WE NEED NEW RUSSIAN STOCK SPACE PARTS

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, TK-313 said:

Waiting for them most eagerly, they might seriously change what I know about early spaceflight in USSR.

As you can read in Russian, you can find the book "Мировая пилотируемая космонавтика", there is another design (there were four in total) of a pre-Vostok ship on page 7.
Based on another type of R-7 warhead.

Edited November 8, 2019 by kerbiloid

[TK-313]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

As you can read in Russian, you can find the book "Мировая пилотируемая космонавтика", there is another design (there were four in total) of a pre-Vostok ship on page 7.
Based on another type of R-7 warhead.

Affirmative, there is one - but you have to note it is not based on a warhead, but built around the spherical lander pod (as were all Vostok designs, actually - see page 6; there's even a specific mention that the cone-shaped lander didn't even make it to design drafts) with its cone-shaped service module in front of the lander. On the same page we read that this layout was dropped by 1959.

Furthermore, we read on the same page 7 the launch plan for unmanned tests:

- 2 1KP ships (no life support, no thermal protection, weight imitator where the pilot would be - this is what crashed in Manitowoc, Wisconsin);
- 3 1K ships (to test ship's flight and recon instrumentation; Belka and Strelka flight was one of these);
- 2 3K ships (to test life support).

3K was the manned Vostok we all know, 1K was its simplified variant intended for testing purposes only. Its layout, presented on page 10, was not greatly different from a regular Vostok:

Mind the part marked in red here: this is the ejectable dog container, which, as I've been telling you, was just a container in the place of the ejection seat and not a standalone ship.

Edited November 8, 2019 by TK-313
removed doublepost

[kerbiloid]

25 minutes ago, TK-313 said:

but you have to note it is not based on a warhead

All of them match the warhead shape.

And I never said that it should ever fly with a human onboard. I every time notice that it is the early design.
And as this is a computer game including never tested projects (say, all of the modern ones, lol), and the design looks pretty Kerbal, I find it enough Kerbal to be implemented.
(Though I don't insist, I can make my own if I need, thanks to the @Beale's tutorial.)

Edited November 8, 2019 by kerbiloid

[TK-313]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

All of them match the warhead shape.

And I never said that it should ever fly with a human onboard. I every time notice that it is the early design.

Ahem... I do believe "match the warhead nosecone shape"does not equal "based on a warhead", but okay. I'm still trying to understand, though, why you are still trying to present the poor animal container as a standalone spacecraft when all evidence says it was an integral part of the unmanned Vostok... Or do I misunderstand?

Edited November 8, 2019 by TK-313

[kerbiloid]

Just now, TK-313 said:

why you are still trying to present the poor animal container as a standalone spacecraft when all evidence says it was an integral part of the unmanned Vostok

As you can read, it was tested with a human mannequin, like a spaceship mockup.
Also, the spaceship design pictured two posts above looks enough Kerbal for me, too.
If you still don't understand, feel free to reread my previous post.

[TK-313]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

As you can read, it was tested with a human mannequin, like a spaceship mockup.
Also, the spaceship design pictured two posts above looks enough Kerbal for me, too.
If you still don't understand, feel free to reread my previous post.

Ah! I mixed up two things...

Yes, the early Vostok is cool. Perhaps I'll try that as well.

And no, the flying doghouse was tested with dogs, and the mannequin wasn't there then (not that they would both fit into one catapult at the same time), the mission descriptions will give you that. When the mannequin was on this catapult, the dog cabin was not there and the whole thing looked like an ejection seat (which it was)

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, TK-313 said:

And no, the flying doghouse was tested with dogs, and the mannequin wasn't there

Can you at last read the wiki link about Sputnik-4 which I've posted several posts above?

[Ithirahad]

On 10/30/2019 at 12:05 AM, Xd the great said:

Those side boosters are soyuz though.

No, those side boosters are side boosters. Soyuz has an upper stage (for which we have no good equivalent engine), a capsule (which we have no equivalent of, short of a round pod with a fairing stuck around half of it), and a bunch of other things we thankfully do have or can make.

That aside, I would like to see some Proton-inspired radial fuel tanks, Buran-style Mk. 3 rounded tank butt with smaller engine mounts, Soyuz-like return capsules, RD-0110/0124 analogue, very long inter-diameter adapters (like N1 tanks), more sizes of hot-staging decoupler (not just a Russian thing!), and perhaps even Baikal-like compact rotating double joint for fold-out shenanigans.

The animal pods would be cool, but people inevitably blowing up animals might be less cool.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Ithirahad