STS-7/E Space Shuttle (Stock NASA Replica) Still Flies in KSP 1.4.3 - Re-enters Like the Real Thing!

[Araym]

"Failure is NOT an option!"

This was heard at K.A.S.A. (my own "Kerbal Administration of Space Adventures"), in every engineer office and at our astronaut training facility, when Inigma reported that our proposed, new, wing design for an STS-5 flew "like a brick"...

Werner didn't sleep any day up to today...

Gene yelled at our kerbonauts more than usually, on every mission, up to forget our "MIR replica in space" (poor Jeb and Bill, left in orbit waiting any news)

Even Bob (a scientist) volunteer (?!?) to fly as commander of flight tests, to check our more promising recruits promoted to "test pilots"...

... then after 2 days of works...

THE ENLIGHTMENT!

Based on the finest designs up to date:

- Inigma's space shuttle orbiter main body, central fuel tank and boosters

- Darth Lazarus's tail

- Araym's wings

K.A.S.A. is now proud to introduce to you our proposal for the next STS-5 evolution:

the STS-5 "Andrea Doria"

Javascript is disabled. View full album

http://imgur.com/a/ZUJbK

Notable features:

- SAME lifting abilities like STS-4 (42 tons to orbit, fully fueled)

- capable (orbiter only) to glide and land with 20 tons cargo (roughly... our engineering team is still figuring Max landing payload)

- FULL COMPATIBLE with ALL already, released, STS-4 subassembly payloads

- Sharing allmost the same STS-4's flights profiles and fuel loads x payload tonnage (NO new training required for your kerbonauts), but (at least for my end) probably a better glide profile on landing approach (it feels lighter to manouver)

- improved Orbiter's OMS mileage (a bit more of RCS fuel - 2 tanks right behind OMS engines - 1 x side, inside the cilindrical mk.1 empty fuselage, manageable by clicking - in flight too - two protruding little black squares surfacing x side)

Engineer notes:

my wings were not lifting capable like inigma's one (i did some maths on lifting surfaces), so to balance the "Andrea Doria", I had to change the cockpit inside-clipped tailwing, and add a couple more lifting-capable surfaced things (clipped inside too) on the rear RCS tanks too...

Differently done than this, and the "brick" feature return in all his allmightly destruction on landing.

SO, like (probably) the STS-4 (that used, even with differently balanced/different parts, the same feature), as a STOCK player I find my STS-5 totally airworthy, BUT it could be VERY NASTY on mods like FAR or NEAR (for more realistic atmosphere) or on future v.1.0 KSP with improved aerodynamics.

THIS is JUST ONLY A COSMETIC CHANGE, mostly, for STOCK 0.90 KSP mechanics.

After engine ignition, using mentioned above mods, garranties are VOID and I decline ANY responsabilities

To Download and further tests:

Click Here

Edited April 19, 2015 by Araym

[borisperrons]

Let's hope there's no asteroid Stockholm out there when it makes its flights...

[Araym]

Let's hope there's no asteroid Stockholm out there when it makes its flights...

LOL

An asteroid is more suited if I called it Titanic

... but as I had already a modified STS-4 (my first shuttle used on an actual project) called "Kolumbus" after Cristoforo Colombo (and to honor the first flying actual Space Shuttle "Columbia"), as a proud italian, the next name must be the great italian admiral from the city where I live in Italy

And by the way, I'll try to avoid any Swedish designed ship in my saves, flying it

[borisperrons]

Pfff, scrub.

We all know Andrea Doria was born in Imperia. More specifically in the house where my favourite ice cream lady lives today.

[Darth Lazarus]

so, KSP v1.0 is around the corner. i'm very excited to test the new aeromodel and all the new parts. i hope the new landiggears will be good...

inigma, i will use solid boosters (clustered long srb's) for my shuttle. but the cargocapaticity will be reduced to 20 or 30 tons.

[Columbia]

"Failure is NOT an option!"

This was heard at K.A.S.A. (my own "Kerbal Administration of Space Adventures"), in every engineer office and at our astronaut training facility, when Inigma reported that our proposed, new, wing design for an STS-5 flew "like a brick"...

Werner didn't sleep any day up to today...

Gene yelled at our kerbonauts more than usually, on every mission, up to forget our "MIR replica in space" (poor Jeb and Bill, left in orbit waiting any news)

Even Bob (a scientist) volunteer (?!?) to fly as commander of flight tests, to check our more promising recruits promoted to "test pilots"...

... then after 2 days of works...

THE ENLIGHTMENT!

Based on the finest designs up to date:

- Inigma's space shuttle orbiter main body, central fuel tank and boosters

- Darth Lazarus's tail

- Araym's wings

K.A.S.A. is now proud to introduce to you our proposal for the next STS-5 evolution:

the STS-5 "Andrea Doria"

http://imgur.com/a/ZUJbK

http://imgur.com/a/ZUJbK

Notable features:

- SAME lifting abilities like STS-4 (42 tons to orbit, fully fueled)

- capable (orbiter only) to glide and land with 20 tons cargo (roughly... our engineering team is still figuring Max landing payload)

- FULL COMPATIBLE with ALL already, released, STS-4 subassembly payloads

- Sharing allmost the same STS-4's flights profiles and fuel loads x payload tonnage (NO new training required for your kerbonauts), but (at least for my end) probably a better glide profile on landing approach (it feels lighter to manouver)

- improved Orbiter's OMS mileage (a bit more of RCS fuel - 2 tanks right behind OMS engines - 1 x side, inside the cilindrical mk.1 empty fuselage, manageable by clicking - in flight too - two protruding little black squares surfacing x side)

Engineer notes:

my wings were not lifting capable like inigma's one (i did some maths on lifting surfaces), so to balance the "Andrea Doria", I had to change the cockpit inside-clipped tailwing, and add a couple more lifting-capable surfaced things (clipped inside too) on the rear RCS tanks too...

Differently done than this, and the "brick" feature return in all his allmightly destruction on landing.

SO, like (probably) the STS-4 (that used, even with differently balanced/different parts, the same feature), as a STOCK player I find my STS-5 totally airworthy, BUT it could be VERY NASTY on mods like FAR or NEAR (for more realistic atmosphere) or on future v.1.0 KSP with improved aerodynamics.

THIS is JUST ONLY A COSMETIC CHANGE, mostly, for STOCK 0.90 KSP mechanics.

After engine ignition, using mentioned above mods, garranties are VOID and I decline ANY responsabilities

To Download and further tests:

Click Here

Wow.. that looks fabulous!

I love how you combined the three shuttles to make one amazing Space Shuttle.. Hopefully Inigma likes it as well.

Kudos!

[inigma]

"Failure is NOT an option!"

This was heard at K.A.S.A. (my own "Kerbal Administration of Space Adventures"), in every engineer office and at our astronaut training facility, when Inigma reported that our proposed, new, wing design for an STS-5 flew "like a brick"...

Werner didn't sleep any day up to today...

Gene yelled at our kerbonauts more than usually, on every mission, up to forget our "MIR replica in space" (poor Jeb and Bill, left in orbit waiting any news)

Even Bob (a scientist) volunteer (?!?) to fly as commander of flight tests, to check our more promising recruits promoted to "test pilots"...

... then after 2 days of works...

THE ENLIGHTMENT!

Based on the finest designs up to date:

- Inigma's space shuttle orbiter main body, central fuel tank and boosters

- Darth Lazarus's tail

- Araym's wings

K.A.S.A. is now proud to introduce to you our proposal for the next STS-5 evolution:

the STS-5 "Andrea Doria"

http://imgur.com/a/ZUJbK

http://imgur.com/a/ZUJbK

Notable features:

- SAME lifting abilities like STS-4 (42 tons to orbit, fully fueled)

- capable (orbiter only) to glide and land with 20 tons cargo (roughly... our engineering team is still figuring Max landing payload)

- FULL COMPATIBLE with ALL already, released, STS-4 subassembly payloads

- Sharing allmost the same STS-4's flights profiles and fuel loads x payload tonnage (NO new training required for your kerbonauts), but (at least for my end) probably a better glide profile on landing approach (it feels lighter to manouver)

- improved Orbiter's OMS mileage (a bit more of RCS fuel - 2 tanks right behind OMS engines - 1 x side, inside the cilindrical mk.1 empty fuselage, manageable by clicking - in flight too - two protruding little black squares surfacing x side)

Engineer notes:

my wings were not lifting capable like inigma's one (i did some maths on lifting surfaces), so to balance the "Andrea Doria", I had to change the cockpit inside-clipped tailwing, and add a couple more lifting-capable surfaced things (clipped inside too) on the rear RCS tanks too...

Differently done than this, and the "brick" feature return in all his allmightly destruction on landing.

SO, like (probably) the STS-4 (that used, even with differently balanced/different parts, the same feature), as a STOCK player I find my STS-5 totally airworthy, BUT it could be VERY NASTY on mods like FAR or NEAR (for more realistic atmosphere) or on future v.1.0 KSP with improved aerodynamics.

THIS is JUST ONLY A COSMETIC CHANGE, mostly, for STOCK 0.90 KSP mechanics.

After engine ignition, using mentioned above mods, garranties are VOID and I decline ANY responsabilities

To Download and further tests:

Click Here

Awesome, amazing, woot woot job!

I tested it, and flew the prototype. Glides really well. I'll have to keep playing with adjusting some parts, but overall very good design.

The engine core is bouncy on ignition and stop. This is because the core is attached not to the cargo bay but to the SAS modules. I had to re-do the attachment.

Main concerns: rear hidden canards tend to pop out on pull up, so I lowered them so they don't stick out.

The STS 107 Space Hab module, and any module that attaches to the rear of the bay actually breaks fuel flow because when you created your stack, you reattached the fuel line to the cargo bay, and not the monoprop tank. This unfortunately breaks fuel flow at anytime the rear cargo attachment point is used for cargo. I ran into this in STS-2. STS-3 fixed it. I fixed it for this prototype, but its not centered like STS-4 is, so I will probably work on that in my next update.

With the above issues fixed, I present to you the STS-5 Space Shuttle Prototype Inayla: MediaFire Download

The Inayla prototype name is a combination of Inigma, Araym, and Darth Lazarus.

I am wary about part counts too, so I might try to remove a few internal wing parts if possible.

The gliding control with the SpaceHab module in the bay (defaulted in the download with appropriate fuel amounts), is about 8% more sluggish than the STS-4, and comes down heavier as a result requiring a massive flare for safe landing. Looks more realistic though than the STS-4 hyperglide though, so with some more tweaking I think we can find the right balance.

Consider your wings now formally accepted into the STS-5 community development prototype. I did notice though that your composite wings are not rooted to the top wings, unless I maybe messed something up attempting to re-root the engine core to the bay. Feel free to take a look and modify the prototype. The Inayla represents our main branch. Feel free to name any other submitted STS-5 prototypes as necessary as you wish.

My next goals are to figure out a better ET/shuttle sep, maybe with a hidden low powered separaton... Thankfully the shuttle is modular enough that if someone works on part of it, we should be able to assemble multiple prototype changes into the main branch without issue.

Awesome work.

Oh and Laz, feel free to share your booster idea. If you could make boosters work with the current STS-4 or STS-5 engine angles and simply create a Tank&Booster combo that we can subassemble into the prototype and offer it as a separate sub for those wanting solids, let me know! I was waiting to work on solids myself until after 1.0, but feel free.

Edited April 19, 2015 by inigma

[Araym]

I'm very curious about your "fix", just because, as you being the real creator of this beautiful project, it surelly gained some advantages...

For the "popping out canards" from the inside, as a prototypoe, I tried just to figure out the necessary "lift" that my wings were missing.

The use of canards/elevon comes from some of my "unknown planes" (that I used a lot on a big -a lot big: it's 2x longer mk.3 bay - cargo plane) to fix their stability: in reality, I add the small elevons... here I chosed to avoid adding too much of them (my poor laptop cries on multiple launches, crashing every 1 or 2... so an actual better pc sure could help in development...)

The "fuel line" problem it's, obviously, spotted by the "leader project architect" (you, Inigma ), and beside for me it was just a pain to understand how the rest of the line worked (reverse engineering is a pain ), cuz designing the orbiter, then add later the tank+booster stack always broke it (in the end, I started by making the orbiter the sub assembly, then add it to a tank+booster being the root section, then swapping the root to the cockpit only after fusion... untill I got that pop out the small hardpoint from tanks, add the fuel line, then put them back inside was easier and fuel lines were preserved. LOL

In some of those recostruction, probably come out the misplaced end section of the fuel line. Good catch by you

I'll going to look now at your revised version... at least to learn better how to engineer future creation (your shuttle is a very nice school )

... but after looking the latest news about 1.0, I'm a bit (A LOT) curious also to those "mk.3 wings" Squad are going to release: they are bigger not only as lifting surface, but in their section too, so working to add them more actual mk.2 wings (to complete a shuttle-looking wing) could be a problem, aside to having probably with them a very "shuttle look-alike" tail that could ease the part count...

... guessing if the only one showed here has, maybe, some different shaped brother wings:

But for the moment: back to fly this "Inayla"

Wanna test it immediately

Edited April 20, 2015 by Araym

[Araym]

Noticed a couple of issue, as soon I take the Inayla for a spin:

1- a SAS from the cockpit was clipped outside the the cockpit itself, belly side: moved a bit inside, but probably is needed a check to realign with the whole SAS block (you know better your stacking procedure, Inigma, I left to check it to you for refinements)...

2- not so pleased by the "double wing" being separate, and difficoult to move, eventually: changed a bit the subassembly. Now ALL the wing is rooted on the upper side, rectangular, "Wing type A" part, so, if needed, it could be removed without needs to realign the pancaked double layer...

3- doing so, I found a couple of struts not needed, nested between wing parts (I forgot them, probably, in various setting phases before the old, first, subassembly I sent you - the "brick one", to let you understand )

4- added a bit more of lift capability on the wings, meanwhile I was redesigning them (in the rear portion, inside the main RCS tanks: I was ispired by those in the same position on your STS-4, noticed it in further retro-engineering).

5- slightly moved the cockpit, inside-clipped, tailwing: it was lightly out in the cargo bay, right under the attachment node. I caught it by chance, moving stuffs and payloads to the node...

I tested the changes on a "go to a 250km circular orbit-then land after 1 orbit" flight with STS-107 SpaceHab as cargo: at 4km altitude, I overshot the KSP, passing over it, but I had plenty of capability to turn over sea, plunge the nose down to lower altitude further, and safely resume a gliding profile and land with not particulary issue (eventually, I came a bit higher on landing again - I was too conservative on altitude -, but even pitching down and correcting the gliding profile to land at the last moment, half way the runaway, it wasn't an issue)...

So then, check this new prototype version:

STS-5 prototype Inayla v. 0.01.002

--- morning edit ----

Ideas to further reduce part count (untested):

- replace 4 of the elevon3 inside the cockpit (2 pair), with 1 triangular "canard": loosing 4x0.5 lift surface=2.0, replaced by 2x0.7=1.4 lifting surface... not a big deal, as I added more lift on the rear wing portion. Placed central to the cockpit, in horizontal position, then moved inside, it should not be seen when moving...

Edited April 20, 2015 by Araym

[inigma]

Ok, I fixed the fuel lines and the SAS module offset. Download STS-5 Prototype Avalon: MediaFire

Comparisons between STS-4 Intrepid and STS-5 Prototype Avalon:

This might come down to personal preference, and of course, engineers are always free to run with their own branches.

So here is my take on the two

I LOVE the modular wings idea that the Avalon is testing. However I'm beginning to realize my fear with such a design: wobbly wings. When you pitch up and down on landing, the wings...flap. Nothing that struts can't fix, but again, more struts means more parts.

I am a bit peeved at the wing options that KSP gives us. Your design BEFORE the bay clipping fix was perfect. But to avoid bay clipping, the wings have to jut out more to the sides, giving the Avalon a 70s muff look. heh. Some may prefer it, but it's not as flush as the Intrepid, and if you look at your Architect badge, the profile is more flushed than both.

The Intrepid has filler triangles that just look unprofessional on its wingtips, a problem that can't be avoided if the Intrepid style wings are maintained in a new iteration.

At this point, the Avalon orbiter design requires more parts than the Intrepid to accomplish the same goals, albeit the Avalon has more Monoprop and I can tell that might be a bonus idea to work into the final STS-5 design assuming 1.0 wing parts actually look good and help reduce part count.

All in all the STS-5 Prototype looks great and flies great, but I have to admit its handling is not as good as the STS-4, which is sorta what I was fearing with the new wing design itself. I think if anything, it is worthy of a release as a space shuttle, and worthy to join the STS project on the OP page... but it will need to be listed as a separate download and not a replacement for the STS-4. This means, for now, it's not an STS-5 (let's reserve that for whatever future replacement comes up either now or after 1.0) - but an STS series spinoff craft for sure! You are of course welcome to name it whatever you wish (STS-4 Andrea Doria, or STS Andrea Doria, or Space Shuttle Andrea Doria are all good names!) and maintain it! You definitely have earned your Architect rating!

Keep working on the variant to see if you can eliminate part count, reduce wobblyness (at this point, you're welcome to root the wings back to the bay of course!) and beat the STS-4 on performance and part count. If you can, I will be more than happy to revisit it for an STS-5 listing! Bonus if you find a way to reduce the wing muff and fit the NASA profile better than the Intrepid I will of course be more than happy to provide input and prototype fixes!

Well done so far! I am impressed!

Edited April 20, 2015 by inigma

[Araym]

Returned from my job now, and just downloaded your "revision", for eventually let it fly on the night...

... before that, I have not any issue to see the Andrea Doria/Inayla/Avalon or whatever it could be called "rejected" as a real "STS-5"

Your STS-4, Inigma, up to date, as an user from early KSP 0.14 or 0.15 (I do not remember ) is still, for me, the BEST flying shuttle I ever used...

... and I probably NEVER had the capability to do any similar on my own, from scratches.

I felt hyped to "help a new release", just because I coincidentally made little changes to STS-4 in my modded game (you saw those, for the MIR assembly I'm playing ),and took my last days trying to give you new "ideas", rather than "change your shuttle".

As you finally noted (and, knowing KSP, you find it still from my early, first, posted subassembly) I was probably already aware that a wing totally rooted on the back could have (and actually it have) some wobbling issues...

... also, I found VERY DIFFICOULT to balance my wings, to recreate the same STS-4 capability: less total lifting surface... probably, as STOCK KSP sometime is misterious about how measure the lifting point, your "half back wing" separated by those little "forward wing strakes" made A LOT of differences.

For a STOCK release, up to date, I find your STS-4 superior...

... for my own pleasure, I'm actually happy to have eventually gave you future ideas for a further evolution to a REAL STS-5 (I added those two more rcs tank just as i thought "if i was clipping some more fuel in an already fuel tank, it's a cheat... but those are hollow structures, empty space that could be used").

My "ignorance" is, starting, about not knowing the "reference NASA Shuttle flying profile" you are using: for me, as I can glide it from space to the runaway it's good as "a shuttle". I found my prototype capable to keep a "nose up" during "the hot-plasma moment" of the reentry (all i know about the shuttle reentry ) and (after the later modification, not the first "brick making a crater") then capable to land safely, even if i was precise to the runaway and even if i overshot it (going short, with a glider is "not good" )...

--- If i does not bother you maybe send me a PM about it: I like to learn new stuff, and as a reference, keep it to check, eventually, if I'm going to further refine this "Avalon-prototype" ---

Second: I have a VERY CRAP PC. Flying your STS-4 (or any of my prototype) means a crash just after landing, if i start from out of the VAB, selecting a craft from the launchpad... or directly a crash if I was in the VAB and launching an already loaded vessel...

Third (and to worse the second point), I actually NOT PLAYING STOCK. I like a LOT KSP, but I still feeling a stock play "missing" a lot of things. On my end, I probably refine further a "better shuttle", but TOTALLY it will not EVER be a "stock". In this, I try to avoid "cheaty mods" (example: some of my "must to have mods" are the Tantares ones, but I HEAVY .cgf edited them to lower performance more on stock as reference.

That is why I'm almost never in the Spacecraft Exchange: I could share, sometimes, an idea, but what I actually have on my game is some sort of "irreproducible" to other user, as I have a selection of parts maybe even downloaded from some mods, but generally almost never they stay as released... and also, I have some "doubles" of stock parts fullfilling different roles than those in a "pure stock game".

Fourth: 1.0 is coming. Like you, I know that anything I'm using now will probably survive the new game. I left my career game as it is for the same: probably, on my end, the "Avalon prototype" will become the basis for an actual shuttle I'll use for now, just to play with it, but after a "not stock pass".

Allowing myself to go as I usually play, all STS-4 rcs are easily swappable with "one part only"... the issue about "add 2 struts on the wing" is not an issue in my games: 2+ parts when i can go down at least 30 parts in other places is a net gain...

That does not mean I'm giving up about THIS design we shared in the last days: as i stated in this message, I'll like to know in details about the "flying profile" you are trying to reproduce with STS-4.

I'll eventually like to know better some "construction tecniques" you used on your shuttles (example: How you rooted those SAS, as you spotted immediately that in some change, i misplaced the engine section...) because I sucked a lot as "retro-engineer", because... uhm... I feel there are margin of improvement in the prototype, but if I moved to check some parts, I was never capable to put in place as they were...

I'm very grateful of your attention: for sure, your spin of the "Avalon" made me proud... take it like a very, less, gifted padawan (me) receiving an attention from a VERY gifted master.

Only the idea to had shared some thoughts for an YOUR future release of an STS-5 make me happy

Thank you for your GREAT STS-4: I'll look with hope your, real, future STS-5

Edited April 20, 2015 by Araym

[inigma]

Returned from my job now, and just downloaded your "revision", for eventually let it fly on the night...

... before that, I have not any issue to see the Andrea Doria/Inayla/Avalon or whatever it could be called "rejected" as a real "STS-5"

Your STS-4, Inigma, up to date, as an user from early KSP 0.14 or 0.15 (I do not remember ) is still, for me, the BEST flying shuttle I ever used...

... and I probably NEVER had the capability to do any similar on my own, from scratches.

I felt hyped to "help a new release", just because I coincidentally made little changes to STS-4 in my modded game (you saw those, for the MIR assembly I'm playing ),and took my last days trying to give you new "ideas", rather than "change your shuttle".

As you finally noted (and, knowing KSP, you find it still from my early, first, posted subassembly) I was probably already aware that a wing totally rooted on the back could have (and actually it have) some wobbling issues...

... also, I found VERY DIFFICOULT to balance my wings, to recreate the same STS-4 capability: less total lifting surface... probably, as STOCK KSP sometime is misterious about how measure the lifting point, your "half back wing" separated by those little "forward wing strakes" made A LOT of differences.

For a STOCK release, up to date, I find your STS-4 superior...

... for my own pleasure, I'm actually happy to have eventually gave you future ideas for a further evolution to a REAL STS-5 (I added those two more rcs tank just as i thought "if i was clipping some more fuel in an already fuel tank, it's a cheat... but those are hollow structures, empty space that could be used").

My "ignorance" is, starting, about not knowing the "reference NASA Shuttle flying profile" you are using: for me, as I can glide it from space to the runaway it's good as "a shuttle". I found my prototype capable to keep a "nose up" during "the hot-plasma moment" of the reentry (all i know about the shuttle reentry ) and (after the later modification, not the first "brick making a crater") then capable to land safely, even if i was precise to the runaway and even if i overshot it (going short, with a glider is "not good" )...

--- If i does not bother you maybe send me a PM about it: I like to learn new stuff, and as a reference, keep it to check, eventually, if I'm going to further refine this "Avalon-prototype" ---

Second: I have a VERY CRAP PC. Flying your STS-4 (or any of my prototype) means a crash just after landing, if i start from out of the VAB, selecting a craft from the launchpad... or directly a crash if I was in the VAB and launching an already loaded vessel...

Third (and to worse the second point), I actually NOT PLAYING STOCK. I like a LOT KSP, but I still feeling a stock play "missing" a lot of things. On my end, I probably refine further a "better shuttle", but TOTALLY it will not EVER be a "stock". In this, I try to avoid "cheaty mods" (example: some of my "must to have mods" are the Tantares ones, but I HEAVY .cgf edited them to lower performance more on stock as reference.

That is why I'm almost never in the Spacecraft Exchange: I could share, sometimes, an idea, but what I actually have on my game is some sort of "irreproducible" to other user, as I have a selection of parts maybe even downloaded from some mods, but generally almost never they stay as released... and also, I have some "doubles" of stock parts fullfilling different roles than those in a "pure stock game".

Fourth: 1.0 is coming. Like you, I know that anything I'm using now will probably survive the new game. I left my career game as it is for the same: probably, on my end, the "Avalon prototype" will become the basis for an actual shuttle I'll use for now, just to play with it, but after a "not stock pass".

Allowing myself to go as I usually play, all STS-4 rcs are easily swappable with "one part only"... the issue about "add 2 struts on the wing" is not an issue in my games: 2+ parts when i can go down at least 30 parts in other places is a net gain...

That does not mean I'm giving up about THIS design we shared in the last days: as i stated in this message, I'll like to know in details about the "flying profile" you are trying to reproduce with STS-4.

I'll eventually like to know better some "construction tecniques" you used on your shuttles (example: How you rooted those SAS, as you spotted immediately that in some change, i misplaced the engine section...) because I sucked a lot as "retro-engineer", because... uhm... I feel there are margin of improvement in the prototype, but if I moved to check some parts, I was never capable to put in place as they were...

I'm very grateful of your attention: for sure, your spin of the "Avalon" made me proud... take it like a very, less, gifted padawan (me) receiving an attention from a VERY gifted master.

Only the idea to had shared some thoughts for an YOUR future release of an STS-5 make me happy

Thank you for your GREAT STS-4: I'll look with hope your, real, future STS-5

No worries! I'm definitely keeping the prototype in my garage for study. I like the wing shape. I'll see if I can't hammer out a compromise design.

Btw, I have a shuttle building guide here I'm drafting still (I've not shared it with anyone yet, but here you go!): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z5XHpF-5PPhzLa9uNVUI-IcXpNYhx62HAqvqRBI5oz8/edit?usp=sharing

[Araym]

... HyperEdit...

... Editor Extension...

... Part Angle Display...

My pc does not allow them added to what I already have

<Araym goes back to his game, where he judges builds "by eyes" and "flying from the ground to the point of a flight he needs to test", crying>

But I'll be back

If my new job will pay as I hope, in a couple of months I'll have a REAL pc... and you'll see what I could do

Edited April 20, 2015 by Araym

[inigma]

... HyperEdit...

... Editor Extension...

... Part Angle Display...

My pc does not allow them added to what I already have

<Araym goes back to his game, where he judges builds "by eyes" and "flying from the ground to the point of a flight he needs to test", crying>

But I'll be back

If my new job will pay I as hope, in a couple of months I'll have a REAL pc... and you'll see what I could do

lol, i hear ya. was over a decade before I scrounged up the cash to buy the parts and build my own pc. It's now 3 years old.

[Columbia]

Inigma, I noticed some things with the shuttle in the aesthetics portion: (These are just suggestions, I still like it either way:))

Maybe the external tank can be updated so that a fairing covers the nose in 1.0? I noticed that the ET tank nose is a little short and blunt compared to the actual Space Shuttle, and - with them being procedural - Maybe you could make it look both pointier and longer.

I also would want to suggest that maybe you could replace the OMS pods with the Mk2 fuselages? I think they provide a better scale with the Shuttle, and provide more fuel too for the OMS.. and maybe look better. (For reference.. Here is Shuttle Columbia's OMS pods.)

Thanks in advance! This is just a suggestion list; It's up to you to what you'll do with the shuttle.

EDIT: I just read the Space Shuttle building guide.. Wow. It's amazing to see the story and processes of one of the greatest builds in the Spacecraft Exchange.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Columbia

[inigma]

Inigma, I noticed some things with the shuttle in the aesthetics portion: (These are just suggestions, I still like it either way:))

Maybe the external tank can be updated so that a fairing covers the nose in 1.0? I noticed that the ET tank nose is a little short and blunt compared to the actual Space Shuttle, and - with them being procedural - Maybe you could make it look both pointier and longer.

I also would want to suggest that maybe you could replace the OMS pods with the Mk2 fuselages? I think they provide a better scale with the Shuttle, and provide more fuel too for the OMS.. and maybe look better. (For reference.. Here is Shuttle Columbia's OMS pods.)

Thanks in advance! This is just a suggestion list; It's up to you to what you'll do with the shuttle.

EDIT: I just read the Space Shuttle building guide.. Wow. It's amazing to see the story and processes of one of the greatest builds in the Spacecraft Exchange.

Thanks for the feedback!

Yes, the mk2 tanks are almost the right.. but heavier, and actually slightly larger . I bummed off the OMS design from Westi's shuttle. I'll consider it though for the post 1.0 release. And yes I hope to see how much better aesthetics 1.0 brings to the next version of the STS.

[DMSP]

I haven't used this shuttle in a while after I had an launch accident that cost me 4 Kerbals.

I'm getting this.

1.0 is coming, and I should use craft like these for the last time.

[inigma]

I haven't used this shuttle in a while after I had an launch accident that cost me 4 Kerbals.

I'm getting this.

1.0 is coming, and I should use craft like these for the last time.

Shuttle accident? Do tell!

[DMSP]

Shuttle accident? Do tell!

Well, it's all my fault, but I had just remembered right before I launched I had a Eeloo mission coming in. I hadn't quick saved, and I knew it was landing at KSC.

Now, out of all the places, guess where it landed?

Right on top of the shuttle. This was about 60 tons btw.

Out of all the times I want to land on the pad...

I hadn't been paying attention because I was watching a SSTO to Dres video by Cupcake.

Oh well, the 4 Kerbals in the shuttle died, but the 6 on the Eeloo one survived.

This was one or two days before my computer crashed and I lost my save.

Dang, it kinda makes me sad thinking about it...

[Columbia]

Inigma, just a status update on the SCA;

It's going well, and the Shuttle can finally separate from the B747 without hitting the tail, unless you do some extreme maneuvering, or have the plane pitched down.

Only problem though is that the B747 - If the shuttle is on it - tends to crash upon landing. I can add even more struts, but that would increase the already deadly part count (388!) so I'm working on that.

The shuttle's tail cone was also removed as you requested, and mountings have been redone.

Here are some pictures:

In this image, the redone mountings are visible.

Feel free to give suggestions! And tell me if you want a craft file, or if I should work on it more.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Columbia

[Zucal]

Columbia, if I were you I'd wait for the new landing gear, wings, and intakes come 1.0 to finish the plane. The new wings alone will help your part count a ton.

[Columbia]

Columbia, if I were you I'd wait for the new landing gear, wings, and intakes come 1.0 to finish the plane. The new wings alone will help your part count a ton.

Well.. I guess you're right; 1.0 is around the corner anyway.

[Zephram Kerman]

Columbia, your SCA is a thing of beauty! If I were you, I would consider 1.0 to be a clean break, and make a final release of the 0.90 version for posterity. The 1.0 version will certainly be quite different and not backwards-compatible.

[Columbia]

Columbia, your SCA is a thing of beauty! If I were you, I would consider 1.0 to be a clean break, and make a final release of the 0.90 version for posterity. The 1.0 version will certainly be quite different and not backwards-compatible.

Oh, thanks! I guess I'll release it myself, but I'd probably have to do it soon because (4DaysLeft!)

Hopefully, it will still work in 1.0 and I still have a chance of redoing it in the update.

[Frannington]

Oh, I have got this. Check out that centreline:

My tips if you're flying by hand:

1) If you're using automation, ignore "Spaceplane Guidance". Instead, use "Landing Guidance" and select the KSC pad. Cancel it once the crosses meet.

2) Come in hot and high. Nothing is as useless as the altitude you don't have. ::Edit:: She's aerodynamic. So if you let the crosses meet, she will overshoot. That's what gives you the wiggle-room when you reach KSC.

3) Use S-turns to get yourself down where you need to be (in other words, do it like NASA did. It's a credit to inigma that this thing behaves so well, though I can't speak to its accuracy having never flown a real Shuttle...)

4) She will want to dive and has an alarming descent rate, so use SAS/thrusters to hold the nose up to bleed off the speed and keep her actually flying.

5) Land her like an airliner, with procedural turns. It's actually easiest to fly past KSC a couple KM to the left of it, then do a base and "upwind" turn.

6) If you get it wrong, the OMS engines have just enough grunt (and fuel) to extend your glide. Use them.

7) Don't hold the nose too high on landing. If you're carrying too much speed, go off the end of the runway. Descent rate is (in this simulation) more important. Those are tiny wheels and won't take anything above 10m/s when they hit the deck.

Hope this helps!

::Edit:: Many thanks for the rep, my friend!

Edited April 23, 2015 by Frannington