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

[inigma]

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

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

http://i.imgur.com/SJbJG7F.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Mt7auvq.jpg

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!

Thank you so much for this! I am adding your guide to the OP right away!

[inigma]

Can't wait until this evening. Can anyone confirm if STS-4 still flies in 1.0?

[Araym]

Sad...

Tested STS-4 on KSP 1.0, cargo empty, basic fueled as we used as empty:

- Kerbal Engineering gives to me the idea that it has not enough fuel

- booster's engines are now less powerfull at sea level than the 3 SSME

As result, mostly from the second point, as soon release launch clamps (and even before I can perform the roll program to point my tail at navball 90°), it point horizontally to the sea then........ SBAM.... it crashes on the shores...

Enough said, I couldn't figure "aerodynamically" if the old "double layer" wings still work...

[Columbia]

Sad...

Tested STS-4 on KSP 1.0, cargo empty, basic fueled as we used as empty:

- Kerbal Engineering gives to me the idea that it has not enough fuel

- booster's engines are now less powerfull at sea level than the 3 SSME

As result, mostly from the second point, as soon release launch clamps (and even before I can perform the roll program to point my tail at navball 90°), it point horizontally to the sea then........ SBAM.... it crashes on the shores...

Enough said, I couldn't figure "aerodynamically" if the old "double layer" wings still work...

That sounds.. terrible, Araym. Hopefully STS-5 could find a way.

(Damn you, KSP unrealistic gimballing!)

[Darth Lazarus]

the main problem will be teh rebalance of all engines in KSP v1.0 the booster engine are now considered "upper stage engines." this means that their ISP and thrust is lower in atmosphere so the thrst is pretty low ...

new boosters or maybe an engine cluster (two mainsails per boosterS?) is needed.

[Snakedoctor15]

Quick test replaced booster engines with S3 KS-25x4 and limited them to 80% thrust since the're ~3800 ISP to get them to what the old engines were. Not the single engines so a little less accurate but only SAS and making sure she stays where you want her pointed was able to roll and fly no problem.

-Update-

With that and heading 45 degrees at about 7k boosters cut out when Ap hits 89k. Booster Jettison breaks the ship but can be fixed if you remove one set of Seperons from the bottom.

All of that with the settings for an empty bay and an able to get into a stable orbit.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Going for the Commander Qualification so hopefully this will qualify (If I can land without burning up on re-entry).

Edited April 28, 2015 by Snakedoctor15

[inigma]

Thanks snakedoctor. Replacing the booster engines with 80% throttle S3 KS-25x4 engine clusters is a quick and easy "fix" for the STS-4, although less than elegant. I made it to 200km orbit easy without any maxq issues as long as you stay at 2/3 power until sometime after booster sep at about 25+ km. I made a 200km orbit and landing back at KSC. And with your suggestion, you've already earned your Commander's wings, Commander. Good job!

Also the STS-4 survives reentry intact... but the control of the orbiter is ... shall we say ... um ... none until you catch enough air to pull out of a stall. Then she glides all the way to where you want to land her.

The shuttle needs tweaking obviously, but at least your flight and my flight are proof of concept that the thing still works. Right even.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I took a video, but all it shows me is my flopping around on reentry and barely making it through alive and in one piece. heh.

Now it's time to test my solid booster design I was hanging onto from Feb.

Edited April 28, 2015 by inigma

[Sampa]

I might also suggest you take advantage of that new tail fin that Squad was so kind to provide us with instead of the one you currently have! Just my 2 cents!

[Angelo Kerman]

Sad to see that the existing design is having issues in 1.0, but no doubt Inigma can figure out a solution. I did manage to complete my challenge before 1.0 though. Was a welcome change from building mods. Final episode of STS:

[inigma]

I might also suggest you take advantage of that new tail fin that Squad was so kind to provide us with instead of the one you currently have! Just my 2 cents!

um...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

you might be right Sampa.

[inigma]

- - - Updated - - -

Sad to see that the existing design is having issues in 1.0, but no doubt Inigma can figure out a solution. I did manage to complete my challenge before 1.0 though. Was a welcome change from building mods. Final episode of STS:

Saw that! Will respond in the Challenges thread once I get my bearings! Awesome job!

[inigma]

Figured out why my abort failed. Shuttle was carrying a 42 ton fuel pod in the bay and I probably should have emptied it before reentry.

[inigma]

New videos posted to OP by Angel-124 and totalitor.

[Columbia]

Inigma, according to the description of the new Shuttle wings, they're able to survive heat, and from conducting a few glide tests, they glide pretty decently (with proper trimming, of course.)

After seeing the troubles that happened with the Shuttle reentering, I thought those wings would be a good solution..

So maybe it's possible to replace the wings with those? It could help reduce part count as well.

And also, following the parachutes overhaul, planes can now use chutes to slow down, so it might be possible to do that to the orbiter.

Thanks! Good luck with the restoration of Intrepid.

[trooperMNG]

Inigma, according to the description of the new Shuttle wings, they're able to survive heat, and from conducting a few glide tests, they glide pretty decently (with proper trimming, of course.)

After seeing the troubles that happened with the Shuttle reentering, I thought those wings would be a good solution..

So maybe it's possible to replace the wings with those? It could help reduce part count as well.

And also, following the parachutes overhaul, planes can now use chutes to slow down, so it might be possible to do that to the orbiter.

Thanks! Good luck with the restoration of Intrepid.

quote. It could be a nice solution. The double-layer wings are almost useless now, also give a try to the new landing gears

[Tydeth]

I've liked the design of the NASA-accurate shuttle inigma made, though I never downloaded it for use since my .90 save was a mod-heavy career mode with no "stock" vehicles difficulty setting... and the fact that I hadn't needed a Space Shuttle for anything.

Since 1.0 hit and would necessitate a new save anyway, I decided to give building one of my own a go. I used the screenshots in the OP and Google Image search results for "space shuttle" for the references. I'll need to get a screenshot or three of the thing pre-launch, but I was at the time too busy trying to get the launch to actually work. It kept wanting to nosedive shortly ater leaving the pad.

Below is the first time I got mine to orbit:

http://i.imgur.com/HCqqGJF.png

To keep the realistic as possible form factor and still maintain control I installed 20 SAS units in the main tank

I can see why, after having the thing constantly trying to torque forward every time it left the launch pad after a few seconds of flight. I don't think I put quite 20 in there, but there are a couple of the 3.5m SAS/battery units on the tank which slightly lengthen it (I was initially trying to go without hidden SAS). The first time I got it to finally fly stable enough to reach SRB separation, I went straight for the orbit.

Re-entry... well, that didn't go as well as the launch.

http://i.imgur.com/IHj8RTa.png

The front-half parts of the wings went bye-bye, and it stalled and flipped like an acrobatic brick, but most of it survived to emergency land in the water (I overshot KSC by kilometers; I think that's actually the same exact spot of water as in the previous screenshot) with those parachutes I added for Kerbal safety. I'm uncertain if a payload would have made it since I flew empty for this test.

In short, the new wings do work for this type of vehicle. They just might not make it out of re-entry intact, though they fared much better than the STS-4 in that video. If you want, I can upload my shuttle for your perusal, though I'm not sure how much help my wing setup might be in your refit for STS-5.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Tydeth

[inigma]

After playing with new mk3 wing, im about ready to ditch it and simply keep a simpler version of the STS-4 wings. The tail I can use. the STS-4 wings work fine for reentry. they just blew up in the video because I had a full fuel depot in the bay i forgot to eject prior to reentry causing me to lose control of the vehicle and thus burn the leading edge of the wings leading to loss of wing parts and further loss of control until velocities ripped the shuttle apart.

For now I'm going to release an STS-5 version cleaned up for 1.0 (new booster engines and other tweaks), since the vehicle meets performance requirements, but the flight profile is now different (2/3 throttle for most of the launch for safe orbital insertion). I might do further part tweaks to reduce part count (as thats one of my initial goals with 1.0) and see if my solid boosters might work now as a subassembly.

Ive flown several missions of my currently modified STS-4 without reentry heating as severe as shown in the video. I think the mass of the cargo in the vehicle heavily played a part in it its demise. It would have doomed it in .90 anyways.

Edited April 30, 2015 by inigma

[inigma]

Yup, no mk3 wing connectors makes using the mk3 wing near impossible to look good and fly well with future STS versions. Someday... but for now it looks like I'll be releasing STS-5 with slightly modified STS-4 wings (to ease on part count).

I'll be testing solid boosters after I publish STS-5, and possibly release them with STS-6.

[pTrevTrevs]

Will the new medium/large landing gear be used on the new shuttle?

[inigma]

Will the new medium/large landing gear be used on the new shuttle?

most likely. recessed though. i havent tested them yet. have had no time. will have time this weekend i hope.

[inigma]

STS-5 looking good...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

265 parts empty bay. 17 less than STS-4. Modified wings and tail since not as much wing is needed, and current mk3 wings and tail, in my opinion, are aesthetically inferior. This is more of a compatibility release anyways. Even then it's a major balance redesign still in progress. Still more balancing as I am not satisfied with some torque values yet in the new aero (or maybe im still discovering what works best). Waiting for RCS Build Aid to port to 1.0 to do major values tweaking. For now, this has the same relative performance characteristics as STS-4. The new aero really is a challenge and will take some getting used to since you slice through the air like butter (or is that air?). New flight profile requires g-turn at 16k and finishing by 25 to dump the boosters. Throttle management may be a reality now for inexperienced pilots so you don't sheer your shuttle apart, though I've flown both light and heavy bays with two third and full throttle. Just takes practice. Not as newb friendly as STS-4 but that was mainly due to old areo keeping most of the flight very stable - and exploiting that. This one flies more...real. Respect the air and you will have a good time.

Added drogue, and added emergency parachute for all those times I lost the orbiter due to aero forces sheering the craft apart when I over correct and gave up and went into flat spins or just to see it all explode. New landing gear are too big for aesthetics. Kept old landing gear. Fixed external tank sep to prevent collisions. I really wanted the tail. Truth is, it's more hassle to use it than modifying a custom tail that performs far better.

I'm pretty happy with what the STS is now. Just want to see if RCS Build Aid comes out so I can improve her just a little more.

Hope to release later this weekend as I've got dozens of private requests so far.

I'll be experimenting with solids for STS-6 or 7 after STS-5 release.

Edited May 2, 2015 by inigma

[DMSP]

STS-5 looking good...

http://imgur.com/a/6MEeS

265 parts empty bay. 17 less than STS-4. Modified wings and tail since not as much wing is needed, and current mk3 wings, in my opinion, are aesthetically inferior. This is a compatibility release. Even then it's a major balance redesign still in progress. Still more balancing as I am not satisfied with some torque values yet in the new aero (or maybe im still discovering what works best). Waiting for RCS Build Aid to port to 1.0 to do major values tweaking. For now, this has the same relative performance characteristics as STS-4. The new aero really is a challenge and will take some getting used to since you slice through the air like butter (or is that air?). New flight profile requires g-turn at 16k and finishing by 25 to dump the boosters. Throttle management may be a reality now for inexperienced pilots so you don't sheer your shuttle apart, though I've flown both light and heavy with two third and full throttle. Just takes practice. Not as newb friendly as STS-4 but that was mainly due to old areo keeping most of the flight very stable - and exploiting that.

Added drogue, and added emergency parachute for all those times I lost the orbiter due to aero forces sheering the craft apart when I over correct. New landing gear are too big for aesthetics. Kept old landing gear. Fixed external tank sep to prevent collisions.

I'm pretty happy with what it is now. Just want to see if RCS Build Aid comes out so I can improve her just a little more.

Hope to release later this weekend as I've got dozens of private requests so far.

I'll be experimenting with solids for STS-6 or 7 after STS-5 release.

What a nice looking shuttle!

I was going to download the STS-4 and then 1.0 came out. I had used it before but you might remember my save failed.

I can't wait for the STS-5 because I will have a proven lift system.

Thanks for everything!

DMSP

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, you take requests?

[inigma]

i read all requests. very rarely though i hand out prototypes as im a perfectionist. but if someone is really really desperate I do. Expect STS-5 no later than Sunday night.

[DMSP]

i read all requests. very rarely though i hand out prototypes as im a perfectionist. but if someone is really really desperate I do. Expect STS-5 no later than Sunday night.

Alright, awesome!

I don't even know what I want to request...

How about...

Nothing

You rock!

DMSP

[Columbia]

Great to see STS-5's almost finished!

(I still despise the KR-2L nerf!)