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

[Araym]

I told you I was looking to your Solid Boosters version, so as I saw the STS-5E pre-release, obviously I JUMPED in it to a ride...

... also to compare it to my STS K-7 prototype in handling.

It's great, as always your shuttles, but, as your request, I'm trying here to do a "flight tester's report": if I could be crititical, it's just to point you toward some "area of improvements".

OVERALL:

Great shuttle.

The solid boosters give a LOT of power to the ship, probably improving the 0.90 STS-4 possibilities in term of range (I struggled in 0.90, sometime testing the higher possible orbit, to have monoprop to reentry... not an issue here even in a 350km orbit test with full 42t payload).

Handling is very smooth in all the launch phases, no particulary issues on heating parts (even if I feared, on my first test, the red glowing booster's case made by empty 2.5 fuel tanks ): I run always at 100% thrust, to stress test, and nothing exploded.

Reentry it's easy and predictable (as I practiced on my K-7, now I can be pretty precise on KSC): in comparison, STS-5E come a bit faster than my own in the atmosphere, but bleed velocity very well: it does not show any "reentry plasma glow", so after moving under 30km altitude, it's past any critical velocity (200/150 m/s) and makes possible to manouver as needed to slow down further, glide, even pitch down very hard if overshooting KSC, to quietly land on the airstrip.

TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS:

-Pros:

I LIKED A LOT the "tail's splitting vertical rudder" idea, like the real Space Shuttle air brakes, unexpected, when I deployed the landing gears (I didn't look at the action groups before the first ride).

As my preference (but this is TOTALLY personal) I'd probably link the solution to the "brake" action group: it could be an issue for "short reentry" landing, if a bit of speed could be needed to glide a bit more to select a suitable, flat, landing spot, with gears deployed, before any brake necessity after touch down.

The "drag chute" is a nice addition too, both in funtionality and look department, and it's nice also the "safety chute" on the cockpit (to save the pilots if a splash down in the sea is the only landing option).

-Cons:

Not really any, aside some thoughts to eventually improve the rising "part counts":

1- as I tested on my K-7, then removed, I does not feel so necessary those "tail fins" clipped inside the cockpit: it seemed to me an "old 0.90 trick" to have more lift in some critical areas, when "soup atmosphere" and "infinite-glide" bug gives us a not realistic flight performances, and "lifting surfaces" were counted by KSP 0.90 as working even if buried (with 1.0.x onward, I have feeling that this trick is not working so much: even my bigger mk.3 planes, now, fly very well without this solution).

2- for the same "soup-atmosphere" and "infinite-glide" reason, the "double layer wing" was also needed to have the appropriate lifting to the whole orbiter: I saw you removing some of the double layer on wing tips, but (probably to easy construction methods) you left it on wing roots, where you build the rear landing gear.

Have you thought/tested to remove ONLY the whole UPPER layer (to not delete the rear landing gear) and place then back as wings only the downside layer? I think that there is room for part count improvement in that area (if not, as in my K-7, to move to Mk.3 Shuttle wings, even if we should ask to SQUAD to add some new/revised mk.3 wing parts ) without ruining too much the gliding/flying performances... (in my K-7, the added wing strakes on wing roots are there mostly for appearance, rather than functionality, even if I think that angled as they are, they are giving some, not being totally "flat" on the main wing parts)

... you should try it, because, if those ideas will work, the part count could be lowered at least of 20 units (roughly estimation), probably: as I'm not sure about your method to build the wings (my old prototypes I sent here were not so successfull as I could not replicate a wing like yours, cuz mine were really wobbling) so it's better to leave it to you...

Edited May 10, 2015 by Araym

[gmiddlemass]

Just wanted to say thank you... Your video has inspired me to create my own little RCS powered EVA pod based on the ones shown in your video on the first page.

Fantastic Shuttle replica, great work.

[Volitaire]

I will give it a test flight and docking test with my station in a little bit.

[inigma]

I told you I was looking to your Solid Boosters version, so as I saw the STS-5E pre-release, obviously I JUMPED in it to a ride...

... also to compare it to my STS K-7 prototype in handling.

It's great, as always your shuttles, but, as your request, I'm trying here to do a "flight tester's report": if I could be crititical, it's just to point you toward some "area of improvements".

OVERALL:

Great shuttle.

The solid boosters give a LOT of power to the ship, probably improving the 0.90 STS-4 possibilities in term of range (I struggled in 0.90, sometime testing the higher possible orbit, to have monoprop to reentry... not an issue here even in a 350km orbit test with full 42t payload).

Handling is very smooth in all the launch phases, no particulary issues on heating parts (even if I feared, on my first test, the red glowing booster's case made by empty 2.5 fuel tanks ): I run always at 100% thrust, to stress test, and nothing exploded.

Reentry it's easy and predictable (as I practiced on my K-7, now I can be pretty precise on KSC): in comparison, STS-5E come a bit faster than my own in the atmosphere, but bleed velocity very well: it does not show any "reentry plasma glow", so after moving under 30km altitude, it's past any critical velocity (200/150 m/s) and makes possible to manouver as needed to slow down further, glide, even pitch down very hard if overshooting KSC, to quietly land on the airstrip.

TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS:

-Pros:

I LIKED A LOT the "tail's splitting vertical rudder" idea, like the real Space Shuttle air brakes, unexpected, when I deployed the landing gears (I didn't look at the action groups before the first ride).

As my preference (but this is TOTALLY personal) I'd probably link the solution to the "brake" action group: it could be an issue for "short reentry" landing, if a bit of speed could be needed to glide a bit more to select a suitable, flat, landing spot, with gears deployed, before any brake necessity after touch down.

The "drag chute" is a nice addition too, both in funtionality and look department, and it's nice also the "safety chute" on the cockpit (to save the pilots if a splash down in the sea is the only landing option).

-Cons:

Not really any, aside some thoughts to eventually improve the rising "part counts":

1- as I tested on my K-7, then removed, I does not feel so necessary those "tail fins" clipped inside the cockpit: it seemed to me an "old 0.90 trick" to have more lift in some critical areas, when "soup atmosphere" and "infinite-glide" bug gives us a not realistic flight performances, and "lifting surfaces" were counted by KSP 0.90 as working even if buried (with 1.0.x onward, I have feeling that this trick is not working so much: even my bigger mk.3 planes, now, fly very well without this solution).

2- for the same "soup-atmosphere" and "infinite-glide" reason, the "double layer wing" was also needed to have the appropriate lifting to the whole orbiter: I saw you removing some of the double layer on wing tips, but (probably to easy construction methods) you left it on wing roots, where you build the rear landing gear.

Have you thought/tested to remove ONLY the whole UPPER layer (to not delete the rear landing gear) and place then back as wings only the downside layer? I think that there is room for part count improvement in that area (if not, as in my K-7, to move to Mk.3 Shuttle wings, even if we should ask to SQUAD to add some new/revised mk.3 wing parts ) without ruining too much the gliding/flying performances... (in my K-7, the added wing strakes on wing roots are there mostly for appearance, rather than functionality, even if I think that angled as they are, they are giving some, not being totally "flat" on the main wing parts)

... you should try it, because, if those ideas will work, the part count could be lowered at least of 20 units (roughly estimation), probably: as I'm not sure about your method to build the wings (my old prototypes I sent here were not so successfull as I could not replicate a wing like yours, cuz mine were really wobbling) so it's better to leave it to you...

Thank you for your feedback! I will look at reducing part counts in future STS Extended versions. STS-5 will keep the liquid boosters to keep part count to a more manageable and computer friendly 268 parts, with an eye on reducing its part count too in future versions.

I thought of binding the airbrakes to brakes, but have you ever landed with wheels with brakes locked? not pretty. Gear down seemed best, either that or use up a valuable action group number.

[scharlesc]

Well I tried flying the shuttle with the latest MechJeb.

...and with it I just flew the STS-4 1.0.2 Space Shuttle Independence with STS Fuel Pod to a record breaking 421km orbit and return to KSC Island!

http://imgur.com/a/Eigkh

Some notes on MechJeb flying the STS-4 1.0.2 soon to be aka STS-5:

For Ascent Guidance for empty bay or heavy cargo:

set target altitude to 200km

disable limit to terminal velocity

disable throttle limiting

disable forced roll

autostage only until stage 4

As with all STS launches you must manually roll the craft just after launch and before 6km, in order to have the tail facing the ocean so the orbiter climbs on its back and maximize the thrust vectors and weight balance, just like the real shuttle.

Then nearing 50km, roll belly down and let MJ burn you to 200km, and have it autostage the External Tank.

Turn on RCS and jet away from the tank to avoid colliding with it, and manually enage the next stage when clear. MJ will circularize your orbit.

Easy peasy. I hope.

bear in mind that the shuttle has a tendency to roll while burning the Space Shuttle Main Engines and using MJ since MJ by default does not use SAS. This is because of the right side fuel line on the External Tank being placed there. It offsets the fuel dump causing the roll, which you should manually correct as you fly it up. The fuel line is intended to be there to be accurate to the actual NASA shuttle external tank look. Without MJ, you use SAS and there is no roll.

Just note that the shuttle flies just fine as-is, but if you put any cargo in the bay, you're going to need to fill up the external tank a bit, starting with the center tank, and then the botttom tank. only the STS Fuel Pod cargo (42 tons) requires all tanks to be full, even on the boosters.

Let me know if you still can't make orbit with the above instructions.

Thank you very much for taking the time and having the patience to respond. I greatly appreciate it and I will follow your excellent instructions.

[Araym]

Thank you for your feedback! I will look at reducing part counts in future STS Extended versions. STS-5 will keep the liquid boosters to keep part count to a more manageable and computer friendly 268 parts, with an eye on reducing its part count too in future versions.

I thought of binding the airbrakes to brakes, but have you ever landed with wheels with brakes locked? not pretty. Gear down seemed best, either that or use up a valuable action group number.

... simply preference about brakes use (I'm lazy: I always push the "brake lock" on landing, and - maybe for design - never had an issue )...

Aside that: I tried your solid boosters on my K-7, but (as you reported during building phase) swapping tanks leads to some struts popping out randomly from them. I tried to rebuild then the same boosters, but failed, as I noticed that yours are not "simmetrical buried" inside the liquid fuel tanks skins...

... then I left yours to test (even with some struts popping out)...

... discovering that my K-7 does not have the same "range" on orbit. Very strange: I didn't expected such difference, mostly only caused by the different wings load (even if K-7 + solid boosters and full fuel tank + 42t cargo is lighter Than the STS-5E prototype, probably does not have the same wing lift on launch configuration, or it is loosing in drag).

So, for the moment, I'll probably stay on my tweakscaled boosters for it: I'm actually working on my own K-7M(odded), to further reduce part counts for my games.

I will try, eventually, a 9 cluster (1 central + 8 around) or... dunno... some tweakscaled solid boosters could work too... but both ideas are not my best choice: I'm not a fan of heavy clipped assembly, if them are fueled, and I was trying also to stay "stock", eventually (if I have to resort on mods, I have already a better one like the K-7M, lighter on part counts)

[inigma]

Thanks for your feedback!

STS-5 at 242 parts now instead of 267 parts. I cleaned up the wings as you suggested, and it still can land 15 tons in the bay. Orbiter is only 144 parts now instead of 166. Significant improvement in handling as well as a result.

This also makes the STS-5E now only 407 parts instead of 432 parts. Would you call that an improvement?

Edited May 10, 2015 by inigma

[inigma]

Great. All done with the final versions. Now time to take screenshots, make an album for both... and then I will be ready to upload. The final versions are AWESOME (and not yet released) . Stay tuned.

[inigma]

STS-5 Space Shuttle Indepdence and STS-5E Space Shuttle Constitution are now released. Enjoy!

[MrMeeb]

Looks beautiful, but is there any plan to use the Big-S wings at all?

[inigma]

Looks beautiful, but is there any plan to use the Big-S wings at all?

when they make mk.3 wing connectors, and make the mk.3 strakes fit mk.3 wings, yes. Right now mk.3 parts look ugly.

Edited May 11, 2015 by inigma

[Araym]

Thanks for your feedback!

STS-5 at 242 parts now instead of 267 parts. I cleaned up the wings as you suggested, and it still can land 15 tons in the bay. Orbiter is only 144 parts now instead of 166. Significant improvement in handling as well as a result.

This also makes the STS-5E now only 407 parts instead of 432 parts. Would you call that an improvement?

I told you that we left "soup-o-sphere" when we left 0.90, so a lot of things could be omitted

Pretty happy my idea worked on your Shuttle too. ()

Tomorrow I'll test both Indipendence and Constitution...

... but today (after releasing my K-7 "Kolumbus") I'm enjoying a ride on another of mine, probably the one I'll use to resume in 1.0.2 my MIR rebuild: the STS K-7M "Galileus".

- "M" stays for "Modded", as it very related to the mods I'm using, and those tweaks I made to let all of them work together - It will be very difficoult to openly release it to the public...

I went "harder" on TweakScaled parts, to rebuild the OMS zone (using 2 AIES Galaxy-VR2 as engines, cgf edited to work on 1.0 and converted to monoprop) and Mk3 Mini Expansion Pack to add a shuttle nosecone:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

http://imgur.com/a/wILQf

Edited May 11, 2015 by Araym

[inigma]

Just a note to the STS fans: STS-5E features craft file editing at its finest. Advanced engineering, just for you.

[inigma]

Updated OP flight profiles after much testing. STS-5E solid boosters variant requires you start with 2/3rds throttle, actually naturally curve your trajectory as long as you keep SAS on and don't over do the controls. After you complete your roll program, go for throttle up and she will naturally point you on your journey until booster sep. Enjoy!

Anyone else fly the STS-5E or STS-5? Let me know how they handle! I'm dying for feedback here. I'm especially interested to know what people think of the STS-5E.

Edited May 12, 2015 by inigma

[Naito]

Wow. Just flight tested your STS-5. This thing IS easy to fly. I try land at KSC in my shuttle and make it maybe once in 10 landings, first try in yours and I at least made it to within spitting distance of the runway! wth lol

Almost makes me rethink my "no SAS modules" stance

Your shuttle feels much lighter and more nimble than mine too. Stall speed was about 35m/s with 1.0 physics, very stable on re-entry, real nice.

If I had to nitpick, there's still a bit of teetering at booster separation, and it's a little more difficult to pitch over for the gravity turn than I expected.

I'll give the 5E a test drive in a bit

[Naito]

STS-5E. Love the flames and smoke trail from the SRBs. Surprised they didn't need the fancy differential thrust clustering I had when I tried SRBs and still stayed very balanced, great job!

Maneuvers like a pig though Roll maneuver took AGES. Fairly easy to control pitch using SSME thrust, but controls are again pegged during booster separation. Still managed a very precise orbit though!

Still not convinced KSP SRBs are "STS replica ready" yet. Newbies will have a hard time flying this I think.

[inigma]

Thanks Naito, these were rebuilt without RCS Build Aid so the torque values were simply guesswork which is why booster sep is tad bouncy as SAS compensates. I hope once I can tweak torque values to perfection it will be an even smoother ride...and with less SAS modules.

[Naito]

The RCS build aid shows. It's a hellava lot easier to dock your shuttle to mine than it was the other way around =)

[inigma]

STS-5E. Love the flames and smoke trail from the SRBs. Surprised they didn't need the fancy differential thrust clustering I had when I tried SRBs and still stayed very balanced, great job!

Maneuvers like a pig though Roll maneuver took AGES. Fairly easy to control pitch using SSME thrust, but controls are again pegged during booster separation. Still managed a very precise orbit though!

Still not convinced KSP SRBs are "STS replica ready" yet. Newbies will have a hard time flying this I think.

Yes the STS-5E is not newb friendly but is created more towards experienced pilots and those demanding SRBs... ahem Rune.

[JWOC]

Inigmia,

i woulld ugrade the shuttle to use the new landing gear and fuel cells to make it loook more like the actual shuttle. the new medium landing gear can handle a 70 m/s landing. and the fuel cells generate electricity, so you can remove the RTG units. this would help with part count. the new landing gear would allow for pepole to land it eithout much of an issue since you can land up to 70 m/s with the medium landing gear. i think thease changes will make it eaven easier to flly.

i have test flown STS-4. and it flies amasingly well. it glides very easily. it is one of the best space shuttles i have seen on the KSP foroums. i willl test STS-5 and STS-5E on friday.

-JWOC

[inigma]

Inigmia,

i woulld ugrade the shuttle to use the new landing gear and fuel cells to make it loook more like the actual shuttle. the new medium landing gear can handle a 70 m/s landing. and the fuel cells generate electricity, so you can remove the RTG units. this would help with part count. the new landing gear would allow for pepole to land it eithout much of an issue since you can land up to 70 m/s with the medium landing gear. i think thease changes will make it eaven easier to flly.

i have test flown STS-4. and it flies amasingly well. it glides very easily. it is one of the best space shuttles i have seen on the KSP foroums. i willl test STS-5 and STS-5E on friday.

-JWOC

Thanks JWOC.

The landing heavy landing gear unfortunately creates unrealistic bumps in the wing. Even on Mk. 3 wings. Seriously I don't know what Porkjet was thinking. It's as if he dreamed up each part separately and without regard to how well they meshed with his other parts. Simply put, there is no easy place to hide them without ungainly bumps. Even the STS style current gear holds are too small. Also, fuel cells require fuel, if I recall... which would actually add to the part count to include fuel tanks for them since only monoprop is on board the orbiter. There are only 2 RTGs on the STS-5 series down from 4, moved from the rear engine core into the cockpit where the two of the three NASA fuel cells were.

There are only so many bells and whistles I can put on it while still looking aesthetically pleasing. Fuel cells I will revisit once I reduce SAS part counts for sure though. I was soo excited for the new gear... only to be disappointed at the ungainly design of the wheel wells. Let me know how you like STS-5 and E.

[Zucal]

Seriously I don't know what Porkjet was thinking.

Perhaps he was thinking people would use landing not exclusively for shuttles.

I think his parts mesh together very well, and if your only complaint about them is that the largest size landing gear are larger than the thickness of a wing then I consider that a job well done on his part (pun intended).

[inigma]

Perhaps he was thinking people would use landing not exclusively for shuttles.

I think his parts mesh together very well, and if your only complaint about them is that the largest size landing gear are larger than the thickness of a wing then I consider that a job well done on his part (pun intended).

Not the only complaint. The biggest really is that they are way too tall compared to the RL shuttle. Looks like a chicken coming in for a landing. (Try add medium gear, and you'll see what I mean. lol). I just tested a different design 10 min ago. ew... can you make them look like the real shuttle? Maybe I'm just being too picky. If I use the new gear, it reduces parts by 6 count.

- - - Updated - - -

bok bok bok... bokaaahk!

now if only he lopped the height off by about a third, they would be PERFECT:

Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/35st4n/bok_bok_bokbokaaahk_med_landing_gear_need_to_be/

Edited May 13, 2015 by inigma

[SHiftER2O]

This is one of the most reliable shuttles I've ever seen Keep it up!

[inigma]

Some glamor shots:

Javascript is disabled. View full album