Kassandra (interplanetary compact ship) v3.01, gravity turn? automatic once again!

[H2O.]

...

Does it lag when on the launchpad? If yes, that is weird. A bit of lag with re-entry effect is normal, but otherwise a 137 parts ship shouldn't lag at all on your computer. Do you have any mod installed? Are your graphic card software up to date?

Does other ships with similar part count lag too?

@the others

Enjoy it! Look at the build in the VAB, I'm pretty proud of how I managed to squeeze the satellite (shameless self-promotion ).

Edited May 20, 2015 by H2O.

[KingPhantom]

you can be proud of the whole design.

[MathmoRichard]

Dropbox isn't working the page just won't load properly.

[H2O.]

Sometimes dropbox doesn't work, yes. It is generally for a very short period of time. I've just tried and it works. Tell me if it still doesn't work.

[MathmoRichard]

Sometimes dropbox doesn't work, yes. It is generally for a very short period of time. I've just tried and it works. Tell me if it still doesn't work.

Thank you! Got it now, it's absolutely fantastic! Was lovely to launch, although do you think it accelerates a little too fast? You might look at cutting down the engine weight but I'm no expert. Or you could just give the lander more fuel because there would be no trouble getting another tonne to orbit.

[H2O.]

Thanks for you input!

The ship doesn't technically accelerate too fast (it never reaches terminal velocity), but it does goes fast enough in the atmosphere to produce re-entry effect which I think is unfortunate, so I hear you on that.

And yes, there is room for a few tons more into LKO, I already have some ideas on how to use it .

I am not yet 100% comfortable with the new atmosphere (and since it might slightly change again) so I let some (quite huge, admittedly) margins.

Anyway, thank you so much for your feedback, it is much appreciated!

[MathmoRichard]

Makes good sense. Good job and thanks again! (+rep )

[Djmellomaniac]

I love the design of it, I keep one docked to my station so that once i get planet transfers down I can use it, but def one of my favorite designs i have seen with stock parts, and the instruction manual is just as great as well you put so much effort into making this right and easy for everyone to use, Keep up the good work

[H2O.]

Thanks guys, it is very much appreciated.

Version 2.1 is out!

• Launch vehicle now entirely recoverable...
  
• ... with an almost entirely automated procedure (really, you just have to throttle up at one point)
  
• 136 parts instead of 137
  
• re-factoring of the attachment system for the scout and the satellite
  
• imgur album modifications to match changes
  
• rewriting of some of the manual's sections to match changes
  

Ok so I wanted to make the launch vehicle recoverable, but not tedious. No problem for the boosters as they are on a suborbital trajectory when jettisoned. But the second stage? I came up with a solution that I call: Automated Space Handbrake U-Turn .

Because it is better to have some pictures than a long paragraph of text, here we go:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Tell me what you think, and enjoy!

[Brownhair2]

Just started flying it, and so far the one thing I noticed is that due to the incredibly buggy and totally-ridiculous stowing feature, the parachutes on the Twin-Boars won't activate. But hey, out of all the things that could not work it's the least important

EDIT: Just went from mild to absolutely wrong: the nukes aren't working because of the totally-ridiculous stowing feature. Bad things be happening D:

EDIT OF EDIT: Ah, now I see. As a bit of constructive criticism, you could make the guide a bit more instructive. But hey, that best of part of KSP is when things go wrong

UNRELATED EDIT: Question: How do you make the nukes not explode?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Brownhair2

[H2O.]

Thanks for your feedback Brownhair2.

So, If I understand correctly, it wasn't clear enough that you are supposed to press "Action Group 1" to jettisson the fairing and the escape tower during launch?

I will see if I can do something about the parachutes on the boosters, I don't remember any problem while I was testing, but that bug is sleaky.

response to the unrelated edit: be gentle on the throttle ! More seriously, I am not happy with that, I am currently in a test phase to see if I can manage the overheating better.

Edited May 25, 2015 by H2O.

[H2O.]

Ok, so I released a minor modification

2.11 version

• Nuclear engines heating allow for a 5 minutes burn at full throttle (against 3 min 30 s before)
  
• Little changes in the manual to make clearer the fact that you should use "Action Group 1" to jettisoned the fairing during launch.
  
• The rover is now capable of caring the mystery goo! (so a long drive is more rewarding in term of science harvest).
  
• Parachutes on boosters are not "stowed" anymore
  
• 133 parts instead of 136
  
• imgur album modifications to match changes
  

I hope it will solves the problems Brownhair2 found. Enjoy!

Edited May 25, 2015 by H2O.

[Brownhair2]

• Nuclear engines heating allow for a 5 minutes burn at full throttle (against 3 min 30 s before)
  

Thanks! That should be more than enough to get into orbit! I haven't tried out the new version yet, as I'm currently testing with a design of my own (tests are going well ) but I will try it ASAP. Only sad thing is I have to deorbit my parked Kassandra vessel. But it's my Sandbox save, so it doesn't matter

[H2O.]

You don't need the nuclear stage to reach LKO with version 2.11! You should easily reach a circular 100 km orbit with the second stage with 150 m/s to spare.

[problemecium]

Hmm. It still looks pretty, but I did like it a bit better when the large tank at the back was the Mk. 3 to 2.5m adapter. Since that doesn't contain enough fuel, though, have you tried a Size 3 to Mk.3 Adapter (with the round part forward) attached to a Mk.3 to 2.5m adapter?

P.S. @brownhair2: Do I have the honor of seeing my Portable Station in your avatar, or is that just coincidentally similar? xD

[Brownhair2]

Oops, forgot to take pictures on Ike D:

Well, here's Bill leaving

Bill liked Ike

Hmm. It still looks pretty, but I did like it a bit better when the large tank at the back was the Mk. 3 to 2.5m adapter. Since that doesn't contain enough fuel, though, have you tried a Size 3 to Mk.3 Adapter (with the round part forward) attached to a Mk.3 to 2.5m adapter?

P.S. @brownhair2: Do I have the honor of seeing my Portable Station in your avatar, or is that just coincidentally similar? xD

Coincidentally similar. It's an image of my old space station (I have to make a new one now since I restarted my save :c)

EDIT:

Valentina is having a wonderful time while Jeb is stuck at home

EDIT 2:

Uh, Bill? I don't think that's how you're supposed to fly it...

Edited May 26, 2015 by Brownhair2

[nfpinto]

have no time to fly it, but gonna be the 3 time i download. im glad you updating it so often

gonna post here some results after the mission

over

[H2O.]

Hmm. It still looks pretty, but I did like it a bit better when the large tank at the back was the Mk. 3 to 2.5m adapter. Since that doesn't contain enough fuel, though, have you tried a Size 3 to Mk.3 Adapter (with the round part forward) attached to a Mk.3 to 2.5m adapter?

Yeah, the nuclear stage is a bit on the bland side. And yes, I tried just what you propose, but it was not enough. We definitively need a topic where we explain the compromises we had to make:). So it goes like this:

With fuel (and whatever the solution I chose) the Kassandra is in the 60 tons range in LKO. I have no other realistic solution but to go nuclear. One of my first problem was the overheating: to counterbalance that I choose to go with 3 engines. But Now, whatever I do, they don't fit under the lander. So I went radical: ditch the interplanetary transfer stage and go nuclear-only until final approach.

With that in mind, let's add the fact that as of today, liquid-fuel-only tanks choices are limited. I ended up choosing the Mk3 liquid fuel tank.

Now the solution works, but the launch vehicle is totally inadequate! Impossible from an aesthetic point of view to have big gaps between the main core and the side-boosters. So I went for a 3.75 m main core.

To sum up: I did sacrifice a bit on the nuclear stage aesthetic for delta-v and simplicity reasons (1 nuclear stage instead of 1 interplanetary + 1 nuclear) and aesthetic reasons (but for the launch vehicle).

I did try to give it a little "2001: A Space Odyssey" feel (with 3 lined up big engines at the back and a antenna at the top), but it doesn't seems to have worked, because nobody said something about it .

@ Brownhair2: Nice pictures, and thanks again for finding those problems yesterday.

@ nfpinto: please, go ahead!

[Heckspress]

I'm sorry. I don't exactly understand the ascent profile on this. What do you mean when you say in the manual, "Exactly above your attitude marker"? Also, what do you mean by 15 degrees? 15 as in almost sideways or 15 as in almost vertical? Please explain.

[H2O.]

Ok, I'll try to rephrase:

Lift-Off

Push the throttle to maximum, activate SAS and press “spaceâ€Â. Ascent is typical:

• go straight up until your velocity is 50 m/s
  
• turn (direction 90) until your inclination is ~75° relative to the horizon
  
• Wait for the yellow prograde marker to line up with your attitude marker (i.e.: the prograde marker is at the very center of the navball)
  
• Activate the “follow prograde†SAS and let the rocket fly by itself. (At these point, you normally don't have to steer by yourself)
  
• You should be at an altitude between 7500 and 8500 meters once your inclination reach 45° relative to the horizon.
  
• When the boosters are empty, stage.
  
• Keep on burning until your apoapse reach 100 km, then stop burning.
  
• Once you are out of the atmosphere, press "Action Group 1".
  
• Circularize (once it is done, you should have roughly 150 m/s left of deltav in your second stage)
  

I hope it is clearer.

Edited May 27, 2015 by H2O.

[Heckspress]

Alrighty then.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to do it but the rocket just keeps tipping over. I turn to 70 degrees after I accelerate to 50 m/s, wait till the marker lines up, press follow prograde, but the rocket just tipping over b/c the prograde also sinks (And quickly, at least for me).

[H2O.]

Alrighty then.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to do it but the rocket just keeps tipping over. I turn to 70 degrees after I accelerate to 50 m/s, wait till the marker lines up, press follow prograde, but the rocket just tipping over b/c the prograde also sinks (And quickly, at least for me).

Ok so it is 75° relative to the horizon. Wich means that you turn just a little bit. Actually, just a regular (for 1.02 at least) ascent profile (like in Scott Manley's videos) will work perfectly. Because the rocket has a rather high TWR, you can be a bit agressive, but really, the ascent is pretty standard.

[Ninjahgoblin]

OMG I have been seeking an all around "explorer" ship. This is exactly what I have been wanting. Only one question?

Aside from specific staging sequencing at launch (mainly to recycle parts back to KSC it seems) can I use Mechjeb to launch and fly this? I see in the manual, the launch profile is a bit specific. I have an ascent guidance profile I use for 1.2 Aero that works for pretty much any ship I have flown so far. And I am not torn about getting the most money I can back in recovered parts, I'm sure I'll think differently at some point.

Thank you!

[H2O.]

I don't know, I don't use mechjeb. But honestly, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work. Set it for a 100 km circular orbit. Jettison the fairings ("Action Group 1") once you are above 40 km and everything should be alright.

The ascent profile I describe in the manual is not the most efficient, just the most simple.

I'm interested to see if it works correctly with mechjeb. Could you tell me after your run?

[The14th]

I really like how you've managed to stow the rover, probe, and scout-craft away so neatly. When I try something like that, I end up either completely unbalancing the lander, or else sticking out too far.

I'm curious as to what was behind your decision to put the ion engines round that way on the return module?

The module and docking port both point in the direction of thrust - I can't see any "control-from-here" part that would face in the direction of any manoeuvre node on the navball.

As someone who uses the navball for manoeuvres, I'd find that a pain. Is there a part I can't see from the screenshots?

Edited May 27, 2015 by The14th
damn autocorrect