payload, while on a rocket like the Antares, the rocket is shaped as basically a cylinder with a pointed tip (just trying to simplify things).

Atlas V: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/images/2008/02/08/atlas_v_401mro_liftoff_2.jpg

Antares: http://www.topnews.in/files/Antares-Launch-Vehicle.jpg

Right, I see now. The Antares fairing should be possible with Ibeams. The finished fairing would weight a fair bit though. I will give it a go tonight and report back.

MJ

[Majorjim!]

Ok I had a go with the Ibeams. Its possible to make a detaching nose cone but it releases along the direction of travel..

they wont meet exactly at the tip. Either like this picture or with the edges poking out.

MJ

[sgt_flyer]

Why not attach the nosecone to one of the sides of your fairing ? (It's been used on some fairings in real life, notably Saturn-V skylab's fairings.)

[Pds314]

2 engines together in order to get the thrust I needed

Really? Because I made a B9 Aerospace weight-accurate size-accurate shape-accurate thrust-accurate replica of the F-35A earlier today and I looked up the engine specs. It says 125 kN dry, 191 kN with afterburner engaged. Regardless, that is not two engines worth. (280 kN). The plane there appears to be about 7 tonnes, which is only 30% the weight of a real F-35A. An F-35A has a TWR of about 0.9 with the afterburner engaged. Your plane has a TWR if about 4.1.

I have noticed this is a pretty common thing with replica jets, people make accurate-size engines instead of accurate-power ones, so they wind up with absurdly powerful planes. The B9 aerospace parts pack's Strugatsky is an 80-tonne transport with a grand total of ~1300 kN of thrust. That is 5 times what real airliner-like planes have for TWR. It has a better TWR than the F-35A for goodness sake!

What really illustrates this point well is looking at a typical modern 737. Over 20 tonnes of fuel, 10 tonnes of passengers, and 40 tonnes of plane are lifted into the air by just a bit over 20 tonnes of thrust. A TWR of about 0.3, not 1.6. The Concorde had a TWR of 0.373.

Even the highest-performance real jet-engine planes have TWRs that hover around 1.0. Some might get to 1.3, but certainly nothing exists short of a cruise missile with anything beyond that. By comparison, it is easy to design a plane in KSP with a 1 Mk2 fuel tank, 1 adapter, 1 cockpit, 0.25 tonnes of wings, 1.5 tonnes of gears, 1/20th of a tonne of intakes and 4 turbojet engines.

1.5+1+0.25+0.05+1.5+4.8+extra bits=a bit over 7 tonnes with 60 tonnes of thrust. That is a TWR of about 8.5, Nothing in reality does (or should) have such ludicrous of a TWR. If it had a 10-square meter front surface and a Cd of 0.2, it would be able to go around 447 m/s at sea level in FAR (calculated not tested, actual speed would probably be higher due to smaller frontal area.). At 10 km, it ought to reach something like 1300 m/s, and at 20 km, assuming the intakes provided enough oxygen, it would quickly reach machingbird-territory.

[bombo1]

Really? Because I made a B9 Aerospace weight-accurate size-accurate shape-accurate thrust-accurate replica of the F-35A earlier today and I looked up the engine specs. It says 125 kN dry, 191 kN with afterburner engaged. Regardless, that is not two engines worth. (280 kN). The plane there appears to be about 7 tonnes, which is only 30% the weight of a real F-35A. An F-35A has a TWR of about 0.9 with the afterburner engaged. Your plane has a TWR if about 4.1.

I have noticed this is a pretty common thing with replica jets, people make accurate-size engines instead of accurate-power ones, so they wind up with absurdly powerful planes. The B9 aerospace parts pack's Strugatsky is an 80-tonne transport with a grand total of ~1300 kN of thrust. That is 5 times what real airliner-like planes have for TWR. It has a better TWR than the F-35A for goodness sake!

What really illustrates this point well is looking at a typical modern 737. Over 20 tonnes of fuel, 10 tonnes of passengers, and 40 tonnes of plane are lifted into the air by just a bit over 20 tonnes of thrust. A TWR of about 0.3, not 1.6. The Concorde had a TWR of 0.373.

Even the highest-performance real jet-engine planes have TWRs that hover around 1.0. Some might get to 1.3, but certainly nothing exists short of a cruise missile with anything beyond that. By comparison, it is easy to design a plane in KSP with a 1 Mk2 fuel tank, 1 adapter, 1 cockpit, 0.25 tonnes of wings, 1.5 tonnes of gears, 1/20th of a tonne of intakes and 4 turbojet engines.

1.5+1+0.25+0.05+1.5+4.8+extra bits=a bit over 7 tonnes with 60 tonnes of thrust. That is a TWR of about 8.5, Nothing in reality does (or should) have such ludicrous of a TWR. If it had a 10-square meter front surface and a Cd of 0.2, it would be able to go around 447 m/s at sea level in FAR (calculated not tested, actual speed would probably be higher due to smaller frontal area.). At 10 km, it ought to reach something like 1300 m/s, and at 20 km, assuming the intakes provided enough oxygen, it would quickly reach machingbird-territory.

remember that ksp has a different type of drag than real life

[Halsfury]

Just reporting something I saw, first though a background story...

A while ago (eons), a person named teo posted this on OKB-1 but refused to share his secrets (or his craft file).

Yes, full stock,my motto: only stock, only hardcore

Sorry, I don't give .craft anyone

How did he do this? Simple, if you take regular solar panels, parachutes, batteries and anything radially attachable and turn it around so that the face which would normally be stuck to the hull is now facing outwards

Granted there is some other interesting stuff going on here but that's the basics of teo's station embellishments

Also Teo has recently relented and has been kind enough to share his craft files here, so I forgive him

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52803-Space-stations-replicas-by-teo-%28NEW-Salyut-1%29

[panzer1b]

Very useful thread

Especially since i tend to design stuff to look like sci-fi ships, its nice to know how to properly hide parts, for example VTOL engines within fuel tanks, they dont stick out or cause any issues, nor do they ruin the look of the craft.

One question, are there any tricks to getting clipped parts to accept the position easier? Cause it can be pretty annoying to have to spin parts, move em, rotate, toggle symmetry and hope one of these actions allows their attachment to whatever im trying to connect it to.....worst issue is when im trying to get a symmetry enabled feature to connect, its always one of the other mirrored entity refuses to attach....

[GusTurbo]

I usually just turn on part clipping in the Alt-F12 menu. Sometimes I leave it off when I'm trying to attach parts for fuel cross-feed purposes, since incorrect placement can cause fuel flow issues.

[Blue]

Now that I have my laptop back, I'm continuing with my highly ambitious Jool mission Project Unicorn. It will require a fleet of 5 multi-part ships, and that's not even the best part.

But right now, I'm concerned with making a shapely and appealing 8-kerbal return pod for when they get back. The 7-kerbal pod design is fine, of just strapping a PPD-10 Hitchhiker to the bottom of a Mk1-2 Command Pod, but I don't want to also strap a lander can or pod to the top of the Mk1-2 because of how ugly that would look. Any ideas?

[vidboi]

Now that I have my laptop back, I'm continuing with my highly ambitious Jool mission Project Unicorn. It will require a fleet of 5 multi-part ships, and that's not even the best part.

But right now, I'm concerned with making a shapely and appealing 8-kerbal return pod for when they get back. The 7-kerbal pod design is fine, of just strapping a PPD-10 Hitchhiker to the bottom of a Mk1-2 Command Pod, but I don't want to also strap a lander can or pod to the top of the Mk1-2 because of how ugly that would look. Any ideas?

You could try 8 mk1 lander cans like so:

The pods are separated by clipped octagonal struts to make them flush. It even has spaces for assisted landing rockets now that I look at it. I might use this design myself actually, not that I have anything that requires landing 8 crew...

EDIT: works too to boot

Edited December 21, 2013 by vidboi

[Clouds]

So, antennas make rather OK fairings. It's just too bad you can't set them to start deployed as a tweakable option.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

You could try 8 mk1 lander cans like so:

Oh, that looks nice. The IVA is probably pretty wild though.

[Blue]

It's incredible! Genius! Stupendous!

[GusTurbo]

Now that I have my laptop back, I'm continuing with my highly ambitious Jool mission Project Unicorn. It will require a fleet of 5 multi-part ships, and that's not even the best part.

But right now, I'm concerned with making a shapely and appealing 8-kerbal return pod for when they get back. The 7-kerbal pod design is fine, of just strapping a PPD-10 Hitchhiker to the bottom of a Mk1-2 Command Pod, but I don't want to also strap a lander can or pod to the top of the Mk1-2 because of how ugly that would look. Any ideas?

You could also do 8 Mk1 lander cans like this:

[Blue]

Did my own version, because I have some size and weight restraints for the task.

I got three other things to slap on this bad boy before it heads to Jool and they all have to balance.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Blue

[barrenwaste]

@Gusturbo: The best way that I have found to use symmetry and clipped parts without console cheats is to use your wasd keys. Randomly flipping them a bit often allows them to clip on when brought back to the right position. Also, you might try building a single part, attaching it to another and then using symmetry on the resulting amalgamation.

@Blue: Rather than use pods, use command chairs. I have an 8 Kerban ssto designed around a hollow core filled with command chairs that works quite well. Here is a link for an idea of how it can be done. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57914-KC-12-Pelican-8-Kerbal-SSTO

[AppleDavidJeans]

Technique: Disposable RCS control for purposes such as delivering modules to space stations using tugs.

For decades, kerbal engineers have had tremendous experience delivering modules to stations using tugs. They could do it right every time. But a nuisance that made for eyesores was, they had to provide some sort of RCS control so the module could dock, and the RCS couldn't be anywhere on the craft, except around the CoM, to provide optimal control.They got around this by slapping parts on the tug to drag the CoM down to below tug level. Then late in the spring of star year 5034, General Jebediah Kerman ordered that in order to keep launch costs down, they couldn't drag down the CoM by slapping on useless parts on the tug until the CoM was below tug level. Because of this, the station constructions had to be halted for 5 years while the engineers wracked their brains, but none of the technique ideas floated around came to fruition. Then one day, a young engineer named Appledavidjeans Kerman invented what he called "disposable RCS thrusters." This was an ingenious idea, and the admin monkeys at Squad decided to award him a bunch of medals that were too long to read, and a lifetime salary boost so fat that he couldn't decide what to do with it except chuck it into his savings account.

***NOTICE: Though I used mod parts as part of this demonstration, this can be done using stock parts on anything. I used stock parts for the technique part.***

Now here's a graphical explanation of what the problem is:

See that CoM? It's in the module and not the tug. That's the problem. See why in the next paragraph.

Recall that RCS thrusters work best if they're equally balanced around the CoM in any arrangement. I could just slap on the thrusters there, but after I jettison the tug, which is the half white, half-checkered engine + tank, after I deliver the module to a space station, the RCS are useless (unless you had a RCS tank module on the station) and an eyesore. I can't drag it down by slapping on parts to the tug, cause that would also be an eyesore and probably impractical. So I came up with this technique. This can be used on anything, stock or mod.

How it's done:

Recall that Cubic Octagonal Struts can be rotated into a spacecraft in the VAB or SPH to provide hidden attachment points for parts. That's the key to this technique. Turn on 4 side symmetry (that's what I use) and put the struts on inwards, around or balanced around the CoM, and then put on any type of separator (ideally a tiny one such as the TR-2V Stack Decoupler). MAKE SURE that the arrow on the separator points to the module, otherwise the point of this technique is ruined. Put on another set of struts, then place the thrusters on. The end result should look like this:

Now the moment of truth:

It works! Yeeeeeeeey!

And in case you had any doubts, I did not have Infinite RCS on.

But we're not done yet. I did not dock this module, but no need to for purposes of this demonstration. I could jettison the thrusters at any point, including after docking. I now will demonstrate the point of this technique.

Moment of Truth again!

IT ALSO WORKS!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!!!

Word of advice: I'd be mindful of solar panels if there are any nearby when the thrusters are jettisoned. Fold them first is what I'm saying.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

In case you were wondering what are the mod parts I used for this demo, the module is from fusty's (through sumghai) FusTek Station Parts pack and the tug is an upper stage from frizzank's FASA pack.

Sorry I didn't use only 100% stock parts for this, but this came to me on the fly and I had to get this out to everyone

Edited December 24, 2013 by AppleDavidJeans
uploaded right pic

[Blue]

It's not really a QED unless it's something your trying to prove, wherewhich the thing that you are proving is stated before the proof, within the proof, and repeated in-summary at the conclusion.

Your technique is using small stack seperators on radial-mounted small square struts to make unnecessary RCS blocks jettison-able. Cool story bro

[inigma]

Coming soon to an Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics thread near you!

All of them are SPH part clipping goodies discovered and used by SSI Engineers:

Hidden Wings

Hidden Cockpit Landing Gear

Hidden Fuel Lines (did you know you can rotate the beginning fuel line strut?)

TURAN Mk. 1 Engine Design (used in the new SSI Shuttlecraft Types I and III Proton series)

VTOL Design (using a cubic strut instead of a mount)

Hidden/Sunken Lighting

Hidden RCS Cluster

[Gojira]

You could also do 8 Mk1 lander cans like this:

What's the weight on that?