Beale

[1.7.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [19.0][22/09/2019]

Recommended Posts

The N-I is from Dennytx. I had to fix the nodes (essentially why I PM'ed you... turns out I missed the scaleFactor) to get the normal N-I working, however I don't think the fairings work. Then I made it 47% size (as your Proton is 48%, and your R-VII is 46% I went with the middleground), and gave it RL stats for RSS. Now I need to check if it will work full-size without collapsing (and I'll make the 1st stage N-IM massive... just to be sure) so that FAR won't interfer and lower dV requirements (currently 9100-9300m/s instead of 9700m/s)... And then I'll try out part welder for Block R,S,Sr and the N-IM... and create a .cfg file for the 1962 ICBM version...

And I just finished the N-IIIs and N-IIs!

x2dETmj.jpg

Here are the 2 N-IIs... had to rewrite the heatshield .cfg to keep the interstage fairing. N-II can lift around 23 tons into a 51.6* 220x220 orbit. N-IIF does the same with around 31 ton.

FKZ7oyC.jpg

Here are the N-IIIs. Should be very efficient as R-VII replacements => 1 engine less, no verniers, no radial separation => no trouble!

The N-III can lift the Vostok into a 220x220 51.6* orbit. In fact, it can lift up to 5,8-6 tons! So even the Vostok could be lifted up!

The N-IIIF can lift up to 8,8-9 tons into orbit. So Soyuz and LOK are possible payloads. I guess if I add a Block D with an 11D53F engine it should be able to lift even more... maybe something TKS-like?

Also regarding Salyut mass, Niemand303, why not make the IIIrd stage lighter... or the decoupler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Fuji: A few observations.

First, getting a Tantares small docking port to attach to the "top" of the orbital module was a bit of a chore. For some reason the wrong node of the docking port always wants to attach (the top node of the port, instead of the bottom as it should be), thus becoming embedded. I suspect this is an issue that will go away with 0.90 and the editor overhaul, but I found it strange that it only occurs on the "top" of the module and not the "bottom".

Second: I suspect the off-center RCS is due largely to the very low mass of the Fuji engine. With an ISP of 410 and a mass of 0.2 it's considerably more advanced than the stock engine in its thrust class, the LV-909, which has an ISP of 390 and mass of 0.5. Increasing the mass (to bring it more into line with "stock" performance) _might_ be enough to pull the center of mass down to the level of the RCS arms.

Otherwise, I like this thing. Very small, but perhaps for small kerbals. ;) (Ok, so it's not really /that/ much smaller than the Tantares capsule, but there can't be much room inside for so much as a plush snowman.) I'll probably use the orbital module more than the capsule though.

20141214_ksp0545_fuji.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I'd like to have Zarya-styled RCS tanks and ISS-themed trusses and radiators. But good ISS copies may be assembled with Near Future parts (radiators, solar wings, trusses), FusTek (American segment) and Tantares (Russian segment) combined. And I've seen a mod on MEPS pallets, can't remember the link.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92684

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The N-I is from Dennytx. I had to fix the nodes (essentially why I PM'ed you... turns out I missed the scaleFactor) to get the normal N-I working, however I don't think the fairings work. Then I made it 47% size (as your Proton is 48%, and your R-VII is 46% I went with the middleground), and gave it RL stats for RSS. Now I need to check if it will work full-size without collapsing (and I'll make the 1st stage N-IM massive... just to be sure) so that FAR won't interfer and lower dV requirements (currently 9100-9300m/s instead of 9700m/s)... And then I'll try out part welder for Block R,S,Sr and the N-IM... and create a .cfg file for the 1962 ICBM version...

And I just finished the N-IIIs and N-IIs!

http://i.imgur.com/x2dETmj.jpg

Here are the 2 N-IIs... had to rewrite the heatshield .cfg to keep the interstage fairing. N-II can lift around 23 tons into a 51.6* 220x220 orbit. N-IIF does the same with around 31 ton.

http://i.imgur.com/FKZ7oyC.jpg

Here are the N-IIIs. Should be very efficient as R-VII replacements => 1 engine less, no verniers, no radial separation => no trouble!

The N-III can lift the Vostok into a 220x220 51.6* orbit. In fact, it can lift up to 5,8-6 tons! So even the Vostok could be lifted up!

The N-IIIF can lift up to 8,8-9 tons into orbit. So Soyuz and LOK are possible payloads. I guess if I add a Block D with an 11D53F engine it should be able to lift even more... maybe something TKS-like?

Also regarding Salyut mass, Niemand303, why not make the IIIrd stage lighter... or the decoupler?

Cool!

If you have those configs, I wouldn't mind giving them a spin :wink:

Regarding Fuji: A few observations.

First, getting a Tantares small docking port to attach to the "top" of the orbital module was a bit of a chore. For some reason the wrong node of the docking port always wants to attach (the top node of the port, instead of the bottom as it should be), thus becoming embedded. I suspect this is an issue that will go away with 0.90 and the editor overhaul, but I found it strange that it only occurs on the "top" of the module and not the "bottom".

Second: I suspect the off-center RCS is due largely to the very low mass of the Fuji engine. With an ISP of 410 and a mass of 0.2 it's considerably more advanced than the stock engine in its thrust class, the LV-909, which has an ISP of 390 and mass of 0.5. Increasing the mass (to bring it more into line with "stock" performance) _might_ be enough to pull the center of mass down to the level of the RCS arms.

Otherwise, I like this thing. Very small, but perhaps for small kerbals. ;) (Ok, so it's not really /that/ much smaller than the Tantares capsule, but there can't be much room inside for so much as a plush snowman.) I'll probably use the orbital module more than the capsule though.

http://0div0.org/images/ksp/20141214_ksp0545_fuji.jpg

Hey!

Thanks for the feedback, great!

Ah, the docking port has always been a problem, so has any very short part and KSP (See -> Heatshields in many other packs). Hopefully as you say 0.90 might make this a bit less of a headache.

You are spot on the engine. I noticed last night playing around with a Duna probe that the thing is ridiculously over-powered.

Though I think the weight is right (It is after all, a lot smaller than the LV-909), the ISP, I will probably reduce it to around 350-360 in vacuum.

Aha :) The capsule has always been an oddity since the old one. I think a lot of people will find the OM more versatile (And hopefully those shiny fuel tanks).

Ah, cool mod!

Erm, for Zarya style RCS tanks. They are modeled. Variants longer and shorter than the current TKS tanks.

But, I need to get to texturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the literal ....? Who had the idea to make that!?

Well, the idea was mine and my friend's, the realisation is from another my friend with a nickname "シャミ ☆ ニャン". :)

@Beale, thanks for the appreciation! Glad you liked it! :)

And... I'm sorry Beale, but I had to make it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are spot on the engine. I noticed last night playing around with a Duna probe that the thing is ridiculously over-powered.

Though I think the weight is right (It is after all, a lot smaller than the LV-909), the ISP, I will probably reduce it to around 350-360 in vacuum.

The Libra engine also suffers from a bit of imbalance compared to the LV-909 as it has more thrust, more isp, less weight, and all for the same cost of 750

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And... I'm sorry Beale, but I had to make it...

http://youtu.be/8tQKzvVvMiA

This is the dankest meme I've seen all year.

Fantastic, great editing, and hilarious. I've stuck it on the front page where it belongs. :)

The Libra engine also suffers from a bit of imbalance compared to the LV-909 as it has more thrust, more isp, less weight, and all for the same cost of 750

Ah yes.

I've been aware of this for a while. Basically the margins on the LK are so tiny (atleast for me).

If you don't pull of a very slick landing, you'll probably run out of fuel mid rendezvous, or even worse, mid orbit ascent.

My plan:

Libra Fuel Tank: increase to 126 LF and 154 OX (Same as Fuji)

Libra Engine: Max thrust down to 40, ISP to 290(atm) and 380(va)

Realistically, with the LK being light as a feather, even lower thrust could be viable. But, the nozzles on the current engine design suggest something with a bit more "oomf".

Maybe it's time for a re-design? (Or alt engine)

I mainly work through guesswork, I'll be honest, but these numbers seem a bit more balanced (And might actually make the LK a bit more capable).

Also: I've had a proper read of Eagleshift's work now. Picked out the changes I really like and will implement them as standard for next release.

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about a monoprop engine? Less oomf is needed if you're firing monoprop.

Hmmm....

So, the RD-858 on the LK

rd858.jpg

The real thing had, quite a different design to mine. But, the real one was a LF/O mix (Though hell, I've not exactly kept true to life on the Vostok engine).

Ehm, I will see the results of the balancing I have in mind. If it doesn't work, maybe a more extreme change.

That's why I like this mod:

http://imgur.com/a/9YwxG

A nice looking and usefull bunch of parts. Here a very compact Transfer Orbit to Ground Ship With 2K dV, 44 days supplies and cramped space for 2 kerbals. Damn I'm in love with this Fuji pod :D

Nice!

Well, I wouldn't try it with deadly re-entry. :cool:

Looks like it would make a cool Mun lander!

Re-done ATV WIP.

e744e721da.jpg

I've gone back to ZodiaK's original models and decided to redo the textures.

It will be a good idea to get everything onto one sheet, shrink the four 1024 textures that currently make the ATV into one.

Release this with the Fuji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, where can I find the Alternate soviet green textures?? Sorry first time installing, found the configs alright, can't seem to find the textures themselves...

Probably staring me in the face but I can't seem to find them.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, where can I find the Alternate soviet green textures?? Sorry first time installing, found the configs alright, can't seem to find the textures themselves...

Probably staring me in the face but I can't seem to find them.........

Nope, sorry, they've been missing in action since version 0.25 hit. Due to new texture loading errors that were introduced. :(

I should remove the soviet green image from the album, and the firespitter configs...

I'm sorry to let you down, the alternates should be back some day.

Future ATV will be the best Kerbal-smuggler around :wink:

6f3a4fccdb.jpg03a3e359f3.jpg

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh, Hope to see them back, green is my favorite color (Also my last name :)).....

"Green is not a creative color"

Edited by gooddog15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh, Hope to see them back, green is my favorite color (Also my last name :)).....

Well, Mr. Green, someday :)

Wow. Can you set the crew capacity at a high number, like 6 or 7, or even 10, if it's realistic enough? It's because I'd like something to ferry around large amounts of kerbals at one time.

Hmmm. I had in mind a very small capacity, like 1 or 2 Kerbals squeezed between boxes. It's not "officially" for crew after all.

I'll see what's best during testing.

Super secret access hatch.

e1ccc70977.jpg

Texture

e61057bd66.jpg

Fuel Tank

2e1f200975.jpg

"Green is not a creative color"

5700896736.jpg

pls, no.

ATV looks really cool!

Thanks! :)

Thanks again also for making the original models!

Beale, have you ever considered adding XT Landertron compatibility for the Soyuz, so that it has landing jets?

(I may have asked this before, I don't remember, so sorry if I have.)

Wouldn't it need a seperate heatshield then?

Yeah I have considered, but as dimovski has said, it would require a new heatshield setup (Unless people are happy with a heatshield with holes in :sealed: ).

So not such a small job as I thought.

Eh, if the Tantares ever gets an overhaul (For literally the 5th time), I'd probably do it then (optionally).

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super secret access hatch.

http://puu.sh/dvzZn/e1ccc70977.jpg

Oh my where ever did you get the inspiration for this one? XD

but please don't tell me the hatch is at a funny angle that doesn't line up all the other parts hatches and ladders like the stock 1-2 pod :( its a good way to ruin a builders day that's why I use vens stock revamp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*evil laugh

Muhahahaha!

That vid was funny, but the end got really creepy, really fast.

I wasn't ready for it. :sealed:

Oh my where ever did you get the inspiration for this one? XD

but please don't tell me the hatch is at a funny angle that doesn't line up all the other parts hatches and ladders like the stock 1-2 pod :( its a good way to ruin a builders day that's why I use vens stock revamp.

Ah perhaps I can soothe your fears somewhat :)

The hatch is at a perfect 45° angle: so, no real problems hopefully.

(I mean anything will line up with it, even with angle snap on).

Nose, also.

2e537d3972.jpg96e9ba5b77.jpg

The texel density of the nose might be a bit too high...

Edited by Beale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah perhaps I can soothe your fears somewhat :)

The hatch is at a perfect 45° angle: so, no real problems hopefully.

(I mean anything will line up with it, even with angle snap on).

That actually kinda confirms the fears...

It means I gotta either rotate the pod 45 degrees which will make launch or controlling the vessel from that point in general tricky or I gotta rotate all other pods, labs, and crew cans attached to it to that angle. Also there is little point in flying with a 45degree hatch over a 90degree hatch so everyone is going to rotate their parts to line up anyway so at that point why not save everyone the time in the editor and put it at the normal angle?

Share this post


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.