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

[billbobjebkirk]

Missed that, apologies.

It should be functional - but, it's one of the things that keep slipping away (then I forget).

I have never had much more intention for it greater than a battery or reaction wheel, however. (Probe core? Nah).

Ultimately it is structural, that's why it exists as a part, to put the monopropellant tanks and RCS thrusters onto it; but it needs a purpose for the sake of having a purpose! (at least in my opinion).

A part like the service module would be ideal for something like life-support, maybe. But we don't have that in the stock game yet.

If we get life support, it may be better to make the service module the monoprop tank and make the outer tanks for life support, like on the real Vostok.

[LaDouche]

Anyone have any up-to-date craft files for this? I'm feeling completely lost trying to build this stuff.

Amazing parts tho!

[_Augustus_]

Anyone have any up-to-date craft files for this? I'm feeling completely lost trying to build this stuff.

Amazing parts tho!

Here are some example craft images:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Beale]

Anyone have any up-to-date craft files for this? I'm feeling completely lost trying to build this stuff. Amazing parts tho!

Unfortunately I don't think much is available at the moment, I'd like to put some craft files out there, but it's just a thing I have not had so much time to do

What are you attempting to build? I can lend a hand here maybe.

Soyuz Rocket Revamp.

It will be kind of a big project, but there are a few problems, I'm interested in gathering a bit of feedback.

So, let me pick the collective brain of the readers of this thread.

1. Size

It would appear to be slightly off-scale compared to the real deal (significantly smaller even!).

This might not be something that can be fixed without abandoning standard part diameters (don't worry, I won't!).

On a side note, the Ariane 5 is too big currently, it should be a similar size to the Soyuz rocket, but these things never seem to size up correctly.

2. Booster Size

These are quite a bit wider than the core stage, a good candidate for 1.875m?

3. Design Style

The current design for the Vostok upper stage is what I have in mind for the entire rocket.

Plain? But very generic and gives a lot more opportunities to use the parts.

I suppose it would be alright for me to resume pushing for the old lfo tank and lfo engine arrangement then right? (blowfish isn't around is he? >.>) Also some feed back on the vostok from when I played with it recently. With the old vostok I could use offset to bury it up to its equator to make it go along with 1.25m parts I discovered on accident recently when I trapped a poor kerbal inside that I can't do that anymore because the hatch is now on the equator. With the hatch in this inconvenient spot the craft feels more like a kit as it needs its decoupler and service module to fit with anything in the early game.

That's a good point on door placement... it's true

Ack, I am not sure what to do about that.

Changing the engine to LFO/OX was an interesting idea (and still is), but if I remember was a bit unpopular.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Beale

[biohazard15]

Soyuz Rocket Revamp.

It will be kind of a big project, but there are a few problems, I'm interested in gathering a bit of feedback.

So, let me pick the collective brain of the readers of this thread.

1. Size

It would appear to be slightly off-scale compared to the real deal (significantly smaller even!).

This might not be something that can be fixed without abandoning standard part diameters (don't worry, I won't!).

On a side note, the Ariane 5 is too big currently, it should be a similar size to the Soyuz rocket, but these things never seem to size up correctly.

http://puu.sh/jBKAf/3d26af5349.jpg

http://puu.sh/jBKAF/866d0af5dc.jpg

2. Booster Size

These are quite a bit wider than the core stage, a good candidate for 1.875m?

http://puu.sh/jBKYt/9ed0e63505.jpg

3. Design Style

The current design for the Vostok upper stage is what I have in mind for the entire rocket.

Plain? But very generic and gives a lot more opportunities to use the parts.

http://puu.sh/jBKKN/ac3ad4d29b.jpg

1. The size is fine IMO. Having a 1.25m Soyuz as big as Proton would mean a very strange (and potentially very unstable) rocket. Which won't be able to lift anything big and wide.

2. Interesting idea, but that would mean you'll need to abandon two-mode engines and make them as two separate engines. You can also make a one-part booster, like the one in NovaPunch

3. Nice, but boosters should retain their iconic stripes.

[MK3424]

About time they got your mod featured!

https://www.facebook.com/kerbalspaceprogram/posts/1032511836768040

[passinglurker]

Ugh my finger tapped the delete button when I went to edit a typo DX why is the delete button so big near the top and without verification!? AAAUUGH!(does a Charlie Brown kicking a foot ball flip)

Ok let's try again

For the Soyuz would there be any opposition to single piece lfo boosters? No stack nodes means the exact shape and diameter doesn't matter as much

For the Soyuz vs proton sizing problem what if the proton was 1.875? is there anything the proton is supposed to fly that needs 2.5 meters+ that can't be shrunk and stubbyified as well?

For vostok if the door can't be moved due to being too busy to remodel our worse what about the hgr spud approach with a fairing but without extra nodes for different diameters? Then it plays well with 1.25m parts the most common in the early game, and we would only need three parts the pod the mono prop engine and a plain standard decoupler

[schoff123]

I'm not quite for the one piece boosters, another 1.875 m engine meant for the boosters would be good because that part size is a little starved.

Making the Soyuz little bit bigger would be a good idea. It seems a little on the small side. Unless the whole rocket, other than the bottom half of the core stage, went to 1.875 m.

I like that generic design, but some flare with the stripes helps to break things up and add eye candy

[_Augustus_]

I don't want any more rockets resized or edited! Just new stuff please!

[CaptKordite]

> Anyone have any up-to-date craft files for this?

I've been sharing some over at Kerbal X.

[passinglurker]

A pox on the delete button!!! DX

I'm not quite for the one piece boosters, another 1.875 m engine meant for the boosters would be good because that part size is a little starved.

Making the Soyuz little bit bigger would be a good idea. It seems a little on the small side. Unless the whole rocket, other than the bottom half of the core stage, went to 1.875 m.

I like that generic design, but some flare with the stripes helps to break things up and add eye candy

You make a good point but if the proton and it's payloads were shrunk to 1.875 would the size seem so starved anymore?

On the other hand wasn't there trouble fitting Soyuz solar panels in thier fairings a while back? A slightly wider rocket could alleviate that it all depends on how it would look and how it would balance when paired up with the soyuz space craft.

I don't want any more rockets resized or edited! Just new stuff please!

There comes a point where what has been made must be polished and balanced if you ask me it's been put off for far too long

[biohazard15]

For the Soyuz would there be any opposition to single piece lfo boosters? No stack nodes means the exact shape and diameter doesn't matter as much

For the Soyuz vs proton sizing problem what if the proton was 1.875? is there anything the proton is supposed to fly that needs 2.5 meters+ that can't be shrunk and stubbyified as well?

Single-piece boosters might be seen as a nice idea - but such parts aren't immensely popular, mainly because they can't be used with other engines.

Proton was used for Mir and TKS launches, and these parts are 2.5m, and they hardly can be shrunk.

[passinglurker]

Single-piece boosters might be seen as a nice idea - but such parts aren't immensely popular, mainly because they can't be used with other engines.

Proton was used for Mir and TKS launches, and these parts are 2.5m, and they hardly can be shrunk.

I dunno Twin boar, proton, sepatrons, nesting rockets, and the other SRB's seem pretty popular... people just get rowdy cause they want the engine that's attached but that can be solved by providing the stand alone engine as a separate extra part in addition to the single piece booster

as for proton... hmm... I see.... and quick google search shows no instances of protons with extra wide fairings so it looks like we are stuck with 2.5 but looking at the side by side comparisons beale provided if the protons first stage was made stubbier (about the height of the 1.25m segment of soyuz's core stage) it would essentially solve the height discrepancy between the two. so why not just make proton shorter?

oh and on the subject of rebalancing rockets we probably shouldn't care too much about how these rockets perform with their payloads in terms of recreating their historical missions until the said payloads have been rebalanced under a consistent formula which may ultimately make some lighter and easier to launch.

here's the formula I made a while back when beale took his first leave of absence due to childbirth or some such...

I do think we should take more aspects of the part into our calculations than just crew capacity and reaction wheel torque lest we will wind up with stats that are just as chaotic as stock. also when calculating it should be remembered that some stock parts do have consistency between them (just not the pods) in those cases the stock balance should be respected since this is still a stockalike mod. So with that in mind here is a crack at a more complete set of numbers...

Reaction wheel torque: 0.01 mass per Kn (same ratio as the smallest/least mass efficient reaction wheel part that is not a command pod or probe core)

Electric charge storage: 0.005 mass per 100 units (same as all the EC storage parts besides stock pods, also note that tantares pods traditionally carry more charge than stock pods so as to not ruin their aesthetic gluing a bunch of radial batteries to the outside)

Monoprop storage: 0.0006 drymass per unit of monoprop capacity (this is roughly the ratio of the inline monoprop tanks give or take 0.00001)

---here is where borrowing from the stock balance ends---

Command: +0.1 mass if the part is commandable (either crewed or unmanned with no sas like stayputnik) then add 0.1 mass for every level of sas if its a probe core. (rather arbitrary number but I like how tantares probe cores tend to be heavier than stock as it makes pilots a more competitive option)

Crew capacity: 0.25 mass per seat (totally arbitrary number!)

Reentry capability: multiply the whole thing by 1.5 if meant to survive reentry (crash and heat tolerance are still subject to change with squad still balancing the aero so those should be omitted from the calculations for now in the mean time we'd assign extra mass based solely on whether the pod is meant for reentry or not)

So as parts are stated now under this set of numbers the soyuz would weigh 0.9795 dry, soyuz orbital module A would weigh 0.28775(1 seat, some torque, some resource capacity, no command, no reentry), and soyuz orbital module B 0.38775 (same as A but with added commandability) this all seem sensible?

Edited August 15, 2015 by passinglurker

[tjsnh]

Soyuz Rocket Revamp.

It will be kind of a big project, but there are a few problems, I'm interested in gathering a bit of feedback.

So, let me pick the collective brain of the readers of this thread.

1. Size

2. Booster Size

1.875m for the main tanks. If you decide to go for realism, use 2.5m for the bottom flare-out of the boosters.

Having the booster tanks flare out might make it more difficult to fit the engines to the point of taking away from the "stock-alike"ness. Just food for thought, I think most of us would forgive you if the remake still has the same diameter booster tanks as center tank. But if you're going to re-do the Soyuz parts, I beg you to make it 1.875.

3. Design Style

The current design for the Vostok upper stage is what I have in mind for the entire rocket.

Plain? But very generic and gives a lot more opportunities to use the parts.

http://puu.sh/jBKKN/ac3ad4d29b.jpg

One of the things that makes your pack so great is that many of the parts have a "generic" feel, and like you said provides great opportunity to use the parts for 20 different things. The visual style in that Vostok upper stage is great.

[passinglurker]

1.875m for the main tanks. If you decide to go for realism, use 2.5m for the bottom flare-out of the boosters.

Having the booster tanks flare out might make it more difficult to fit the engines to the point of taking away from the "stock-alike"ness. Just food for thought, I think most of us would forgive you if the remake still has the same diameter booster tanks as center tank. But if you're going to re-do the Soyuz parts, I beg you to make it 1.875.

I thought that through last night and I'm afraid I will have to disagree as it will trigger a domino effect of revamps. if the top of the soyuz core stage was 1.875m then so would the vostok upper stage, and if the vostok upper stage was 1.875m then so would the vostok and if the vostok was 1.875m then so would the soyuz capsule and from there the universe explodes. I'm afraid we are stuck with the core stage diameter in much the same way we are stuck with the proton diameter(thankfully the most glaring issue with the proton and soyuz relative sizes compared can be fixed by simply making the proton first stage shorter)

[curtquarquesso]

Ok. I did some work on scaling, and I don't have much in the way of good news unfortunately.

Absolutes:

Soyuz is 1.25m

Vega and ATV Parts are 2.5m

TKS/FGB parts are 1.875m

That being said, the correct LV scales are these:

With that, the Ariane is definitely too big as as stated, however scaling down to 2.5m would be too small. 3.0m is the correct size for a 2.5m ATV. Yeah. I know. Messy.

For Proton, 2.5m is still reasonable, however the segments are too elongated. Shortening the stacks will make it more accurate. Fitting Mir and ISS modules on it under fairings is still a tight squeeze, but not impossible.

For R7, for a 1.25m Soyuz, 1.5m is the true correct size. The Soyuz now fits MUCH more comfortably atop the rocket. The 3rd stage is also too long. It should actually be about half it's current length. Rescaling the flagship lifter of Tantares... Yikes.

Here's a mockup of an R7 with correctly scaled 1.5m Boosters, and a 1.25m core stage with vernors. Forget 1.875m for R7. It's WAY to large.

Regardless of what changes in Tantares, I'll be releasing the scale tweaks for these in the next version of the TweakScale config. It's pretty neat.

ATV stuff has been sent to Beale for final packaging. Proper solar panels for the ATV should be out soon.

Edited August 15, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[VenomousRequiem]

Curtquarquesso brings up some valid point, and I think all would probably work out very nice if you take his suggestion.

[lindemherz]

1.25 Soyuz... how'd two kerbals fit there? I'm going with passinglurker here, perhaps the best way to deal with this would be a careful retweak of the length of all the stages of the Tantares booster series (and by extension AB launchers). It's like designing a transformer without cheating - no matter what you do, chances are you cannot make something that looks perfect on one mode without it being ghastly on the other, so you are stuck with coming up with something that looks cool enough in both.

[passinglurker]

Careful iva design, no bulky helmets, and possibly time Lord technology(beale will have to verify the last one). Its wise to scale everything in the mod of the Soyuz capsule and rocket as those were the first parts for both tantares series mods

As for arnine5 and atv if we went off model like we are with Cygnus and antares? 5m launcher and 3.75m resupply craft? Then have the htv and Japanese rockets take the vacant places.

[hoojiwana]

1.25 Soyuz... how'd two kerbals fit there? I'm going with passinglurker here, perhaps the best way to deal with this would be a careful retweak of the length of all the stages of the Tantares booster series (and by extension AB launchers). It's like designing a transformer without cheating - no matter what you do, chances are you cannot make something that looks perfect on one mode without it being ghastly on the other, so you are stuck with coming up with something that looks cool enough in both.

I can't say anything regarding the Tantares scales with much authority, but AB Launchers are scaled to the stock Mk3 parts being used as Buran. Zenit and Proton are roughly the same diameter in real life (I think), so having those parts both line up to 2.5m in KSP can provide a decent baseline to work from, all derived from the stock Mk3 scale. Whether those scales end up being easy to use (and looking at curtquarquessos post above, not all of them will) is another matter to think about.

[tg626]

One thing I used to like about tantares was that it was more kerbalized soviet-alike then replica. For some time now I've felt its lost that flavor and become more replica.

As a result I only install spica because its still a great 2 crew pod and skip the rest.

Just one long time user's 2¢.

[lindemherz]

I can't say anything regarding the Tantares scales with much authority, but AB Launchers are scaled to the stock Mk3 parts being used as Buran. Zenit and Proton are roughly the same diameter in real life (I think), so having those parts both line up to 2.5m in KSP can provide a decent baseline to work from, all derived from the stock Mk3 scale. Whether those scales end up being easy to use (and looking at curtquarquessos post above, not all of them will) is another matter to think about.

Zenit and Proton (at least, without the skirt tanks) diameters are within 20cm of each other, so that baseline idea does seem really nice. Zarya/ATV are roughly the same diameter in real life, but we have the precedent of Cygnus/Antares being significantly off-scale in Tantares. Soyuz/Vostok seems problematic; haven't done the math but I think Tantares simply cannot carry two kerbals believably being smaller than 1.875, and an off-scale Almach on an 1.875 upper stage risks looking ridiculous.

Better, Faster, Cheaper. Pick two =/

[passinglurker]

You can fit two without helmets just look at the iva, and the real Soyuz was originally built with the concept of not needing helmets. that changed with the disaster that followed the salyut 1 mission but still it establishes a pretence for how tantares can get away with stuffing two kerbal's in a 1.25m space without helmets

[minepagan]

You can fit two without helmets just look at the iva, and the real Soyuz was originally built with the concept of not needing helmets. that changed with the disaster that followed the salyut 1 mission but still it establishes a pretence for how tantares can get away with stuffing two kerbal's in a 1.25m space without helmets

Yeah. Also, look at K2 (for example). It is just a little cozy.

[DGatsby]

One thing I used to like about tantares was that it was more kerbalized soviet-alike then replica. For some time now I've felt its lost that flavor and become more replica.

As a result I only install spica because its still a great 2 crew pod and skip the rest.

Just one long time user's 2¢.

I would agree with this. Not to say that replica is a bad thing; this isn't a good vs. bad situation. Merely an observation. I am of course happy to use whatever Beale and his collaborators come up with.