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

[Beale]

10 hours ago, space_powder said:

Well, after I applied that greyscale, the entire engine bell changed to black, so I just edited the thrust and other configs of the R-0120 to match the R-0122, thanks for the help though!

No problem, if I look at it in future, I would consider making one without colour.

 

[tjsnh]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:08 AM, Beale said:

I think it is probably worth having as a default, instead of having to change files in the end

Currently the Soyuz does not look quite correct...

I will play around with some models.

So, a little unsolicited input.

I've played around with the soyuz spacecraft and booster parts extensively, and made significant attempts to tweak/rescale them to better "fit" the real soyuz. A few thoughts on the topic in no particular order:
 

• As was mentioned by others, the current Soyuz/R7 stack results in a significantly "fat" payload fairing.
• The R7/Soyuz booster parts ought to be 1.875 instead of 1.25. Really, they should be closer to 1.5 (if the soyuz remains 1.25) but I know you don't like to add oddball sizes. Even if the side-booster bottoms were 1.875 too (as with the "old" tantares, where the side boosters were 1.25 like the center tank), this would still be great.
• A little playing around with scaling up the center-tanks to 1.875 and leaving the side-booster tanks as they are now (1.875 on the bottom) produces a REALLY nice looking booster!
• Resizing the existing parts via cfg file produces ... flawed ... results. (mesh issues I think, but I'm not sure)
• The soyuz, with solar panels, and comms stuff on the orbital module, requires a fairing that extends almost out to 1.875 as-is today, even with all the parts clipped "inwards" slightly to conserve width.
• The comms dishes, even when "folded up" and retracted still protrude outwards significantly, enough to need the larger fairing, and also stick "up" quite a bit necessitating the need of a structural/spacer part between the docking port and the LES to keep the fairing "pointed" a the top, if that makes sense.
• The 1.25m Soyuz crew capsule still looks/feels significantly too small for more than one crew member to "fit". For my 5cents, a 1.5m soyuz with a 1.875 booster would be the ideal scale, but I know you don't like oddball sizes (1.5m being oddball) and it would involve rebuilding probably a dozen parts to get the soyuz spacecraft to that size (PM/CM/OM/Solar/Comms/ports/etc).
• The RCS top-plate part from the LK lunar lander makes a GREAT top for a "Zond 5" type craft, but the attachment mesh is .. nonexistent?
• Despite any of these issues, the Tantares 'stack' is still the best Soyuz/R7 system available in KSP - BY FAR.

Edited October 22, 2018 by tjsnh

[Flynnius]

Hey @Beale when do you think the actual command pods and structural components will be updated to 1.5? Also, I love this mod! I just finished building the MIR in 1.4.5 and I want to really continue with the project in 1.5.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Flynnius

[JH4C]

On 10/18/2018 at 11:41 PM, TK-313 said:

If @Beale finds himself in the mood for making some orbital experiments from the Roskosmos age, this can be an interesting one... The Znamya (Banner) series of experiments was all about space mirrors/solar sails that were unfolded and held in place by centrifugal force (i.e. the ship had to rotate to unfold the mirror), consisting of:

Znamya-2 - 20 m in diameter, based on a Progress ship. Launched in 1992. Successful - created a spot of light ~8 km in diameter and with a luminosity equivalent to approximately that of a full moon.

 

Znamya-2.5 - 25 m in diameter, expected to create a bright spot 7 km in diameter, with luminosity between five and ten full moons. Based on another Progress. Launched in 1999. Failed due to the reflector catching on the ship's antenna and tearing. Program cancelled. Also, this article explores various unfolding mechanisms that could be used to prevent this failure in the future.

 

Znamya-3 - deploying in 2 stages, the smaller reflector being 25 m in diameter and the bigger one - 60 m. Based on a heavily modified Progress with an added inertial control system (to minimize fuel costs of maintaining attitude). Intended for 2008. Never built due to program's cancellation. More pics of it here.

Scott Manley did a video yesterday that mentioned the Znamya-2, in relation to the hypothesised Chinese "space mirror" mission. Might be a little extra info to go from, should @Beale decide to dive down this particular rabbithole?

 

[Beale]

On 10/22/2018 at 12:51 PM, tjsnh said:

So, a little unsolicited input.

I've played around with the soyuz spacecraft and booster parts extensively, and made significant attempts to tweak/rescale them to better "fit" the real soyuz. A few thoughts on the topic in no particular order:
 

• As was mentioned by others, the current Soyuz/R7 stack results in a significantly "fat" payload fairing.
• The R7/Soyuz booster parts ought to be 1.875 instead of 1.25. Really, they should be closer to 1.5 (if the soyuz remains 1.25) but I know you don't like to add oddball sizes. Even if the side-booster bottoms were 1.875 too (as with the "old" tantares, where the side boosters were 1.25 like the center tank), this would still be great.
• A little playing around with scaling up the center-tanks to 1.875 and leaving the side-booster tanks as they are now (1.875 on the bottom) produces a REALLY nice looking booster!
• Resizing the existing parts via cfg file produces ... flawed ... results. (mesh issues I think, but I'm not sure)
• The soyuz, with solar panels, and comms stuff on the orbital module, requires a fairing that extends almost out to 1.875 as-is today, even with all the parts clipped "inwards" slightly to conserve width.
• The comms dishes, even when "folded up" and retracted still protrude outwards significantly, enough to need the larger fairing, and also stick "up" quite a bit necessitating the need of a structural/spacer part between the docking port and the LES to keep the fairing "pointed" a the top, if that makes sense.
• The 1.25m Soyuz crew capsule still looks/feels significantly too small for more than one crew member to "fit". For my 5cents, a 1.5m soyuz with a 1.875 booster would be the ideal scale, but I know you don't like oddball sizes (1.5m being oddball) and it would involve rebuilding probably a dozen parts to get the soyuz spacecraft to that size (PM/CM/OM/Solar/Comms/ports/etc).
• The RCS top-plate part from the LK lunar lander makes a GREAT top for a "Zond 5" type craft, but the attachment mesh is .. nonexistent?
• Despite any of these issues, the Tantares 'stack' is still the best Soyuz/R7 system available in KSP - BY FAR.

Wow, great feedback!

I will address it point by point:

1. Yep, longstanding issue, generally looks poor for most Soyuz payloads except the smallest.
2. Kind of to address all the middle points, the basic plan is to resize the upper stage to 1.875m (Same as the boosters), it looks pretty good in proportion. Options will be included for 1.25m and additional options for 1.5m (You can thank a certain plucky Canadian for this one).
3. Comms dishes - that's a tricky one, I would like to keep them with the ability to sit retracted on a flat surface without clipping. This clashes with the actual Soyuz folding a little.
4. Structural spacer - Yes! this would be useful for certain. I currently use the little octagon truss, but it is not perfect.
5. It's a little cramped, but three Kerbals do comfortably fit in there. When taking the "true" Soyuz size in KSP (Around 1.375m at a .625 rescale from IRL) I would still much rather scale to the familiar 1.25m than the unknown 1.5m size. I think the IVA helps show how they all fit no?
6. LK RCS plate - not sure what you mean here, the little T-shape hat thing?
7. <3 kind to hear!

 (Soyuz with 1.875m upper stage)

21 hours ago, Flynnius said:

Hey @Beale when do you think the actual command pods and structural components will be updated to 1.5? Also, I love this mod! I just finished building the MIR in 1.4.5 and I want to really continue with the project in 1.5.

Should be updated now, let me know of any problems.

I would love to see screenshots when you finish!

8 hours ago, JH4C said:

Scott Manley did a video yesterday that mentioned the Znamya-2, in relation to the hypothesised Chinese "space mirror" mission. Might be a little extra info to go from, should @Beale decide to dive down this particular rabbithole?

I feel like the stars aligned on this one!

When finished with [Current project] I think this would be really cool to make.

Looking at my previous attempt, not great. Needs a lot of improvement there.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Beale

[Flynnius]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

 

Should be updated now, let me know of any problems.

I would love to see screenshots when you finish!

 

Thank you! I will get a link for you when I am finished 

[tjsnh]

17 hours ago, Beale said:

1. LK RCS plate - not sure what you mean here, the little T-shape hat thing?

 (Soyuz with 1.875m upper stage)

 

Yes, the T-shaped hat thing, the RCS part that goes on top of the capsule below the docking port. Its great for making a 'zond' , but doesn't seem to have an attachment mesh (is that the right term?) and nothing can attach to it except on the node. For example, trying to stick a comms dish on the side to look like the "real" zonds did.

Request - I think the Soyuz upper stage flairing out to 1.875 is awesome, like in that pic you posted. But, if you include this, please don't discontinue the existing bulge-tank that narrows on top to 1.25 (even if you do discontinue the 1.25m upper-stage tank), it'll still be useful for making older pre-soyuz R-7 variants like ... well, like the R-7 ... or the Molniya etc. Plus it'll be a fun upgrade to put the 1.875top tank a step or two farther into the tech tree.

[CobaltWolf]

Assuming standard part balancing which comes closer to the performance of the IRL R-7 family (since I believe that would lie somewhere between the two)? That might help narrow things down. Though, I do miss the taper at the top of the core stage in the 1.875m version.

Edited October 24, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[tjsnh]

Ok, some food for thought:

 

Top-left : Soyuz example with all 3 dishes attached. Obviously a "real" craft in gameplay would only be using one, but all 3 used just to illustrate. The dishes are slightly clipped into the orbital module by a couple of pixels. They look good when "deployed", but are shown "Retracted" in the pic since thats what we're talking about.

Center-left: That soyuz under a 1.25m fairing, 1.25m tank shown for width comparison. Fairing has to be ginormous to fit around the dishes.

Center-right: That same soyuz, under a 1.875m fairing. Perfect fit. Tank for width illustration.

Top-right: Showing how the dishes extend up+out from the OM, requiring the fairing to be extra tall above the orbital module.

Bottom-right: Showing how the fairing fits without the dishes, LES can almost be attached directly to the docking port (or with a decoupler or a female docking port in-between)

I think what might work is for :

T-AE15 - simply have the arm swing "up" another 30 degrees or so. This would make the arm pointing somewhat in towards the centerline rather than pointing outwards a bit.

T-AE10 - have the arm swing "up" another 10 degrees or so, at least so its vertical, and perhaps make the actual dish and the gold block its sticking out from also flip inwards towards the centerline a bit.

A-FG5 Folding Version - have the dish rotate on the arm 90 degrees when "retracted". For example, when mounted like I have in this picture, when "retracted" the dish on the end of the arm would point downwards instead of sideways.

A-RM5 - I didn't highlight it in the pictures above, but it takes serious clipping to get this little guy into position. Consider having the "folding" version swing 180 degrees instead of 90, so that when "retracted" its folded up underneath the service module down in with the engine exhaust. The 90-degree retraction makes it basically unusable on a traditional soyuz design, since it would be clipping outside the fairing. The "extending" A-RM5 is the one I used in the top-left example pic, and you can kindof see how about 1/3 of it is clipped into the service module when retracted.

Final thought - the LES part - perhaps have the existing part/model with a cylinder underneath it sticking down a little bit as to act as a spacer. That way, the LES part would have a little spacer "built in" that you could stick a decoupler or female docking port underneath without needing to stick any girder or octagonal-strut parts on. This might also make it easier to "close" the fairing onto it in a visually appealing way.

 

Just some random ideas.
Also gives us some serious appreciation for the real-life engineering skills it took to design all these folding/compact components for the actual spacecraft.

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by tjsnh

[TK-313]

4 hours ago, tjsnh said:

T-AE15 - simply have the arm swing "up" another 30 degrees or so. This would make the arm pointing somewhat in towards the centerline rather than pointing outwards a bit.

T-AE10 - have the arm swing "up" another 10 degrees or so, at least so its vertical, and perhaps make the actual dish and the gold block its sticking out from also flip inwards towards the centerline a bit. 

A-FG5 Folding Version - have the dish rotate on the arm 90 degrees when "retracted". For example, when mounted like I have in this picture, when "retracted" the dish on the end of the arm would point downwards instead of sideways.

A-RM5 - I didn't highlight it in the pictures above, but it takes serious clipping to get this little guy into position. Consider having the "folding" version swing 180 degrees instead of 90, so that when "retracted" its folded up underneath the service module down in with the engine exhaust. The 90-degree retraction makes it basically unusable on a traditional soyuz design, since it would be clipping outside the fairing. The "extending" A-RM5 is the one I used in the top-left example pic, and you can kindof see how about 1/3 of it is clipped into the service module when retracted.

Most importantly: these should be optional. Otherwise that would, I believe, result in these parts becoming sub-optimal for all ships except the Soyuz. T-AE15 and A-FG5 Folding, for instance, are now optimised to fold along a straight surface without clipping into it so they can be general-purpose antennae. Likewise, T-AE10 has a similar design which comes in handy when the antenna is used on space stations and the TKS.

On the other hand, the station/tks version of the Igla did fold the other way anyway...

Hmmm.

[Tyko]

@Beale there still appears to be a capacity problem with the TantaresLV  A-USF01 fuel tank. It's showing a little less than half the capacity it should have when compared to the next size up tank.

[Beale]

On 10/24/2018 at 1:13 PM, tjsnh said:

Yes, the T-shaped hat thing, the RCS part that goes on top of the capsule below the docking port. Its great for making a 'zond' , but doesn't seem to have an attachment mesh (is that the right term?) and nothing can attach to it except on the node. For example, trying to stick a comms dish on the side to look like the "real" zonds did.

Request - I think the Soyuz upper stage flairing out to 1.875 is awesome, like in that pic you posted. But, if you include this, please don't discontinue the existing bulge-tank that narrows on top to 1.25 (even if you do discontinue the 1.25m upper-stage tank), it'll still be useful for making older pre-soyuz R-7 variants like ... well, like the R-7 ... or the Molniya etc. Plus it'll be a fun upgrade to put the 1.875top tank a step or two farther into the tech tree.

Thanks I see what you mean!

Re: the request: Yes of course, this is an easy thing to keep.  

On 10/24/2018 at 6:30 PM, tjsnh said:

Ok, some food for thought:

- snip -

Just some random ideas.
Also gives us some serious appreciation for the real-life engineering skills it took to design all these folding/compact components for the actual spacecraft.

 

Many thanks, hmmm this is a tricky one.

I think a big part already is how the antennae are placed. The IGLA in particular looks a little incorrect above  
I have put together a few sizes:

 Igla and 1.875m fairing. (This doesn't actually require any clipping, and the antenna is optimal to curve along the OM as well as a flat surface).
 Not too bad, but lacking the 'dip' the real fairing has (Actually this wouldn't be a problem to do really).
 Kurs is significantly worse on sizing, and really you need an extra spacer to smooth the fairing.
 But, again it's not too bad.

Of course the above are with 1.875m fairings, and it's a lot harder with the current Soyuz rocket fairing mount (A big pain to keep consistent also).

I would wish I had the time to response individually every antenna rotation you listed, I think there can be a little more space saved with more careful folding, but generally agree with @TK-313 that keeping the parts general purpose is nice for kit-bashing or experiment with new ideas.

I like the idea of the extended LES cylinder!

Final point - the "rear" antenna is a really interesting one. I really struggle to think of a way to do that well.

On 10/24/2018 at 11:25 PM, TK-313 said:

Most importantly: these should be optional. Otherwise that would, I believe, result in these parts becoming sub-optimal for all ships except the Soyuz. T-AE15 and A-FG5 Folding, for instance, are now optimised to fold along a straight surface without clipping into it so they can be general-purpose antennae. Likewise, T-AE10 has a similar design which comes in handy when the antenna is used on space stations and the TKS.

On the other hand, the station/tks version of the Igla did fold the other way anyway...

Hmmm.

It's very frustrating, because the same hardware is mounted and raised in a few different ways across Soyuz/Salyut/TKS/MIR/Kvant/Arghhhh

I think something can be worked out with the minimum number of parts.

9 hours ago, Tyko said:

@Beale there still appears to be a capacity problem with the TantaresLV  A-USF01 fuel tank. It's showing a little less than half the capacity it should have when compared to the next size up tank.

Well... I have made a fool of myself there!

What is the correct capacity? I am having some difficulty choosing that.

 

 

 

I discovered this really cool thing called colour. It makes a thing look kind of different, what do you think? 

(I expect an alternate grey tone would be pretty mandatory for TKS, etc).

Edited October 26, 2018 by Beale

[Derb]

On 10/23/2018 at 2:34 PM, Beale said:

Kind of to address all the middle points, the basic plan is to resize the upper stage to 1.875m (Same as the boosters), it looks pretty good in proportion. Options will be included for 1.25m and additional options for 1.5m (You can thank a certain plucky Canadian for this one).

So the existing parts stay, and you will add enlarged upper stages + upper lower-stage fuel tanks? I think this is a very wise decision, and it fits the "Lego" design philosophy you've cultivated quite well. I've really been enjoying your latest releases, most of all the various adapter parts you introduced with Almaz - it really did fill so many of the gaps for mating all of the cross section sizes you use. Interchangeability and variations truly elevate your work to be among the best in the KSP community.

[Tyko]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

3 hours ago, Tyko said:

@Beale there still appears to be a capacity problem with the TantaresLV  A-USF01 fuel tank. It's showing a little less than half the capacity it should have when compared to the next size up tank.

Well... I have made a fool of myself there!

What is the correct capacity? I am having some difficulty choosing that.

Half of the C-81 looks right. That would be 40.5 Liquid Fuel and 49.5 Oxidizer

[tjsnh]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

Final point - the "rear" antenna is a really interesting one. I really struggle to think of a way to do that well

 

The old mod "Q orbital systems" had one that folded underneath 180 degrees, I used it use it for just that one part actually!

For my 5cents though, REALLY looking forward to the updated neck-to-1.875m tank.

[TK-313]

7 hours ago, Beale said:

IGLA

Ack... here you go again. I know it's not obvious, but it's NOT an acronym. It's a word. Which means "Needle". Sorry for being emotional, but it just hurts me as a native speaker to see someone run into this spelling and pronounce it by letter, like "ay-gee-el-ei". Which did happen already!

[Black034]

Best mod in my directory, do you have patreon or something? : )

[Beale]

8 hours ago, Derb said:

So the existing parts stay, and you will add enlarged upper stages + upper lower-stage fuel tanks? I think this is a very wise decision, and it fits the "Lego" design philosophy you've cultivated quite well. I've really been enjoying your latest releases, most of all the various adapter parts you introduced with Almaz - it really did fill so many of the gaps for mating all of the cross section sizes you use. Interchangeability and variations truly elevate your work to be among the best in the KSP community.

Yes that's correct - and thanks! I'm glad you enjoy them.

1 hour ago, TK-313 said:

Ack... here you go again. I know it's not obvious, but it's NOT an acronym. It's a word. Which means "Needle". Sorry for being emotional, but it just hurts me as a native speaker to see someone run into this spelling and pronounce it by letter, like "ay-gee-el-ei". Which did happen already!

Argh I remember now! Damn.

The worst part is I know the translation to 'Needle' in my head.

1 hour ago, Black034 said:

Best mod in my directory, do you have patreon or something? : )

Many thanks! It's a kind offer but I have no need of the money, send screenshots of craft instead!  

[TK-313]

20 hours ago, Beale said:

It's very frustrating, because the same hardware is mounted and raised in a few different ways across Soyuz/Salyut/TKS/MIR/Kvant/Arghhhh

I think something can be worked out with the minimum number of parts.

Well, the Igla antenna on Salyut and TKS did share a straight-ish backwards-folding arm...

[Beale]

2 hours ago, TK-313 said:

Well, the Igla antenna on Salyut and TKS did share a straight-ish backwards-folding arm...

So it seems, I think that is a good model to include for that reason then.

(I had never seen the Salyut 7 maquette from that angle before, so nice image! ).

Er, the TKS radiator solar panels, I have heard true or false from a lot of different people on this, but no definitive answer.
Derspite this I see more and more models + photos with them. Very interesting.

 

FGB section size 1.5 -> size 1 adapter. You can double these to make a basic Mir-2 / Mir-1.5 style 'light' module.

 (These are pretty similar in function, but the different shape has a bigger visual effect than you would expect).

Edited October 26, 2018 by Beale

[Beale]

[golkaidakhaana]

@Beale When shall we be graced with these beautiful new parts?

[Beale]

1 hour ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

@Beale When shall we be graced with these beautiful new parts?

The FGB has a lot of parts, so I'm not sure.

Old parts

 New parts so far...

The names might raise some eyebrows, I'm going to try as possible to keep this totally backwards compatible (re: different part names).
Major changes in the new FGB, main is splitting the docking compartment, so useful adapters are available, etc. So the old parts must be deprecated.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Beale

[TK-313]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

Major changes in the new FGB, main is splitting the docking compartment, so useful adapters are available, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, bot do you mean the large-diameter command section?

My reactions were quite varied...

№1: Ouch. That was such a nice one-piece part to have.

№2: Yay! We will get to use the big command section for bigger ships without having to clip it inwards!

№3: This one really wants the new command section to have an IVA. Probably a spacious one that suggests the ship continues behind the pod's base. Or... Is it possible?

Edited October 28, 2018 by TK-313

[tjsnh]

Hey @Beale ,

I don't know if you have this, so I figured I'd ask just on the off chance.

Do you have, in any format, a checklist or anything of the part "name ="s and which part ("title") they correspond to? For example "Alniyat_Antenna_2_1_1" being whichever comms unit?

With the localization #LOC_Tantares_Whatever strings in the .cfg files now, its incredibly time consuming to try and cross reference for modding/patching purposes. I don't know if you have any kind of list, but figured it doesn't hurt to ask.