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

[SHiftER2O]

Ever thought of redoing the wings to lessen part count?

[Araym]

Does anyone have a shuttle like this that that use the Mk. 3 RCS nose and the Space Shuttle Engines mod?

Look there:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108219-STS-5-Space-Shuttle-%28Stock-NASA-Replica%29-New-Sub%21-STS-ComSats-%28RemoteTech%29-5-31-15?p=1929890&viewfull=1#post1929890

I used the Mk.3 rcs nose cone only here, in my own/modified from inigma's one (no space shuttle engine mod, but tweakscale for OMS engine mounts) and an AIES engine modified to monoprop and same thrust as 5x stock OMS engines...

... but actually it is phased out of service for some issues with cargo weight, if too near the front...

Actually working at K-8M version (with STS-107 and/or service module subassembly the old one plunged at landing at 50/60 m/s... too much...) with better results with all cargo config...

[inigma]

I used the Kaboom mod set to kaboom only the bottom of the tank where Challenger's was , and Naito's STS-51L cargo module to simulate the cargo and I got this:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Contrary to popular belief, the Challenger crew did not perish in the explosion. The physics don't lie. The crew module survived the explosion in every simulation I ran, but without a SAMPA module as our fateful Kerbals have here, it sadly pluged into the ocean killing all aboard on impact - with most data giving evidence that STS-51L Commander Richard Scobee fought to regain control of the decapitated Challenger in an attempt to do what he can to survive a crash landing into the ocean below.

We have learned from their gallant sacrifice, and now all KSP STS Space Shuttles carry a SAMPA crew module parachute system.

Edited June 12, 2015 by inigma

[inigma]

It appears the new aero makes it darn near impossible to land the STS-5 Space Shuttle orbiter with the STS Service Module installed. In fact, I've never been successful landing it in 1.0.2 with the STS Service Module. It landed fine in 1.0 aero but I dunno. Its a weight and lift balance issue of sorts. I'm troubleshooting a solution.

In the meantime, I've figured out how to revert back to an orbiter based distro, and allow for liquid or solid launch stacks as separate subassemblies. Apparently you can get around any bugginess with subassemblies flailing their struts and fuel pipes all over the place, by simply turning your camera to face another direction prior to pulling the subassembly out of the menu. Works like a charm every time. I'm still trying to narrow down the particulars in preparation for a KSP bug report, but I think I'm on to something grand here for STS-6.

- - - Updated - - -

It appears the new aero makes it darn near impossible to land the STS-5 Space Shuttle orbiter with the STS Service Module installed. In fact, I've never been successful landing it in 1.0.2 with the STS Service Module. It landed fine in 1.0 aero but I dunno. Its a weight and lift balance issue of sorts. I'm troubleshooting a solution.

Ha! Ballast is the answer. Nothing that a full ore tank can't do eh? hmm but its 17 tons of ballast. Service Module is already at 10 tons, not counting inventory items... thats a 37 ton default payload without any additional cargo. good thing the shuttle is rated for 42 tons. still working on a better solution...

Update:

Better solution found: include a simple extra Wing Connector Type A angled into the Cockpit as part of the subassembly. Nice fix. 1 part, hardly any tonnage cost.

Edited June 14, 2015 by inigma

[inigma]

Eureka. Extra wing part added to STS Service Module, makes shuttle land much smoother now, even with full equipment in the KIS Containers and unused MMUs. I have also added some default equipment and spare parts in the KIS Containers for those times when you wish you had remembered to bring something.

- - - Updated - - -

New STS Service Module uploaded to KerbalX. Version 6 is definitely an improvement.

OP updated:

Updated STS Service Module to version 6 to be more compatible with 1.0.2 aero. Added a wing part to make landing an orbiter with this subassembly MUCH easier (before it was impossible). Also added default equipment to the KIS Containers in case you forget to take up anything with you for on orbit repairs and construction fun.

- - - Updated - - -

Also updated STS Operations Module to v4 accordingly.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, the problem was not with the service or ops modules. The problem was with the orbiter itself. STS 5 is just not aerodynamically strong in front. I've fixed that. STS 6 to be released shortly, with the STS Liquid Booster Stack and STS Solid Booster Stack to be optional subassemblies.

So up first will be the STS Space Shuttle OV-6. This will require some work.

[inigma]

updated to STS 6 and STS 6E. Reverted STS Service Module and Ops Module changes as this was a general bad aero issue with STS 5.

[inigma]

All updates final. STS 6 is published. Now with keybound airbrakes, less parts (removed the internal communotron 16, and an extra cubic strut - thank you offset tool!) Flies like a dream, all payloads. Lands beautifully now. No more "why am I diving into the runway at 43 m/s? ABORT ABORT ABORT!"

[Columbia]

Wow, STS-6 was released earlier than I expected To the station-building!

Ach mein gott, the only thing left for the SCA is the separation sequence - Refuses to cooperate. No matter how hard I try to descend and add sepratrons, the tail always tears off I'll try redesigning it (again, for the fourth time.)

Congrats for the release

[pTrevTrevs]

I have been trying to use the STS-6E to launch a payload made out of parts from the Tantares mod. I have equipped the shuttle with the Service module, but replaced the docking port on it with a 0.9 meter APAS port from Tantares, for compatibility with my station. Whenever I launch the shuttle, a few seconds after physics activates, the shuttle spontaneously explodes, usually near the top of the ET. I have no idea why this would happen, and the fact that it doesn't happen until a few seconds after physics load is even more confusing. I will attempt to reproduce the problem with an off the shelf orbiter and service module and get back to you on this.

[inigma]

STS-6E Space Shuttle Ranger Flight Profile Launching STS Fuel Pod to 400km orbit:

1. Set SAS to Radial

2. Set 2/3 throttle

3. Launch

4. Roll tail to ocean by 2km

5. Turn up full throttle after your roll is complete.

6. 3-4km set SAS to Stability assist to allow boosters to naturally pitch the shuttle on its gravity turn

7. 14-18km at SRB burn out, pitch should naturally be near 45 deg. Keep it back up there if it dipped down.

8. 30km pitch to 40 deg

9. 40km pitch to 30 deg

10. 50 km set SAS to Prograde

11. Roll belly down

12. Set SAS to Stability Assist

13. Keep pitch 10-15 deg

14. 60km pitch to 10 deg and fly it like a spaceplane (after all, it is a spaceplane)

15. Raise periapsis to 400km while keeping original apoapsis marker under 70km so tank debris gets deorbited after you ditch it.

16. Ditch tank and circularize using OMS Monoprop engines to 400km.

17. Return to KSC by retrograde burning on the other side of Kerbin, until Periapsis is 40km directly above KSC.

- - - Updated - - -

I have been trying to use the STS-6E to launch a payload made out of parts from the Tantares mod. I have equipped the shuttle with the Service module, but replaced the docking port on it with a 0.9 meter APAS port from Tantares, for compatibility with my station. Whenever I launch the shuttle, a few seconds after physics activates, the shuttle spontaneously explodes, usually near the top of the ET. I have no idea why this would happen, and the fact that it doesn't happen until a few seconds after physics load is even more confusing. I will attempt to reproduce the problem with an off the shelf orbiter and service module and get back to you on this.

It happens. try loading a different ship, recover it, then go back to VAB and load STS-6E. It's a game bug.

[Motokid600]

with most data giving evidence that STS-51L Commander Richard Scobee fought to regain control of the decapitated Challenger in an attempt to do what he can to survive a crash landing into the ocean below.

Forgive me if this is off topic, but I just want to ask really quick. Is that... For real? They actually have data saying the crew cabin survived and the commander actually tried to pilot it?

That's one of the more terrifying things I can imagine. I knew that there were reports of the O2 being switched on with a few of the crew after the break up, but nothing like that. I like to think the super sonic winds would've made it quick.

[inigma]

Wow, STS-6 was released earlier than I expected To the station-building!

Ach mein gott, the only thing left for the SCA is the separation sequence - Refuses to cooperate. No matter how hard I try to descend and add sepratrons, the tail always tears off I'll try redesigning it (again, for the fourth time.)

Congrats for the release

Thank you! It needs some good and proper shakedown. I wish 1.0.3 would come out soon.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me if this is off topic, but I just want to ask really quick. Is that... For real? They actually have data saying the crew cabin survived and the commander actually tried to pilot it?

That's one of the more terrifying things I can imagine. I knew that there were reports of the O2 being switched on with a few of the crew after the break up, but nothing like that. I like to think the super sonic winds would've made it quick.

I read an official report somewhere that data recorders recovered from the crew module indicated that flight inputs were still being received by the commander's stick...all the way down to impact. Cabin pressure was lost but most of the flight deck crew had time to regain conciousness prior to impact to at least realize the ocean was coming up fast. However they were in freefall and most likely only held onto a slim hope they would survive impact as most inputs mostly yielded no positive result. It is likely the commander thought some parts of the shuttle was intact enough to at least try to glide to a crash landing, or was trying to orient the module to maximize impact suvival chances. The bottom deck crew was lost I think during the initial breakup, but if I remember right, all bodies were found in or near the impacted crew module underwater.

Edited June 15, 2015 by inigma

[pTrevTrevs]

well, I tried what you recommended, and it worked. The shuttle didn't explode on the pad, so I attempted to launch it. The payload was the first of two Universal Docking Modules for my Mir 2 space station replica. I know I should be using a Buran, but I have yet to see one that I like, so I chose STS-6E instead.

Unfortunately, the Solid Rocket Boosters didn't like the idea of me putting a Russian payload on an American shuttle...

Enterprise lifts off from KSC carrying a Russian station module due to a special cooperative deal. Flying the mission is a standard four kerbal crew.

Roll program complete, begin pitch program. Mir 2 orbits in a 65 degree orbit, so the shuttle is relying on Mechjeb to nail the roll and pitch for efficient and accurate orbital insertion.

Say, it looks like we've got a pretty shallow trajectory, KSC. I can see Kerbin out the window!

Okay, Booster burnout, now we can correct that bad pitch angle...

SRB separa- Holy crap, what the hell was that bang?!? *crew recieves static in their headsets as comms with KSC are knocked out*

Damn, those SRBs don't mess around. Alright, we're going to have to pull a SAMPA assisted Abort!

Well, 6+ reaction wheels in the cockpit help quite a bit when trying to hold a decent descent attitude.

The crew doesn't care about the fact that the mission is a bust and the whole stack is destroyed. As long as they see blue and not green outside of the windows, it's all good.

SAMPA module deployed, brace for impact!

All that is left of Enterprise is back in the water with all four crew, thanks to the skill and heroism of its commander, whose name I cannot remember. Now they get to wait in the flooded cockpit for a few hours until recovery ships arrive. I'm still not sure whether the boosters collided with the ET or wings due to the shallow pitch, or if the separatrons melted the ET and blew apart the stack. Either way, I'll try it again tomorrow and sort this out. By now, the engineers have rebuilt Enterprise so many times that they can have it ready by 10 am tomorrow.

I cannot thank you enough, inigma, for deciding to add that emergency parachute. Four Kerbals owe their lives to it.

[inigma]

well, I tried what you recommended, and it worked. The shuttle didn't explode on the pad, so I attempted to launch it. The payload was the first of two Universal Docking Modules for my Mir 2 space station replica. I know I should be using a Buran, but I have yet to see one that I like, so I chose STS-6E instead.

Unfortunately, the Solid Rocket Boosters didn't like the idea of me putting a Russian payload on an American shuttle...

http://i.imgur.com/owK0sHx.png

Enterprise lifts off from KSC carrying a Russian station module due to a special cooperative deal. Flying the mission is a standard four kerbal crew.

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

Roll program complete, begin pitch program. Mir 2 orbits in a 65 degree orbit, so the shuttle is relying on Mechjeb to nail the roll and pitch for efficient and accurate orbital insertion.

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

Say, it looks like we've got a pretty shallow trajectory, KSC. I can see Kerbin out the window!

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

Okay, Booster burnout, now we can correct that bad pitch angle...

http://i.imgur.com/KkaE3Pl.png

SRB separa- Holy crap, what the hell was that bang?!? *crew recieves static in their headsets as comms with KSC are knocked out*

http://i.imgur.com/Nm4BsJZ.png

Damn, those SRBs don't mess around. Alright, we're going to have to pull a SAMPA assisted Abort!

http://i.imgur.com/sqQ0O9q.jpg

Well, 6+ reaction wheels in the cockpit help quite a bit when trying to hold a decent descent attitude.

http://i.imgur.com/naay9GW.jpg

The crew doesn't care about the fact that the mission is a bust and the whole stack is destroyed. As long as they see blue and not green outside of the windows, it's all good.

http://i.imgur.com/MJPI15D.png

SAMPA module deployed, brace for impact!

http://i.imgur.com/bqv9KMR.png

All that is left of Enterprise is back in the water with all four crew, thanks to the skill and heroism of its commander, whose name I cannot remember. Now they get to wait in the flooded cockpit for a few hours until recovery ships arrive. I'm still not sure whether the boosters collided with the ET or wings due to the shallow pitch, or if the separatrons melted the ET and blew apart the stack. Either way, I'll try it again tomorrow and sort this out. By now, the engineers have rebuilt Enterprise so many times that they can have it ready by 10 am tomorrow.

I cannot thank you enough, inigma, for deciding to add that emergency parachute. Four Kerbals owe their lives to it.

Thanks for attempting to use her for your station. Yea, SAMPA has saved many Kerbalnauts from shuttle flight doom.

I've noticed the best solid booster separation is at 45 degrees, and immediately after cutoff. don't wait for the ship to stop jimmying. I'll post a video soon. For now, enjoy this raw video of the current 42 ton payload launch: http://www.twitch.tv/inigmatus/v/6196197

I launched a 12 ton station module with my son tonight that he designed on the 6E. Had to reduce the External Tank fuel to only 10% fuel on the lower tank. Nothing else needed. Profile is steeper with gravity turn and 45 degree sep by 18km or so as the SRBs really make lighter payloads really pick up speed. Learned that booster sep is best immediately after SRB engine cutoff. If you wait for the shuttle to stop jimmying, the shuttle's own speed and aerodynamics actually can slam into receeding boosters. Also I've found that making use of the SAS Radial, Stability Assist, and Prograde options to be really really useful in maintaining perfect control of the craft while performing roll and pitch maneuvers.

Here's the science module he designed attached to the station core:

Edited June 16, 2015 by inigma

[Motokid600]

.

Wow. Yea scary stuff. I was trying to test the reentry capabilities on my own shuttle tonight. An elevon ripped off, the craft tumbled and became a fiery yard sale. Couldn't help but think of Columbia as well. May we never put the word routine in the same sentence as space flight for the rest of time.

[inigma]

Wow. Yea scary stuff. I was trying to test the reentry capabilities on my own shuttle tonight. An elevon ripped off, the craft tumbled and became a fiery yard sale. Couldn't help but think of Columbia as well. May we never put the word routine in the same sentence as space flight for the rest of time.

U mean something like this?

KSC Collision Bug. Very annoying. This ship, the STS-6E Space Shuttle Ranger was resilient enough to land with a wing and a prayer, with Jeb at the controls of course:

This is why I recommend landings at KSC Island until further notice unless you quicksaved for a second attempt at landing at KSC. I really hope Squad fixes this most annoying bug.

[clivman]

U mean something like this?

KSC Collision Bug. Very annoying. This ship, the STS-6E Space Shuttle Ranger was resilient enough to land with a wing and a prayer, with Jeb at the controls of course:

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

This is why I recommend landings at KSC Island until further notice unless you quicksaved for a second attempt at landing at KSC. I really hope Squad fixes this most annoying bug.

Does stock bugfix modules fix it?

[Motokid600]

Na the elevon overheated and blew up 20km up going 2000m/s. It was my own design not one of these in this thread. It's too heavy in the rear or something. I have to point perfectly prograde on reentry or it flips backwards. But because of that I can't scrub off any speed. So even if the elevon didn't burn up the craft would've ripped apart the moment I tried to pull up with FAR.

[RandomRyan]

How do you made the SRB's? do you cram the SRB in the fuel tanks using offset or what?

[SHiftER2O]

How do you made the SRB's? do you cram the SRB in the fuel tanks using offset or what?

He has a "special technique" in making the SRBs, a technique that became slightly (and shortly) controversial...

Edited June 16, 2015 by SHiftER2O

[DancesWithSquirrels]

I just bundle them together - A single KD25k to start with topped with a Mk7 nose cone, six KD25ks mounted around it with Type B nosecones blending into the Mk7, and struts around the bundle. Change the root to one of the side KD25k's (and remove any other parts you used as root to start with), then hang it on the side of your shuttle tank or core rocket.

Doesn't look quite the same, rather like a fasces, but no hacky-hacky. I'll try to put up some pictures this evening.

[inigma]

I just bundle them together - A single KD25k to start with topped with a Mk7 nose cone, six KD25ks mounted around it with Type B nosecones blending into the Mk7, and struts around the bundle. Change the root to one of the side KD25k's (and remove any other parts you used as root to start with), then hang it on the side of your shuttle tank or core rocket.

Doesn't look quite the same, rather like a fasces, but no hacky-hacky. I'll try to put up some pictures this evening.

Bear in mind the STS-6E SRBs only add the equivalent of fuel proportionally equal to the empty liquid tank space above their root, and no more. Since the game automatically factors in the additional weight, I don't consider it a hack more than I do using EditorExtensions to perfectly align parts. Adding fuel to empty space is a technique that is not often used but to make a perfect stock shuttle with SRBs capable of lifting the STS Fuel Pod, I think it should be embraced as a notable exception. It's really only cheaty if you add more fuel than empty space, which I don't advocate or do.

The beauty of this is that you have a means to engineer empty fuel tanks to be solid fuel extensions without requiring users to download a mod. A totally stock solution that returns a downloadable stock craft! Engineered. Not hacked.

Also you can't add an insane amount of fuel to a craft file anyways since its weight is factored by the game. Add too much and your craft will be too heavy to lift off. Its a border a craft file cheater can't cross, which is why I've pushed for the technique to be accepted as mainstream advanced stock craft file engineering.

Edited June 16, 2015 by inigma

[clivman]

He has a "special technique" in making the SRBs, a technique that became slightly (and shortly) controversial...

The large SRB has too little fuel and thrust anyways it is two and a half times the size of the next size down but has 1.5 times the fuel. Inigma should edit in even more solid fuel

- - - Updated - - -

Bear in mind the STS-6E SRBs only add the equivalent of fuel proportionally equal to the empty liquid tank space above their root, and no more. Since the game automatically factors in the additional weight, I don't consider it a hack more than I do using EditorExtensions to perfectly align parts. Adding fuel to empty space is a technique that is not often used but to make a perfect stock shuttle with SRBs capable of lifting the STS Fuel Pod, I think it should be embraced as a notable exception. It's really only cheaty if you add more fuel than empty space, which I don't advocate or do.

The beauty of this is that you have a means to engineer empty fuel tanks to be solid fuel extensions without requiring users to download a mod. A totally stock solution that returns a downloadable stock craft! Engineered. Not hacked.

Also you can't add an insane amount of fuel to a craft file anyways since its weight is factored by the game. Add too much and your craft will be too heavy to lift off. Its a border a craft file cheater can't cross, which is why I've pushed for the technique to be accepted as mainstream advanced stock craft file engineering.

You could edit the thrust limiter to 200 or 300%.

[inigma]

The large SRB has too little fuel and thrust anyways it is two and a half times the size of the next size down but has 1.5 times the fuel. Inigma should edit in even more solid fuel

- - - Updated - - -

You could edit the thrust limiter to 200 or 300%.

I found the easiest was to simply add 2/5 fuel, since the empty liquid tank space above the rooted SRBs equates to 2/5 more SRB space. Easy math, easy fix. No need for thrust limit increases, but certainly I'm not opposed to that solution either since the result is the same. With more thrust though, SRBs burn too short, and too fast if you don't also fiddle with fuel amounts. I opted instead for the above mentioned easy math. Less craft file editing = less controversy!

[clivman]

I found the easiest was to simply add 2/5 fuel, since the empty liquid tank space above the rooted SRBs equates to 2/5 more SRB space. Easy math, easy fix. No need for thrust limit increases, but certainly I'm not opposed to that solution either since the result is the same. With more thrust though, SRBs burn too short, and too fast if you don't also fiddle with fuel amounts. I opted instead for the above mentioned easy math. Less craft file editing = less controversy!

Can you also add 1.875 m boosters in a different version for historical accuracy?