Nuclear engines and tri-adapters

[Gijs]

Hey everyone,

This is the prototype of my first interplanatary ship: Miss Gilly. As the name says, it is designed to get to Gilly.

But there is one problem. Adapters and staging don't seem to work together very well. Yes, I know. This is due to the way the staging works in KSP. I have used the search function, where I found this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47673-How-to-get-TVR400L-quad-stack-adapter-into-space?p=617803&viewfull=1#post617803

It doesn't seem to work for me. In fact, often my nuclear engines explode for some weird reason. It works better if I first seperate the whole thing from the orange tank, hence the extra coupler. At least then it doesn't all explode. But in whatever way I use the stages (engines first, and then the three couplers), the engines get detached from the upper adapter.

Is there any way to make this work? I just want the three nuclear engines below the ship. I can use struts if needed (in fact, I already did because the thing wobbled like crazy with the orange tank still attached).

Thanks in advance!

Edited August 30, 2013 by Gijs

[Johnno]

Rotate your engines 90°. If you look at my tutorial screenshot the seam between the fairings is facing outward.

[Gijs]

Rotate your engines 90°. If you look at my tutorial screenshot the seam between the fairings is facing outward.

Oh hey Johnno, thanks! I'll try that.

In your tutorial you don't use a second tri-adapter at the bottom. Will it still work? And do you recommend using the extra coupler? It does seem to lower the chance of it all blowing up for me.

[Gijs]

So I tried it, and while two stayed attached, a third detached.

[Sirine]

Put them 1 by 1?

[Gijs]

Nevermind, I got it to work with the seperators Johnno used: the blue ones instead of the yellow ones. For safety measures I'll keep using the big extra seperator.

Thanks!

[Tiron]

Well I see two problems here:

First, and probably why you're exploding, the LV-Ns have a two-part fairing, unlike every other engine. Instead of remaining attached to the decoupler, the two pieces instead go flying off in opposite directions perpendicular to the engine. In your screenshot, The engines are positioned so that each will fire one of the fairings into the center of the engine cluster, which is a recipe for disaster.

Second...You've gone from a Tri adapter to three engines, to three decouplers, back to a tri adapter. This kind of connection isn't, so far as I'm aware, actually possible in KSP due to the tree structure, so two of those decouplers are most likely attached to the engines but not the tri-adapter (Meaning they get violently shot into the adapter when you decouple.) The struts would mask that, because they'd keep the two sections from flopping into each other.

To Go 1-3-1 like that you need to do something like this, using multidocking to get around the limitations of KSP's tree structure:

[Johnno]

There's a current thread about mounting stuff between tri/quad adapters: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47936-Using-tri-and-quad-adapters-both-ways

I usually just strut them together, but the docking port route is an option. It's all due to single parent attachment.

[Gijs]

There's a current thread about mounting stuff between tri/quad adapters: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47936-Using-tri-and-quad-adapters-both-ways

I usually just strut them together, but the docking port route is an option. It's all due to single parent attachment.

Well, the way I have it now (exactly the same as in the pic, but with three blue seperators instead of three yellow/red ones, and, as you suggested, the engines turned 90 degrees), it works perfectly fine. First I detach the big orange tank with the big seperator. Then I activate the engines, and then lastly I detach the seperators.

I could upload the .craft file for that other thread.

[shand]

the way its working is struts Gijs you have one connection point between one decoupler and the triadapter below it, and the rest of the connections are struts. the other 2 decouplers are for aesthetic purposes only.

this is KSP, so if it works keep it, but making sure you understand the mechanics will help in the long run should you want to do something else in a similar fashion.

thats a very pretty craft! in case you hadnt noticed, the doughnut tanks have a lower fuel:mass ratio - so you'd be more efficent if you used other tanks... equally one nerva would be sufficent. but i like the design and styling as is!

Whats the plan, just get there? get there and come back? land?

[Gijs]

I figured, shand. But I like the styling. I was messing around with adding extra tanks to the side when I got this.

It is now in an orbit around Eve. Just have to get it to Gilly.

As you can see, I cheated a bit by putting tanks inside other tanks. You have the white ones inside the main tanks. Then the smallest tanks that exist (5.74 liters of fuel) inside the white ones, and on top of that the yellow rings, mainly for looks. Every "ring" has a solar panel, except for one at the top which has a small battery. It is the only battery on-board, but with the way the solar panels are attached I don't need more.

The idea is that with the nuclear engines, I get to Gilly (turned out I could almost get to Eve with one orange tanker still attached). Then I detach the nuclear engines and only use the top ship, which has 4 small orange thrusters at the sides and 4 small lander legs (should be enough for the low gravity at Gilly). With all the fuel I should be able to get back to Kerbin. Or, that's what I'm testing at least.

The command module can be seperated as well, and has a parachute, for when I get back to Kerbin.