Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[Captain Sierra]

Which one?

This one: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics/page7#post666794

I also had talked about it a bit back on page 6.

[GusTurbo]

Ok, updated main post to include your technique.

[Captain Sierra]

Great! Also, I'll be trying to compile some of the nice clipping tricks I used on my Guppy orbiters' service modules and then taking a break while I mission chronicle SSI though the research tree (I'm an amateur author, it should be a fun read).

[DisarmingBaton5]

This isn't an aesthetic suggestion, but I've found a solution to the Mystery goo problem due to which you must attach two at a time. Since the radial parachute has the same mass and the COM is similar on the parts [citation needed], I find it is a good substitute for the extra goo pod. Furthermore, it potentially allows or makes easier recovery of your service modules! This is, again, not aesthetic and only really useful in career mode, but hey, it's useful.

No pics yet as I am still too lazy to get an imgur account.

[Giggleplex777]

I noticed while building my mini Saturn V that the yellow ladders lag much less than the longer ones.

[GusTurbo]

Yeah, the big ladders lag like crazy. I played around with them a bit, and it slowed things to a crawl in the VAB. They also have a light source that I don't think you can turn off.

[DisarmingBaton5]

I noticed while building my mini Saturn V that the yellow ladders lag much less than the longer ones.

Do they have the same size case?

[OrianCEV]

Here's a few pics of my new spacecraft:

[GusTurbo]

They're a bit small. Do you think you could rehost them on imgur? I like what I can make out from what I can see.

[OrianCEV]

They're a bit small. Do you think you could rehost them on imgur? I like what I can make out from what I can see.

ok,here:

[GusTurbo]

Oh, that looks very cool. I'm a big fan of its compact design. How much delta V does it have?

[OrianCEV]

ok,here's the readings mechjeb gave me:822, 950 m/s(total Delta-V)

Edited October 25, 2013 by OrianCEV

[OrianCEV]

Also,if it is to be realeased,i will include a launcher

[This is the EKSTV with a in-development-launch vehichle(The HVLB)]

[GusTurbo]

That's outstanding. I see a lot of interesting techniques going on there.

[OrianCEV]

That's outstanding. I see a lot of interesting techniques going on there.

I got the engines from this very thread,I also got the part-clipping idea for the EKSTV from this thread.If you are interested,just ask,i'll post this on spaceport.

[GusTurbo]

New technique that needs testing. I posted it in the Munshine thread and figured it should go here as well. Let's say it's in "beta" right now.

A recurring issue I've had with ultra heavy lifters is that they always put a lot of stress over a single point, the connection between stages. My usual solution has been to just place tons of struts between the lower stage and the one above it and hope for the best. Unfortunately, this often fails. I was thinking that this could possibly be solved by clever use of docking ports, similar to the way you might use them to get a quad coupler to link up properly on bottom, as seen here:

http://youtu.be/t_3BxnxSOz4?t=2m6s

The docking ports are built with a tiny gap between them so they dock when physics load. This allows you to have fairings on all outboard engines and should spread the mass of upper stages over more area. It definitely has an aesthetic purpose, since it eliminates unsightly gaps between stages, and it might also serve a practical purpose as well.

The outboard fuel tanks are attached radially to the core. With this technique, they stay connected to the core. No more explosions on staging!

Edited October 27, 2013 by GusTurbo

[Blue]

New technique that needs testing. I posted it in the Munshine thread and figured it should go here as well. Let's say it's in "beta" right now.

The outboard fuel tanks are attached radially to the core. With this technique, they stay connected to the core. No more explosions on staging!

I'm not sure I understand; is this in contrast to two sets of radial parts on the one core, seperated by otherwise only one decoupler?

(Protip: Do not)

[GusTurbo]

It's kind of hard to describe these things sometimes. Let me set it up a little better.

Stage 1 is the lowest stage, and it consists of 5 Jumbo tanks by 5 Mainsails. Stage 2 is the stage above the lowest stage, and it consists of 5 Jumbo tanks powered by 5 Skippers.

Now, there are two basic ways of attaching Stage 1 and Stage 2 if you are building from the top down, Method 1 and Method 2.

In Method 1, you begin by attaching a single decoupler to the bottom of the core skipper in Stage 1. Below that decoupler, you attach a Jumbo tank, then radially attach 4 more Jumbos. Then you attach the Mainsails to the bottom. Then you add struts. This method places all of the weight of the upper stages on top of the single Skipper and decoupler, which creates a weak point. When staging, Stage 1 will stay together in one piece. The image you posted is Method 1. From my experience, Method 1 requires a lot of struts, and even then, structural failures still happen unpredictably.

In Method 2, you attach a decoupler to all 5 Skippers in Stage 2, then build downward, attaching the Jumbo tank then the Mainsail on each "column." One benefit of this method is that each engine gets a fairing, which creates a smoother looking rocket. This method creates 5 independent columns that can move independently from one another. This method would also seem to place less stress on a single point in the design, which should make for less failure-prone rockets. Upon staging, 5 different spent rockets fall independently from each other, usually colliding with each other and exploding. I think this looks silly, which is what prompted me to investigate this new method.

With this new technique, the idea is to get all of the benefits of Method 2 (fairings on all engines, weight spread evenly between columns) without the major downside (a mess of rockets running into each other after staging). Does that make more sense?

[NQMT]

[b9 Aesthetics/Function]

Need to make a bomber, but have nowhere to put a bombardier?

Well, I have the solution for you!

First, take a Mk2 Lander-Can and put 2 Modular Girder segments behind it. Then get a HL Adapter and a Mk3 B9 cockpit.

Next, move the adapter so that the rear facing node is in the same spot as the furthest of the two Modular Girder nodes.

Finally, get that cockpit and place it on the front of the HL Adapter.

Problem solved. Except that you may have two trapped Kerbals. But don't lie to yourself, that happens very often. In anything.

[Blue]

With this new technique, the idea is to get all of the benefits of Method 2 (fairings on all engines, weight spread evenly between columns) without the major downside (a mess of rockets running into each other after staging). Does that make more sense?

Ah I get it, that's what I thought.

The decouplers automatically cut all struts on the stage below, unless interrupted by a set of docking ports. Double the weight of a normal decoupler with all the advantages of not looking silly!

[oosime]

I've used a few of these techniques in my Ares launchers.

Here is my Ares I (my first real life rocket attempt)

It works quite well, and I'm very pleased with it.

My second real world rocket attempt was an Ares IV

It is an incredibly good rocket, I just pressed space by accident. Good thing I added an escape tower, eh?

I did make an Ares V as well, but it doesn't work at all. I'll keep trying to get it working, though.

[NASI Director]

I found this out from Giggleplex or someone.

The radial attachment point makes a great attachment point!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited December 28, 2013 by Supernovy
Fixed album embedding

[Giggleplex777]

Yeah, Radial Attachment shrouds.

But Ladders look better.

[NASI Director]

Yeah, Radial Attachment shrouds.

-snip

But Ladders look better.

It depends. On my potato of a comp, the bigger ladders have lights, animations, and have a higher part count (sometimes) so using them as shrouds can cause a severe FPS drop. I prefer to use Radial Attachment Points when I can.

[Nephf]

I've used a few of these techniques in my Ares launchers.

Here is my Ares I (my first real life rocket attempt)

It works quite well, and I'm very pleased with it.

My second real world rocket attempt was an Ares IV

It is an incredibly good rocket, I just pressed space by accident. Good thing I added an escape tower, eh?

I did make an Ares V as well, but it doesn't work at all. I'll keep trying to get it working, though.

That's how the Ares SRBs work. 5000 kn of thrust!

Edited February 11, 2014 by Nephf