totm june 2018 Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread

[Technical Ben]

Something really big and complex... the sound of freedom!

http://i.imgur.com/wgWtGS0.png

http://i.imgur.com/JSaUwHD.png

That is dreamy!

[Yukon0009]

before you ask yes it is a replica

[Mesklin]

New Jeb's racing ion car "Ghost", safe speed up to 100 m/s on Tylo, tests is ongoing

[TMS]

http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah315/Yukon0009/screenshot14503_zpswedybkas.png

yup, N1 needs a lot more work

Looks like a perfect replica, imo.

[sgt_flyer]

WIP

it was long overdue anyway for a Sputnik 8K71PS rocket compatible with the new wings

Some stats : the boosters are 2.5m wide at their largest point, the core stage is around 2m wide at it smallest point - the top of the core stage is 2.5m. propulsion is provided by 4x MK55 radial engines for each boosters and the core stage, and 24-77 engines as verniers.

the fuel distribution has been tweaked to get a similar TWR accross stages (the size is almost the same as the real one, but it's weight and thrust is scaled down - it can still get into Kerbin Lko with ease - it's roughly equivalent to 60% of the original's thrust and weight)

should be pretty straightforward to upgrade with various upperstages

Edited February 1, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[Yukon0009]

WIP

it was long overdue anyway for a Sputnik 8K71PS rocket compatible with the new wings

http://i.imgur.com/9Tqa8acl.png

http://i.imgur.com/6diIKhYl.png

Some stats : the boosters are 2.5m wide at their largest point, the core stage is around 2m wide at it smallest point - the top of the core stage is 2.5m. propulsion is provided by 4x MK55 radial engines for each boosters and the core stage, and 24-77 engines as verniers.

the fuel distribution has been tweaked to get a similar TWR accross stages (the size is almost the same as the real one, but it's weight and thrust is scaled down - it can still get into Kerbin Lko with ease - it's roughly equivalent to 60% of the original's thrust and weight)

should be pretty straightforward to upgrade with various upperstages

What's the part count of that? Looks amazing.

[sgt_flyer]

it currently has 702 parts with the launch pad included, and without the launchpad, 457 parts. (rockets replicas are often part count heavy ^^) - and i may add the service arms for this version - so the part count of the launch pad might go up a bit

(as the launch pad is unloaded once your rocket is 2.5km away from it, it doesn't affect too much performance )

Edited February 1, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[RogueMason]

Big-time WIP. I've got to work on the design a little more before I'd even consider it ready to fly.

-snip-

Update!

The engineers are getting pretty tired of having to rotate the ship around from vertical to horizontal just for the viewing pleasure of a bunch of unknowns. I've heard rumours of strike action. I hope that's not true.

Light show. Many a Kerbal was distracted by the pretty colours, then abruptly warded off by security.

Wait, what? How did they do that? We don't have repulsor technolo-- oh, they turned the gravity off again. There goes my coffee...

-----

Pegasus has reached its final design stage at around 390 parts. All the modules have been packed up into fairings with the exception of the drive stage at the back; that will launch as a whole unit with some of its tanks emptied out and surrounded by boosters. After a little config editing on my FTIR engine (Fusion Thermal Ion Rocket; the modified Leucome Fusion rockets), I've opted to use liquid hydrogen fuel from the Near Future mod.

The ring has been divided into the docking core and the external modules. The modules will launch with their connectors, but only two will utilise the connectors for the central hub in an effort to cut the part count down a little (so instead of six centre-to-ring connectors, there will be only two).

The command section at the front now has a Cupola, because I just didn't like the idea of a probe core doing all the flying.

Ten launches necessary to put this together; 9 for the ship modules, 1 for a construction drone. Then some crew will go up in a lander and 2 Rangers (either Ranger II's or NX's) and fix all the KAS struts up. Additional payload will probably include extra science modules and probes, potentially some base modules too; probably 5 or 6 additional launches.

Pegasus is looking to be my most capable ship yet.

[GusTurbo]

New LK lander for my new N1. I've always thought the Soviet moon lander was hideous, and very difficult to recreate in KSP

[Majorjim!]

New LK lander for my new N1. I've always thought the Soviet moon lander was hideous, and very difficult to recreate in KSP

http://i.imgur.com/RCbFNSN.png

Looking great dude! You know I was thinking. Mulbin had made the only Apollo with a CSM not attached to the lander.

It may be quite easy now with the gismos. Worth a try!

[GusTurbo]

Looking great dude! You know I was thinking. Mulbin had made the only Apollo with a CSM not attached to the lander.

It may be quite easy now with the gismos. Worth a try!

I might be easier, but it might also be harder. I've noticed the gizmos can cause some weird issues, especially when decoupling is involved. I think it has something to do with the parent-part detection. It seems to get confused as to what things are attached to. But it's still definitely worth a try.

[sgt_flyer]

Looking great dude! You know I was thinking. Mulbin had made the only Apollo with a CSM not attached to the lander.

It may be quite easy now with the gismos. Worth a try!

hey ! i built some of those too it's not that difficult if you know the trick. mulbin built his first one top down (you need to put some I-Beams coming from a decoupler at the bottom of one of the 4 fairings to the center of the rocket - so you can attach the S-IVB to it. - my first one (around the same time mulbin used this for the first time) was build from the bottom up - i radially attached the bottom most CSM fuel tank to a decoupler attached to one of the fairings, and built the CSM from the bottom up. - although any of those techniques makes those 4 fairings a bit harder to coordinate for a nice separation

Now, for using the gizmo to create a gap, you'll end up to be limited to the length of an I-beam between the decoupler and the next object.

(Basically, the gizmo cannot make a part go too much away from the part it was attached to)

One way to circumvent this, is with the i-Beams point of origin (the rotation gizmo is always centered on a part's point of origin) - so we can attach the I-beam origin node to the decoupler (with the I-beam going inside the decoupler), then fully offset the I-beam - (so the 'attached' node is still the origin, but it's away from the decoupler by the I-beam's length. At this point, turn on rotation mode, and rotate the I-beam 180° - once done, you'll have a gap as long as the I-beam. (I'll try to post something about that in the construction technique thread) - the gap should be wide enough to fit most engines between the part holding the decoupler and your next object (basically, the decoupler is hidden in the engine, and stays with it, and the I-beam + gizmo is used to create a gap between the decoupler and the next object - so nothing except the decoupler will clip the engine, and it will not use it's attachment node. (The same technique will be great too for russian style open lattices )

Edited February 2, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[Rune]

20mT to LKO, as a rocket, with still 100% reusability. Gotta work on the landing, though, it doesn't like having payload on the bay when it comes to pitching up, and it has to glide good. No airbreathers there!

Rune. Refreshingly simple, will polish for sure.

[manni01]

My picture before realizing that it can't land on Duna. So.... I quickloaded back to kerbin orbit to fly it Laythe (because thats how you properly plan missions!)

Mission video will be up by probably tomorrow

btw, its a cargo ssto that I'm testing on bringing 15 tons to Laythe, but I will probably be able to bring more. I might also make a Duna version

[GusTurbo]

hey ! i built some of those too it's not that difficult if you know the trick. mulbin built his first one top down (you need to put some I-Beams coming from a decoupler at the bottom of one of the 4 fairings to the center of the rocket - so you can attach the S-IVB to it. - my first one (around the same time mulbin used this for the first time) was build from the bottom up - i radially attached the bottom most CSM fuel tank to a decoupler attached to one of the fairings, and built the CSM from the bottom up. - although any of those techniques makes those 4 fairings a bit harder to coordinate for a nice separation

Now, for using the gizmo to create a gap, you'll end up to be limited to the length of an I-beam between the decoupler and the next object.

(Basically, the gizmo cannot make a part go too much away from the part it was attached to)

One way to circumvent this, is with the i-Beams point of origin (the rotation gizmo is always centered on a part's point of origin) - so we can attach the I-beam origin node to the decoupler (with the I-beam going inside the decoupler), then fully offset the I-beam - (so the 'attached' node is still the origin, but it's away from the decoupler by the I-beam's length. At this point, turn on rotation mode, and rotate the I-beam 180° - once done, you'll have a gap as long as the I-beam. (I'll try to post something about that in the construction technique thread) - the gap should be wide enough to fit most engines between the part holding the decoupler and your next object (basically, the decoupler is hidden in the engine, and stays with it, and the I-beam + gizmo is used to create a gap between the decoupler and the next object - so nothing except the decoupler will clip the engine, and it will not use it's attachment node. (The same technique will be great too for russian style open lattices )

Any plans to revisit the Saturn V? I've always been impressed with the techniques you bring to the table.

[sgt_flyer]

Any plans to revisit the Saturn V? I've always been impressed with the techniques you bring to the table.

Well, one of the key problems is KSP's mk1-2 pod 2.5m diameter - based on this one, we have the scale ratio : (apollo CSM : 3.9m diameter VS KSP's 2.5m - so a 1.56 ratio) we need a S-1C/SII with a diameter of nearly 6.5m, and a S-IVb with a diameter of 4.2m. - the whole scaled down rocket would stand up to 70.8m

making rounded stages of this size will either give you a terrible mass ratio (using empty 3.75m tanks for the bodywork really kills the mass fraction), or you'll end up with a ton of parts if you want to make it rounded

Sooo, i'll keep tinkering with avaible designs, but unless i find something adapted, i won't work a lot on it (now, i'm quite eager to see how squad will do their planned fairings - that could help us a lot with lighweight bodywork

Edited February 2, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[GusTurbo]

Well, one of the key problems is KSP's mk1-2 pod 2.5m diameter - based on this one, we have the scale ratio : (apollo CSM : 3.9m diameter VS KSP's 2.5m - so a 1.56 ratio) we need a S-1C/SII with a diameter of nearly 6.5m, and a S-IVb with a diameter of 4.2m. - the whole scaled down rocket would stand up to 70.8m

making rounded stages of this size will either give you a terrible mass ratio (using empty 3.75m tanks for the bodywork really kills the mass fraction), or you'll end up with a ton of parts if you want to make it rounded

Sooo, i'll keep tinkering with avaible designs, but unless i find something adapted, i won't work a lot on it (now, i'm quite eager to see how squad will do their planned fairings - that could help us a lot with lighweight bodywork

What level of roundedness do you find acceptable? My Saturn V uses four 3.75m tanks around the outside, giving it this cross section:

To me, it looks pretty convincing from a distance. It's a pretty good compromise, considering that the part count is only 377.

But yeah, I'm definitely interested to see what Squad does with fairings. It sounds like they will be procedural, and I really hope that it allows making interstages. That will really open things up for beautiful, smooth rockets.

As to your point about the dimensions, I sort of fudged mine on the S-IVB. According to the VAB info panel (which is great, btw), the SI/SII stages are exactly 6.5m (right size), the S-IVB is 3.75 (a bit too small), then 2.5m for the CSM (the source of our scale here). Height might be worth worth taking another look at, since mine is currently 53.2m tall. Not sure where I can make up 17m. The LES is a bit too short since I used the stock one, but that only accounts for about 2 meters or less. I do love that they give you measurements now.

Edit:

Another option is to wrap it in wings to round out the shape. It added 168 parts, which actually brought it up to around part count of the pre-.90 gizmos version.

Edited February 2, 2015 by GusTurbo

[Tankbuster32]

So here's a little project I've been working on; a huge Proton replica capable of delivering about 103t to LKO, it should also be able to send an orange tank to Duna. It is not entirely accurate, however, as the real Proton is a three- or four- stage rocket and mine only has two.

(Also, this rocket has my first fully-functional two-piece fairings)

[sgt_flyer]

What level of roundedness do you find acceptable? My Saturn V uses four 3.75m tanks around the outside, giving it this cross section:

http://i.imgur.com/musu0rAl.png

To me, it looks pretty convincing from a distance. It's a pretty good compromise, considering that the part count is only 377.

http://i.imgur.com/ZHbq2Zcl.png

But yeah, I'm definitely interested to see what Squad does with fairings. It sounds like they will be procedural, and I really hope that it allows making interstages. That will really open things up for beautiful, smooth rockets.

As to your point about the dimensions, I sort of fudged mine on the S-IVB. According to the VAB info panel (which is great, btw), the SI/SII stages are exactly 6.5m (right size), the S-IVB is 3.75 (a bit too small), then 2.5m for the CSM (the source of our scale here). Height might be worth worth taking another look at, since mine is currently 53.2m tall. Not sure where I can make up 17m. The LES is a bit too short since I used the stock one, but that only accounts for about 2 meters or less. I do love that they give you measurements now.

Edit:

Another option is to wrap it in wings to round out the shape. It added 168 parts, which actually brought it up to around part count of the pre-.90 gizmos version.

http://i.imgur.com/WVBDw4Cl.png

weeelll, if i rebuild a Saturn V, it will be WITH one of my custom animated launch towers (like the one i previously made for my mini Saturn V soooo i'll need to be careful with part count )

Edited February 2, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[astecarmyman]

for my new wwii tank battle cinematic series...

probably won't start that until I finish my next tank video

[Kurotenshi]

Looking great dude! You know I was thinking. Mulbin had made the only Apollo with a CSM not attached to the lander.

It may be quite easy now with the gismos. Worth a try!

Actually, my Apollo does that too, I should release it though. It was postponed due to the Skylab having a consistent kraken-inducing bug on reload, which I can't seem to fix. So I'll prep my Apollo project for release, unfortunately without Skylab.

[Rune]

Looking great dude! You know I was thinking. Mulbin had made the only Apollo with a CSM not attached to the lander.

It may be quite easy now with the gismos. Worth a try!

I did something like that after I saw how Mulbin did it... all I can say is, it was hard, so I never did it again. But now, with the root gizmo, it looks very doable.

Rune. If I ever revisit Phoebus...

[Majorjim!]

hey ! i built some of those too it's not that difficult if you know the trick. mulbin built his first one top down (you need to put some I-Beams coming from a decoupler at the bottom of one of the 4 fairings to the center of the rocket - so you can attach the S-IVB to it. - my first one (around the same time mulbin used this for the first time) was build from the bottom up - i radially attached the bottom most CSM fuel tank to a decoupler attached to one of the fairings, and built the CSM from the bottom up. - although any of those techniques makes those 4 fairings a bit harder to coordinate for a nice separation

Now, for using the gizmo to create a gap, you'll end up to be limited to the length of an I-beam between the decoupler and the next object.

(Basically, the gizmo cannot make a part go too much away from the part it was attached to)

One way to circumvent this, is with the i-Beams point of origin (the rotation gizmo is always centered on a part's point of origin) - so we can attach the I-beam origin node to the decoupler (with the I-beam going inside the decoupler), then fully offset the I-beam - (so the 'attached' node is still the origin, but it's away from the decoupler by the I-beam's length. At this point, turn on rotation mode, and rotate the I-beam 180° - once done, you'll have a gap as long as the I-beam. (I'll try to post something about that in the construction technique thread) - the gap should be wide enough to fit most engines between the part holding the decoupler and your next object (basically, the decoupler is hidden in the engine, and stays with it, and the I-beam + gizmo is used to create a gap between the decoupler and the next object - so nothing except the decoupler will clip the engine, and it will not use it's attachment node. (The same technique will be great too for russian style open lattices )

Thanks but I know the technique. I too pulled apart Munbug . its totally pointless but cool, so worth the effort.

[Overfloater]

http://i.imgur.com/nNaIfTh.png

My picture before realizing that it can't land on Duna. So.... I quickloaded back to kerbin orbit to fly it Laythe (because thats how you properly plan missions!)

Mission video will be up by probably tomorrow

btw, its a cargo ssto that I'm testing on bringing 15 tons to Laythe, but I will probably be able to bring more. I might also make a Duna version

I couldn't land a cargo plane on dune without vertical rockets, the couple of times i did an unpowered landing is when my (non cargo)planes had only a quarter of their fuel (or less)

[astecarmyman]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Couldn't have done this without MJ's bearing assembly.

Still isn't fully mechanically reliable, but that's historical