Jump to content

[0.23.5] Realism Overhaul: ROv5.2 + Modlist for RSS 6/30/14

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted (edited)
1EC = 1kJ. 1EC per second = 1kW. Mass was eyeballed to be like a silver-oxide battery circa 1966 (Ranger 6 had info. I used it.) I have no idea about density--it's probably *way* too low.

Solar panels range from ~80W/m^2 to 180, IIRC, depending on year. Mass is guesstimate based on the kg/m^2 of the solar cells + backing + folding/tracking mechanism. If you have better numbers on mass, do please use them (and let me know!)

AIES panels were done, yes (SolarPanels_AIES.cfg)--they ranged from 80 to 110W/m^2.

I'm wondering how you derived the numbers for solar panel density? If my math is right, the solar wings on the ISS have a density of around 269W per square meter.

http://www.kepu.dicp.ac.cn/photo/07sl02/Handbook%20of%20Photovoltaic%20Science%20and%20Engineering/10.%20Space%20Solar%20Cells%20and%20Arrays.pdf - Page 4

The ISS will have the largest PV power system ever present in space. It will be powered by 262400 (8 cm×8 cm) silicon solar cells with an average efï¬Âciency of 14.2% on 8 US solar arrays (each∼34 m×12 m) [13]. This will generate about 110 kW of average power, which after battery charging, life support, and distribution, will sup- ply 46 kW of continuous power for research experiments. The Russians also supply an additional 20 kW of solar power to ISS.

34m x 12m = 408m^2.

110 / 408 = 0.2695 Watts per square meter.

EDIT: For some more data

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture2.pdf Has some more fun numbers, which also seem to contradict the previous numbers. Page 8 indicates the the US arrays generate 76 kW, not 110. It also indicates a size of 34m x 73m which is a HUGE difference. So not i'm not sure what to think. Need to do more digging I guess.

EDIT: Found this here:

http://imgur.com/IM9BSGS

Which is marketing material from Lockheed Martin about the ISS Solar Arrays. It confirms the wing size of 34mx12m, but indicates a maximum output per wing of only 32.8 kW, giving a value of around 80W/m^2.

So I guess the final answer is, who the heck knows :P

One last edit: I've found other sources that seem to backup the 32.8kW value, so I guess at the end of the day you can basically ignore this entire post as the numbers fall inside your ranges. Unless you just want to use the links for some interesting reading. Or just to laugh at me. That's fun too.

Edited by Agathorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Laugh? Good gracious no. That's exactly the thing I went through for like 3 days trying to nail this stuff down. Eventually I got a pdf that traced cell evolution, lemme see if I can find it.

(It was that, plus checking actual craft [Vanguard, Telstar, Ranger, ATV) as you were doing--and MedievalNerd did a *lot* of it too, hence why it's a joint-credit pack :) )

EDIT: some of this was on the Dev forum's version of the RO thread btw. That whole thing is well worth a look too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted

Does SFJackBauer have a thread for his RealEngine configs, or is that something you maintain separately for RO?

I can confirm that the values for this one engine are definitely wrong, the node_stack_bottom value is way too small. However trying to figure out the right value through trial and error, and having to reload the game each time, is really painful! Don't know if maybe someone more familiar with it could determine the proper value easier? Or is there maybe some trick to get ModuleManager to reload the configs without having to restart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Which engine?

And yeah, IIRC Sarbian fixed MM so that database reload *will* force MM reload now, if you're using the latest MM.

(Database reload->go to spacecenter? or mainmenu? and do Alt-F12, database, reload. Won't work inside VAB...)

There's no specific thread for RE, it was all done within this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted
Which engine?

And yeah, IIRC Sarbian fixed MM so that database reload *will* force MM reload now, if you're using the latest MM.

(Database reload->go to spacecenter? or mainmenu? and do Alt-F12, database, reload. Won't work inside VAB...)

There's no specific thread for RE, it was all done within this thread.

You sure? I swear I tried that twice, and each time I reloaded I ended up back at stock configs. I have 1.5.6

This one:

@PART[galaxvr2]

{

%title = Aestus

%manufacturer = EADS Astrium

EDIT: I've been trying to google up information on properly resizing part in KSP to understand how to fix this myself, but I havent' had much luck. Unless this engine is just way off. Most of the RE configs specify a rescaleFactor and then the attachment points remain the same as the original engine. But on this one, not only is there a rescaleFactor but the attachments were changed as well. So I got all confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted

Yep i've fixed it.

I don't understand why the attachment points were changed from the original part, but setting the bottom point back to the same value as the original part fixes it.


@PART[galaxvr2]
{
    %title = Aestus
    %manufacturer = EADS Astrium
    description = Upper stage engine of the Ariane 5ES vehicle that launches the ATV to ISS. Burns hypergolic propellants.
    !MODEL {}
    !MODEL {}
    MODEL
    {
        model = AIES_Aerospace/Engine/AIESenginegalaxvr2/model
        scale = 0.307, 0.307, 0.307
    }
    %rescaleFactor = 3.25
    %node_stack_top = 0.0, 6.38, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    %node_attach = 0.0, 6.38, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    %node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -48, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    %attachRules = 1,1,1,0,0
}

I only fixed node_stack_bottom. I left the others alone, even though they were changed from the base part, since only the bottom was broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wait, why are they not :Final...

Yeah, dunno why that got changed. SFJackBauer is super busy in real life at the moment, so we'll ask when that abates. :]

Also, huh. Thought Sarbian said he fixed that. Maybe not yet?

Rescaling: the safest is just leave scale at 1.0, rescaleFactor at 1.0, and manually scale nodes/fx/etc, and in the MODEL node(s) use appropriate x,y,z multipliers. Next safest is either to leave rescaleFactor at 1.0 and change scale in the node and scale outside the node (like I mostly do in FASA), but that doesn't always work; or (if part won't be used as root) set rescaleFactor to x and scale to 1.0 and scale inside the node to 1/x, 1/x, 1/x (rescaleFactor is applied twice to meshes when using MODEL nodes*); though you can again do nonuniform scale.

*per Greys. The exception is if the part is a root part *and* you revert to launch. Then it's only applied once, and things break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cleric2145

Cleric2145

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is that at all related to all of my engines' top nodes being too far down? All of my SFJB engines sink up into the fuel tank a meter or two, looking terrible and causing trouble fun.

Edited by Cleric2145
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbeS

AbeS

Posted
Posted

Actually that's intentional, to make it look more realistic.

Regarding the engine. The "going into the fueltank" thing is a trick SFJackBauer devised to get around the issue that most KSP engine models are actually engines + giant fuel tank butts, basically. (Look up pictures of rocket engines. At most they have a turbopump etc at the top, or a set-of-girders thrust structure. Not a fuel tank cap.) Which is bad if you, for instance, want to use the engine on a different-sized fuel tank. Can't do anything about using an engine with a giant honking dome on a *smaller* tank, but for bigger tanks SFJackBauer devised this system where the unsightly dome is hidden inside the fueltank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SFJackBauer

SFJackBauer

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi all!

Re: lack of stock engine support in RealEngines - it will have soon, mostly early rocket engines like the XLR99, LR89/105, H-1 and verniers.

Re: bottom node on Aestus - yes I botched it. The bottom nodes were modified for better compliance with FAR (mostly only the last number were needed to be changed, but I can't just put it without the numbers before it). Will fix for next. All the other engines look OK though.

Re: top nodes - As Nathan explained, it is intended. Use StretchyTanks and make it slightly larger to compensate - and if you look at the RealEngines stats list (link on my sig) there is a "min. stage diameter" as a reference, based on the diameter of the real vehicles where those engines are commonly used.

Re: RL10B-2 size - its not wrong, the engine nozzle is 2m diameter on the real stuff. Vacuum engine bells are big... huge I must say. However in the real engine the nozzle is sectioned in two parts, which extend after stage sep and before ignition. We don't have this in KSP right now. (If you mean the top attachment node, then see the previous paragraph).

Re: :final on rescale cfgs - forgot, sorry. Fixed for next.

Re: dlrk on rescale of S2 - Nice work! I don't know if its worth for you at this stage, but I have a good book on the Shuttle that have a weight manifest, a breakdown of weights of all its parts, that I haven't found elsewhere. I can perhaps scan it and send to you.

Edited by SFJackBauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted

So, for now, i've restarted RO in the sandbox rather than in career mode. I like career mode, and I like doing the science, but I found it too hard to design viable launch vehicles.

So after my restart, I managed to design a very solid launch vehicle for putting light comsats into GEO. Just last night I put a fourth one up into a 36km orbit completing my initial relay network. It is pretty stable, though they drift a little. Getting a precise geostationary orbit seems to be impossible in KSP, or if not impossible, very very very very hard.

For fun i'll post some pics/videos tonight.

Having a lot of fun with this so far though so a big huge thanks to Nathan, Faeram, and everyone else who has contributed to the realism revolution.

This weekend i'm going to read up on building custom parts and see if I can maybe get some new engine models for making things a bit more real!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Russian 1021

The Russian 1021

Posted
Posted

hello all, was wondering ifsomeone could post a download for there gamedata for ro, ive been having trouble getting it to work, and im not that paitient. Im looking for a folder thats got everything, life support, real life planet textures, planet factory, far, dre, anything to make it more realsitic. thanks!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure all the mods' licenses allow that.

It isn't very hard. Just download gthe latest version of all the mods listed as required in the first page. They are all linked, except the ones that Nathan made and those have links in his signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpapon

jpapon

Posted
Posted

Hey guys, I've been playing around with the realism overhaul and tech progression, trying to get a sat network set up.

I have one major problem though... when I schedule a maneuver with the flight computer it just goes crazy (spins out of control) when it burns. I have it in kill mode, but it seems to have no effect. Is it not able to use thrust vectoring to control??

I'm just using it with a simple satellite (Sputnik 2 core) with a fuel tank and a couple of rockomax radial engines.

What could be the problem here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silpion

Silpion

Posted
Posted

Crap you're right, I just rechecked and the nozzle is 2.17 m, with a base of 3.5 m.

Do we know what the diameter of the base of the real engine is though? From a construction standpoint what matters is the maximum diameter, rather than the diameter of the nozzle.

Looks like my 4xRL10B-2 module for my SpaceX Moon mission won't work so easily now, if can't fit them in a reasonable fairing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...