Beale

[1.10.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [1.0][04.08.2020][Venera 1VA]

Recommended Posts

Yes, I think it's better when it have 1 seat. For a multi-crew landers, see there: Energia Lunar Expedition. After all, we'll need some serious payload for that upcoming Energia...

This lander in particular, I have in mind for the "TantaresMD" I talk about a few pages ago, it's quite nice! (But, also I consider things like the LK-300).

Well, this lander actually is perfect example of why I prefer the Russian stuff to American rockets, they look "weird" (But in a good way, I hope that doesn't offend anyone).

I highly doubt Beale would make 'em as un-modular and tightly modelled as BobCat's - 64% RL size isn't really pursued here, nodes don't have weird sizes etc.

However, Beale, if I may suggest: Please use Igla instead of Kontakt. Sure Kontakt was used IRL, but do we really need 2 seperate docking systems in your mod?

Oh, and beautiful Zenit parts!

(PS:Adding some camera lenses to the lander would be really cool... to replicate the awesome shots Veneras did)

.

Many thanks!

Igla/Kontact: I will probably keep it how it currently is (Igla / stock port system).

Camera lenses: If I can add one, with RPM MM patch, and those using probe control room can see through it, sure :)

I would very much love it if someone could point me in the direction of an accurate orthographic LK image. I might even slip your username hidden into the LK's in-game description (I am bribing the community here.)

Most I have found are really disagreeing with each other, with weird differences in sizes.

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're actually doing the Venera? *Ikaneko is confused*.

Wow. Well, nice parts!! All aboard the Hype-Venera!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I found something hillarious:

"This would seem to be easy, but soviet era measurements standard were as mysterious as thier political system. By their very nature, they seemed to conflict. The height wouldn't match with the width, the cabin measurements wouldn't match the height or width, and the Block E engine didn't match with any of the aforementioned measurements."

http://lunniykorabl.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're actually doing the Venera? *Ikaneko is confused*.

Wow. Well, nice parts!! All aboard the Hype-Venera!!

Thanks! :)

You may try the beta if you wish! Feedback is great.

I think I found something hillarious:

"This would seem to be easy, but soviet era measurements standard were as mysterious as thier political system. By their very nature, they seemed to conflict. The height wouldn't match with the width, the cabin measurements wouldn't match the height or width, and the Block E engine didn't match with any of the aforementioned measurements."

http://lunniykorabl.blogspot.com/

Gah, so someone wrote a blog on the fact that LK is hard to model, great :huh:

Anyway, a great read! It will surely be a help, thanks!

Edit: Oh, it actually does have an exact LK drawing, many thanks dimovski!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think changing LK is needed. You have compared it with BobCat's one and you can see they are lookalike, but yours is stockalike. I'd vote for updating only the IVA. Maybe, but only MAYBE, make custom landing legs, but nothing more. :)

It's already near perfection. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This lander in particular, I have in mind for the "TantaresMD" I talk about a few pages ago, it's quite nice! (But, also I consider things like the LK-300).

Hmm, I would think that that specific spacecraft would depend heavily on both Tantares and AB launchers, considering the LV and return capsule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think changing LK is needed. You have compared it with BobCat's one and you can see they are lookalike, but yours is stockalike. I'd vote for updating only the IVA. Maybe, but only MAYBE, make custom landing legs, but nothing more. :)

It's already near perfection. :)

This may be one occasion where keeping the older parts around is good for a revamp, but I'm dead set on separating the descent and ascent stage.

The LK landing structure can serve purpose similar to 2.5m landing structure from inflatable hubs - generic allow 1.25m parts to be "nested" in it.

Still, I do appreciate the feedback on what people prefer :)

a64f9f3069.jpg

Bad drawing(s)

6aaa23798e.png

ff53de20a4.jpg

Fisher price "my first LK"

Hmm, I would think that that specific spacecraft would depend heavily on both Tantares and AB launchers, considering the LV and return capsule.

It's a good point, I'll have to navigate that trouble if I come to it. :)

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may be one occasion where keeping the older parts around is good for a revamp, but I'm dead set on separating the descent and ascent stage.

The LK landing structure can serve purpose similar to 2.5m landing structure from inflatable hubs - generic allow 1.25m parts to be "nested" in it.

Still, I do appreciate the feedback on what people prefer :)

http://puu.sh/eqOql/a64f9f3069.jpg

Bad drawing

http://puu.sh/eqP2n/6aaa23798e.png

That means it will be the same structure as BobCat's one. A frame with a hole in it as a part, a floating node or two. But this means it won't be as much stockalike and closer to replica, which, for a stockalike mod isn't something awful. After all, you dont have braking retrorockets on Soyuz parachute as well etc.

Making it the way that it will have two engines isn't as good as it is now, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That means it will be the same structure as BobCat's one. A frame with a hole in it as a part, a floating node or two. But this means it won't be as much stockalike and closer to replica, which, for a stockalike mod isn't something awful. After all, you dont have braking retrorockets on Soyuz parachute as well etc.

Making it the way that it will have two engines isn't as good as it is now, I think.

The floating node thing, I really dislike floating nodes, I would not do anything like that, no worries.

The node instead will be a cargo-bay style node (like you see in the mk2 parts).

Allows placement as normal, keeping it all modular.

It also allows just a single engine design, like the current one.

0b15ec73ec.jpg

It is getting a bit more realistic over abstract replica, but I hope not too much.

It is much closer as it is now than my original LK.

f7202c3fed.jpg

Or the even older Venus LK, which had custom landing legs

6a78cf34f4.jpg

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The floating node thing, I really dislike floating nodes, I would not do anything like that, no worries.

The node instead will be a cargo-bay style node (like you see in the mk2 parts).

Allows placement as normal, keeping it all modular.

It also allows just a single engine design, like the current one.

http://puu.sh/eqSOB/0b15ec73ec.jpg

It is getting a bit more realistic over abstract replica, but I hope not too much.

It is much closer as it is now than my original LK.

http://puu.sh/eqT8h/f7202c3fed.jpg

Or the even older Venus LK, which had custom landing legs

http://puu.sh/azrjA/6a78cf34f4.jpg

Ah, I understand that. It seems nice, but I don't understand, will the legs have a built-in decoupler.

And while the decisions on LK are made, just a Mars-like test on Kerbin. :cool:

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Edited by Niemand303

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, I understand that. It seems nice, but I don't understand, will the legs have a built-in decoupler.

And while the decisions on LK are made, just a Mars-like test on Kerbin. :cool:

http://imgur.com/a/VJefh

Yeah, in fact I suppose you could sum up the whole landing structure as one large, complicated stack decoupler.

While I remain in terrible diagram mode.

468fb00666.jpg

Tha... that Venera...

How much ÃŽâ€s does it have? (Delta Swag ~ The amount which an object may change its swaginess)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, in fact I suppose you could sum up the whole landing structure as one large, complicated stack decoupler.

While I remain in terrible diagram mode.

http://puu.sh/er05t/468fb00666.jpg

Tha... that Venera...

How much ÃŽâ€s does it have? (Delta Swag ~ The amount which an object may change its swaginess)

So, that basically means you should have a separator mode on it, since you may attach on any of the nodes, I see. :)

But wont there be fairing on the engine since you attach it on the bottom node of it? and will that mean that the bottom node will be raise so that the nozzles stick out? Or there would be a special attachment node above the nozzles so they will stick out while keeping the bottom node as it is?

850 bread crumbles, or 0.3 loafs. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I would make my own Sputnik 3/Object D, and here it is!

Jq7kEwy.png

R-7 on the pad with service towers still attached. I tried a launchsite from KerbinSide that's located in the desert because I thought it would look like Baikonur, but it didn't turn out very well.:P Maybe I'll just download the Kosmodrome mod.

WTYhGI9.png

Service gantries and tie down arms released, engines ignitited.

lXfGJkq.png

Liftoff!

FWCbFC2.png

Boosters separated and fairings too, due to an error in the staging sequence.

gLLFyRW.png

Orbit achieved, spacecraft separated. The curved anntennas didn't turn out that bad in my opinion.:D

kdlIsDM.png

Hmm, the barometers are giving off some very interesting readings...:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, that basically means you should have a separator mode on it, since you may attach on any of the nodes, I see. :)

But wont there be fairing on the engine since you attach it on the bottom node of it? and will that mean that the bottom node will be raise so that the nozzles stick out? Or there would be a special attachment node above the nozzles so they will stick out while keeping the bottom node as it is?

850 bread crumbles, or 0.3 loafs. :cool:

The new one is engine / fuel tank combo, the engines are inset, kind of like the real RD-858.

So fairings are not needed - it attache directly via the bottom node of the fuel tank / engine.

You have it right - with the current design of nozzle on the engine, this whole two stage thing would be pretty impossible without some seriously unfriendly single-use parts.

3f6451bd2e.jpg

ded9284128.jpg

3db46de9a1.jpg

62b3d43de0.jpg

This is the main reason to keep around the old fuel tank and separate engine, as they are useful in their own way.

I said I would make my own Sputnik 3/Object D, and here it is!

http://i.imgur.com/Jq7kEwy.png

R-7 on the pad with service towers still attached. I tried a launchsite from KerbinSide that's located in the desert because I thought it would look like Baikonur, but it didn't turn out very well.:P Maybe I'll just download the Kosmodrome mod.

http://i.imgur.com/WTYhGI9.png

Service gantries and tie down arms released, engines ignitited.

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

Liftoff!

http://i.imgur.com/FWCbFC2.png

Boosters separated and fairings too, due to an error in the staging sequence.

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

Orbit achieved, spacecraft separated. The curved anntennas didn't turn out that bad in my opinion.:D

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

Hmm, the barometers are giving off some very interesting readings...:D

Nice! I like it.

Interesting this wouldn't be possible (I think) before the new editor.

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you show us more of this "Venus" stuff?

Sure, why not.

These are really old (Like version 0.19).

The first parts I have ever made.

e46db3a5db.jpgfd08ecfa17.jpg1b7f5d252e.jpgf42b398f56.jpg48d73f13cb.jpgedcb88b0bc.jpg63c3c2f737.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, why not.

These are really old (Like version 0.19).

The first parts I have ever made.

(snip parts)

Those engines actually look pretty darn good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I've had a similar problem when I've designed my stock-alike Atlas from NovaPunch and KlockheedMartian parts. It's kinda simple to overcome, actually - you'll need a double node, but it must be on the fuel tank, not on the landing platform.

Parts list:

- Fuel tank - one node on top, double node on the bottom

- Engine - two standard nodes, just like now

- Landing platform - one decoupler node on top

Assembly

1) Place the tank

2) Attach the landing platform

3) Attach the engine to the second fuel tank node

4) Attach your launcher to the engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said I would make my own Sputnik 3/Object D, and here it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, I've had a similar problem when I've designed my stock-alike Atlas from NovaPunch and KlockheedMartian parts. It's kinda simple to overcome, actually - you'll need a double node, but it must be on the fuel tank, not on the landing platform.

Parts list:

- Fuel tank - one node on top, double node on the bottom

- Engine - two standard nodes, just like now

- Landing platform - one decoupler node on top

Assembly

1) Place the tank

2) Attach the landing platform

3) Attach the engine to the second fuel tank node

4) Attach your launcher to the engine

Ah, this works, but doing it this way, if you attach a normal 1.25m fuel tank into the platform, the platform no longer has a bottom node, no good :(

Those engines actually look pretty darn good.

Thanks!

People can have the files if they want them, but the models have the wrong number of sides for a cylinder, and the textures are all too big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, this works, but doing it this way, if you attach a normal 1.25m fuel tank into the platform, the platform no longer has a bottom node, no good :(

Yes, but there is almost no way to make it work properly with "normal" fuel tanks. And making it as a stack separator that goes between engine and anything below won't do anything good - there is a broad selection of engines, many of which won't fit nicely. There's LV-909 and there's LV-N. Imagine a nuclear lander with its landing platform floating around its engine nozzle... Also, I believe it's impossible to attach anything to the decoupler or the stack separator and make it stay in place after decoupling.

Edited by biohazard15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but there is almost no way to make it work properly with "normal" fuel tanks. And making it as a stack separator that goes between engine and anything below won't do anything good - there is a broad selection of engines, many of which won't fit nicely. There's LV-909 and there's LV-N. Imagine a nuclear lander with its landing platform floating around its engine nozzle... Also, I believe it's impossible to attach anything to the decoupler or the stack separator and make it stay in place after decoupling.

It is true, but allowing stock tanks to be used will still allow some usefulness.

For example, a "generic Mun payload lander" might look like this.

9e012e7706.png

And it still has the node free at the bottom, to attach to the launcher.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the LV-N scenario, but on the other bit, as long as it is decoupling "upward" (I think) I am sure things will stay attached (Need to test this).

I could quite happily replace my little "integrale tre" here with this setup.

ecd8f724fd.jpg

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer there to be a version of the LK engine with a fairing be in the release still when the new LK is released, since I find the LK engine can be used for other purposes besides on the LK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer there to be a version of the LK engine with a fairing be in the release still when the new LK is released, since I find the LK engine can be used for other purposes besides on the LK.

Yeah for sure, this is one instance where I will keep the old one around (But I might retexture them to reduce texture bloat).

I am surprised the topic proves quite controversial :D , ah, but it is good to know people are passionate about these things. Thankyou for the feedback and input.

Also, quick test, things will remain attached post separation.

48954038f3.jpg

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could quite happily replace my little "integrale tre" here with this setup.

Where did the name integrale tre come from? Also, why was the original version called "Venus"?

Share this post


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.