[1.2 - 1.4] Modular Rocket Systems v1.13.2 (2018-03-12) - Stock-alike Parts Pack

[NecroBones]

I'm thinking of making a "Lite" pack from MRS, for those who want only the most popular/unique parts, and not the whole mod.

Here's the list I'm thinking of:

Fuel Tanks:

Small radial LFO tank

0.625m Probe Tank (longer than Oscar-B, mass ratio on par with larger tanks)

Size adapter, 3.75m -> 2.5m

Size adapter, 2.5m -> 1.25m

3.75m Monopropellant

Cargo Bays:

1.25m x 1.875m long

2.5m x 1.875m long

2.5m x 3.75m long

Probe Cores:

Radial Probe Core (control only, massless, no SAS or reaction wheels, mid tech tree)

Radial Probe Core, Advanced (massless, advanced SAS, no reaction wheels, late tech tree)

Reaction Wheels:

2.5m, (slightly stronger than stock, and actual 2.5m attachment nodes unlike stock)

3.75m (bigger variant of the 2.5m)

Utility:

Flingatron (3x Sepratron)

LAS Tower (Launch Abort System, modeled after NASA's Orion)

LAS Pod Shroud (Fits over 3-man stock pod with a docking port)

Docking Helper, 0.625m

Docking Helper, 1.25m (ring of lights for the outside of a docking port)

Docking Helper, 2.5m

Long landing legs

Structural & Aerodynamic:

Mini-Radial Decoupler

Decoupler, 2.5m "Slimline"

[WuphonsReach]

I'd be interested in a set of 125/250/375/500 cm "berthing" ports for orbital stations. Something about 5x-10x as strong as the stock docking port. I can't tell whether the SpaceY pack has 250cm versions from the pictures.

I've discovered that putting 4 KAS struts around every 125cm docking port takes my station spine from 40-45 fps down to 30-35 fps (worse if I have a station spine with 16 or 20 docking ports).

[NecroBones]

I'd be interested in a set of 125/250/375/500 cm "berthing" ports for orbital stations. Something about 5x-10x as strong as the stock docking port. I can't tell whether the SpaceY pack has 250cm versions from the pictures.

I've discovered that putting 4 KAS struts around every 125cm docking port takes my station spine from 40-45 fps down to 30-35 fps (worse if I have a station spine with 16 or 20 docking ports).

SpaceY just has 3.75m and 5m, since those are the ones that stock is missing after adding all the nice 5m parts. The thing is, I don't think I have a way to make the connections less bendy. There are variables to adjust the breaking strength, but I think it still flexes just as much even with higher numbers there.

[WuphonsReach]

Ah shucks about the docking ports I'll have to unlock the larger docking ports for my bigger stations.

On a different note, how about radial chutes that are 5x and 10x as strong with braking force as the stock radial chute? With StageRecovery, a lot of my booster stages in the 2.5m size end up with 6/8/12 radial chutes attached in order to slow them down enough.

Maybe the 5x version looks like the current stock radial version, but 2x longer along the longest axis. And the 10x version could be 3x longer (but no thicker or wider).

Hmm, had a thought - what if you took the 1.25m clampotron and gave it a 2.5m "node"? Or does that only affect things in the SPH/VAB?

Edited February 4, 2015 by WuphonsReach

[passinglurker]

SpaceY just has 3.75m and 5m, since those are the ones that stock is missing after adding all the nice 5m parts. The thing is, I don't think I have a way to make the connections less bendy. There are variables to adjust the breaking strength, but I think it still flexes just as much even with higher numbers there.

the reason docking ports are bendy is because they are light and flat and generally sandwiched between two much taller and heavier parts. If you make the "berthing" ports much heavier they would wobble much less.

[NecroBones]

Parachutes are a whole separate thing I haven't looked into yet (much). From what I've read on the forum, they look like they're pretty straightforward compared to other things I've already tackled. The tricky part is that the whole deployed parachute has to fit inside the box, when shrunken to a specific fraction (1% I think), so it may place a limit on how small the box can be compared to the chute itself. Also, if the chute is to swing around like the stock ones, while deployed, that animation has to be built in (which is why some mod chutes don't bounce around). So it's possible, but has design considerations to think about.

Yeah, on the docking ports, I'm not sure about changing the node size. It affects the VAB, but that's also one of the main influences on the joint strength. It's possible to use the "wrong" size here, and it shouldn't screw up which other docking ports it can dock to, since that's controlled with a different setting. But I'm concerned that in the future they may add other functionality that checks the node size for other purposes.

But that's true, a longer/thicker and heavier port could help with the flexing, but of course that means you have more mass (and size) to lift into orbit. But that may be worth it in some cases.

[WuphonsReach]

the reason docking ports are bendy is because they are light and flat and generally sandwiched between two much taller and heavier parts. If you make the "berthing" ports much heavier they would wobble much less.

That gives me an idea that maybe it can be fixed with UbioWeld Continued mod.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

That part masses 240kg, if I redesign it and add RCS tanks and other things to bring the mass up to 2t, maybe it will wobble less when used as a berthing port.

- - - Updated - - -

Link to craft file and .cfg file:

Google Drive Link - MRS welded parts with UbioZur

Here is the much heavier version of the welded docking port. I'll have to test it out to see whether welding it to the 250cm RCS tank makes a difference. Dry mass is about 550kg, wet mass is 3640kg.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[NecroBones]

Cool, I hadn't really thought about welding.

-------------------------------

On a completely unrelated note, HarvestR posted a blog update about cargo bays and aerodynamic shielding.

The MRS cargo bays will have to be updated for sure, but I think it'll be straightforward, since I need invisible, non-colliding colliders added to the ends. Otherwise, the side/door colliders are full enclosing. This may not be as much the case with my other mods.

But in any case, I can't promise I'll have the updates out super fast when 1.0 hits, just because there is some modeling and configuration changing that I won't be able to complete and test until we already have 1.0 in hand.

[WuphonsReach]

I do like my end caps - gives more mass to the part, integrates the helper lights with a bit of battery storage, a Mk1 lamp and a simple solar panel. Plus provides a 250cm "node" on the back side. Adding a bit of RCS fuel storage is always useful as well.

Not sure how to test the wiggle / bendiness... maybe a Jumbo-64 on a test stand with another full Jumbo-64 at 90 degrees.

The only possible issue so far with such a weld is the potential for MechJeb / KSP's "point at target" function to start seeking in a circle as it gets within 1m of the target port. Not sure if that is due to the weld, or something else. The 250cm RCS tank welded to the docking port might be a bit much.

Edited February 5, 2015 by WuphonsReach

[NecroBones]

Yeah, sometimes to test things, I'll build a test-rig in the SPH instead of the VAB, since it all snaps together horizontally by default. Testing on the runway versus the pad is no big deal.

You could put an orange tank on there (or other large tanks), and then suspend only the other end with launch clamps, and you can get things to bend in all sorts of interesting ways.

[WuphonsReach]

Tried out a few things...

- Welding the center spine using the BZ-52 and Rockomax 125-250cm adapter plate to give a larger mounting area to the radial items is a very good idea. That gives you 250cm nodes in the SPH/VAB instead of only 125cm nodes.

- Without KJR, the 125cm docking port is still the weak point.

- Welding a 125-250cm Rockomax adapter plate to a docking port helps a bit, but doesn't fix the link between two 125cm docking ports. The main advantage is that the part on the 250cm side of the adapter plate has a much stronger connection.

- Mass of the welded docking port didn't seem to have much effect.

Tentative conclusion is that KJR + a bit of welding to create a 250cm node on the back plate of the 125cm docking port seems to be the best approach.

Note: I'm using the Jan 17 2015 version of the KJR DLL. It's crazily good. Not even sure I need the 125-250cm adapter plate...

[NecroBones]

Yeah, KJR does a very good job. I used to use it quite a bit last year, before the stock joint improvements. I think it will definitely help even more with larger parts, such as the 5m stuff in SpaceY.

[NecroBones]

Alright, I have posted 1.5.1, which now offers an optional "LITE" version of the mod, with about half the parts. It contains only the more unique/interesting/popular parts, and leaves out the adapters and other parts that are fairly redundant with stock.

Don't install both at the same time.

1.5.1 (2015-02-10) - Minor adjustments
 - Released "Lite" version of mod.
 - Corrected a badly-positioned seam on the 2.5m->1.25m adapter cone.
 - Slightly improved contrast in the long landing-leg texture.
 - Corrected typos that prevented the LAS tower and Flingatron from showing in the manufacturer tab.

Edited February 10, 2015 by NecroBones

[pg01202]

I seem to have encountered an issue with the largest xenon container. If you stack two of them they drain at the same time, instead of the top one first, essentially making the second container useless.

[NecroBones]

I seem to have encountered an issue with the largest xenon container. If you stack two of them they drain at the same time, instead of the top one first, essentially making the second container useless.

Huh, I haven't heard of that. I may have to play with it.

Do you have other mods installed? I'm wondering if it's a bug with KSP, or a bad mod interaction, or just a setting in one (such as TAC Fuel Balancer).

I didn't do anything special, so they should function like the stock xenon tanks.

- - - Updated - - -

I seem to have encountered an issue with the largest xenon container. If you stack two of them they drain at the same time, instead of the top one first, essentially making the second container useless.

Huh, I haven't heard of that. I may have to play with it.

Do you have other mods installed? I'm wondering if it's a bug with KSP, or a bad mod interaction, or just a setting in one (such as TAC Fuel Balancer).

I didn't do anything special, so they should function like the stock xenon tanks.

OK, nevermind. I just ran a test, and took another look at how Xenon is configured in the stock game. I had a bit of a brain-fart on it, but this is working as it's supposed to.

Xenon works the same as Monopropellant, meaning it should draw from all tanks within that stage equally. So you're not seeing double the usage of the xenon, but rather the engine is pulling half the xenon it needs from each.

[pg01202]

Oh that's cool. So it's just a limitation of the game in not being able to display fractions on the UI.

[Threadsinger]

Great parts, and great art-style!

If there was ever a niche I'd be looking to fill as a humble player, it would be some radial high-ISP engines, and a stackable SRB seperatron to uncouple BIG boosters/stuff. I can use tweakscale to make the existing radial sepetratrons bigger, but I always thought a large, pancake-like seperatron (which exhausts at a 10-deg angle, say) would look nicer for larger needs without needing big part counts.

(I get the idea of KSP isn't to have a one-part-for-each-scenario, but I think there's a need for those parts... make 'em heavy or expensive for balance, if need be.)

Either way, great work all around!

[NecroBones]

Do you mean something like a stack-decoupler with "ullage motors" or something like that? I'm trying to picture what you mean. I've thought about the idea of decouplers with thrusters, like the SpaceY radial decouplers, but as inline stack decouplers. But if I add those, it'll probably be part of SpaceY instead of MRS, since the emphasis in these mods is a little different.

[Threadsinger]

Do you mean something like a stack-decoupler with "ullage motors" or something like that? I'm trying to picture what you mean. I've thought about the idea of decouplers with thrusters, like the SpaceY radial decouplers, but as inline stack decouplers. But if I add those, it'll probably be part of SpaceY instead of MRS, since the emphasis in these mods is a little different.

Fair enough. I just peeked at SpaceY, very similar. I was thinking along the lines of a stackable sepatron (I'll get the name right, eventually) which would serve a similar purpose to putting two of the radial ones, spaced equally (for thrust balance), pointing "up". My "niche" was all those times I decoupled big boosters (radially), but they needed a big enough push to clear the immediate area or they would strike something. I'd use the little radial sepatrons, but I'd need two (or more) in a balanced placement, and the amount needed for larger boosters or stages was a little much (or just unseemly using Tweakscale).

I had a similar model in mind to the stackable parachutes from RealChutes (which themselves were very handy for some uses...) in that they aren't attached to the "side" of something to work, they are integrated into the stack.

Just a suggestion now. It's a game (and your hobby in your free time), it's just something I've often found I've wanted. I might go take a look at SpaceY, which looks awesome, but I'm running low on RAM. Stupid 32-bit.

If ever KSP-Interstellar flames out mod-wise, I would nominate you to take over. Your stock-a-like style fits well with the existing KSP stuff.

[NecroBones]

OK cool, so I had the right idea of what you had in mind. Yeah, it's something I've considered, but haven't been too sure as to how much people might want it. Though, of course, reception was quite positive to the radial thruster decouplers I made for SpaceY.

In the meantime though, both MRS and SpaceY have super-sized Sepratrons (MRS has a 3x version, and SpaceY a 10x version).

The good news is that SpaceY is super memory-efficient compared to MRS, since most of the textures are shared between multiple parts, whereas MRS is extremely stock-like in how it does textures (that is, it has separate textures for every part).

Another possibility is that it could be a completely separate pack, of nothing but stage decouplers, for those who want it specifically. Hmm... Let me think on that.

[WuphonsReach]

One suggestion on the quad-nuke (MRS Nuclear Quad Engine).

Right now, the mass is 4x the LV-N mass (thrust is also 4x). It would be nice if about 5-10% were sliced off that 9t mass to give it a bit more edge over individual LV-Ns (on top of the cost advantage and part count advantage).

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Taking a moment to be the Devil's advocate, it does have a bit of a nass edge already because there's no need for a quad-adapter.

[Norcalplanner]

Taking a moment to be the Devil's advocate, it does have a bit of a nass edge already because there's no need for a quad-adapter.

Agreed. The ability to stack it inline like a Skipper and the reduced part count also gives it a leg up on the competition.

[NecroBones]

One suggestion on the quad-nuke (MRS Nuclear Quad Engine).

Right now, the mass is 4x the LV-N mass (thrust is also 4x). It would be nice if about 5-10% were sliced off that 9t mass to give it a bit more edge over individual LV-Ns (on top of the cost advantage and part count advantage).

Taking a moment to be the Devil's advocate, it does have a bit of a nass edge already because there's no need for a quad-adapter.

Agreed. The ability to stack it inline like a Skipper and the reduced part count also gives it a leg up on the competition.

All good points. What if we buffed the thrust upward by a hair instead? The ISP would be the same, it would just improve the TWR a tiny bit.

The good news is that it's very stock-balanced as it is.

[Norcalplanner]

All good points. What if we buffed the thrust upward by a hair instead? The ISP would be the same, it would just improve the TWR a tiny bit.

The good news is that it's very stock-balanced as it is.

I think it's good as-is. It's really easy to justify to oneself or anyone else who asks that it's a pure stock-equivalent part.

However, if you were going to improve it, I'd simply note the competition you have from PorkJet's nuclear lightbulb. 20 tons, 450 kN thrust, an insane gimbal range, and 1500(!) vacuum Isp.