Jump to content

tjsnh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    942

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tjsnh

  1. tjsnh
    I hate to be a debbie downer - the latest Vostok is missing vesselType = Ship
  2. tjsnh
    I may at some point, I haven't tried that particular pack out yet.
  3. tjsnh
    With araym's vostok config I was able to survive a shallow-angle re-entry 5 out of 5 tries. Steep-angle still explodes in upper atmosphere on 5 consecutive attempts. Survivable shallow-angle is better than no-survivable-re-entry-profile. We're making progress. Using the soyuz config, with the heatshield-decoupler ("firenze" I think) , which I always use on the soyuz capsule just for safety, I had a safe re-entry from a mun-distance orbit on 5 out of 5 attempts. Re-entry speed is about 3200 m/s, shallow angle, slowed to about 250m/s at around 1500m altitude each time. The existing soyuz parachute part hasn't had any thermal issues for me yet, no tweaking has been needed. - - - Updated - - - Updated the NASA and SSP career-conversion mods for compatibility with the latest Tantares, including the Fregat and MAPC betas.
  4. tjsnh
    Updated to 2.5 - adds support for Taerobee and Q Orbital Systems, as well as general updates for KSP 1.0.5.
  5. tjsnh
    That new config works significantly better. Any hope to salvage the vostok pod?
  6. tjsnh
    Update to version 2.0 posted. Updated for changes in the Tantares parts pack, added support for the Taerobee pack to give Bell X-1 parts, and Explorer-1 parts. Also made a few tweaks for KSP 1.0.5 compatibility (crew capsules will no longer sink like a rock if landed in water, etc).
  7. tjsnh
    Does ablator have weight the same way fuel does?
  8. tjsnh
    With the soyuz, I use the heatshield-decoupler rather than a regular decoupler - it's a small difference, but with a shallow re-entry angle it's been working out mostly ok. It's primarily the vostok, and VA, which don't fit a heatshield that are causing difficulty.
  9. tjsnh
    Since the 1.05 update, all of the tantares pack pods explode on re-entry (including a couple of the parachute parts), and sink in water/eveocean. Playing with the configs this morning, going to see if I can find the sweet-spot for thermals and buoyancy (which is a new attribute in the squad pod cfgs) and will post my findings. Once I have this figured out, the SSP and NASA career mods will have an updated release (hopefully today) Update 1 - Adding the following two lines to a pods config allows it to float (a bit high in the water, but it's a good "failsafe" until balanced values can be found) buoyancyUseSine = False buoyancy = 5 Update 2 - Using the following, the Vostok capsule now survives re-entry (I had to make some similar max temp adjustements to the parachute) but doesn't slow down enough to deploy it's parachute before cratering on the ground - impacts at about 300m/s, with shallow and steep re-entry angles. @thermalMassModifier = 1.0 @MaxTemp = 4400 skinMaxTemp = 4400 skinInternalConductionMult = 0.625 heatConductivity = 0.1 breakingForce = 400 breakingTorque = 200 @maximum_drag = 0.40 @minimum_drag = 0.35 buoyancyUseSine = False buoyancy = 5 Update 3 - With the above modifications to the vostok pod, and the following to the vostok return chute: @maxTemp = 5000 skinMaxTemp = 5000 skinInternalConductionMult = 0.625 heatConductivity = 0.1 // 5/6ths default @MODULE[ModuleParachute] { @chuteMaxTemp = 2500 @semiDeployedDrag = 4 @deployAltitude = 1500 } The capsule is able to survive re-entry (BARELY! It still exploded on 1 out of 5 re-entry attempts), I've got about a 50/50 ratio of being able to slow down enough before impact to deploy the chute (now that the chute part no longer explodes in the upper atmosphere before deploying). I don't know enough about the finer points of KSP's physics engine to know what else to tweak to try and get the vostok to slow down more. I've increased, and decreased, the weight - no obvious difference. Tried giving the capsule some lift towards it's top-end , broke things badly. Anyone have any thoughts?
  10. tjsnh
    Try different re-entry angles and speeds, I had a little trouble initially finding the "sweet spot" to de-orbit the vostok capsules.
  11. tjsnh
    I can't even begin to tell you how much time I wasted about a month ago trying to make a TMK mission. I just could NOT get the center of gravity right, with the asymmetry in a few places, and it was almost impossible to control.
  12. tjsnh
    Ah, neat! Looks like it'll be a fitting addition to the lineup.
  13. tjsnh
    Question - I may have missed the answer, I've been off the forums for a few days, but is that mars lander crew module based off the existing VA capsule part? (the same way the big-g extends the existing gemini part)
  14. tjsnh
    Take a look at the "soviet space program career" mod in my sig - the configs it comes with provide a variety of edits/fixes to the parts to make them more balanced. For example, building a copy of the original sputnik rocket will only be able to put a very small payload into low Kerbin orbit, the Proton cannot get you all the way to Duna anymore, the full-stack Soyuz rocket no longer gets you to the Mun, etc etc.
  15. tjsnh
    The new docking ports are looking great! Sadly I wasn't able to find a working version of my LK-700 capsule part. Looks like I lost it in my last re-install. It wasn't anything fancy - basically this, but with the windows recessed slightly: (an older auto-save I was able to recover of the part) I still think it would be pretty simplistic for someone who knows what they're doing more than I do to model, the texture would probably be the most time consuming bit of work.
  16. tjsnh
    Will the next update include the fregat as well?
  17. tjsnh
    Stupid noob question. Looking over the docs (it's been a month or three since I've done serious syntax work) I've got a question about the best way to script "flying" contracts. What I'm trying to do are make some atmospheric aviation related contracts, and it seemed like the best way to do that is to create a contract to go perform some objective (science at X biome, reach speed X, whatever) with some argument in the parameter like "maxAltitude = 35000" or something, to force the use of an aircraft rather than a suborbital ballistic flight. Am I on the right track, or is there a better way to approach this?
  18. tjsnh
    That Luna 9 looks interesting. If the part had a built-in transmitter, and the "panels" opened as "deploy antenna" to transmit, that could be interesting I'll dig up the LK-700 files and see if I can post a few pics this evening or over the weekend. I'd be more than happy to pass my files off to someone else better at modeling capsules for them to attach the hatch/ladder and/or other finishing touches (the windows dont have lights in them for example, it's a pretty basic part).
  19. tjsnh
    Adapting it for RSS would be far more time consuming than I have time for, unfortunately. I'd have to rebalance basically every part (well into the hundreds) beyond the rebalancing I've already done. The tech tree is default, but a lot of the stock parts are moved or removed. The vast majority of the tantares/ab/omsk parts are moved. The tool I was using to make a custom tech tree stopped working when KSP 1.0 came out, otherwise I'd have one included. A new update is coming soon to reflect updates to the parts mods.
  20. tjsnh
    I've used the KK Baikonur myself, but I've tried to keep the list of dependencies low, and none of the stuff I've added/edited requires it. - - - Updated - - - Back before 1.0 hit, the early betas of this mod had a custom tech tree, but since 1.0 the tool I was using to customize the tech tree no longer works - otherwise I'd already have a custom tree included for both this and the NASA career mod. What are you using?
  21. tjsnh
    Yes. I have a model (passable) and texture (crappy), but getting the finished part functional in KSP was a problem. It's not a complicated shape, simple cone, 2.5m base, 0.625m at top (very pointy shape, check out the pics), with two windows semi-recessed into the front side with the hatch in between them. The bottom is "flat", no built-in heatshield so a heatshield part would be used with it. Modeling it wasn't bad, the windows were the hardest part, and it imports into KSP fine and the surface mesh works right but has no hatch or "grab"able surface/ladder on the outside. Long story short, there's a bunch of extra steps to properly get the hatch/ladder to work and I couldn't get it correct so I gave up after several hours of bashing my head against it.
  22. tjsnh
    For what it's worth, I use the Venera probe&transmitter parts for just about every atmospheric probe mission I launch If there is talk of a non-LK lander, as a few other posters have mentioned, might I suggest the Langley Lander. The Langley was intended to be used with a Gemini-based EOR mission proposal, and was a tiny "open cockpit" lightweight 1 man lander which folded up into a Gemini-diameter cargo bay. I've had an incredibly difficult time re-creating one in KSP (even with generous part clipping) mostly due to the lack of suitable landing legs. It seems like something that would make a great addition to this pack, and go well with the existing Tantares Gemini modules. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmllight.htm http://www.airspacemag.com/space/lunar-landers-that-never-were-24004927/?no-ist On the red side, I've always thought the LK-700 direct-assent lander would be an incredible addition. I've tried to make a suitable capsule myself (PM'ed you about working in Wings3d a while back) but ran out of patience trying to get the ladder & hatch attached correctly in Unity. If a suitable capsule was made, along with the somewhat unique landing legs, stock/existing parts could easily make the rest of the lander. Its addition would round-out the collection of soviet-ish parts quite well. http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zlk3700.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dv1L8.jpg https://falsesteps.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/landing-gear.jpg
  23. tjsnh
    I gave the fregat beta a shot last night. I only used the tank+engine as I couldnt find an engine that fit the tank-only and still looked ok. It worked pretty good for me. The delta-V for a small probe felt appropriate, the heat/etc seemed good. I agree with the comments others have made that giving it a reaction wheel might be good (not a probe core though).
  24. tjsnh
    Cant wait to try out that WAC, looks great in the preview pic next to the Kerbal on the launchpad. Also, the X-1 cockpit has found some cross-use as a Klipper cockpit substitute.
  25. tjsnh
    I hadn't seen this parts back before but it looks like it might have some great utility value. I use remotetech and had previously been deploying "ground relay stations" around Kerbin to provide dish relay when mission control was on the 'far side' from the active vessal - being able to make/use a relay ship would be a great addition.
×
×
  • Create New...