Jump to content

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


Beale

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Beale said:

I don't think it will be required for anything.

Github

uGNAdk6.png
g1ZpmRa.jpg

Those are pretty cool! Something that's missing from the game AFAIK are expanding structures like those...pack em up in compact mode and extend them when you get into space...

There are some parts that have animations like that - launchable crew rings and such - nothing as simple as an extending girder section...

Just an idea  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:

Hi Guys, is there a craft file for Mir Kvant1 module/TKS tug? I've tried the ones on KerbalX https://kerbalx.com/CaptKordite/Mir---Kvant-1 but I get this error message. I've got Tantares Spacecraft and launchers mods installed.

NBiVq0e.jpg

I think everything on KerbalX is out of date, there is a Kvant-1 craft on the first page though:

H2IexRC.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2018 at 5:40 AM, TK-313 said:

landing-gear.jpg

You mean this part (Block 111 soft landing stage)? Hm. If my sources are correct, there was no fuel tank there. The stage mounted under this one (Block 11 Midcourse maneuver/lunar braking stage) was used to descend from orbit, then jetissoned - and the lander would soft-land and take off with its own engine, much like the LK from the N1-L3 program. No Apollo-style landing stage is mentioned.

Yes, that.

From what I've seen the base (pictured) has a pass-through hole where the return stage uses its own engine for the final phase of the landing burn, as you explained, but this stage was supposed to have a small amount of fuel in it (but no engine) used for that final-phase suicide burn, as they were trying to save every kg of weight for the return stage. The base in the picture would be left on the lunar surface, somewhat similar to how the US LEM used its landing stage as a launch platform.

In either case - those landing legs are a desperately needed part, theres no analog I've seen that folds upwards the same.

Edited by tjsnh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tjsnh said:

In either case - those landing legs are a desperately needed part, theres no analog I've seen that folds upwards the same. 

By the way, do they fold up or down? The schemes on astronautics suggest it's down. On the other hand, seeing as each skid is two-part, maybe they even fold in half.

Edited by TK-313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this whole talk about the LK-700 left me wanting to fly one. So guess what...

O9zi7FN.jpg

Here is my take on this ship.

And here's a few more pics of it:

Spoiler

jJpfC4Q.jpg

bzOyup1.jpg

Departing Kerbin...

fJrySNn.png

Pgx7ayj.png

MyiQ3n2.png

Arrival

GOwmrvT.jpg

Mun orbit insertion

xEbLP14.jpg

Deorbiting

rPxnks6.jpg

Dropping the transfer/deorbit stage

R53YgMs.jpg

Suicide burn!.. Well, almost.

r595zNC.jpg

Aaaand...

e4WmP9q.jpg

- Hey, aren't these legs supposed to auto-level the ship?
- Hey, isn't this ladder a bit too long?
- Shut up, it's a freaking prototype!

pmxA1BJ.jpg

The Koviet Union prevails!

wc6m8fN.jpg

Liftoff!

9lQDfcx.jpg

Getting into orbit...

Z30tOIt.png

Lining up for a family photo...

0lD4VfD.jpg

Bye, Mun!

E6Kcl2g.png

Wvfldol.png

Open your heart, I'm coming home.

H59aVya.jpg

Cruising above the clouds...

TmLJpdd.png

Landing in the middle of a storm...

...and no landed shot. The ship crashed due to pilot's error (opening the main chute too low). The morale of this story? Use smart parts if you aren't sure!

 

Edited by TK-313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Tantares LV one of the fuel tank's capacity seems inconsistent.

The A-USF01 holds a lot more than it should if compared to the other 1.25m tanks. Is it supposed to be that way? It's almost like a bit Oscar tank

Edited by Tyko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tyko said:

 

In Tantares LV one of the fuel tank's capacity seems inconsistent.

The A-USF01 holds a lot more than it should if compared to the other 1.25m tanks. Is it supposed to be that way? It's almost like a bit Oscar tank

I think this was reported before, fixed for next release. :) 

 

MrPySvU.png
qJgkSIi.png

 

Edited by Beale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2018 at 7:04 PM, TK-313 said:

By the way, do they fold up or down? The schemes on astronautics suggest it's down. On the other hand, seeing as each skid is two-part, maybe they even fold in half.

The final design had them fold down, around the outer edge of the last stage. There isn't currently a way to replicate this in KSP, and (again ignoring the horrendously complex booster) its really the main "missing part" to re-create the LK.

lk70068.jpg

 

In one of the earlier designs, they folded up with a joint in the bracing arms. The idea behind this system was to spread the weight out over as much surface area as possible, and allow the LK to stand upright even if one of the landing legs snapped off on impact or something.

 

Edited by tjsnh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tjsnh said:

The final design had them fold down, around the outer edge of the last stage

7 hours ago, tjsnh said:

In one of the earlier designs, they folded up with a joint in the bracing arms

Hm. Then there seems to be a third option as well. I mean these joints:

aOQcv3C.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beale said:

Very rough early Meteor parts, suggestions welcome. Looking for more info on propulsion system.

http://erps.spacegrant.org/uploads/images/images/iepc_articledownload_1988-2007/2001index/5_2.pdf

http://erps.spacegrant.org/uploads/images/images/iepc_articledownload_1988-2007/1997index/7004.pdf

As far as I could determine, the first satellites of the Meteor class had no propulsion of their own. Only plasma test drives of type STP-50/60/70 for position control.

 

Edited by hraban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TK-313 said:

Hm. Then there seems to be a third option as well. I mean these joints:

aOQcv3C.jpg


I noticed that too in the images I've seen of the mock-up prototype, but haven't seen them referenced in any docs or diagrams. Its possible the inner section on the mockup folds up under the connecting arm - which lacks a joint, and would otherwise be unable to fold down. This theory/guess would also explain what looks like a hinge assembly where the leg strut connects to the outer rim of the base on the bottom.

izsu55.jpg

Either way, lots of creative possibilities for someone who's better at animations than I am to work up a part ;-) ;-) ;-)

Edited by tjsnh
Link to comment
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...