[1.4] SpaceY Heavy-Lifter Parts Pack v1.17.1 (2018-04-02)

[biohazard15]

Yep, if you want to go ahead and grab it, I have it here:

http://ksp.necrobones.com/files/SpaceY-Lifters/SpaceY-Lifters-0.5.zip

KerbalStuff and Curse are both taking their sweet time.

Thanks for the quick update and short adapter!

[NecroBones]

Thanks for the quick update and short adapter!

No problem!

BTW, I went ahead and uploaded to Curse and KerbalStuff. I'll worry about the KSP version settings there later.

Change log:

0.5 (2014-12-15) - Beta Release
 - No changes strictly necessary for 0.90:
    - Engine/FuelTank split is automatic, but we went ahead and updated to explicitly categorize anyway.
    - Leaving SAS basic capability on the reaction wheel parts for now.
 - New naming scheme for engines, as a parody of SpaceX's naming. Flightless birds instead of raptors. 
    - D1 engine renamed K1 "Kiwi"
    - F1/F5/F5 "Falcon" engines renamed M1/M5/M9 "Moa" engines.
    - R1/R5 "Raptor" engines renamed R1/R5 "Ratite" engines.
 - Added Heavy-Duty Launch Clamp
 - Added TweakScale support for the M1 engine that was missing.
 - Added missing TweakScale "adapter 3-1" scale (which was fine if you also had Modular Rocket Systems installed)
 - Added HotRockets support
 - Repainted the ejection arrows on the radial decouplers to be blue.
 - Made several changes to the K1 engine:
    - Moved earlier in tech tree, to Heavy Rocketry, alongside Skipper instead of Mainsail. 
    - Repainted turbopumps to be blue
    - Added a cylindrical shroud, and stacking capability. 
    - Improved ISP (mostly at the vacuum end).
    - Corrected the attachment node to be 1.25m size (instead of the default of 0.625m).
 - Changed several stats of the 1-way thrust plates (shrouded size adapters):
    - Moved the 3.75m->2.5m and 2.5m->1.25m units earlier in the tech tree.
    - Reduced mass of the 3.75m->2.5m and 5m->3.75m units.
    - Slightly reduced costs of all three.
    - Added a fourth size: a shorter duplicate for the 2.5m->1.25m for use with smaller engines.
 - Adjusted naming convention of parts and model-numbers to be more consistent, across the entire parts list.

Edited December 16, 2014 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

The biggest SRBs feel small now. I think I need another size up.

[Alewx]

The biggest SRBs feel small now. I think I need another size up.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-16%2000-05-39-18.jpg

This made my morning

But it still looks really really cool.

[biohazard15]

There's a bug with agencies logos in VAB\SPH:

As you may see, the MRS and SpY logos are blank when inactive, and appears only when you select the corresponding tab.

(Two other blank logos are from NovaPunch, I've already reported them to Tiberion. You might wish to contact him about the fix, although AFAIK he didn't made any yet)

[NecroBones]

The biggest SRBs feel small now. I think I need another size up.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-16%2000-05-39-18.jpg

This made my morning

But it still looks really really cool.

Awesome. And guess what? We will have a larger SRB now:

There's a bug with agencies logos in VAB\SPH:

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

As you may see, the MRS and SpY logos are blank when inactive, and appears only when you select the corresponding tab.

(Two other blank logos are from NovaPunch, I've already reported them to Tiberion. You might wish to contact him about the fix, although AFAIK he didn't made any yet)

OK cool. I didn't think to look at that. I'll have to see what the new GUI is expecting there. I'm hoping I just need to look at the stock agencies and just do what they did.

[biohazard15]

Awesome. And guess what? We will have a larger SRB now:

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-16%2009-21-43-22.jpg

OK cool. I didn't think to look at that. I'll have to see what the new GUI is expecting there. I'm hoping I just need to look at the stock agencies and just do what they did.

Love that SRB!

It seems that problem is somewhere in PNG themselves - as you may see, other agencies logos from NP are normal. R&S and Tantares are too - and they didn't update anything inside their Agencies folder.

[Red Iron Crown]

You might consider revisiting the mass ratios of your tanks. The new Mk3 tanks have the best mass ratios in the game now (9.33:1), they basically obsolete the SLS tanks. I think you based your mass ratios on those?

[Borisbee]

OK cool. I didn't think to look at that. I'll have to see what the new GUI is expecting there. I'm hoping I just need to look at the stock agencies and just do what they did.

I believe you just need to resize your scaled_truecolor png to 64x40. You currently have it the same size as the full sized agency png.

[NecroBones]

Love that SRB!

It seems that problem is somewhere in PNG themselves - as you may see, other agencies logos from NP are normal. R&S and Tantares are too - and they didn't update anything inside their Agencies folder.

I believe you just need to resize your scaled_truecolor png to 64x40. You currently have it the same size as the full sized agency png.

Yep, I found it. They needed transparency and scaled to 64x40. When the agencies were first added, the "truecolor" versions of the icons were supposed to be 160x100. That's changed, apparently.

I should be able to get an update out again today (with the new SRBs, as an added bonus).

You might consider revisiting the mass ratios of your tanks. The new Mk3 tanks have the best mass ratios in the game now (9.33:1), they basically obsolete the SLS tanks. I think you based your mass ratios on those?

Yeah, I'll have to take a look at those. I originally set the mass ratios based on the NASA/SLS parts, but recently pulled the mass ratio back a little to be half-way between those and the 2.5m tanks. If the ratio is better on the Mk3 than anything else, than maybe I'll put the 5m tanks between those and the 2.5m tanks, so they're the second-best.

[NecroBones]

You might consider revisiting the mass ratios of your tanks. The new Mk3 tanks have the best mass ratios in the game now (9.33:1), they basically obsolete the SLS tanks. I think you based your mass ratios on those?

Yeah, I'll have to take a look at those. I originally set the mass ratios based on the NASA/SLS parts, but recently pulled the mass ratio back a little to be half-way between those and the 2.5m tanks. If the ratio is better on the Mk3 than anything else, than maybe I'll put the 5m tanks between those and the 2.5m tanks, so they're the second-best.

Yep, the Mk3 LFO tanks store about 1667 units of LFO per ton of dry mass. The 2.5m tanks are 1600, and the SpaceY tanks are currently 1500. I think I can bump that to around 1620-1630-ish (same capacity, reducing dry mass, rounding to nearest 0.05 ton) and call it fair.

Edited December 16, 2014 by NecroBones

[LuvSicGrl]

Beautiful job on the mod. :] Always wanted rocket engines that are similar to the Saturn V (the clusters)

[NecroBones]

Beautiful job on the mod. :] Always wanted rocket engines that are similar to the Saturn V (the clusters)

Thanks! Glad you like it!

[NecroBones]

OK, more 0.90 updates:

0.5.1 (2014-12-16) - Beta Release, 0.90 tweaks
 - Added an even larger SRB, a 2.5m x 23m monstrosity. 
 - Fixed manufacturer icon in VAB/SPH manufacturer-sort.
 - Reduced dry-mass of fuel tanks, to be more competitive with the new Mk3 LFO tanks.

[Niemand303]

Something N-1-esque I've thrown together in 0.90 with Tantares LOK and LK.

That is why I'd request 7.5m parts, for even greater awesomeness (I'd also ask for 7.5m 20x1.25m + 1x5m thruster plate, but that's too crazy )

[Starman4308]

OK, more 0.90 updates:

Did you wind up changing any fuel capacities? The RealFuels config requires good volume numbers, but winds up discarding whatever the original mass of the tank was.

[NecroBones]

Something N-1-esque I've thrown together in 0.90 with Tantares LOK and LK.

That is why I'd request 7.5m parts, for even greater awesomeness (I'd also ask for 7.5m 20x1.25m + 1x5m thruster plate, but that's too crazy )

http://cs621522.vk.me/v621522511/423c/7RcnU7gfRs8.jpg

Nicely done! Yeah, if I do end up adding 7.5m stuff, I'll keep the thrust plates reasonable. I doubt a 20-way will end up in there. Heh.

Did you wind up changing any fuel capacities? The RealFuels config requires good volume numbers, but winds up discarding whatever the original mass of the tank was.

No, the capacities are the same. I based those on the volume increase over stock parts, so I only tweak the dry-mass when making changes.

[NecroBones]

Just a few screenshots of updating my "shuttle" with the new SRB. I put "shuttle" in quotes, because it looks pretty, but all it's good at doing is exploding. It flies semi-acceptably until the SRBs burn out, and then of course it doesn't handle the COM shift at all after that. If I accidentally change the throttle too harshly, it just comes apart. LOL.

(just to be clear, I only designed it to look the part, not to actually fly)

[Niemand303]

Just a few screenshots of updating my "shuttle" with the new SRB. I put "shuttle" in quotes, because it looks pretty, but all it's good at doing is exploding. It flies semi-acceptably until the SRBs burn out, and then of course it doesn't handle the COM shift at all after that. If I accidentally change the throttle too harshly, it just comes apart. LOL.

(just to be clear, I only designed it to look the part, not to actually fly)

I've got a Buran made from your MRS and SpaceY parts flying really well (as the real Energia it has lots of vernier thrusters since Buran had no powerful engines, only OMS)

[NecroBones]

I've got a Buran made from your MRS and SpaceY parts flying really well (as the real Energia it has lots of vernier thrusters since Buran had no powerful engines, only OMS)

http://cs621522.vk.me/v621522511/41f9/GTciG9_vKQg.jpg

http://cs621522.vk.me/v621522511/4203/4SzvEHzSP6A.jpg

http://cs621522.vk.me/v621522511/420d/Lh0kfV5qqpI.jpg

http://cs621522.vk.me/v621522511/4217/6aYQBYhSh7E.jpg

http://cs621522.vk.me/v621522511/4221/kTcOJzMBzUI.jpg

Cool, nicely done!

[NecroBones]

Other than updating mods for 0.90, I haven't had much time to work on parts this week. Right now, the near future plans still include large SpaceX-like landing legs, and RCS/OMS pods as discussed earlier.

But since we've danced around the idea of 7.5m parts a little, it's probably worth putting some thought into how that might work. And here's something that I'm thinking about:

With 7.5m parts, we might actually be in the first good scenario where we could add a new diameter without making any engine-clusters specific to that size, because we have some pretty powerful smaller engines available this time (which wasn't really the case so much at 5m). For the sake of argument, let's say we didn't add any new engines at all, but rather just the adapters:

1. 7.5m -> 7x 2.5m (upper/lower stage, with stacking shroud)
   
2. 7.5m -> 2x 3.75m (upper/lower stage, with stacking shroud)
   
3. 7.5m -> 4x 3.75m (lower stage only, sticks out the sides a little)
   

For #1, that would allow use of the current R1 engines, for a total of 14k of thrust, which is respectable here. Or, for upper-stage use, you can use anything smaller. Poodles, Skippers, Mainsails, SpaceY M1 engines, etc.

For #2, this would also work great as an upper stage. You could get 5k of thrust with a pair of KR-2L engines.

#3 would feel slightly anemic, currently. You could put four of the SLS quad-engines (KS-25x4) under there for a total of 12800 thrust, but they might clip into one another (depending on the spacing in the adapter), or get only 10k thrust (same as the R5) with four of the KR-2Ls.

#3 could be beefed up a little by adding one more engine, a 3.75m engine that is larger and more powerful than the existing 3.75m engines. Speaking hypothetically, if an engine with a bell that is about 3.7m across were added, with a sea-level ISP of about 263, and high thrust, it would be a lot like the Rocketdyne F-1. It doesn't need to have 6700 thrust or so, like the real world equivalent, but even at 4000 the quad-adapter would allow 16k of thrust. And with such a low (but realistic for RP-1 fuel) ISP, it would still make other choices competitive.

Anyway, this is what popped into my head while driving this morning, so I thought I'd run it past people here. It doesn't mean this is what I'm going to do for sure, just getting a discussion started at this point.

Edited December 17, 2014 by NecroBones

[Noio]

Do you envision that being part of SpaceY as well?

I am perhaps a little odd - I like to stay inside the stock sizes without too much deviation. To that end I had been using MRS, but SpaceY adds some really great size1-3 parts and I started using that too. But I'm worried that SpaceY is also now defining larger stuff and its scope appears to be growing.

Perhaps MRS could become the home of all the size0-size3 stuff, and SpaceY the home of the larger stuff?

[NBZ]

Other than updating mods for 0.90, I haven't had much time to work on parts this week. Right now, the near future plans still include large SpaceX-like landing legs, and RCS/OMS pods as discussed earlier.

But since we've danced around the idea of 7.5m parts a little, it's probably worth putting some thought into how that might work. And here's something that I'm thinking about:

With 7.5m parts, we might actually be in the first good scenario where we could add a new diameter without making any engine-clusters specific to that size, because we have some pretty powerful smaller engines available this time (which wasn't really the case so much at 5m). For the sake of argument, let's say we didn't add any new engines at all, but rather just the adapters:

(...)

Anyway, this is what popped into my head while driving this morning, so I thought I'd run it past people here. It doesn't mean this is what I'm going to do for sure, just getting a discussion started at this point.

I think it could work out very nicely, but go at it carefully, as it is quite far beyond stock. Don't add more types of engine or clusters – it will make this pack less attractive. I suggest sticking the existing 3 engines and Saturn (5)/SpaceX (9) clusters.

Here is what I would do:

• Fill stock gaps, but avoid falling close to stock engine thrust values:
  
  • Moa is currently too close to Skipper (725 vs 650)
    
  • Ratite is currently identical to KR-1x2 (2000)
    
  • M5 is currently too close to KS-25x4 (3300 vs 3200)
    

  [*]Spread thrust-values out towards the top:

  • Kiwi; 400 -> 425 (average of LV-T30 and Skipper)
    
  • Moa; 725 -> 1075 (average of Skipper and Mainsail)
    
  • Ratite; 2000 -> 2850 (average of KR-2L and KS-25x4)
    

  [*]Keep the M5/9 and R5, but adjust their values – and add an R9 (as SpaceX plans to do)

  • M5; 3300 -> 5375 (5 times Moa)
    
  • M9; 6900 -> 9675 (9 times Moa)
    
  • R5; 10000 -> 14250 (5 times Ratite)
    
  • R9; 25650 (9 times Ratite)
    

  [*]Let M-clusters be 5m, and R-clusters 10m (Merlin and Raptor are designed for two different stack sizes too)

  [*]Leave more exotic set-ups to thrust-plates, both for 5m and for 7.5m

Note how the new M5 will (almost) take the old M9's place, and the M9 will (almost) take the old R5's place. The M5 doesn't leave a gap.

1. 7.5m -> 7x 2.5m (upper/lower stage, with stacking shroud)

(...)

For #1, that would allow use of the current R1 engines, for a total of 14k of thrust, which is respectable here. Or, for upper-stage use, you can use anything smaller. Poodles, Skippers, Mainsails, SpaceY M1 engines, etc.

The new 7.5m R5 would deliver 14250. Upper-stage could be elegantly handled by a simple 7.5m -> 3.75m shrouded adapter with a Ratite.

2. 7.5m -> 2x 3.75m (upper/lower stage, with stacking shroud)

(...)

For #2, this would also work great as an upper stage. You could get 5k of thrust with a pair of KR-2L engines.

A 7.5m -> 5m shrouded adapter with the new M5 would deliver 5375. You may think it will look funny to have a cluster under an adapter, but take a look here and here.

3. 7.5m -> 4x 3.75m (lower stage only, sticks out the sides a little)

(...)

#3 would feel slightly anemic, currently. You could put four of the SLS quad-engines (KS-25x4) under there for a total of 12800 thrust, but they might clip into one another (depending on the spacing in the adapter), or get only 10k thrust (same as the R5) with four of the KR-2Ls.

#3 could be beefed up a little by adding one more engine, a 3.75m engine that is larger and more powerful than the existing 3.75m engines. Speaking hypothetically, if an engine with a bell that is about 3.7m across were added, with a sea-level ISP of about 263, and high thrust, it would be a lot like the Rocketdyne F-1. It doesn't need to have 6700 thrust or so, like the real world equivalent, but even at 4000 the quad-adapter would allow 16k of thrust. And with such a low (but realistic for RP-1 fuel) ISP, it would still make other choices competitive.

Again, R5 would deliver a comfortable 14250 at 7.5m, and R9 a whopping 25650

Please don't add another engine. The reason I like SpaceY is exactly the pack's simplicity and sleekness. Very Elon Musk-ey. I was also getting worried by the proliferation of parts, just like Noio. I don't use MRS or any of the other "expansions" because they are so cluttered with (at times, overlapping) parts. Besides, what would you call it? "Elephant"?!

Here is a summary of the current situation and my suggestion, color coded according to my old suggestion.

Something entirely different: We never took a look at code and SRB names. I think SRBs should stay just codes, as they don't have "personality" like the engines do. However, all the codes are too too long and unpronounceable:

• Move dimensions from the title to the description text. (This applies to engines too. Kiwi, I am looking at you.)
  
• Engines:
  
  • title = SpaceY K1 "Kiwi" Engine
    
  • title = SpaceY M1 "Moa" Heavy Lift Engine
    
  • title = SpaceY R1 "Ratite" Super Heavy Lift Engine
    
  • title = SpaceY M5 "Moa" Heavy Lift Engine Cluster
    
  • title = SpaceY M9 "Moa" Heavy Lift Engine Cluster
    
  • title = SpaceY R5 "Ratite" Super Heavy Lift Engine Cluster
    
  • title = SpaceY R9 "Ratite" Super Heavy Lift Engine Cluster
    

  [*]SRBs:

  • title = SpaceY S109 Heavy Lift Solid Rocket Booster
    
  • title = SpaceY S115 Heavy Lift Solid Rocket Booster
    
  • title = SpaceY S211 Super Heavy Lift Solid Rocket Booster
    
  • title = SpaceY S217 Super Heavy Lift Solid Rocket Booster
    
  • title = SpaceY S223 Super Heavy Lift Solid Rocket Booster
    

  [*]The Ejectatron is large enough to be a side-mounted booster for probes:

  • title = SpaceY S01 "Ejectatron" Solid Rocket Booster
    

Edited December 17, 2014 by NBZ
Added summary table and more

[NecroBones]

Yeah, this is why I wanted to start this discussion. I've seen several requests for 7.5m parts, but there's also the desire from a lot of people to keep things simple and streamlined, and more focused in purpose. So I definitely want to tread carefully if extending the reach of the SpaceY pack.

I get why some people might be hesitant to use MRS and similar packs. I get turned off by packs that "take over" your parts list. MRS is relatively gentle about it, since most of the parts fill in a gap, or offer a 1:1 alternative to stock with a different appearance. One of the things that prompted me to make it, actually, was just the fact that I didn't like the stock appearance of the X200-32 fuel tank (the half-jumbo), since it looks like a steel oil drum.

NBZ, I like the naming suggestions. I may just go ahead and add those in. The thrust/size rebalancing is intriguing. Some of it looks good right away (425 on the Kiwi for instance, which I may also do right away). The upper end of that of course assumes 7.5 and 10m become options, which of course isn't decided yet. But I think that's a pretty solid, well thought out look at it.

I guess part of the question also comes down to: Is there currently a need for bigger diameter parts? Now that we have people making space shuttles with the Mk3 parts, the larger SRBs and 5m boosters will probably be useful to a lot of people. I'm just having a hard time thinking of use-cases for 7.5m and 10m right now, other than just having bigger rockets, or eliminating radial boosters altogether.

[NecroBones]

Thinking on this a little more-- I think right now let's keep 7.5m+ scales as hypothetical ideas for now. In the future, we can either add them directly, decide not to do it at all, or make it a separate supplemental pack.

But thinking on it a bit, I think it's possible to keep the Ratites the same size they are now, and make an R9 at 7.5m. It's possible they may need to stick out the sides slightly, and/or require narrowing the bells a little, but it should be doable. When building a clustered engine, it's easier to pack them in closer together than you can with just the attachment nodes for existing standard-diameter engines. But right now my inclination is to shelve the 7.5m scale for the short term.

However, if we're going to be forward-thinking, it might be good to look into some slight buffs to the engine thrusts that we have, as discussed above. I didn't realize how close together some of the numbers were until seeing your charts above, NBZ. I don't mind so much with the M5 vs KS-25x4, since the M5 is an upper-stage engine and isn't competing for precisely the same niche. But having the R1 identical to the KR-1x2 LFB? What I'm tempted to do here is boost the R-series engines as a result, but maybe not all the way up to the average of around 2800. If we went to 2400 (still under the KR-2L, but above the stock 2.5m engines), for example, the R5 would be 12k, which is a reasonable number at this scale I think. And then that circles me back to wanting to boost the Moas as well, so as not to widen the gaps. And again, if we went with something a little less than the average, maybe 900 for the M1, we could put the M5 in the 4000-4500 ballpark, and the M9 in the 8000-ish range. (right now the M5 has a lower thrust than 5/9 of the M9, making up for it with better ISP).

This could let us try it out and see how these changes affect things, before (maybe) going higher (or not).

I have the K1 bumped up to 425 already for the next update.

Thoughts?