Payload shell possible? Because this is ridiculous...

[Claw]

To everyone suggesting Procedural Fairings: you do realize it is PURELY cosmetic?

I think people know, but the OP did also ask about fairings, because he didn't want rockets going up naked.

---

It would be nice if people didn't assume that "you must have FAR or don't bother with fairings" because I think that's equally as counter productive. If the man wants fairings because they look good, tell him about good looking fairings. By all means, mention FAR also. Just don't make it sound like there's no reason to make a rocket look good without it.

Just my personal $0.02

Edited July 13, 2014 by Claw

[Lukaszenko]

Holy crap, if this is true I may have to start using procedural fairings instead of the KW fairings...

Of course it's true! Hell, you can even turn it off if you wish.

[Pecan]

The fairings from Procedural Fairings can also be structural, which is relevant to OPs problem. The key is to put a second fairing base on top of the payload, facing down. The payload is then stiffly braced from top and bottom and all problems are solved...at least until the fairings are jettisoned

That was certainly not the case when I had exactly the same problem as the OP with an interstage payload wobbling through the fairings. I had to strut the fairing bases togther to get the rigidity.

[Kaput]

Should probably be pointed out that the auto struts on proc. fairings only strut the fairings to each other and not the payload.

[Lukaszenko]

That was certainly not the case when I had exactly the same problem as the OP with an interstage payload wobbling through the fairings. I had to strut the fairing bases togther to get the rigidity.

You sure you had two fairing bases facing each other? What you described sounds like a classic symptom of only having one fairing base. The behavior shows that the fairing is clearly more rigid than the payload, and it's just a matter of attaching the two together.

If not, perhaps your "Auto-struts" option was off? Or nonexistant, due to older version?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited July 13, 2014 by Lukaszenko

[Pecan]

You sure you had two fairing bases facing each other? What you described sounds like a classic symptom of only having one fairing base. The behavior shows that the fairing is clearly more rigid than the payload, and it's just a matter of attaching the two together.

If not, perhaps your "Auto-struts" option was off? Or nonexistant, due to older version?

Version may well be an issue, which was it introduced in? Fairing bases most definitely facing each other - it was one of the main points of the design and I spell out 'facing up', 'facing down' just to make sure.

(After the fairings themselves were jettisoned)

In my tutorial (signature) I specifically say "Before adding fairings themselves add struts between the upper and lower fairings bases for structural integrity (ie; it'll wobbly itself apart if you don't)." so if it's changed now I'll be pleased to update that :-)

[Lukaszenko]

According to this, it was introduced in either version 1.2 or 2.2, but I'm not really sure how to interpret the version history notes.

Anyway, I don't recall ever reading about it. I just stumbled on the "Auto-strut" tweakable one day and that's how I figured it out, but it was definitely some time after I started using FAR.

[Pecan]

Hmmm, I'll have to check my build and maybe follow it up on the PF thread. I also read this from the 2.2 (still old) update "Auto-struts are now created between the top inline base and side fairings as well: wobbly payloads might still wobble." (my underlining). Whatever the outcome, thanks for bringing this up. I shall check ...

[Greenfire32]

while I agree on the learn sooner thing, its also akin to asking a first grader to solve the general theory of relativity. No, he should at least reach "high school" first, as in, proficient at all the basics, then, run up difficulty.

Well that escalated quickly lol

I see where you're going with that, but I don't think the learning-curve scales up quite like that.

[Lukaszenko]

FYI, an extreme example of what the structural fairings let you push up into space:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Tortoise]

while I agree on the learn sooner thing, its also akin to asking a first grader to solve the general theory of relativity. No, he should at least reach "high school" first, as in, proficient at all the basics, then, run up difficulty.

I use Proc. Fairings myself, and I can tell you this much: unless he makes that payload way more rigid, its STILL gonna sway. Ive watched payloads sway during launch and peek out of the Proc Fairings. He needs a good combo of fairing AND stability in the payload.

That's because you need to strut the payload inside the fairing, then it won't peek out of the fairing.

[Kerba Fett]

If the objective is to stiffen the payload rather than just hide the mess with fairings, here's one way to do it stock without leaving any unsightly strut ends on your station.

Once it's in orbit you activate the upper decoupler. The nose assembly will float away leaving an unmarked cupolla window. Then you activate the lower decoupler and the station floats free of the framework. While you could extend the girders to surround the station more, there's more chance of bumping it when you seperate. Presumably there will be solar panels and other stuff you don't want knocked off.

Don't forget to include RCS on the launch vehical so you can back away from the station.

[technerd89]

I have not personally used this modification myself, but here is a possible solution that meets the OP's request for a "payload shell". Credit to RoverDude and his MKS system for pointing the following mod out as useful:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77505-Cargo-Transportation-Solutions-%28WIP%29