Jump to content

[1.11.x] Tundra Exploration - v4.1.0 (April 17th) - (Re)Stockalike SpaceX Falcon 9, Crew Dragon and Starship!


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

100T payload? how are you even getting that to duna?

i'm also curious how the fuel BFR's are going to refuel themselves on mars

Well, I was talking about the real BFR in that case ;)

I don't think the fuel BFR will be brought to Mars. If I remember correctly, the BFR can return from Mars without refuelling in space. So a guess the cargo BFR will bring hydrogen with it. For methane production, all it needs are CO2 (which is found in the Mars atmosphere), hydrogen and enegry. I don't know how big such a device would need to be, but I guess it's small enough to not consume too much space. Then, for 2 years, it generates fuel, before the manned BFS will arrive. Then the fuel must be transferred to the manned BFS, and that's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Well, I was talking about the real BFR in that case ;)

I don't think the fuel BFR will be brought to Mars. If I remember correctly, the BFR can return from Mars without refuelling in space. So a guess the cargo BFR will bring hydrogen with it. For methane production, all it needs are CO2 (which is found in the Mars atmosphere), hydrogen and enegry. I don't know how big such a device would need to be, but I guess it's small enough to not consume too much space. Then, for 2 years, it generates fuel, before the manned BFS will arrive. Then the fuel must be transferred to the manned BFS, and that's it.

i thought the BFR was 20T to mars surface?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, eskimo22 said:

The BFB fuel tank has no fuel in it, but all the other tanks do, what to do? The RCS is also underpowered IMO. The ship is painfully sluggish when translating up down, left right, and forward and backward.

Could you provide me with more info?
- What KSP version
- Dev or release version of this mod?
- Do you have all the dependencies installed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the bigger wings on the new BFS, I was able to perform an unpowered horizontal landing on water, all but one of the parts are intact, and all of the crew survived. I wonder if this would be possible IRL?

8 minutes ago, damonvv said:

Make sure you have the latest B9Part Switch and Module Manager. Do you have other mods installed that might cause things like this?

I had this same issue when I first installed all of the dependencies. The BFS originally had no fuel, B9 part switch fixed that, but it didn't fix the BFB. No mods that I know of that would cause issues.

Edited by eskimo22
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eskimo22 said:

Due to the bigger wings on the new BFS, I was able to perform an unpowered horizontal landing on water, all but one of the parts are intact, and all of the crew survived. I wonder if this would be possible IRL?

I had this same issue when I first installed all of the dependencies. The BFS originally had no fuel, B9 part switch fixed that, but it didn't fix the BFB. No mods that I know of that would cause issues.

Can you send me your Module Manager cache file? Should be in your /KSP/GameData folder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nessus_ said:

@Miza @Starwaster I uploaded RO configs a few pages back, they're not 100% perfect yet but they give you a pretty realistic BFR and Raptor engines in RSS/RO. The BFS plumes you see on the first page are Real Plume configs by me, based on the awseome plumes by @JadeOfMaar. The stock-size plumes are already part of the TE github, you can download the RO configs with the RO-size plumes here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DGrzOa6sgHp2y2pmTUkg94H8Nr_YAWk5

Ci1Yo5c.jpg

Only for BFR? What about the rest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eskimo22 said:

the BFS crew cabin's crash resistance is too low. Its resistance is 20m/s, the Mk3 crew cabin has 50m/s crash resistance,  the mk1-3 command pod has 45m/s. I think that it should be raised to at least 45m/s.

And you don't think crashing into the ground at 150 feet per second (100 mph) is a little too fast to be expecting both ship AND crew to survive?

Just because the stock game sets capsule survivability that high doesn't mean it SHOULD be that high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Starwaster said:

And you don't think crashing into the ground at 150 feet per second (100 mph) is a little too fast to be expecting both ship AND crew to survive?

Just because the stock game sets capsule survivability that high doesn't mean it SHOULD be that high.

Stock crew cabins have such high crash resistance, why should TE's BFS be any different? Racecar drivers have been known to survive crashes faster than 100mph, and Kerbals are more durable than people.

 

Edited by eskimo22
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, eskimo22 said:

Stock crew cabins have such high crash resistance, why should TE's BFS be any different? Racecar drivers have been known to survive crashes faster than 100mph, and Kerbals are more durable than people.

 

Because it's his mod. Further, if a race-car hit a wall facefirst at 100MPH the driver would die. Most of those crashes are indirect crashes that they survive because the car bounces off of things until it runs out of momentum. You can do the same thing in Kerbal if you hit things at a angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@Nessus_ where did you get the dry masses for the RO configs from? There's not a lot of reliable data..... not that I've found anyway. I'm constantly looking for any data on it that I can find...

Yes, we didn't really get a lot of data for the 2018 BFR, so I assumed the BFS stats to be the same as the 2017 version (dry mass: 85t, fuel mass: 1100t) as well as a total BFR mass of 4400t. The only unknown value is the BFB dry mass. At the IAC 2016, the ITS booster dry mass was planned to be 275t. Assuming the ITS and BFR booster have similar densities and proportions, the mass should (roughly) scale with the square of the radius. That gives me a dry mass of ~150-160t for the BFB, which seems pretty reasonable, but of course that's just an estimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 4:57 PM, eskimo22 said:

the BFS crew cabin's crash resistance is too low. Its resistance is 20m/s, the Mk3 crew cabin has 50m/s crash resistance,  the mk1-3 command pod has 45m/s. I think that it should be raised to at least 45m/s.

That crash tolerance most likely should go up to at least that much, yes. It's one of the laws of KSP balance. Crewed parts usually should have more crash tolerance than any other parts. 

On a related note, no parts should have > 2700K heat tolerance except for fairings and heatshields (meanwhile the Mk3 parts are set for exactly 2700K). So, uh... don't be afraid to point out anything you find that has wild numbers like 8000+. ;) At stock scale, such huge single parts likely won't need more than 2500K.

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

That crash tolerance most likely should go up to at least that much, yes. It's one of the laws of KSP balance. Crewed parts usually should have more crash tolerance than any other parts. 

On a related note, no parts should have > 2700K heat tolerance except for fairings and heatshields (meanwhile the Mk3 parts are set for exactly 2700K). So, uh... don't be afraid to point out anything you find that has wild numbers like 8000+. ;) At stock scale, such huge single parts likely won't need more than 2500K.

1530

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Autolyzed Yeast Extract said:

Can I get the satellite parts from Tundra Technologies seperately

Download the .zip file through SpaceDock and only place the "TundraTechnologies" folder inside your "GameData"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to see this go live, thanks for the great work :)  I have a few remarks, though:

  • advanced tweakables setting for the flaps is still missing
  • BFS KIS storage is not accessible from outside
  • crew report is in the config file, but still doesn't work for both Dragon V2 and BFS
  • integrated antennas cannot transmit science
  • aft cargo (yay, tanks :) ) has not enough volume. KIS max volume for them is 300 l. The SC-62 portable KIS container is about the same size, but has a volume of 1000 liters. The real BFS has 80 m³ of aft storage volume. Scaled down, that would be about 1100 liters per box, which would also match the SC-62.
  • also, the aft KIS storage shouldn't be accessible from inside. Or is the plan to internally transfer stuff? That could be dangerous, since you could store bigger parts in the pod.
  • EDIT: oh, I just noticed that you changed the internal hatch. It's working now :) Is it on purpose that there are 2 hatches visible, but only on is a real hatch?
Edited by infinite_monkey
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SquaredSpekz said:

I don't know why, but the BFS seems small to me. I feel it should feel bigger way bigger than a shuttle

KSP parts are scaled down by a significant fraction vs IRL things. Although a kerbal is nearly as tall as a human (would you believe it?) it's not the case with parts, due to the kerbal universe being very small and dense. There is also the expectation of BFS to be able to go around the moon and even land on Mars from a full tank in LKO, meanwhile the Shuttle is not known to have any potential beyond LKO and the orbit of ISS.

considering these two images, their relative sizes may actually be proper. :/ 

Spoiler

120227-F-JK230-001.JPG

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv 

 

2 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:

Happy to see this go live, thanks for the great work :)  I have a few remarks, though:

  • advanced tweakables setting for the flaps is still missing
  • BFS KIS storage is not accessible from outside
  • crew report is in the config file, but still doesn't work for both Dragon V2 and BFS
  • integrated antennas cannot transmit science
  • aft cargo (yay, tanks :) ) has not enough volume. KIS max volume for them is 300 l. The SC-62 portable KIS container is about the same size, but has a volume of 1000 liters. The real BFS has 80 m³ of aft storage volume. Scaled down, that would be about 1100 liters per box, which would also match the SC-62.
  • also, the aft KIS storage shouldn't be accessible from inside. Or is the plan to internally transfer stuff? That could be dangerous, since you could store bigger parts in the pod.
  • EDIT: oh, I just noticed that you changed the internal hatch. It's working now :) Is it on purpose that there are 2 hatches visible, but only on is a real hatch?

Your suggestions for KIS have been noted and Damon will receive the changes next time he's on. Any suggestions on altering the KIS volumes (and access settings) of the Gigan and Rodan command pods (and perhaps BFS itself as well) would be highly welcome too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SquaredSpekz If you want a bigger BFS, go back a few pages, where I posted a config which allows you to make the BFR 20% bigger (needs TweakScale).

@JadeOfMaar @damonvv I just checked the KIS settings:

  • The Gigan has a KIS volume of 2000 l, which scaled up would match the real 3000 kg of payload (if you bring water). The original volume is 11 m³, though, which would scale down to about 3250 l. On the other hand, the Gigan has additional storage for ore/supplies (depending on which mods you have installed). So one might think of that storage as the missing 1250 liters. Since there is room for 1100 supplies, it sounds reasonable. I think the existing setting is a good compromise, since I don't think it's possible to dynamically reduce KIS volume depending on how much Kaijuu Goods you are storing.
  • For the BFS, some compromise is needed as well. You have a real opening cargo bay, so that takes away from the usable volume. On the other hand, that cargo bay doesn't use up all the available volume. The ISC-6K KIS container offers a volume of 48000 liters when scaled up to 5 meters. The 2.5 m cuboid container which has a volume of 16000 l fits in the cargo bay pretty nicely, so you could subtract that from the 48000 l and have a remaining storage of 32000. Since the ISC-6K is a little higher than the cargo part of the BFS, I would go for 30000 liters.
  • I found no data about cargo capacity for the Crew Dragon :/

About supplies:

  • Currently, the BFS offers no Supplies at all, since there is a typo in the Extra_USI.cfg: the name there is TE_18_BFS_CcommandPod. According to the config, it should have 25000 supplies. That supports 8 Kerbals for 289 days, so that's pretty close for getting to Duna. BUT if you enable life support (meaning recycling is enabled), that goes up to 6 years and 337 days. Seems a bit exaggerated... .
    I guess for real Mars missions, some of the supplies will be brought up by the cargo BFS first. So I guess, 4000 supplies would be realistic. Or maybe 8000 if you want to go to Duna, stay a little there and get back without any additional supplies.
  • The Rodan, on the other hand, only holds 264 supplies. For 4 Kerbals, this only gives you 6 days worth of supplies, which doesn't even bring them back from Minmus without starving. I don't know which would be better: more supplies or adding a recycler.

I need to check if the habitation values shown are accurate. Currently, it gives me 7 days for the Rodan, and 11 for the Gojira. When the converter is started, it goes up to 14. Not really feasible for a trip to Duna ;)

 

Oh, something else: maybe it's due to my upscaled version, but the BFS plume is spherical already at 6000 m and becomes nearly invisible at 20000 m.

Edited by infinite_monkey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...