[0.90] Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter System v4.13

[HeadHunter67]

Placement and orientation of the computer means absolutely diddly doo (unless of course the part has *significant* mass/drag... which I'm fairly certain it does not).

Apparently then, that issue was fixed with MJ. Used to be, if the MJ part was not aligned to the nose of the craft, the navball and guidance would be screwy (because Control From Here orientation was off).

My suggestion for better results: use the Omnimax 40Ts EXCLUSIVELY when in orbit (the Thrustmax 200s aren't nearly as efficient and just don't handle as well), make sure the gimbals are turned on (not locked) and the pitch trim is set to 14 (just like helldiver said previously). Also, and personally I've found this incredibly helpful for using MechJeb with the shuttle, raise your maneuver planner tolerance from 0.1m/s to 6.0m/s (yes, 6.0m/s - NOT 0.6m/s). I guarantee you'll significantly reduce the floppy/wobbly/spin a lot issues.

I'll change the tolerance, that's got to be the cause. I was trying a deorbit with the OMS, trim was at 0 because I'd dumped the EFT. Was I misunderstanding the guide?

Thanks for the advice.

[Jethro Bodine]

Dang nabbit! I want a better computer :-( I'm running texture compression and 1/4 res and still getting lag issues. Nice pics by the way!

Also, what light are you using above the hatch in the cargo bay in the last shot?

Thanks!

The red one is from Aviation Lights, the white one from B9 Aerospace Pack.

However, I've since removed both. I think the Aviation lights may have been causing performance issues (my computer didn't seem to like the interval/blinking) and I felt the large B9 omni light was just a bit too obtrusive. I'm now running with two, much smaller lights (also from the B9 pack) tucked just below the hinges of the cargo bay doors (they're much less noticeable).

[Jethro Bodine]

I'll change the tolerance, that's got to be the cause. I was trying a deorbit with the OMS, trim was at 0 because I'd dumped the EFT. Was I misunderstanding the guide?

Thanks for the advice.

I get much better results leaving the trim in its default setting (14) for all occasions. Could just be me, though I suspect the gimbal also helps compensate. That said, as per his videos, helldiver is by far better at landing the KSO than I (by leaps and bounds), so if manual landing is your thing, I'd listen to him. I however use MechJeb's landing assist (to ~60km) then rely on MechJeb's Spaceplane guidance to bring me to about 500m from the runway. From there on, I just coast in with regular SAS (and cross my fingers!).

And you're quite welcome.

[helldiver]

I was trying a deorbit with the OMS, trim was at 0 because I'd dumped the EFT. Was I misunderstanding the guide?

Thanks for the advice.

No EFT, and you're using the OMS, Pitch Trim must be at 14, Speed at 100.

Block 7 files in 2.07 got their OMS screwed and I don't know what causes it but they are at 0. Hence when you staged and dumped the EFT, the OMS got activated and were at zero. Load up your craft file in the VAB (or the SPH if that's what you're using) and set the OMS engines to 14 pitch trim, speed 100. Save your craft files. Delete the Stock ones and replace the ones you just saved.

That way those OMS engines are set to 14. Keep in mind that sometimes for what ever reason, KSP forgets that those engines are 14 (even though if you look in the craft files it says 14). Will talk to Nazari about it so he can get a hold of Dtobi and see if it's on our end.

Alternate Cockpits

Alternate names and the alternate cockpits are now incorporated as one. See the second post below the OP for instructions on extracting the textures only if you just want to replace your default texture and not have the other 3 cockpits in the VAB. Blank texture is included in the download.

http://www./download/hmeyvb3xx83kbe6/Alternate_Cockpits_v207.zip

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[DomDiaemus]

-Loved the idea originally and the KSO's robotic arm was supposed to work like this. And then my dreams were dashed when Nazari informed me that without a Plugin, you can't animate decouplers. In other words, although the 3D visual model will rotate outwards, your payload will still be coupled in the same spot you put it in the VAB.

This part has nothing to do with robotic arm per say. Just imagine the KSO noose door but with a decoupler attached outside the door; the door only opens 45 degrees instead of the current 90 degrees. The payload connected to that decoupler, and that tilting part connected to the bottom (or bottom wall) of the KSO cargo hold (giving reasonable space for the movement)

In the past I played with robotics mod which has a kind of L shaped part which mimics such movements and used on other bespoke shuttles. However that part was a bit fragile for heavy payloads (during transport and movement to vertical position) but feasible for small/medium payloads. If integration of that mod happens, then would be nice to have a part matching the KSO parts design, which would certainly enhance KSO as one part for releases of small/medium payloads (mimicking reality) Anyway just a thought (wish). Cheers

[MK3424]

No EFT, and you're using the OMS, Pitch Trim must be at 14, Speed at 100.

Block 7 files in 2.07 got their OMS screwed and I don't know what causes it but they are at 0. Hence when you staged and dumped the EFT, the OMS got activated and were at zero. Load up your craft file in the VAB (or the SPH if that's what you're using) and set the OMS engines to 14 pitch trim, speed 100. Save your craft files. Delete the Stock ones and replace the ones you just saved.

That way those OMS engines are set to 14. Keep in mind that sometimes for what ever reason, KSP forgets that those engines are 14 (even though if you look in the craft files it says 14). Will talk to Nazari about it so he can get a hold of Dtobi and see if it's on our end.

Alternate Cockpits

Alternate names and the alternate cockpits are now incorporated as one. See the second post below the OP for instructions on extracting the textures only if you just want to replace your default texture and not have the other 3 cockpits in the VAB. Blank texture is included in the download.

http://www./download/hmeyvb3xx83kbe6/Alternate_Cockpits_v207.zip

http://imgur.com/a/pj4I0

OR, you can make a flag with the name of the spacecraft and add it onto it.

[helldiver]

Proof that a Kerbal can fit through the Small Docking Port included in KSOS Phase II. Even with the helmet, although a tight squeeze.

More then likely they'd not have helmets on when moving between modules that are connected via a small docking port (like moving between the ISS and Soyuz, see youtube Videos). Without the helmet, a kerbal can easily float through.

http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/data/thumbs/W51a75e2d76559.png

Edited March 26, 2014 by helldiver

[comham]

Maybe you ought to add a plastic bottle prop near the IVA airlock labelled "helmet lube".

[The Space Man]

Is the sst spotlight supposed to always be on in the VAB?

[Bomoo]

Forgive me if I missed this information earlier in the thread, but exactly which parts had their mass lowered in 2.06? Do I need to rebuild parts of my KSO to get the updated mass values and thruster efficiency?

[Starwaster]

Forgive me if I missed this information earlier in the thread, but exactly which parts had their mass lowered in 2.06? Do I need to rebuild parts of my KSO to get the updated mass values and thruster efficiency?

Mass is not persistent data so it's not recorded in the save file nor in the craft files. Neither are engine stats like thrust or Isp.

Changes made to those stats just carry over to existing craft in save files and craft files.

[Lekke]

Is there a fix for the Kerballab for v2.07? You can't activate the right click menu.

[mostlydave]

Could you possibly add KAS support to the configs for the goo lights, hand holds and solar panels?

[helldiver]

Is the sst spotlight supposed to always be on in the VAB?

Nope. Doesn't do that in any of our stuff. If you can't right click the part and turn it off, I don't know what to tell you

Forgive me if I missed this information earlier in the thread, but exactly which parts had their mass lowered in 2.06? Do I need to rebuild parts of my KSO to get the updated mass values and thruster efficiency?

If you used Phase II parts in your KSO, yes you will have to remove the parts (KSOAFM for example), or if you had a payload that uses Phases II parts (such as trusses, docking ports, couplings and so on).

Too many parts had their masses and quantities adjusted in 2.07 for me to recall. 2.06 is no longer up. If you're going to update to the latest version (2.07), remove all prized Kerbals and recover them. Land and recover any KSO in flight (even though the KSO parts were not modified but just to be safe) and backup your save.

You WILL experience the Lights Out bug if you upgrade to 2.07 on top of any version prior to 2.06

And for the record:

We have tested persistence file condition extensively, they can get corrupted very easily.

-Changing of Masses and Quantities in configuration files (*.cfg) will corrupt a Persistence File and cause unusual behavior (including texture bugs) if there is a space craft containing such a part in the save.

-Changing of Plugins including updating to newer versions will corrupt a Persistence File and can cause Craft files to forget settings.

-In regards to this Modification to KSP, if I report that an update will screw up your save, put it on good faith that it will, since both Nazari and I test changes thoroughly before uploading.

-In regards to this modification, if you don't feel safe upgrading, ask here and I will do my best to clarify. Also, when I update the KSOS I will almost always put a note under the download as to how safe it is for save files. You can also check the changelog which will almost always have a warning in bold.

The corruption doesn't happen all the time and can manifest in various ways.

Keep in mind that updates won't always corrupt a save. For example, if we add a part, change the artwork (texture of 3D Geometry), or edit RPM files, all such updates and changes are safe. Any update that changes the mass or quantity of a part already in flight runs a high risk of corrupting your save. Some plugins don't affect saves at all and are pretty safe to upgrade. On the other hand the plugin that drives the KSO's engines will fudge the craft files if we upgrade it and don't go back in and reset all the engines (craft files forget engine settings).

Do not confuse this "lights out" bug with a Craft file error bug, the two are different. The symptoms of the lights out bug: extremely low frame rates until game crashes to desktop, missing texture on planet kerbin, objects suddenly repeat to infinity, spacecraft becomes inaccessible.

Is there a fix for the Kerballab for v2.07? You can't activate the right click menu.

Wasn't aware there was a bug with it, so far mine has worked fine. Will verify to see if I can reproduce the bug.

Edited March 26, 2014 by helldiver

[Lekke]

It's the same bug that was in v2.04, when you right click on the Kerballab you can't open the right click menu on any other part until you go to the space center and reload the craft again.

This is the message I get in the Ksp debug console.

[Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

Edited March 26, 2014 by Lekke

[Bomoo]

Thanks for the info, guys. Sounds like the work I put in rebuilding my KSO's rear section just now wasn't entirely necessary...

[TeeGee]

-Loved the idea originally and the KSO's robotic arm was supposed to work like this. And then my dreams were dashed when Nazari informed me that without a Plugin, you can't animate decouplers. In other words, although the 3D visual model will rotate outwards, your payload will still be coupled in the same spot you put it in the VAB.

-You will need the Robotics plugin to do that sort of thing. I've entertained the idea of putting together a KSO specific robotic arm, "Kanadarm", but it would require clearance from that mod's team. Like the AR-KSO10 AP system, you'd have to have that mod installed for it to function.

The other issue is VAB bloat.

The only reason you'd want a smaller lab than the KerbaLab is if you wanted a Standard Docking port in there. The KerbaLab plus KSOAFM should fit perfectly in the cargo hold and I believe you can slap a stock docking port on top of the KerbaLab (KSOS Docking ports require nodes I believe).

No they don't do that. The Cameras in the laptops or MFDs are linked to cameras built into the various KSOS components (KSO or the SST). If you download JSI RPM it comes with an actual Camera part that you can place all over your spacecraft. The Laptops and the MFDs should pick those up.

No, you're not using the SST correctly. It requires practice and a bit of learning to use it well.

-You should only extend the arms if you'll be maneuvering a heavy weight (greater than 1.5tons. The Trusses included in KSOS Phase II are really light (as they should be) and do not provide enough mass to balance out the SST with its arms extended. If maneuvering these light pieces, retract the arms instead.

-Do to RCS on same part buggy behavior by KSP, you shouldn't rely completely on RCS. Practice shutting it on and off and uses SAS to pitch, roll, and yaw the SST until you're aligned with the target. Activate RCS for final translation adjustments and to push yourself in.

Every config file is built and tested by Nazari and later scrutinized by me. We know about the less torque on the tug. I believe Naz left it that way so that the tug was smoother and not so jerky. But I agree, we can look into bumping up its torque. The stock game SAS Torque wheels are like super extreme (3 times the power of anything you'd find in the KSOS parts).

Personally, I kind of like the challenge of maneuvering parts into place. I mean half of us are already using automated systems to do rendezvous maneuvers so if we completely zero out the SST we've got very little "game" left. Follow me? The current SST provides a little bit of challenge and takes some skill to learn it and but not so much that it's impossible to use. I think its difficulty is about a 6 which isn't so bad (compared to the KSO's 7, a 10 being Lego-Land easy).

Cost is a fake number that isn't used. In other words ignore it. And by ridiculous cost you mean, "Ridiculous cost in the Real World with government contractor beaurocracies and political interest lobbying?" then yes.. that doesn't apply to Fantasy Kerbal Land at all. Think about it... do you honestly think a realistic space program would allow that many accidents, ignore safety standards, insurance, and everything else that's involved? If that were true the entire KSP would balloon up to be more expensive than their entire military budget.

When the Cost number is finally relevant, and if you've kept track of the descriptions of each KSO part (I don't expect you to since you said you don't use it?), the KSO Consortium (Murika SuperStellar, Orbitz Aerospace, Kerbal Materials Corp., and so on) made the KSO and its parts to be competitive with any other system. Think of them as a private venture similar to Scaled Composites. Their analogs being:

Murika Superstellar: Boeing

Orbitz Aerospace: BAE Aerospace

Kerbal Materials Corp: Scaled Composites or Textron

VEG Design Group: General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin

For its weight, size, cargo capacity the whole purpose of the KSO consortium was to design a lifter that was cheaper but that at the same time allowed for an orbiter that could safely land at any prepared runway, used civilian navigational systems (hence the various nav radios on the side panels), and pretty much handled like a true aircraft once in the proper atmospheric pressure. The KSO does not handle like a NASA Shuttle or Buran orbiter at all. It handles like a glider and flies and lands similar to a 737 as opposed to a falling rock. Westi29 rated its stall speed at about 75 mph, landing speeds are about 90 to 100mph with 120mph being more common.

Then we have the issue of program costs versus real world stuff. Obviously the startup cost for any Kerbin nation or Corporation (the KSO was designed to be a commercial vehicle, not just a publicly funded vehicle) will be a lot more expensive than a similar disposable conventional rocket program (1.2 Billion US compared to 100-250 Million for traditional capsule return system). That means that for 1.2 Billion (plus options) any Kerbin nation, Corporation, or shoot... very rich individual could own their very own KSO with lifter (support systems, maintenance program sold separately). Those are my figures for Kerbal land, not real world figures.

And then we have construction and reusability. The KSO uses kerbon-graphite monocoque construction on top of titanite or alium frames. Its wings use kyrofoam cores with polykerbon honeycomb sheeting (similar to an F-16's control surfaces). Hence they are super light, but very strong. Its heat shield uses an advanced aerogel that requires very little maintenance if any (replacement of some of the tiles begins at around the third launch). Again keep in mind size of Kerbin, atmospheric density, and the size of the KSO. Also, the rest of the KSO's internal components are off the shelf, significantly reducing its cost further. Need to replace its tires? Any aviation grade radials of the same size will do. Need to replace an actuator? Same thing. Servos? Same thing. It's multi-function displays break? Order a new one from a variety of companies (Anatid Robotics, RPM Industries, etcetera).

The lifter itself is currently disposable, but I'm sure various programs or companies have their own lifter version that may be reusable. Keep in mind that the KSO can be purchased standalone (800 million for a Block 7) and you can provide your own lift vehicle.

I haven't worked out what the launch cost is compared to the real world. I've figured given the entire program, you'd be looking at 100million for your first launches and slowly that price would reduce down to about 40-50 million per launch.

Anyhow, just some fluff!

Yes, that KSO you're flying costs about 800 million US.. Think about that next time you roll it around on the ground....

Ok. Ummm... how much does the KSO launch system cost with fake kerbal money?

Example: Cockpit = X$

Left wing = X$

Boosters = X$

etc.

Add all of them together and you get...?

[MK3424]

Ok. Ummm... how much does the KSO launch system cost with fake kerbal money?

Example: Cockpit = X$

Left wing = X$

Boosters = X$

etc.

Add all of them together and you get...?

You forget this: the most parts of the shuttle can be reused (boosters,shuttle, parts,...).

So the running costs are reduced if you are reusing it (if it could).

[Starwaster]

Ok. Ummm... how much does the KSO launch system cost with fake kerbal money?

Example: Cockpit = X$

Left wing = X$

Boosters = X$

etc.

Add all of them together and you get...?

More than Jeb makes in a year so remember that as you're coming in for landing...

[Jethro Bodine]

Is the sst spotlight supposed to always be on in the VAB?

http://i.imgur.com/V0OCohJ.jpg

It does that for me too. Soon as I drag the SST from the parts directory in the VAB, its flood light is turned on. I can right-click on it, pull up the contextual menu and it defaults to giving me the option to turn the lights on (despite them already being on). When I do this, there's a brief change in the intensity of the light (as if a 2nd one is being turned on) and the light persists. TL;DR version: I can't right click the part and turn it off.

That said, though I haven't tested it extensively, I do believe the light can be toggled successfully (outside the VAB) by adding it to a control group.

[ayana]

Wasn't aware there was a bug with it, so far mine has worked fine. Will verify to see if I can reproduce the bug.

I found it. The configuration file has a "containerModuleIndex" that happened to be off.

[Lekke]

I found it. The configuration file has a "containerModuleIndex" that happened to be off.

Thanks, I'll go and check that.

[Jason Cox]

I found it. The configuration file has a "containerModuleIndex" that happened to be off.

What should the value be set to to correct the bug?

[ayana]

What should the value be set to to correct the bug?

I'm no expert, but it looks like the game has to be told which module in the configuration file is the science container one. You have to go into the configuration and count the modules with the first being 0. For 2.07 it's the fourth, so 3.

[ayana]

It is complete.