Guest meteorite 101 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I haven\'t notices any out-of the ordinary wobbling on the Able - perhaps you have a slow computer/launch at 2x warp?Regarding the hope - you control her like you would any unpowered, heavy shuttle - gently.I\'m thinking about making some training videos, but apparently I suck at directing ;-) Besides I\'d rather be modeling. If anyone wishes to make some videos of flying the Hope Shuttle, I\'d be very glad to stick them to the first post on this thread.nice work on your pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Made a video showing how to properly land the Hope. It\'s not hard if you empty the tanks ;-)Hope 101 - Glide LandingI\'ve attempted a couple times now, but i cant land the thing. i\'m coming in with an empty fuel tank, low angle of attack but i can\'t get the nose to come up even with RCS. i still end up with much too fast descent and smoosh.If you empty your liquid fuel tanks but have the RCS tank full - the center of gravity will shift dangerously to the front of the shuttle. It may be even harder to land it than with full tanks. Generally - It\'s best to have no fuel at all - liquid AND RCS - failing that, try to leave some fuel in the rear tank to balance the front RCS tank.What defines a gliding landing?Not using engines I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryocasm Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Niiiiice, I like this and the Shuttles certainly, I wanted to make one, but now....Meh, I might make the Shuttle Humanas Peregrinatores (hope thats right Latin, means Human Traveler) after all, I believe we need more, but I\'m afraid of an oversupply and hence it will remain unused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 Shuttle drag parachutes anyone?Meh, I might make the Shuttle Humanas Peregrinatores (hope thats right Latin, means Human Traveler) after all, I believe we need more, but I\'m afraid of an oversupply and hence it will remain unused...The more the merrier besides, doing all the calculations to make the shuttle flying is bound to be useful later... or is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryocasm Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Damn, I was planning on having brake chutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witeken Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 These things look sick! I\'ll download it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsun Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I\'ve found that the problem with the Hope is that it actually has too much fuel. Launching it in on top of the Able rocket makes it incredibly easy to get into a stable orbit with full tanks and full RCS. While having lots of RCS and a lot of fuel might help down the line, ( When spacecraft actually might need to perform tasks ) I find that when I want to land, I need to spend a lot of time making rather silly maneuvers, that take some time to just burn off all my fuel so I won\'t have to worry about botching the landing. While this makes me hope that at some point there may be an option to jettison excess fuel, I hope you might provide a solution sooner and consider lowering the amount of RCS fuel and liquid fuel on the Hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest meteorite 101 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 are you using a joystick or your key board when you did that video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I\'ve found that the problem with the Hope is that it actually has too much fuel. Launching it in on top of the Able rocket makes it incredibly easy to get into a stable orbit with full tanks and full RCS. While having lots of RCS and a lot of fuel might help down the line, ( When spacecraft actually might need to perform tasks ) I find that when I want to land, I need to spend a lot of time making rather silly maneuvers, that take some time to just burn off all my fuel so I won\'t have to worry about botching the landing. While this makes me hope that at some point there may be an option to jettison excess fuel, I hope you might provide a solution sooner and consider lowering the amount of RCS fuel and liquid fuel on the Hope. Possible he could make a quick dump valve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Possible he could make a quick dump valve?What about making a service module that contains all the fuel, and have Hope just be a reentry vehicle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Let\'s try to answer all of this one by one...Damn, I was planning on having brake chutes.You still can, I don\'t mind ;-)I\'ve found that the problem with the Hope is that it actually has too much fuel.A very good point. I\'m making a fuel dump valve for the liquids (an engine with almost no thrust but large fuel consumption). The problem with RCS is that all thrusters are always active, and it seems like there is no way to control the fuel consumption... (changing it\'s thrust power does not seem to affect it).are you using a joystick or your key board when you did that video keyboardPossible he could make a quick dump valve?What about making a service module that contains all the fuel, and have Hope just be a reentry vehicle?Liquid fuel dump valve is in the making (I\'m planning several \'accessories\' - the braking chutes were just the first of the line) but I don\'t want to add more modules inside the hull. However, I\'m now thinking about jettisonable over-wing tanks... like this:Now... I could get rid of the in-hull rcs tank, move the ASAS one spot towards the cockpit and have a bigger cargo bay... but that would be a lot of work... Will have to think about it.EDIT: and then I remembered that RCS tanks drain one by one, so this setup would destabilize hope if the tanks were big... grrr... back to the drawing board? Maybe if I had them not lose mass when fuel is used up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua21B Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I like the over the wing fuel tank look. What spacecraft is that in the picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico88 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I like the over the wing fuel tank look. What spacecraft is that in the picture?That is Shuttle 2, which was a proposed successor of the Space Shuttle.Wing fuel tank is an interesting idea indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I like the over the wing fuel tank look. What spacecraft is that in the picture?As Rico88 said, that is indeed a proposed successor to the shuttle. They designed it roughly in the same time as JAXA did the Hope, so I borrowed some features ;-)I did some quick modeling, came up with these:Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t the largest ones just awesome? I\'m definitely doing them. The problem is that they\'re waaay to big to be RCS tanks. They should be more like the smallest one, but I don\'t like how it looks. Probably will go more along the \'needle\' design - thin but long. Also, it\'s going to be a huge pain to have them positioned on the wings correctly with a decoupler that will eject them upwards :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico88 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Indeed. The one in the first picture is best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gubru Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The first picture is teh hawtness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua21B Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Are the external tanks meant to be RCS tanks or Fuel tanks? Having them as fuel tanks that allow you to dump a significant amount of your weight in fuel would be great for a quick way to increase you gliding ability without having to wait for the fuel to burn off. As far as being able to jettison them upwards, how about having a zero force decoupler and a small weak booster with a really short burn time towards the nose of the tank to push it up and away from the shuttle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest meteorite 101 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 dood i love hope its so amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelcommando1807 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I\'d say to just keep minimal supplies on the shuttle (Enough to practice moving relative to an object.. Say, a station, as well as to de-orbit with a bit of accuracy) and then use the wing tanks to essentially act as the mission supplies (Extra fuel for orbital transfers/fuel deliveries to orbiting ships, for example). For the decoupling situation, maybe one could have hardpoints on the wings, with the decoupler setup as follows:Support (De)coupler + noseMain tank body (Carries fuel, RCS, etc)Bottom cap - Possibly with small nozzles for the purposes of explaining how it has the thrust to push away. Or fireworks strapped on.Just a thought.. Could also do it so that the decoupler has two attachment nodes (One for the upper part with the payload, the other for the booster) for stability purposes.Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 So I did some thinking, and this is where things stand right now:1) The large fuel tank that is now the core of the shuttle - the one you attach wings to - is just a placeholder until I do a proper cargo bay. It houses 3/4 of the liquid fuel. This will be gone. The stern tank has enough fuel to keep the engines firing at full thrust for 41.6 seconds - should be enough to de-orbit the shuttle, and I think it\'s a proper amount. The fuel dump valve is still coming.2) RCS fuel tank size and capacity was based on the base game numbers. However, they are probably based on an assumption that you\'ll have 8 (2 sets of 4) thrusters on your rocket. Since hope has only 2, and each thruster seems to consume equal amount of fuel regardless of it\'s thrust, that means that Hope has LARGE supply of RCS for it. I will probably decrease the amount of fuel in the tank, but leave the weights as they are, to simulate \'double thrust\' of the thrusters.3) The large tanks in the pictures in previous post are waaay to big to be rcs tanks... but then I thought about this:Red - liquid fuel. White - RCS.They will be jettisonable and I\'m planning to make trying to land with them still attached akin to suicide.How exactly the jettison will work remains to be seen (I kinda like the small thruster in the nose idea). Worst case scenario - 0 strength decouplers and moving the shuttle away with RCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua21B Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I like the red=liquid fuel, white=RCS Fuel scheme, seems a lot more practical.Btw love the hope shuttle and how it handles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Come to think about it, this will probably be the other way around - ex - RCS will be in the nose. It should be easier to attach fuel lines to the tanks then.Also, I think I got a name for those - MEEK - Mission Endurance Extension Kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryocasm Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Hurr, I was thinking of the overwing tanks because of the movie Armageddon where they go to that asteroid with the Shuttle 2.Hmmm, me thinks I have to do some not too feature stealing thinking.....I hope I get Blender working tonight to get the shuttle body done, I thought I\'ll do it progressively:-Clumsy Kerbal Rockets-Sleeker (still kerbal) Rockets-Apollo like Capsule-Space Shuttle-Larger Shuttles (the space cruise thing NASA made, it looks like the JAXA one, but its fatter)-Sleek SpaceshipsSomewhere in there Mun probes and stuff like dat. With persistence we can visit dumped probes and artificial sats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieD76 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 HA Armageddon...could you imagine if it really happened. Congress would set the peramiters and then limit NASA budget...'we want you to save the world...but if you suceed we dont want to end up bankrupt after ok? no point being alive if we have no money' tut. Anyway..love the hope Sarkun. I know its alot of work but if you had two sets of tanks? atmosphere tanks or swap them out for space ones. The space ones have small thrust SRB fore to push the nose of them up and away. The atmosphere ones have a high strenght decoupler with a drag chute in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarkun Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Man, finding the good color for the tanks is haaard. Anyway, this is how they look now.I had a funny idea - I could give them nodes on the end to attach small engines - like the ones on hope for a sort of boosters. They\'d look sorta like the ones on Advanced Space Shuttle from Armageddon ;-)Last picture shows the advantage brake chutes give - it seems like you can safely go along the terrain seams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts