Westi29 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Good misison, but why did you use the main engines after the fuel tank detaches? I also noticed, near fuel tank decoupling, that you had more than 3 engines "on"The OMS engines have a higher Isp than the SSME engines (orbital maneuver system) (space shuttle main engines) so when I get into orbit I kick them on. They are preconfigured (at least in 1.05) to have the 14 degree pitch. This is to be used when the orange tank is still attached. I could do a much longer orbital insertion burn using just the OMS engines, but I like the quicker injection burn with the main engines firing and it uses up most of the fuel so that reentry and landing are not overweight and or not to my liking lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdapol Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Would you consider some deployable solar panels on the inside of the cargo doorsI'd prefer the fuel cell that's in the current implementation. Just like in the real Space Shuttle. It's better to have power even if there's no sun. Plus you need power regen during reentry/landing. Can't have the solar panels open then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike9606 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I got a shuttle into orbit before 1.12 so it is missing the avionics part as I used the included craft. I have not updated since I don't know how it will effect my ship. Will the shuttle be able to fly and land in atmosphere as normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberKerb Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Anyone able to supply some guesstimate figures for the cargo weight limits for this shuttle and still make a 70k-ish orbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westi29 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Anyone able to supply some guesstimate figures for the cargo weight limits for this shuttle and still make a 70k-ish orbit?I am struggling to make orbit with around 4 tons in the cargo bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdapol Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Anyone able to supply some guesstimate figures for the cargo weight limits for this shuttle and still make a 70k-ish orbit?Given how overpowered it is, you could probably fill the cargo space with pure neutronium and still be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 I got a shuttle into orbit before 1.12 so it is missing the avionics part as I used the included craft. I have not updated since I don't know how it will effect my ship. Will the shuttle be able to fly and land in atmosphere as normal?If you're using a stock installation (and not FAR or DRE or something) you'll be fine by putting one on. Will improve performance of RCS in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorfinn Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Thanks a lot for this. Since I'm playing with FAR, Deadly Reentry et cetera and I'm full of mods I can't really appreciate the complete system, but the engines alone were a godsend. Non-OP engines with decent gimbals made my first shuttle possible.I'll keep watching this space anyway; I'm sure that someone will work on FAR compatibility sooner or later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKSheppard Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 1985 Popular Mechanics article on the proposed passenger shuttle pod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike9606 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 If you're using a stock installation (and not FAR or DRE or something) you'll be fine by putting one on. Will improve performance of RCS in space.My shuttle is already in space, and I can't put a new part on mid-flight as far as I know. What should I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKSheppard Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Shuttle Variations And Derivatives That Never Happened - An Historical ReviewPDF file, a scholarly paper by an engineer at BOEING.Page 5 is interesting. It has a shroud on the TOP of the ET for large, low density payloads.There's even on page 9, a SSME-less orbiter, with only a single large OMS engine -- dumping the SSMEs allowed a payload bay stretch, and allowed subsonic lift/drag to increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exerminator2000 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 so no response i guess :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazari1382 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 so no response i guess :|Can you give me a screenshot of your entire GameData folder opened, and a screenshot with your GameData/KSO folder opened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekan1k Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Helldiver- can you include a version of the fuel-valve that only emits smoke- without dropping fuel? I want to use it as a sort-of smoke-signal thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 My shuttle is already in space, and I can't put a new part on mid-flight as far as I know. What should I do?Nothing.Just next time you launch another one put the part on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdapol Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I am struggling to make orbit with around 4 tons in the cargo bay.FAR must make this thing -way- easier then because I have the opposite experience. I had to edit the configuration files and pretty much cut half of the fuel everywhere it was so OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorfinn Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Of course it does, at the very least 500 m/s less delta V to orbit compared to normal KSP going on 1000 for very streamlined designs, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberKerb Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) FAR must make this thing -way- easier then because I have the opposite experience. I had to edit the configuration files and pretty much cut half of the fuel everywhere it was so OP.If that's the case - then that will explain it. Not using FAR makes the current OP suggestions of holding 40-degress immediately from launch not practical for a stock installation with no mod other than KSO. I have to wait a while before tilting back for the orbit burn. I can get to a 80k circular orbit with a 1 ton sat (FAR not installed), but I find it's close and would need extra fuel in the cargo bay for any eventualities. Without it, I'm a little short for the longer retrograde burn that I'd like for a quicker descent, but I still get back no probs with the shallow angle without that long burn.I know it's not practical for support all combinations of mods / no-mod, but could there be a note on the 2nd OP for those using stock?Also, it might help future users stop asking why the shuttle keep flipping on OMS-only, by ensuring it's clear to dump the EFT before attempting to use OMS (as you mentioned in an earlier post buried in this thread)eg change OP point item to: -The tank should have more than enough fuel to burn you into desired circularization orbit (burn prograde towards the target node). Once the EFT runs out of fuel (monitor it by right clicking on it), slowdown and use RCS or the OMS engines to slowly separate from it. (using only OMS will flip shuttle if still attached to EFT) Edited February 11, 2014 by wile1411 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
likke_A_boss Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Wow. After nearly 6 months after the original thread was started and the idea was formed, this mod has made modding monday. That is pretty awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woopert Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Just noticed it was said, but on the KSP Tumblr this is featured on Modding Mondays! Hopefully it's posted to the forums soon! http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 If that's the case - then that will explain it. Not using FAR makes the current OP suggestions of holding 40-degress immediately from launch not practical for a stock installation with no mod other than KSO. I have to wait a while before tilting back for the orbit burn. I can get to a 80k circular orbit with a 1 ton sat (FAR not installed), but I find it's close and would need extra fuel in the cargo bay for any eventualities. Without it, I'm a little short for the longer retrograde burn that I'd like for a quicker descent, but I still get back no probs with the shallow angle without that long burn.I know it's not practical for support all combinations of mods / no-mod, but could there be a note on the 2nd OP for those using stock?Also, it might help future users stop asking why the shuttle keep flipping on OMS-only, by ensuring it's clear to dump the EFT before attempting to use OMS (as you mentioned in an earlier post buried in this thread)eg change OP point item to: -The tank should have more than enough fuel to burn you into desired circularization orbit (burn prograde towards the target node). Once the EFT runs out of fuel (monitor it by right clicking on it), slowdown and use RCS or the OMS engines to slowly separate from it. (using only OMS will flip shuttle if still attached to EFT)Thank you for your suggestion!Two things have slowly drifted as we've updated it, the launch profile and the landing (retro burn location). If you notice in my video I'm targeting past the island and recently most returns have been two island widths past the island. The OP directions are old... as in version 0.8 Alpha old...Also we still had to do a lot of research and have since made efficiency changes as well as increased or decreased fuel amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazari1382 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Edited February 11, 2014 by Nazari1382 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeTIos Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Haha, nice one Nazari! And I love the musics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptRobau Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Few things I noticed about the Stack mounted .craft file:-The struts that connected to the External Tank are still on the bottom of the Orbiter. They serve no purpose in this design.-The Thrustmax engines are designed to work when feeding off a large tank and in the lower atmosphere. In the stack mounted design they only have that small Orbiter tank and only fire in the upper atmosphere. They just weigh the Orbiter down here. Just having the smaller engines on there is sufficient.-The rest of the launcher is only the orange tank. Why not put boosters or an engine on there? Are we supposed to do it ourselves?One thing about the regular VAB Shuttle .craft file:-The launch clamps on the orange tank make more sense on the boosters. That way you don't bump into them if the vehicle starts moving that way on liftoff.One thing about the SPH .craft file:-It has the SAS still in the nosecone, although it's the one that has the SAS in it already.Also may I suggest a version of the Orbiter for the SPH without the launch vehicle? Horizontal, landing gear lowered, no pitch trim. It'd be handy for flight testing. Edited February 11, 2014 by CaptRobau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Huzzah! Cheers on removing those RPM blue camera arcs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts