[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [26.0][18.12.2023][Soyuz Revamp Again]

[TheShadow1138]

Beale, on the topic of engine emissives again, I've had success by simply moving the keyframes in the animation curve. I moved the final keyframe from 60 to 30 and the middle keyframe from 45 to 7. It still takes a little bit longer than before for the glow to start showing, but they look about like they did in 0.90. Just thought I'd share.

[Ghostshark27]

So, I'll chime in a bit on the ease of use on the rockets. Don't know if my issues were the weird aerodynamics of 1.0, or my ascent profile adjustment, but I've had no problems since 1.0.2. For the Soyuz, I start the gravity turn at about 1k, and run a shallow ascent profile. 25k, I'm angled around 30-40°. Once the boosters are gone, I have to angle up to sustain the climb. If done right, the upper stage doesn't have to do much to circularize.

The Proton, on the other hand, I start turning much later, more around 5k. At around 20-25k, I'm angled about 55°, and the booster is dropping out. I could probably circularize with the second stage, but I usually kill it early to drop it back into atmo.

Most of the launches I've done with these systems have been higher altitude and inclination than your standard 80-100k, zero inclination launch. Got two stations, one at 175k at 35°, the other is at 350k and 55°. Both the Proton and Soyuz are capable of hitting them with ease. So thanks for the awesome mods, during the process of getting these parts to work together, I've done so much research about Soviet rocketry, got a newfound respect for them!

[tg626]

Recall that the core of the r7 is a sustainer not a booster. It should be just barely abe to keep you from falling back down during it remaining burn after the strap ons are jetisonned.

[Revenant503]

Recall that the core of the r7 is a sustainer not a booster. It should be just barely abe to keep you from falling back down during it remaining burn after the strap ons are jetisonned.

Precisely - According to the Arianespace Soyuz User guide (essentially their "brochure" for Soyuz launchs) starting Surface TWR is around 1.4 going up to 4 at booster sep 2 minutes later, then on the core alone its TWR is 1 after sep going up to about 2.5 depending on the cargo

[DerpyFirework]

Right, so I did a bit more work on the Kliper Configs, using information from this thread (so the values are derived from surface area).

The new values appear to fix the sudden drag wall, and makes the Kliper fly a bit more... brick-like (As I guess it would have been IRL).

The single re-entry test I did ended with a 'Landing' on the runway (No landing gear), seemed to fly pretty good (for a winged brick).

Not going to guarantee anything with these, just that it works for me with my reconfigured aero (Midway between 1.0 and 1.0.2).

I'd say the lift values are close to perfect, not sure on the drag though.

Might try a full flight test soon, including the small landing gear clipped into the fuselage to try a proper landing.

EDIT: Kliper download was in this post.

EDIT2: Just did a full mission to a mockup of the Mir Core Module:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Worked well, nearly lost control on landing (brakes too strong).

Edited May 8, 2015 by DerpyFirework

[CrisK]

Right, so I did a bit more work on the Kliper Configs, using information from this thread (so the values are derived from surface area).

The new values appear to fix the sudden drag wall, and makes the Kliper fly a bit more... brick-like (As I guess it would have been IRL).

The single re-entry test I did ended with a 'Landing' on the runway (No landing gear), seemed to fly pretty good (for a winged brick).

Not going to guarantee anything with these, just that it works for me with my reconfigured aero (Midway between 1.0 and 1.0.2).

I'd say the lift values are close to perfect, not sure on the drag though.

Might try a full flight test soon, including the small landing gear clipped into the fuselage to try a proper landing.

Can you post a link to the Kliper's download page? I can check over your config. It's the least I can do until nuFAR is released.

[Wuwuk]

Please tell me, is there a mod "Angara" rocket working in 1.0.2?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you post a link to the Kliper's download page? I can check over your config. It's the least I can do until nuFAR is released.

Link on previous page.

[planeguy868]

Please tell me, is there a mod "Angara" rocket working in 1.0.2?

- - - Updated - - -

Link on previous page.

There is not. Beale has no plans to make one. However, TweakScale plus TantaresLV and ABLaunchers can make a great Angara replica.

[Wuwuk]

There is not. Beale has no plans to make one. However, TweakScale plus TantaresLV and ABLaunchers can make a great Angara replica.

Sorry for the dumb question, but what it is ABLaunchers?

[spacecookie]

Sorry for the dumb question, but what it is ABLaunchers?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106687-WIP-AB-Launchers-0-2-5m-Energia-parts-14-Feb To serve you !

[planeguy868]

Alright, since my personal stuff is at least somewhat sorted out, I can come back to KSP! Still not a huge amount of time since I start work on Monday, and still have to unpack everything from my dorm, but expect a Tantares TMA/Cargo Pack update this weekend.

Two questions:

1) Has anyone else experienced an issue with the Procedural Fairings parts in 0.90 where they appear white in the VAB part icons, but are fine when you actually place them, except for a lack of the stock texture (checking output.log reveals that fairing1.tga had a texture load error, don't know why)?

2) What else do you want to see retextured? Shenzou? PPTS? Some fuel tanks?

[Wuwuk]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106687-WIP-AB-Launchers-0-2-5m-Energia-parts-14-Feb To serve you !

Thank You.

[pTrevTrevs]

Ariane has been in Beta for a while now. Any predictions on when it will be released?

[VenomousRequiem]

Ariane has been in Beta for a while now. Any predictions on when it will be released?

Never!

[Guest]

Ariane has been in Beta for a while now. Any predictions on when it will be released?

The safest bet is just as it is with any mod release - sometime between 5 minutes from now and whenever it's finished.

[CrisK]

Link on previous page.

Thank you. This is a really weird config file. Before I modify it too much, is the intent to give the Lynx/Kliper lifting body properties by adding drag? I think that there are simpler ways to do this.

Edit: I have the Kliper working in stock aero, and with stock heat. I will try to improve the performance a bit.

Edited May 8, 2015 by CrisK

[Beale]

I have noticed what appears to be an issue with the T-RP and TK-RC04B Return Parachutes. When I hover over the tooltip, the semi-deployed and fully-deployed effective diameters read 0.0 for both modes and both models.

Consequently, this means that when I deploy the chute, the graphics and animation show a chute deploying - but to the game system there's nothing to cause resistance to slow the capsule, which slams into the ground and kills the crew. I am pretty sure a T-RP should normally be sufficient to slow a Khleb carrying nothing more than the two crewmen and a basic antenna (total mass 1275kg including the chute).

Am I doing something wrong, or is this a genuine bug? I'm sure I can change the values in the configs but if it's a real issue I wanted to bring it to your attention.

[EDIT: OK, I found an answer several pages back - deleting the partdatabase.cfg did work, just wondering why this happens now...]

Drag cubes are now cached in this KSP root directory config file, any aerodynamic weirdness, just delete it and everything is recalculated.

Beale, on the topic of engine emissives again, I've had success by simply moving the keyframes in the animation curve. I moved the final keyframe from 60 to 30 and the middle keyframe from 45 to 7. It still takes a little bit longer than before for the glow to start showing, but they look about like they did in 0.90. Just thought I'd share.

Good to know!

Also have found success with brighter emissive RGB values, but both methods will work well

So, I'll chime in a bit on the ease of use on the rockets. Don't know if my issues were the weird aerodynamics of 1.0, or my ascent profile adjustment, but I've had no problems since 1.0.2. For the Soyuz, I start the gravity turn at about 1k, and run a shallow ascent profile. 25k, I'm angled around 30-40°. Once the boosters are gone, I have to angle up to sustain the climb. If done right, the upper stage doesn't have to do much to circularize.

The Proton, on the other hand, I start turning much later, more around 5k. At around 20-25k, I'm angled about 55°, and the booster is dropping out. I could probably circularize with the second stage, but I usually kill it early to drop it back into atmo.

Most of the launches I've done with these systems have been higher altitude and inclination than your standard 80-100k, zero inclination launch. Got two stations, one at 175k at 35°, the other is at 350k and 55°. Both the Proton and Soyuz are capable of hitting them with ease. So thanks for the awesome mods, during the process of getting these parts to work together, I've done so much research about Soviet rocketry, got a newfound respect for them!

Recall that the core of the r7 is a sustainer not a booster. It should be just barely abe to keep you from falling back down during it remaining burn after the strap ons are jetisonned.

Precisely - According to the Arianespace Soyuz User guide (essentially their "brochure" for Soyuz launchs) starting Surface TWR is around 1.4 going up to 4 at booster sep 2 minutes later, then on the core alone its TWR is 1 after sep going up to about 2.5 depending on the cargo

Thanks for the info, I'll get around to balance soon.

Right, so I did a bit more work on the Kliper Configs, using information from this thread (so the values are derived from surface area).

The new values appear to fix the sudden drag wall, and makes the Kliper fly a bit more... brick-like (As I guess it would have been IRL).

The single re-entry test I did ended with a 'Landing' on the runway (No landing gear), seemed to fly pretty good (for a winged brick).

Not going to guarantee anything with these, just that it works for me with my reconfigured aero (Midway between 1.0 and 1.0.2).

I'd say the lift values are close to perfect, not sure on the drag though.

Might try a full flight test soon, including the small landing gear clipped into the fuselage to try a proper landing.

EDIT: Kliper download was in this post.

EDIT2: Just did a full mission to a mockup of the Mir Core Module:

http://imgur.com/a/qN87u

Worked well, nearly lost control on landing (brakes too strong).

Very nice!

I was sadly unable to fly your last config, but will try again with this Kliper

Please tell me, is there a mod "Angara" rocket working in 1.0.2?

Link on previous page.

It's a long time away. Will be coming with PPTS

Ariane has been in Beta for a while now. Any predictions on when it will be released?

Never!

The safest bet is just as it is with any mod release - sometime between 5 minutes from now and whenever it's finished.

Finishing touches, flag decals.

And, upper stage will come later.

TantaresLV 11 Released!

08/05/2015

- Added Ariane 5 rocket.

Thanks for the great feedback, allowing the rocket to be well balanced.

[VenomousRequiem]

Woo! As soon as I get home from school I'm getting this!

But... what comes next? :0

[Beale]

Woo! As soon as I get home from school I'm getting this!

But... what comes next? :0

Thanks!

I'll lay out plans for the future more clearly in June.

Meanwhile...

Here's something very interesting.

Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.

Look at it! It all makes sense now.

All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?

[Guest]

It gets my vote!

[Gristle]

Meanwhile...

Here's something very interesting.

Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.

Look at it! It all makes sense now.

All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?

While it looks nice this would break re-usability and compatibility with non Tantares parts. I would say no.

[kopapaka]

SSTO test

[biohazard15]

Meanwhile...

Here's something very interesting.

Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.

Look at it! It all makes sense now.

All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?

http://puu.sh/hG9mD/681445b77c.jpg

http://puu.sh/hG9lI/513c919ac3.jpg

No - plain and simple.

Currently they're a standard 0.625m in diameter, which allows their use with non-Tantares parts like stock Mk1 capsule and such.

If re-sized, it would be impossible without some third-party things like Tweakscale. And no, adapters are not a solution, since they add to part count.

So my vote goes for "put that idea in some dark closet and never get it out again". Please don't turn Tantares into an accurate replicas pack.

[benjee10]

Meanwhile...

Here's something very interesting.

Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.

Look at it! It all makes sense now.

All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?

http://puu.sh/hG9mD/681445b77c.jpg

http://puu.sh/hG9lI/513c919ac3.jpg

I like it. Looks distinctly more Soyuz-ish. The 0.625m ports always seemed undersized considering they're meant to be able to fit a whole Kerbal through! Certainly they'd be nice to have even if they were just an alternate config or something.

[billbobjebkirk]

I vote yes for alternate parts.