parts [1.10.x] SDHI Service Module System (V4.0.4 / 11 October 2020)

[sumghai]

Does the docking/parachute ring have an off center effect to make it hang at a tilt beneath the chutes

The docking / parachute ring do have a CoM offset to allow the pod to hang under the parachute realistically; however, I have almost* never had the structural connection between them fail.

*The one or two times where the docking / parachute ring rips off from the capsule was when I had a probe core wedged between them.

[Starwaster]

Ok, made reentry with a mk1-2 with two Kerbals aboard. deployed chutes at 5000km at a speed around 190m/s at 500m the mains deployed. the chute/docking ring ripped off and reappeared in orbit at escape velocity from the sun. Had to terminate mission. the mods I run are: Mechjeb mod, chatter mod, crew manifest mod.

Possible contributing factors (beyond something only on my computer) that makes me wonder are:

1. The ship had been docked at a space station. When I docked I selected the docking port as 'control from here' and as I understand it, when I decouple from the station it should revert to the capsule in control but the capsule disappears and the game centers on the ring as 'the ship' in the tracking station after the failure. Am I still in control from the ring and is that causing the failure?

2. I only had two kerbals in the capsule. I also have a lot of oscillation when I reenter. Does the docking/parachute ring have an off center effect to make it hang at a tilt beneath the chutes or is this something only on my flights and could point to a glitch in my install?

1. It shouldn't, all 'control from here' does is change the craft's axes; its point of reference, but KSP (even just stock) has some bizarre bugs that can crop up that totally screw up physics. I think adding mods can definitely exacerbate (while not actually being the cause of) the problem.

2. I have not noticed such oscillation on re-entry and I've done a few of them with that part. The new docking ports DO offset Center of Mass via the part property 'CoMOffset' (both offset on the Z axis by -0.4). Are you suggesting that might be the cause of the oscillation? It certainly seems possible. I had a massive giant rocket thrown horribly off course by something as simple as a ladder running up and down the side. I had to add one on the opposite side because it wasn't going into space any other way. Even though similar designs with the same ladder HAD. That's the problem with physics glitches they're not always accurately predictable

The docking / parachute ring do have a CoM offset to allow the pod to hang under the parachute realistically; however, I have almost* never had the structural connection between them fail.

*The one or two times where the docking / parachute ring rips off from the capsule was when I had a probe core wedged between them.

Remember the problem with some of your station parts failing because they had no breakingForce? (or was it breakingTorque? or both?

Half of the stock Squad parts have no breakingForce OR breakinTorque specified.

Including the probe cores.

(half might be exaggerating, actually I'm not sure how many. I haven't found them all )

Edited October 16, 2013 by Starwaster

[Tilion]

Love this!

I've previously done lots of .cfg editing to make my own all-in-one service modules and used fairing factory to get a range of custom BPC's (shame proc. fairings can't manage 'em yet) which I've .cfg edited to be able to soak up / deflect the heat from my multitude of escape systems, but I'll be the first to admit I'm hopeless and helpless at the modelling/texturing side of things so I'm very pleased to get a hold of this - you can be sure it'll get quite a lot of use from me.

Hope you can come up with something similar for the 1.25m capsule - currently I'm going with a 'Recovery Unit' which is just the capsule/port/docking lights/ladder/chutes (+ sciencey bits soon, no doubt) and they're attached to the main combined pusher LES/SM I call a 'LEOSMP':

Launch Escape, Orbital Support & Manoeuvering Pack

Tiny Decoupler

Z-200 Battery

RTG

2x Round-8 Toroidal Fuel Tanks

Oscar-B Fuel Tank

FL-R25 RCS

8x Cubic Octagonal Struts & Bits of SpaceTape

4x RCS Thrusters

4x OX-4L 1x6 Solar Panels

4x Communotron 16

16x Sepratron Escape/Retro-Re-entry Motors

8x Linear RCS Thrusters

Rockomax 48-7S Engine

[sumghai]

Hope you can come up with something similar for the 1.25m capsule

Yeah, I am thinking quite seriously about doing a similar, independent pack for the Mk1 Pod sometime in the future. No definitely plans, though.

---

I have a feeling I should probably update these parts to integrate them into the new 0.22 R&D Tech Tree. Obviously, the various components will end up in different Tech Nodes, but I'd like to at least have them lined up in the same Tier Level as the Mk1-2 Pod (i.e. Tier 5), so here's what I tentatively think the parts will end up in:

SDHI_2.5_Heatshield               specializedConstruction
SDHI_2.5_Mk1-2AeroShroud          supersonicFlight
SDHI_2.5_ServiceModule            heavierRocketry
SDHI_2.5_ServiceModuleAdapter     specializedConstruction
SDHI_2.5_ServiceModuleFairing     supersonicFlight
SDHI_ParaDock_1_ClampOTron        specializedConstruction
SDHI_ParaDock_2_IACBM             specializedConstruction
SDHI_Rockomax_LV-909_NoFairing    heavierRocketry

As most of you know, the SDHI_Rockomax_LV-909_NoFairing is merely a (modified) copy of the stock liquidEngine3, which itself is currently listed under "survivability". However, because the former is meant to be used specifically and exclusively with the SDHI_2.5_ServiceModule, I'm most likely going to put the engine under heavierRocketry instead.

If you guys are happy with this, I'll patch the files and release the update this weekend.

[enneract]

Yeah, I am thinking quite seriously about doing a similar, independent pack for the Mk1 Pod sometime in the future. No definitely plans, though.

---

I have a feeling I should probably update these parts to integrate them into the new 0.22 R&D Tech Tree. Obviously, the various components will end up in different Tech Nodes, but I'd like to at least have them lined up in the same Tier Level as the Mk1-2 Pod (i.e. Tier 5), so here's what I tentatively think the parts will end up in:

SDHI_2.5_Heatshield               specializedConstruction
SDHI_2.5_Mk1-2AeroShroud          supersonicFlight
SDHI_2.5_ServiceModule            heavierRocketry
SDHI_2.5_ServiceModuleAdapter     specializedConstruction
SDHI_2.5_ServiceModuleFairing     supersonicFlight
SDHI_ParaDock_1_ClampOTron        specializedConstruction
SDHI_ParaDock_2_IACBM             specializedConstruction
SDHI_Rockomax_LV-909_NoFairing    heavierRocketry

As most of you know, the SDHI_Rockomax_LV-909_NoFairing is merely a (modified) copy of the stock liquidEngine3, which itself is currently listed under "survivability". However, because the former is meant to be used specifically and exclusively with the SDHI_2.5_ServiceModule, I'm most likely going to put the engine under heavierRocketry instead.

If you guys are happy with this, I'll patch the files and release the update this weekend.

Yesplease!

[sumghai]

V1.1 released - see first post for download link

1.1          17 October 2013
---------------------------

Changes:
 - Compatibility Patch for KSP 0.22+
 - All parts have now been assigned to the appropriate nodes in the Research & Development Tech Tree
    - Parts are in the same Tier Level as the Mk1-2 Command Pod (i.e. Tier 5)
    - "Specialized Construction" unlocks:
        - SDHI 2.5m Heat Shield
        - SDHI 2.5m Service Module Adapter
        - Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port - Parachute version
        - IACBM 1.25m - Parachute version
    - "Supersonic Flight" unlocks:
        - SDHI Mk1-2 Pod Boost Protective Cover
        - SDHI 2.5m Service Module Fairing
    - "Heavier Rocketry" unlocks:
        - SDHI 2.5m Service Module
        - LV-909 Liquid Fuel Engine (Fairingless)

[Deltac]

There just isn't enough pics for this module.

[Urban_K]

I was looking for a heat shield and found a treasure.

[blubbermonkeys]

I was looking for a heat shield and found a treasure.

I also think that the heat shield looks nice and sleek.

[Borklund]

I've been looking for something like this for quite a while, this is wonderful! Thank you so much

[Guest]

There just isn't enough pics for this module.

Agreed!

[Prime flux]

Doing some SCIENCE around Kerbal!

[Raptor831]

Made my own Ares I/Orion setup:

On the pad.

CSM separating from second stage.

Mods: Advanced SRB, KW Rocketry, KSPX (escape tower), and the Service Module System (of course!).

Great mod, sumghai! Thanks for your work.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Raptor831
Forgot a mod...

[Piramic]

Duna bound to meet up with the lander and station that was sent that way earlier...

I modified the adapter piece to work without the LV909 and removed the decoupler functionality. The main engine is a NERVA that has been clipped into the 2.5m fuel tank for aesthetic reasons (I hate how long they are) Weighs 23tons on the launch pad and has almost exactly 5000dV.

[astropapi1]

Just test-qualifying it for a Duna trip. Constellation-style!

Edited October 21, 2013 by astropapi1

[Raptor831]

Raptor831, is that SRB from the American Pack? I wanna make an Ares I.

Nope, that's Advanced SRB. Fairly sure that still works in .22, but I haven't tested it yet.

[MDBenson]

It might just me, but since v1.1 I've found the top cover won't separate in flight even with it's wee SRBs? If I just seaprate the cover and fire the LES rockets it doesn't separate. I have to assign an Action Group to Decouple Node on the Docking Port part also. Maybe I might be building something wrong?

[astropapi1]

Nope, that's Advanced SRB. Fairly sure that still works in .22, but I haven't tested it yet.

I noticed the mod list in your first post just after I posted.

MDBenson, Me too. :/

I just separate it with AG 2 using the escape tower.

[Starwaster]

It might just me, but since v1.1 I've found the top cover won't separate in flight even with it's wee SRBs? If I just seaprate the cover and fire the LES rockets it doesn't separate. I have to assign an Action Group to Decouple Node on the Docking Port part also. Maybe I might be building something wrong?

It's possible, sure. If you build it the way sumghai (interesting, Siri recognizes sumghai and doesn't autocorrect it) instructed then it will separate. Command pod mk1-2 with the heatshield on bottom or it will sit too deep in the service module. Docking port on top. Has to be either stock clampotron or the SDHI one or one of the two androgenyous ones. If you omit any of those it will intersect the service modules collision body and stick.

I think you also have to bind both rockets and decoupler together in one action group. Not sure if staging works I forget. Use action groups.

[MDBenson]

I see what I did. There are 2 nodes at the top of the cover, very close together. It's quite easy to click the upper node to the docking port then accidentally click the LES tower to the lower node. Thus when you Abort the LES tower detaches and leaves the cover docked to the docking port... My bad! :\

[Guest]

I think you also have to bind both rockets and decoupler together in one action group. Not sure if staging works I forget. Use action groups.

Staging works, but can be unreliable. Action groups are the way to go.

[sumghai]

Just a clarifications - for the Boost Protective Cover, the instructions do recommend binding both the decoupler and the integral jettison solid rocket motors to the same action group.

That being said, the cover jettison AG is primarily for use after an abort - during normal ascent, staging should be sufficient for getting rid of the LES and Cover by second stage ignition.

[Starwaster]

I see what I did. There are 2 nodes at the top of the cover, very close together. It's quite easy to click the upper node to the docking port then accidentally click the LES tower to the lower node. Thus when you Abort the LES tower detaches and leaves the cover docked to the docking port... My bad! :\

yeah I figured it was something like that. I used the SDHI system to launch a science probe just cause I thought it would look cool and the prone was too short. and I knew the cover was sticking into the SM but I thought, "hey! I'm a rocket scientist now! whats the worst that could happen?" well the cover stuck, that's what! so I turned RCS on and rolled and pitched and yawed as violently as I could until the cover ripped free. Unfortunately so did two solar panels and an RCS pod.

[Synthesis]

Okay, I've finally had a chance to try this thing out properly (safety tests post launch). As one of those "Keep my kerbals alive as long as a I can" type players, these are fantastic! You've turned suicide Squad equipment into hardware that meets superpower safety levels! Thank you very much for this mod! Only two suggestions:

1) Can you make the heat shield detachable? Soyuz-style, I mean. Completely cosmetic, I'd just prefer the flat surface for hard landings.

2) Would you consider releasing the parachute as a more typical parachute pack with the attachment point in the center, like the conventional Mark 1-2 parachute? Trichutes are awesome, and we see so few of them.

Even if you don't consider either of those, this pack gets an A+ from me.

[sumghai]

I'm currently in the process of migrating this (and my FusTek stuff) to PartTools 0.20, and I've been thinking about making a couple of tweaks to be released as 1.2:

- I might move the adapter and the fairings to the aerodynamic tab, as well as alter the Tech node definition a bit, to keep in line with other fairings add-ons like KW Rocketry - if you have already unlocked these parts in the Tech Tree, you guys may have to manually edit the persistence file to remove them from what you've researched so far before re-researching the updated parts. Is this alright with everyone?

- The Boost Protective Cover will have a slight change to its collider, so that you can select the Mk1-2 Pod underneath it by right-clicking right where the "Cut To Rescue" graphic is on the Shroud.

two suggestions:

1) Can you make the heat shield detachable? Soyuz-style, I mean. Completely cosmetic, I'd just prefer the flat surface for hard landings.

2) Would you consider releasing the parachute as a more typical parachute pack with the attachment point in the center, like the conventional Mark 1-2 parachute? Trichutes are awesome, and we see so few of them.

I'll have a think about it, and get back to you on those.