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

[Beale]

Questions.

Znamya-2, solar reflector. Should the in-game purpose be as a science experiment - or just some kind of solar panel?

 

Some other news.

Fuji propellant tanks are taking a different design than previous - radially attached spheres, and a new slim central column piece.
The advantages here - much closer layout of the engine and solar panels, etc.

[tjsnh]

8 minutes ago, Beale said:

Questions.

Znamya-2, solar reflector. Should the in-game purpose be as a science experiment - or just some kind of solar panel?

 

Some other news.

Fuji propellant tanks are taking a different design than previous - radially attached spheres, and a new slim central column piece.
The advantages here - much closer layout of the engine and solar panels, etc.

Science experiment. Like the space telescope that comes with the 'asteroid day' DLC.

[Beale]

47 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

Science experiment. Like the space telescope that comes with the 'asteroid day' DLC.

Thanks, I am thinking this too to include some science things (Some may have noticed a new science experiment in latest Tantares release 'Telemetry-Report' which is analogue of Crew-Report for un-crewed craft).

Question for solar reflector experiment, what is the flavour text? The results of the reflector experiment only make sense from the perspective of a ground observer.

[Cydonian Monk]

6 minutes ago, Beale said:

Question for solar reflector experiment, what is the flavour text? The results of the reflector experiment only make sense from the perspective of a ground observer.

"Observers on the ground note that it's getting a bit warm."

"What is this? An experiment for frying ants?"

[CatastrophicFailure]

18 minutes ago, Cydonian Monk said:

"Observers on the ground note that it's getting a bit warm."

"What is this? An experiment for frying ants?"

In Soviet Russia, rocket ignite you!

[VenomousRequiem]

Woah, I just got an idea! What about the ability to half-deploy solar panels like Zarya's panels currently? They were retracted ~50% to clear space for the new solar arrays if I'm not mistaken. I say "New", but I guess that happened a while ago.

 

Also, don't forget you guys! T-30 minutes untill CRS-4 is launched from SLC-41 in Florida.

Edited December 4, 2015 by VenomousRequiem

[Curiosity7907]

Why do your mods have bug?

[Beale]

16 hours ago, Cydonian Monk said:

"Observers on the ground note that it's getting a bit warm."

"What is this? An experiment for frying ants?"

Excellent! These will be used for Kerbin

16 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Woah, I just got an idea! What about the ability to half-deploy solar panels like Zarya's panels currently? They were retracted ~50% to clear space for the new solar arrays if I'm not mistaken. I say "New", but I guess that happened a while ago.

Could be possible with the new animation controller. I will take a look

Salyut.

Still no Kvant, but some small progress.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Beale

[Beale]

Kvant

New model. It now ends in a 0.9375m hatch, as it should.

[legoclone09]

Can't wait, it is looking great!

[kopapaka]

Tantares docking test and SRB launcher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkviVuRjaE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTlKpzHc3VE

Edited December 5, 2015 by kopapaka

[Leszek]

So I have an issue that I am not sure has anything to do with Tantares, however I thought I would post here just in case.

After creating my first Vostok I find that the launch fails.  That is, I hit the space bar and the decouplers/launch clamps decouple but the engines do not fire and the ship just sits there.  If I recover the craft there is no end of mission dialogue and the crew is listed as MIA.  I can throttle down to zero, manually activate each engine and throttle up for a take off.  If I abort then, I can recover the crew just fine.

Mods that might make a difference are "Sensible Pumps" and "Remote Tech".  With SP the engines will automatically shut down if not connected to a control of some type and RT can cause immediate loss of signal after launch causing the rocket to just sit there.  Normally this isn't an issue as such rockets are not crewed so I wouldn't know if it is "eating them."  Both mods do not normally cause this kind of issue for various reasons.

Anyone else run into similar situations?

__________________-UPdate-______________________

It is the Alnair capsule that does it.  I haven't gotten to any of the later capsules but if I attach the bloeting one or the stock one directly to launch clamps and let them go, the capsule lands and I recover normally.  But if I try this with Alnair, the crew goes MIA.  It is almost like it is being treated like debris instead of a command module.

__________________-UPdate-______________________

SOLVED!

So after browsing the cfg files a bit I noticed Alnair was missing the following line:

vesselType = Ship

After adding the line the capsule responds normally.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Leszek

[curtquarquesso]

All looking good! Feedback:

Salyut: 

• Is the wide stripe on the forward docking/airlock set in stone? It seems a bit wide, and a bit strange. Not sure why.
• We currently have three variants of the forward crew block. The non-tapered one is hard to work with moment, as it's not truly 1.25m, or 0.625m.  Any ideas on how to improve?
• A variant of the crew block with a front-facing, round hatch on the front like Kvant-2 would be a great addition. A shorter, interim 1.25m crew block would also be handy, and would remove the needs for excessive clipping of some of these parts to get the right look.
• Have you considered changing the early generation Salyut OMS engine?

Kvant-1

• Any chance Kvant-1 could get a nice, wide, nadir-facing observation window? If you ever do an IVA for it in the future, it'd be good to have a window on the thing. 
• Does Kvant need the hatch any more? Because it's a science laboratory, it pretty much has to be docked to a station anyways. Something to consider. 
• Colored stripe instead of the white stripe? This could help it stand out as a science module, and not just a normal module. 
• What is the possibility of giving Kvant-1 a toggle-able fairing shroud for the awkward octagonal section? Now that the stock game includes Tweakables for fairing shrouds, it'd be totally optional. I've always used a crazy-complicated procedural fairings setup to replicate the Kvant-1 FGB Tug. My setup included lots of annoying clipping, and lots of carefully placed procedural fairings...
• Spoiler

  

   

DOS Core

• Any plans to change the layout of the core module? Link to the layout I drew up from a page or two ago. I'd rather have divided, shorter modules, than one large module. You can always make it longer, but you can't make it shorter. Again, having a dedicated aft propellant/docking would god-send. How does the current setup look against the orthographic drawings of the different DOS derived modules?

Docking Ports?

• I know it's getting to be a sore subject, but what's the plan with all the different docking ports? I'm almost finished with this semester of school, so I probably could put some work into them if you need help. @cxg2827 is planning on working on some APAS stuff, and I was going to try to figure out some more of the new code added to the game for docking ports. 
• An idea for the existing 0.9375m probe and drogues would be to make them the Hybrid variety of probe and drogue docking ports. The outside diameter actually scales to around 0.9375m, unlike the traditional probe and drogue port, which has a smaller outside diameter. Think about it, but I think the docking ports need to get finished up and finalized. It'd make modeling other stuff easier if the state of the docking ports aren't in a state of flux. 

Any pictures of Fuji progress to share? What does the current development road-map look like?

Hopefully on Sunday, I can get you guys some pictures of my view of the CRS OA-4 Cygnus launch. 

Spoiler

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[bokrif]

On 2015. 12. 04., CaptKordite said:

My assortment of orbital craft (some historical, some not).

One question if I may deviate from the topic a little: how did you make the craft which down from the top big soyuz and left from the CTV, and based on the Spektre command module? I couldn't find a suitable decoupler in the size. (This problem applies to the other great Tantares pods.)

[cxg2827]

21 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

• @cxg2827 is planning on working on some APAS stuff, and I was going to try to figure out some more of the new code added to the game for docking ports. 

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear...

 

I've played a bit with the new code added for ports and added them to the CBMs in my pack. I found that some tweaking is needed for several of the variables since you can get a strange interaction where you are within the engagement distance. If you are not lined up within the snap rotation value, the vessel just yo-yos and clips into the docking port its trying to engage. It then needs user input to nudge the rotation to properly engage if SAS is engaged.

Havent gotten back yet to finding a good balance with the variables, but I will try to tweak them a bit when I get to modeling the active APAS in my pack.

[Beale]

1 hour ago, Leszek said:

SOLVED!

So after browsing the cfg files a bit I noticed Alnair was missing the following line:

 

vesselType = Ship

After adding the line the capsule responds normally.

Thanks!

Fixed for next release!

5 hours ago, kopapaka said:

Tantares docking test and SRB launcher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkviVuRjaE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTlKpzHc3VE

Nice!

Space hotel?

38 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

All looking good! Feedback:

Salyut: 

• Is the wide stripe on the forward docking/airlock set in stone? It seems a bit wide, and a bit strange. Not sure why.
• We currently have three variants of the forward crew block. The non-tapered one is hard to work with moment, as it's not truly 1.25m, or 0.625m.  Any ideas on how to improve?
• A variant of the crew block with a front-facing, round hatch on the front like Kvant-2 would be a great addition. A shorter, interim 1.25m crew block would also be handy, and would remove the needs for excessive clipping of some of these parts to get the right look.
• Have you considered changing the early generation Salyut OMS engine?

Kvant-1

• Any chance Kvant-1 could get a nice, wide, nadir-facing observation window? If you ever do an IVA for it in the future, it'd be good to have a window on the thing. 
• Does Kvant need the hatch any more? Because it's a science laboratory, it pretty much has to be docked to a station anyways. Something to consider. 
• Colored stripe instead of the white stripe? This could help it stand out as a science module, and not just a normal module. 
• What is the possibility of giving Kvant-1 a toggle-able fairing shroud for the awkward octagonal section? Now that the stock game includes Tweakables for fairing shrouds, it'd be totally optional. I've always used a crazy-complicated procedural fairings setup to replicate the Kvant-1 FGB Tug. My setup included lots of annoying clipping, and lots of carefully placed procedural fairings...
•   Reveal hidden contents

  

   

DOS Core

• Any plans to change the layout of the core module? Link to the layout I drew up from a page or two ago. I'd rather have divided, shorter modules, than one large module. You can always make it longer, but you can't make it shorter. Again, having a dedicated aft propellant/docking would god-send. How does the current setup look against the orthographic drawings of the different DOS derived modules?

Docking Ports?

• I know it's getting to be a sore subject, but what's the plan with all the different docking ports? I'm almost finished with this semester of school, so I probably could put some work into them if you need help. @cxg2827 is planning on working on some APAS stuff, and I was going to try to figure out some more of the new code added to the game for docking ports. 
• An idea for the existing 0.9375m probe and drogues would be to make them the Hybrid variety of probe and drogue docking ports. The outside diameter actually scales to around 0.9375m, unlike the traditional probe and drogue port, which has a smaller outside diameter. Think about it, but I think the docking ports need to get finished up and finalized. It'd make modeling other stuff easier if the state of the docking ports aren't in a state of flux. 

Any pictures of Fuji progress to share? What does the current development road-map look like?

Hopefully on Sunday, I can get you guys some pictures of my view of the CRS OA-4 Cygnus launch. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Oh boy, a lot of things to speak of!

WYSIWYG editor makes answering this less easy, eh!

Salyut

- Stripe is not set in stone, I have tried a few things,the module always looks a bit naked with no striped - and with greeble-y parts, feels strange to use. Thoughts?
- Non tapered adapter is now just a plain tube.

- Ability to build MIR should be a priority, so yes I think this is good.
- I have, yes! Funny you should mention this - I have been looking at Almaz engine to replace VEGA_ENGINE_A, Meanwhile VEGA_ENGINE_B remains as a Salyut 1 / 2 propulsion engine.

Kvant

- I thought about turning the whole octagon shape at the top into an observation type space. Windows there?
- Not strictly anymore. But... For the sake of having at least one (although there will probably be another) 2.5m part with a docking port
- Interesting idea, it does currently have a different paint scheme, like the photos you posted!

- Shroud, tricky tricky. I cannot think how to do, without sacrifice of top attachment node...?

DOS Core

- Yes! No model yet, but a 0.5625m length section should be a perfect fit (Bring total length of the 2.5m section to 3 metres). The current part is based from orthographic drawing of SALYUT-1, so it is a little shorter. Just a little piece needed to be suitable for later stations.

Docking Ports

- They are stalled, I meant to figure out the animation controllers, but have sadly not had the time, bleh! The APAS things sound interesting!  

Edited December 5, 2015 by Beale

[Beale]

1 hour ago, cxg2827 said:

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear...

 

I've played a bit with the new code added for ports and added them to the CBMs in my pack. I found that some tweaking is needed for several of the variables since you can get a strange interaction where you are within the engagement distance. If you are not lined up within the snap rotation value, the vessel just yo-yos and clips into the docking port its trying to engage. It then needs user input to nudge the rotation to properly engage if SAS is engaged.

Havent gotten back yet to finding a good balance with the variables, but I will try to tweak them a bit when I get to modeling the active APAS in my pack.

Perhaps he's wondering why you would put a man in a space suit before throwing him out of an airlock...

Interesting to hear about your docking ports. You would say then it is not quite a pleasant experience with some of the new constraints?

 

KVANT

Still a work in progress.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Beale

[cxg2827]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

Interesting to hear about your docking ports. You would say then it is not quite a pleasant experience with some of the new constraints?

The new constraints are definitely nice for locking in specific angles, but there are several issues:

• The docking magnetism is just a point source, so no radial force will be applied to the craft when its in range. Think of it like putting 2 bar magnets together at their poles. What would be nice is if the docking magnetism acted like a horseshoe magnet, forcing a rotational force to align. @NathanKell, would you have any idea if this is possible? I wish i knew how to make a gif to show the Yo-Yoing effect when its within acquireMinRollDot but not within captureMinRollDot, its kind of funny and causes an oscillation on both crafts.
• The MinRollDot variables arent much of an issue if you are docking using docking cam, but if you set the tolerances tight (like i did) you will need to give a bit of wiggle to get it to engage.
• Docking ports seem to ignore the colliders of each other. I tried adding more colliders to see if i could trick it to not ignore the others but so far no luck. If you could somehow have it so that certain colliders are not ignored, you can make guide fins to help the docking alignment. Maybe if i set the docking engagement distance to be very short, it might not ignore the guide fin colliders at first, I'll have to test that theory out tomorrow. 

[NathanKell]

It's possible, but I didn't have time to write anything like that. Someone writing a class that inherited from ModuleDockingNode might be able to add it, or just as a separate module.

[VenomousRequiem]

You should give Kvant like an engine shroud(Of course it's not an engine but you know what I mean...) on the top bit so we can do the orbital tug thing!

[CaptKordite]

4 hours ago, bokrif said:

how did you make the craft which down from the top big soyuz and left from the CTV, and based on the Spektre command module? I couldn't find a suitable decoupler in the size.

That particular craft is using the Contares 1875t Decoupler but it could also use the Tantares TK-QS01A decoupler (that's in Tartares LV, right?)

More importantly, I have added a Contares BTG2S Upper Heatshield to the Spektr module because it has a tendency to come in nose down on reentry. Adding a heat shield weights the back end so it comes in back end first, keeping the parachutes from exploding. The other Spectr-based craft also has a smaller heat shield weighting the back end.

[curtquarquesso]

7 hours ago, Beale said:

Salyut

- Stripe is not set in stone, I have tried a few things,the module always looks a bit naked with no striped - and with greeble-y parts, feels strange to use. Thoughts?
- Non tapered adapter is now just a plain tube.
- Ability to build MIR should be a priority, so yes I think this is good.
- I have, yes! Funny you should mention this - I have been looking at Almaz engine to replace VEGA_ENGINE_A, Meanwhile VEGA_ENGINE_B remains as a Salyut 1 / 2 propulsion engine.

Kvant

- I thought about turning the whole octagon shape at the top into an observation type space. Windows there?
- Not strictly anymore. But... For the sake of having at least one (although there will probably be another) 2.5m part with a docking port
- Interesting idea, it does currently have a different paint scheme, like the photos you posted!

- Shroud, tricky tricky. I cannot think how to do, without sacrifice of top attachment node...?

DOS Core

- Yes! No model yet, but a 0.5625m length section should be a perfect fit (Bring total length of the 2.5m section to 3 metres). The current part is based from orthographic drawing of SALYUT-1, so it is a little shorter. Just a little piece needed to be suitable for later stations.

Docking Ports

- They are stalled, I meant to figure out the animation controllers, but have sadly not had the time, bleh! The APAS things sound interesting!  

Salyut

• Don't worry too much about the parts looking bare. It's the player's job to clutter them up with RCS thrusters, antennae, and monopropellant balls. The only thing the player can't really do, is add decals, handrails, windows, propellant lines, access panels, warning labels, and typography. That's what you can do. I really like it when you use those elements to spice up an otherwise bare part. 
• Ah. Cool beans then. Didn't know if they were the same part. Should be handy for some things. Any willingness to make just a shorty 1.25m structural or crewed tube? There's nothing that currently fills that void.
• Great. A Kvant-2 airlock has great potential for a really fun IVA one day. 
• Ugh. Almaz... Such a tricky vehicle. It's hard to replicate as it was highly secretive, and each of them were very unique. Be careful you don't get requests for more Almaz parts. Could be a can of worms. With the Salyut 1 and Salyut 4 OMS engine, would you redo it similarly to the diagram I sketched up?

Kvant

• Sure! The octagonal section had an X-Ray telescope on it, as well as an observation window right below on the main working section. Pictured here. I would definitely do both. I'm a big fan of windows. What the octagonal section could use is greeble and hand-rails. Here's another reference picture that shows some of the greeble you have to choose from. Take your pick!
• Whatever works, hatch or no hatch, though I do like the idea of modules that have specialties, and limitations. Makes station building more fun if each module has a specific function.
• I REALLY like the brown striped Kvant.  PLEASE go with this paint scheme. If you do a widow on the octagonal section, you'd need to move or alter the handrail. 
• It'd be similar to the old PPTS heat shield adapter shroud, but I see the difficulty... Having a docking node in front of the module would mean that the shroud would never be able to jettison. If I work on this problem, would you ever consider it? Here's a mockup with the general idea. Also shows window placement.

DOS Core

• I'm still a bit confused. How long is your current DOS 2.5m crew cabin? I've got a bunch of schematics, and I'm trying to find out the true lengths of the sections that make up the DOS type stations. There's a lot of conflicting info unfortunately. I have blueprints and schematics that seem to disagree with one another. 
• DOS modules, from Salyut to Zvezda, have working compartments that are about 2.5m long, and then a integrated docking and propulsion module, like on Salyut, Mir, and Zvezda, or a smaller diameter orbital propulsion module, like on Salyut 1 and Salyut 4. If you make one long, 3.0m block, then you can't replicated Salyut 1 or Salyut 4 well, and you have to clip propellant in to power the integrated type aft design. I'm still trying to figure out if Salyut 6, Salyut 7, Zvezda, and the Mir Core Module all have the same diameter wide section. I can't reach a consensus with my drawings. I think I've been staring at them too long. Someone else might want to give it a go. I've got references in the albums from a few pages back, as well as these fully dimensioned sketches from a Princeton university article.
• In a nutshell, I'd think about chopping down the crew cabin you have, and letting players choose to add on an 1.25 diameter Salyut 1 style engine, or add on a 2.5m propulsion/docking unit. If you went that route, you could leave the crew block just a block, and not worry about the ends too much, and then you could really get fancy with the integrated docking and propulsion unit, and make it look nice. Naturally, it'd be sans docking port. 

Docking Ports

I'm sorry to hear that. Let me know if you need help. @NathanKell said that the new parameters were pretty self-explanatory, but I honestly couldn't figure them out. I'm going to need help from someone who understands that end of KSP better. They really need proper documentation in the CFG documentation wiki.

 

Apologies for the rambling! 

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[Leszek]

Beale,.

I have updated the Station Science configs to work again. (Was broken)  Check the following for the udpated files:

Spoiler

New contents of _Extra_StationScience.cfg

@PART[Vega_Crew_D]:NEEDS[StationScience] 
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = StationScienceModule
    moduleName = Station Science Facility
    requiredTrait = Scientist
    ConverterName = Research Lab
    StartActionName = Start Research
    StopActionName = Stop Research
    AutoShutdown = false
    GeneratesHeat = false
    UseSpecialistBonus = false

    INPUT_RESOURCE
    {
      ResourceName = ElectricCharge
      Ratio = 0.00138888888
    }

    OUTPUT_RESOURCE
    {
      ResourceName = Eurekas
      Ratio = 0.00027777777
    }
  }
}

New Contents of  _MIR_Crew_D.cfg

PART
{

name = Vega_Crew_D
module = Part
author = Tantares

MODEL
{
   model = Tantares/Parts/SALYUT/MIR_Crew_D
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.4, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_top    = 0.0,  1.4, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
bulkheadProfiles = size1, size2

TechRequired = advConstruction
entryCost = 7000
cost = 2000

category     = Science
subcategory  = 0
title        = V-DOS-D "Quantum" Science Block
manufacturer = Tantares Space Technologies
description  = A dedicated science module for your growing space station.

attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

mass = 1.9

dragModelType  = default
maximum_drag   = 0.20
minimum_drag   = 0.15
angularDrag    = 2
crashTolerance = 10
maxTemp        = 3400

vesselType = Station

CrewCapacity = 1

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleScienceContainer
		reviewActionName = Review Data
		storeActionName = Store Experiments
		collectActionName = Take Data
		evaOnlyStorage = True
		storageRange = 2
		allowRepeatedSubjects = True
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleScienceLab
		containerModuleIndex = 0
		dataStorage = 500
		crewsRequired = 1
		canResetConnectedModules = True
		canResetNearbyModules = True
		interactionRange = 5
		SurfaceBonus = 0.1
		ContextBonus = 0.25
		homeworldMultiplier = 0.1
		RESOURCE_PROCESS
		{
			name = ElectricCharge
			amount = 10
		}
	}



MODULE
{
	name = ModuleSAS
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleReactionWheel
	
	PitchTorque = 7
	YawTorque = 7
	RollTorque = 7
	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ElectricCharge
		rate = 0.4
	}
}

RESOURCE
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	amount = 50
	maxAmount = 50
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceExperiment	
	
	experimentID = crewReport
	
	experimentActionName = Crew Report
	resetActionName = Discard Crew Report
	reviewActionName = Review Report
	
	useStaging = False	
	useActionGroups = True
	hideUIwhenUnavailable = True	
	rerunnable = True
	
	xmitDataScalar = 1.0
}


}

 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Leszek

[billbobjebkirk]

You could do the fairing by adding a second node with a decoupler module that would hover underneath the docking port, but I can easily understand why you would not want to do that.

[davidy12]

On December 4, 2015 at 2:55:28 PM, Beale said:

Thanks, I am thinking this too to include some science things (Some may have noticed a new science experiment in latest Tantares release 'Telemetry-Report' which is analogue of Crew-Report for un-crewed craft).

Question for solar reflector experiment, what is the flavour text? The results of the reflector experiment only make sense from the perspective of a ground observer.

Didn't Hermann Oberth, come up with concept? It was a proposed "Wonder Weapon" for the Nazis. May have been WAYYYYYYYY ahead of its time, but still, I don't see the purpose of it.