Jump to content

[1.11.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [4.0][17.3.2021][Lunokhod]


Recommended Posts

Personally I think that the frontal cone section of the va capsule is a bit wide. I'd think that shaping the top of the capsule to 0.625? Would look better perhaps? A more steeper conical shape for the capsule?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I think that the frontal cone section of the va capsule is a bit wide. I'd think that shaping the top of the capsule to 0.625? Would look better perhaps? A more steeper conical shape for the capsule?

Maybe...

Here is a comparison.

1.25m top is closer to schematic, but looks just a bit too wide.

0.625m seems very thin.

I am really not sure...

faa7c0d900.jpg

the "Perfect" size is 0.875m, but that is a big no no.

I am already out of my comfort some with use 1.875m

Of course, making it 1.25m or 2.5m and it scales perfect, the top is exactly half the width of the bottom,

but as discussed a bit long ago, 1.25m is a bit too small, 2.5m is far too big.

3241359fc1.jpg

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a comparison.

1.25m top is closer to schematic, but looks just a bit too wide.

0.625m seems very thin.

-snip-

Don't know how sane this idea is, but after I looked at photos in this article I realized - that particular part is just a LES system/retroengine and can be modeled as single part therefore giving you freedom of using any non-standart dimensions all along the LES tower while only maintaining standart size at its base (I'd recommend 1.25m with that approach).

Edited by SpartanChief
Link to post
Share on other sites

On my ISS parts pack I'll use 2.5m diameter for my FGBs and 0.90m (it's the size of the stock 1.25m docking port ring) for docking ports.

Btw that's why i rescaled the tantares to 2m for my personal use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Standing by!

Time to go home.

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

Nice, I like it!

Interesting replacement service module! :)

The new Tantares is great! I especially like the new control panel!

http://imgur.com/a/Gd8j1

Love it! Especially "don't panic".

Maybe I should rename the orbital module the Hitchhiker!

Also I like the station, what mods is that using? Also the Apollo Block V (or IV?) looks awesome!

I really should make an R7, I've been launching the Tantares from the belly of an SSTO.

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Beale, about the TKS. Why not make a "built-in" adapter for the nose similar to what you did with Vega/Salyut?

Just an idea I thought might help.

I have used somewhat a combination of yours, SpartanChief's and NathanKell's idea.

So...

Near Perfect Scale.

7cb0734de4.jpg

In reality, the crew module is quite flat, with a 1.25m top

85eead3cf7.jpg

The engine of course, has a 1.25m bottom and as it's one big integrated system, who really cares if it is off odd size? (I could always make a fairing if something is placed above it.)

The one final issue is that the layout here means that the TKS will have to use radial parachutes.

I planned something half the size of the stock radials and with half the drag ability.

I'm pretty happy with this plan, unless anyone can see any major issues.

207e512705.jpg9e3faa402d.jpg

Of course un-textured models aren't going to excite anyone, but here is the OMS also. I've considered making the engines radial instead and run on Mono (see similar setup in KOSMOS pack).

That would mean I can empty the rear end of the spacecraft of Liquid Fuel / Oxygen and fill it with "??", maybe an IVA.

f857dc727f.jpg82098574ae.jpg

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

The one final issue is that the layout here means that the TKS will have to use radial parachutes.

-snip-

Expanding on that - if you make the portion of LES that is cut from VA hollow then it is possible to put radial chutes under it making overall craft look smoother.

-snip-

I've considered making the engines radial instead and run on Mono

-snip-

That one I'm conflicted about. Radial engines is better idea (allows more customization) and simplicity of that system would be good, but I'd expect from TKS at least similar to Tantares performance on dV front, which, because of how much monopropellant would be needed to feed engines, concerns me. So, a related to that question - how much of your TKS's mass would be that of fuel?

Edited by SpartanChief
Words were forgotten
Link to post
Share on other sites
Expanding on that - if you make the portion of LES that is cut from VA hollow then it is possible to put radial chutes under it making overall craft look smoother.

That one I'm conflicted about. Radial engines is better idea (allows more customization) and simplicity of that system would be good, but I'd expect from TKS at least similar to Tantares performance on dV front, which, because of how much monopropellant would be needed to feed engines, concerns me. So, a related to that question - how much of your TKS's mass would be that of fuel?

Some interesting stuff here :)

Your parachute ideas is good. I'll try a few things.

For the engines:

332ecc3d30.jpg

These tanks would hold about 250 units of mono, so 1000+ across the whole craft.

Give the Mono thrusters an ISP around 290, a thrust of around 20-30 and...

I have no idea.

The TKS should be more capable than the Tantares, quite a lot more. So the devil is in the balancing, the TKS will be a hell of a lot heavier, to answer your question I would expect it to be 50% of its mass being Hydrazine.

It'll need testing, tweaking... eh... all the fun stuff.

The mid section of the TKS will be a cargo hold by the way, no fuel there.

Overall radial engines are good. To create this huge structure and to restrict is as a low power OMS full of liquid fuel is a bit of a waste.

Besides, the real trunk had some space.

38c9512c45.jpg

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites

These tanks would hold about 250 units of mono, so 1000+ across the whole craft.

Give the Mono thrusters an ISP around 290, a thrust of around 20-30 and...

It'll need testing, tweaking... eh... all the fun stuff.

I have no idea.

You need dry/wet mass and also ISP to calculate that (thrust is irrelevant for that as far as I know). Here is the equation itself (effective exhaust velocity in that equals ISP times g (~9.81 m/s^2)). In example, if TKS weighs 2 tons empty, and carries 1000+ units of monoprop (meaning 4 tons of fuel mass - that is, if KSP wiki is right about its density) that gives ship with monoprop engines about 318 m/s as opposed to 428 m/s if that fuel mass would be LFO with engine's ISP at around 390 s (now I have a feeling that those values are suspiciously small - better double check them).

Edit:

Overall radial engines are good. To create this huge structure and to restrict is as a low power OMS full of liquid fuel is a bit of a waste.

Besides, the real trunk had some space.

Yes, absolutely, radial engines, whatever the fuel type, are a better idea.

EDIT 2: Disregard my example above - I forgot to multiply ISP by g (yes, even after stating myself that this is required - I'm that good). Correct figures are ~ 3.12 km/s and 4.2 km/s accordingly. So, not so much of a worry for me now (unlike my apparent inability to concentrate sometimes).

Edited by SpartanChief
Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT 2: Disregard my example above - I forgot to multiply ISP by g (yes, even after stating myself that this is required - I'm that good). Correct figures are ~ 3.12 km/s and 4.2 km/s accordingly. So, not so much of a worry for me now (unlike my apparent inability to concentrate sometimes).

Haha! This is fantastic, I really wasn't up for doing any maths tonight.

In the ball park of 3km/s would be fantastic, overpowered even, but then it can be nerfed down to a sensible level rather than buffed up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That looks really impressive! You sure as hell keep surprising me, nice work.
That looks SO AMAZING! keep it up!

Hehe! Thank you people for all the kind words. It keeps me going, little time I have left before I pack away my PC.

aef5c5a645.jpgaab6e4c3aa.jpg

7188060e5b.jpg

2de982a38a.jpg7da6ed6fa1.jpg

Edited by Beale
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.

×
×
  • Create New...