Beale

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

Recommended Posts

Some two stage landers, namely Fobos-Grunt and possibly Luna 16 had spring launched ascent stages so that the descent stage would not be damaged by rocket exhaust, allowing it to continue to function as a normal lander would. Something tells me that LK would not have this though, as the landing leg structure would not be used after the LK lifted off. Not to mention that the entire N1/L3 Munshot just screamed "Economy Class", so it probably wouldn't have been on LK to ensure cheapness anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been trying to go about it in the same way of the Bobcat LK (Which is plugin free).

As Bobcat's works 100% of the time my LK ascent stage is often getting stuck, needing the player to "wiggle" it to loosen the grip and takeoff - not good at all.

Or, I can "tighten" the colliders, but then on decouple, the LK is launched about 5 metres in air, works 100%, but looks and feels a bit "hacky".

Can you copy Bobcat's design, or would you find that unethical?

Is it possible that Tantares equipment failures are caused by the covert actions of a rogue foreign nation? Time to get Kerbal Tantares Group (KTG) on the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes the Tantares itself is due an overhaul (long due).

Actually - I would love to hear what people would like in a revamped Soyuz, I have my own ideas, but input is good.

What about the Tantares needs overhauling? It looks great, and functions really reliably. Only thing I could think to update would be the alternate textures. (Soviet green, TMA black fabric, Shenzhou white) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The only thing I don't like about the Tantares is the parachute/OM decoupler. I mess it up all the time and end up popping chutes when I don't want to, or decoupling when I don't want to. What would simplify things is if the chutes came out of the side like the real thing, and if there was just a standard .625 decoupler between the CM and the OM. Config-wise, can the chutes be built into a command module if it can be built into a decoupler?

That's the only input I can think to give. I like the Tantares the way it is for the most part. Great early-game vessel.

P.S. Refine what you have, it's great!

P.P.S. IVA's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some two stage landers, namely Fobos-Grunt and possibly Luna 16 had spring launched ascent stages so that the descent stage would not be damaged by rocket exhaust, allowing it to continue to function as a normal lander would. Something tells me that LK would not have this though, as the landing leg structure would not be used after the LK lifted off. Not to mention that the entire N1/L3 Munshot just screamed "Economy Class", so it probably wouldn't have been on LK to ensure cheapness anyway.

Allow me to demonstrate what is happening, with a video.

Perhaps, how it currently works (works 100%, but "springy") will bother nobody, but I am a bit peculiar about stuff like this...

edit: Oh! I have had an idea. The "Nesting jets" found on the real LK, they may fire when staging occurs, to keep the LK base firmly planted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKBmzFyjhdc&feature=youtu.be

Can you copy Bobcat's design, or would you find that unethical?

Is it possible that Tantares equipment failures are caused by the covert actions of a rogue foreign nation? Time to get Kerbal Tantares Group (KTG) on the case.

Eh, It's impossible to copy it directly, really, I cannot see the exact shape of colliders and stuff in Bobcat's design. Aside from that, yeah, it is not all that nice to "steal" someone else work.

I thoroughly believe I am being sabotaged :confused:

What about the Tantares needs overhauling? It looks great, and functions really reliably. Only thing I could think to update would be the alternate textures. (Soviet green, TMA black fabric, Shenzhou white) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The only thing I don't like about the Tantares is the parachute/OM decoupler. I mess it up all the time and end up popping chutes when I don't want to, or decoupling when I don't want to. What would simplify things is if the chutes came out of the side like the real thing, and if there was just a standard .625 decoupler between the CM and the OM. Config-wise, can the chutes be built into a command module if it can be built into a decoupler?

That's the only input I can think to give. I like the Tantares the way it is for the most part. Great early-game vessel.

P.S. Refine what you have, it's great!

P.P.S. IVA's?

"Refine what I have" Is better way to say it, not a complete overhaul :)

Thanks for the input.

IVAs : still doing' em

- - - Updated - - -

YEAH!

This damn part has been giving me trouble all day.

May I present, what is (hopefully) the solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIr_egiTX0U&feature=youtu.be

Separation is consistent and clean everytime. Except if you use a very thin part (I.e. 1.25m probe core) instead of the lk fuel tank (all other fuel tanks are fine though), or if you use a part too big to fit in the "nest" (I.e. 2.5m)

Still not sure... Eh... I may just go back to how it was and make some custom landing leg, all this headache over a part, it still is not perfect

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those four things around the top of the docking mechanism were it's vernier thrust. The landing engine also had a back up engine (that is what the 2 other nozzles were on the LK-862)

Edited by CardBoardBoxProcessor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yay new LK decent stage!

Also nice Venera.

Also Also, some time ago I posted a space station module. Here it is today:

Fx4KzuL.png

Edited by gooddog15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argh! That's horrible.

Really sorry for this, I must look into it.

I have a sneaking suspicion what is cause it.

Atleast you have got a bit of a story out of it, if a frustrating one at that.

Edit: I should explain my suspicion: I believe the docking transforms are aligned incorrectly, causing this behaviour.

To confirm this, I believe you will not have problems if using the TKS Docking port, ah, but maybe you will want to use stock (APAS-alike?) to be safe.

WEll, I'm atm using stock clampotrons and... kaboom. The problem appeared after installing Tantares 14.1

0BAhHSX.png

I tried to undock the ship on the left and... she didn't move away even using the RCS, the vessel was separated but glued by invisible force between the two docking ports. I went back to the KSC then switched back to the ship, they were noticed as docked so I undocked again... KABOOM! the leaving ship docking port exploded, then the part behind exploded too and the probe core floated slowly and atomized the cockpit what made it move forward, slowly come back to the other ship... every single part it touched exploded, like it was antimatter. The strange thing was the other parts mounted around the destroyed parts, they didn't move at all as if the part still was there.

All my mission is jeopardized :sealed: ALT+F4 saved my ships but game is stopped for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vahal, are you running Ferram's Kerbal Joint Reenforcement? I've had similar running it. Check out that forum page...

There's a development version of KJR available in the thread that solves the docking port issue. I've been running it for a bit and have no adverse issues to report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is strange it's that I had this problem just after upgrading Tantares from 14 to 14.1 but upgrading to KJR 3.1 solved my problem. That was really weird :huh:

Thank you pals, you saved my kerbals and my game. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually - I would love to hear what people would like in a revamped Soyuz, I have my own ideas, but input is good.

If you re-made it, or made a version of it, that fit your medium-sized radius like the VA capsule and Salyut parts, and carried 3 crew, that would make for a pretty slick progression. I frequently use the tantares capsule as a Zond rather than a Soyuz. Maybe a set of resized R-7 parts to fit that medium diameter. Just thinking out loud.

Oh, and the door on the orbital module looks a little large and obtrusive sometimes. Not a big deal though.

Edited by tjsnh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the "one piece" lander base be retained? I hope so - I rather enjoy that these parts are "inspired by" rather then trying to be perfect replicas of the real world design. Lends it's self to your original "Lego" concept I think.

Oh, and I flew the Cygnus clone today. I have Deadly Reentry installed, and found much to my surprise that even when MechJeb did it's -xxxxkm Pe descent (IE steep angle) all the parts survived with NO problem. I expected it to blow up on reentry... Yet with NO heat shield I landed it at KSP intact...

Edited by tg626

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yay new LK decent stage!

Also nice Venera.

Also Also, some time ago I posted a space station module. Here it is today:

http://i.imgur.com/Fx4KzuL.png

Amazing station!

I love it.

If you re-made it, or made a version of it, that fit your medium-sized radius like the VA capsule and Salyut parts, and carried 3 crew, that would make for a pretty slick progression. I frequently use the tantares capsule as a Zond rather than a Soyuz. Maybe a set of resized R-7 parts to fit that medium diameter. Just thinking out loud.

Oh, and the door on the orbital module looks a little large and obtrusive sometimes. Not a big deal though.

Sizing is rather set in stone I'm afraid, atleast in vanilla Tantares (Could make a re-size config, Niemand has already provided a great RO sized config).

The door idea is great though, I'm thinking very much of rearranging the door positions.

Will the "one piece" lander base be retained? I hope so - I rather enjoy that these parts are "inspired by" rather then trying to be perfect replicas of the real world design. Lends it's self to your original "Lego" concept I think.

Oh, and I flew the Cygnus clone today. I have Deadly Reentry installed, and found much to my surprise that even when MechJeb did it's -xxxxkm Pe descent (IE steep angle) all the parts survived with NO problem. I expected it to blow up on reentry... Yet with NO heat shield I landed it at KSP intact...

After sleeping over it, you are right. The old design of LK body is best, this new one is just too "hacky". The game is not built for this kind of nested part, the physics cannot handle it reliably.

Plus, like the Bobcat one, it is built on top of the pre-part module Landing leg config, which is sure to be deprecated at some point, rendering the LK dead.

The "Lego" frame of mind is the way to go :)

I know some people may not prefer it, but, sadly I think it is best.

Bah, but the LK has burned me, onto making IVAs for a little while (And maybe start texturing the PPTS).

The Cygnus: DRE is surprisingly un-deadly basically anything will survive. If you are using FAR, it is even less deadly.

Did you manage to clock the max temp it reached? Should have a ceiling of 1700c

The only DRE related fatality I can remember, trying to land a Mk2 lander can at basically 90 degree fall to Kerbin, that was, bad.

You might try bump up some of the numbers to simulate a more "earth-like" re-entry, where you will absolutely need a heatshield.

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the new Progress Refueling Module be a little bigger on the top? With the 0.625 meter diameter on the top and the much larger Cargo Module, Progress has always looked slightly topheavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the new Progress Refueling Module be a little bigger on the top? With the 0.625 meter diameter on the top and the much larger Cargo Module, Progress has always looked slightly topheavy.

Can't see a way around it unforunately, there really isn't an established

0.625 > X > 1.25m size.

I've talked of establishing a 0.9375 size, but it hasn't been met too warmly, I do not think people would really like the progress to end in that size in general, I know I wouldn't.

584f56f8fe.jpg

What I could do - radially attached "bags" to flesh out the "neck".

As seen here:

1c95897779.jpg

I'm starting with the Progress OM for the reason: it's a little easier to model and will allow me to experiment a bit with the design.

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't see a way around it unforunately, there really isn't an established

0.625 > X > 1.25m size.

I've talked of establishing a 0.9375 size, but it hasn't been met too warmly, I do not think people would really like the progress to end in that size in general, I know I wouldn't.

http://puu.sh/eyALT/584f56f8fe.jpg

What I could do - radially attached "bags" to flesh out the "neck".

As seen here:

http://puu.sh/eyAQ7/1c95897779.jpg

I'm starting with the Progress OM for the reason: it's a little easier to model and will allow me to experiment a bit with the design.

I'd suggest a 1m size introduction for the top of VA capsule, but not for SM/OM transition. :)

Will the "exterior" of Soyuz remade too? If no, I'd ask for uploading its textures to the repo to make some alternative textures. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd suggest a 1m size introduction for the top of VA capsule, but not for SM/OM transition. :)

Will the "exterior" of Soyuz remade too? If no, I'd ask for uploading its textures to the repo to make some alternative textures. :)

Yeah for sure, TKS still needs this size. :)

Textures, I will be updating them. A lot of the stuff not present in the repo is not present for the reason that it has a limited lifespan, I.E. I expect it to be replaced soon.

I am making a 3.25meter diametere rocket piece. Just make it 1m. humans are very keen to incorrectly tapered angles.

But, it will lose its versatility at that size, making it not great for anything other than the progress.

Once I flesh out the 1m size for the TKS top (With adapters) maybe then alternates can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, don't make 1m, 3.25m, or any other unusual diameters. That's not needed. Really. Leave these strange things to replica fanatics and other -censored-.

Edited by tetryds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is next on the agenda?

Tantares revamp or N-1 should be pretty high on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the lego aspect of Tantares. I like that the parts can be used with standard sized parts from stock, and from other packs. Please don't change that by adding in custom sizes.

Ugh, don't make 1m, 3.25m, or any other unusual diameters. That's not needed. Really. Leave these strange things to replica fanatics and other -censored-.

Seconded!

What is next on the agenda?

Tantares revamp or N-1 should be pretty high on the list.

I am looking forward to the day when Beale designs an N-1. I've tried the existing ones and they all have either usability or visual flaws.

Edited by tetryds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh, don't make 1m, 3.25m, or any other unusual diameters. That's not needed. Really. Leave these strange things to replica fanatics and other -censored-.
I like the lego aspect of Tantares. I like that the parts can be used with standard sized parts from stock, and from other packs. Please don't change that by adding in custom sizes.

Seconded!

.

The only custom size I look to is 0.9375m, but that is only for a few number of parts that really require it (VA engine for example).

The size would include adapters to 0.625m and 1.25m.

It is really no different from 1.875m (halfway in between already established sizes).

What is next on the agenda?

Tantares revamp or N-1 should be pretty high on the list.

Revamp everything. More or less.

And N-1.

Edited by tetryds

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.