Jump to content

CrisK

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    420

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by CrisK

  1. CrisK
    I added the Kvant-2 module(TKS) to my MIRalike station this evening. The cargo block holds a TAC life support container, water purifier, air purifier, and a large battery. I previously docked a stack of these same things on the end behind the Kvant-1 - you can see it behind the Progress-M. At some point in the future I will tug the external TAC supplies back to Kerbin with the Progress-M and then send a new Progress-M up. Still need to send a Priroda, second TKS (Kristall substitute), and Spektr.
  2. CrisK
    It's hard to judge the part without seeing the landing portion attached. To my eyes, that light mustard green/yellow is rather ugly. It doesn't fit with the Tantares theme. I'm sure that you've seen this page, but if not you may find the pictures helpful.
  3. CrisK
  4. CrisK
    Ah, based on what Biohazard has described I am wrong. This would require specialized fairings. What he's described sounds pretty cool. First, isn't it hilarious that Lunniy Korabl (Ûуýýыù úþрðñûь) is so close to Lunniy Kerbal? I strongly prefer your Stockalike art style to Bobcat's. Please don't change the LK too much! It would be nice if your entire model was just scaled down by 10-15% so that it would fit inside 2.5m fairings. The new parts/liftoff method would be great! I like that Bobcat's has the landing portion decouple and remain behind. It's a cool feature. Edit: Oh, and I know that I'm dreaming here, but how about a crew capacity of 2...?
  5. CrisK
    Personally I think that there are enough fairing options out there. Procedural Fairings and Inline Fairings can both replicate nearly any shape and size and they compliment Tantares. Beale, you are a parts-designing machine! Whispers: N-1... N-1... Beale, the N-1 is calling you.
  6. CrisK
    I would not claim that mine was an improvement; I think that your Soyuz is the definitive edition. You set the standard for excellence. Rjtaml requested a craft file that did not have struts from the KW Rocketry add on. He could not open your craft file because he did not have that add on. That's why I posted my Soyuz. I also posted my Proton+Salyut because I've been launching stations using the Proton and Salyut parts since Beale posted the beta files for the new Proton a couple of days ago.
  7. CrisK
    Awesome! I have become Tantares approved. Here is my semi-accurate Proton launcher with my semi-accurate full Salyut 6 sub-assembly on top. I attached the Tantares V-N6 hub so it's ready for expansion! Just add Progress, Soyuz, or etc. and your Mir or ISS station awaits. Instructions on how to fly: The full Salyut is heavy, so the Proton will probably only get you to a low (100-200m) orbit. Fly the ALV-A booster first stage to 25m then start gradually rotating east to achieve an equatorial orbit. You should hit the 90 degree mark at your apoapsis. Burn what's left of the first stage, decouple it, and fire up the B second stage. You may be able to reach orbit with this second stage alone. However, you will most likely need the C third stage. Equalise your orbit. Decouple the C third stage. Use the Capella to fine tune. Decouple the Capella if/when you need to use the docking port that is at the bottom of the Salyut station. There are two small monopropellant boosters at the bottom for future corrections. Send up a Soyuz and stick it on the top or bottom! PS: I can replicate the Salyut's double tiered fairing with Procedural fairings, but it adds 4 extra/unnecessary parts. Is it worth it just for the look? PPS for forum rules: License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (Hopefully that covers the board requirements of including a license.)
  8. CrisK
    Here is a link to my semi-accurate R7 (Soyuz). Is this good enough quality and accurate enough to be shared? I'm not sure if you'll like my style of construction. A few notes on the rocket: There is no asparagus staging because it is not used in the real Soyuz. Add it if you want to increase your efficiency and don't care about accuracy. The procedural fairing is a custom shape that perfectly covers the Soyuz spacecraft. Please keep auto-shape turned off. The fairing will extend to cover the launch escape system if you turn auto-shape on. Action groups are not saved in the craft file. You should probably add the Tavio GET-00T and the Tavio SD-01 decoupler to the Abort action group so that the crew can be ejected/rescued. The only recoverable part is the TST crew module. Just like the real Soyuz! If you want to recover the rest using StageRecovery then you will need to add 2 radial ALN return chutes per part (or 6 for stage 2). This is not accurate, but it saves a lot of money in recovered parts. License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (Hopefully that covers the board requirements of including a license.)
  9. CrisK
    Beale and Rjtaml, I can share my craft files if that would be helpful. They only use stock + procedural fairings + Tantares.
  10. CrisK
    The Asp looks fantastic. Thank you for sharing the craft file!
  11. CrisK
    What about a "pogo oscillation" failure? There are endless possibilities here. Which one do you use? Bobcat looks okay, but it doesn't seem to have been updated. DennyTX's looks amazing, but it also has not been updated. SXT's is a cool design, but it doesn't really look like the N-1. I really do not like Novapunch's N-1, or their R-7 for that matter. Beale's soviet parts are much nicer to fly. Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent Beale. Consider this a sign that there's demand for an N-1 in your art style.
  12. CrisK
    Thanks! Welcome to the Minmus neighbourhood! Say, since you're my new neighbour...do you think that I could borrow a cup of flour? All of these N-1 rockets make me want an N-1 parts pack. What add on are people using for their N-1 rockets? Beale, is there any plan to create an N-1 in the future? The N-1 is such a goofy rocket. DangIt could add a "bolt" failure to commemorate it.
  13. CrisK
    I had time this evening to send up another Proton. This time I sent a new station to Minmus. As you can see, my burns were not as efficient this time. Still, I had plenty of fuel to fly there and back with my tug boat 3rd stage. Photos: 1. Take off. 2. The 3rd stage tug reaching and orbiting Minmus. 3. The 3rd stage tug returning to Kerbin where I land and recover it for the refund. 4. The station landing. It has 3 docking ports for future expansion. I used the Soyuz orbiter engine with the thrust limited to about 15 so that I could do a low, efficient burn. Wound up landing with... 5. 33 minutes worth of DeltaV left. Sheesh. I didn't need any of the external tanks. Still, they look cool. 6. 1.86m/s or roughly 16 minutes left at full thrust. More than enough to fly home without a tug if I ever want to. It has the ALN parachutes so it can easily land on Kerbin.
  14. CrisK
    Thank you! It is actually very easy to do with a normal lander. i.e. one that has an engine below the centre of mass. The Tantares Lunniy can easily land within 20m of a ground vehicle or station. I would use it if I didn't want both a pilot and a scientist for the science bonus. It's too bad the Lunniy doesn't hold two Kerbals. Yes. The Proton has low DeltaV compared to the FASA or asparagus-aided rockets so burns have to be very efficient. You probably noticed that I did my burns at periapsis! Without the Oberth effect I would not have enough DeltaV for a return trip. I would waste all my fuel leaving Kerbin's orbit and establishing a new orbit around the moon/planet. Also, for a return burn I try to make my periapsis line up with the front of the moon/planet's orbit. That way I get a smaller return orbit around Kerbin. Of course, you don't need efficient burns if you utilise 4-6 external tanks in asparagus staging tacked onto the 1st stage of the Proton. I really hate doing that because it looks ugly and unrealistic. You can get into orbit with 4 large tanks (with engines) + the first stage alone. It's unrealistic to the point where it feels like cheating. That looks great! Did you create the cage/wire fairing, or is that part of the first stage's parts pack? I believe that there's at least one parts pack that includes this rocket. Bobcat maybe?
  15. CrisK
    I tried to repeat my vertical docking with the ALN descent engine on the Mun. It's much harder on the Mun because of the increase in gravity. Also, the engine is REALLY hard to steer. The controls are inverted (even though I have the pod facing the right direction!). I fly "blind" with no docking port alignment indicator or Mechjeb. Here's a link to an album (thank you to Niemand303 for posting an album so that I learned how to do it) in case anyone wants to try to replicate the mission: First, I sent up a Proton with a lander attached by a docking port. I put one of the Tantares probes under the docking port. Once I reached the Mun, I established an orbit at around 90m and detatched the lander. The 3rd stage of the Proton orbited the Mun with roughly 300m/s of DeltaV left. I deactivated the engine and undocked the lander. The 3rd stage continued to orbit the Mun. It would later serve as a tug boat to push the Mun base back to Kerbin - no need to waste that remaining DeltaV! The lander needed some small adjustments so that it would fall onto the base vertically. ...and I failed. Again, I was doing this by eye. I fell 30km away. I probably could have kept reloading quicksaves until I fine-tuned it, but where is the fun in that? My two Kerbalnauts EVA'd and walked over to the base. (End of image gallery. ) I later managed to land an unmanned probe onto the top of the base, but I used the radial mounted monopropellant engines to do a normal landing. That ALN engine is too hard for me to steer manually at my skill level! Once I fulfilled a few of the "build a base on the Mun with X requirements" contracts, I flew the base up into a docking alignment with the Stage C orbiting station, docked, and flew home. I'm happy to report that no Kerbals were hurt in these missions! A quick tip - the "build a base on the Mun with X requirements" contracts can be fulfilled by docking a capsule to an existing base. That's why I have such enormous, ridiculous looking vertical stacked bases. I keep building upwards with probes that have docking ports attached on both ends. The Tantares probe that fits 1 kerbal works perfectly for this because it meets the "unmanned" criteria and still adds +1 to the crew capacity.
  16. CrisK
    Thank you for the decoupler! I sent two Protons to Minmus and got a screenshot of the result. I sent the first Proton with the lander, then sent another one with a V-C3 block. I used the ALN descent engine to drop a V-C3 block into a docking position onto the lander. It took a few tries! I had to fire the descent engine perfectly to stop the momentum exactly over the docking port, rotate the block perfectly, etc. As you can see, I stuck a fuel tank under the ALN engine because of the issue that others have mentioned here (not enough fuel for a ~3 second burn) and now I have a surplus of fuel.
  17. CrisK
    I managed to use the new Proton to send a TKS to Minmus and land it to fulfill a stations contract. I'm a fan! I'd be happy to share screenshots. What's the best service to use with this forum? imgur? What are you guys using in terms of separators or decouplers with the protons? The stock ones ruin the color scheme (and are quite ugly). I've been using the blue TR-XL separators, but at 900 a pop that's an expensive option since separators can't be recovered (even with stage recovery).
  18. CrisK
    What do you need help with? I think that you should balance the weight of these parts against the stock pods / engines / tanks rather than against real-world values. If you're going for pure realism, the Proton should be almost 3x as wide as it currently is, and the Soyuz should be a 3m wide part. Those sizes don't translate well to the scaled down Kerbal world. I also don't like the idea of making the Salyut parts too heavy. If you're going for pure realism, the Proton should spontaneously fail 10-15% of the time. The R7 should spontaneously fail anywhere from 10-60% of the time. Protons that are carrying Soyuz spacecraft should catch fire around the engines and then the Soyuz should use its emergency system to fly off the top of the rocket to save the crew two seconds before the rocket explodes. The Salyut should unexpectedly leak fuel from time to time and need to be patched by an engineer. The Salyut should occasionally lose power without a reason and require an engineer to replace the batteries (this actually happened). Oh, and the crew should randomly experience hallucinations of bright orange clouds. For the engines, I like the slightly "overpowered" values because they match the Kerbal stock engines. The real world engines are lacklustre in comparison. 1st stage 285 / 316 2nd stage 342 / ? 3rd stage 325 / ?
  19. CrisK
    Beale, I like how you have changed the proportions of the stages. The current 3rd (C?) stage is very large, and it only contains 2/5ths of the fuel that it should given the size. The new design looks more proportional all around. Last night I noticed that the science orbiters/containers do not actually do anything. Are you planning on adding some sort of experiment to them, mobile processing lab (ModuleScienceLab) functionality, etc? I added it on my own files. ModuleScienceLab is pretty darned buggy. I've observed some strange behavior with the docking ports. Two "male" docking ports will connect, but undocking causes the uncontrolled ship to explode. Also, FAR appears to treat these docking ports as collisions during reentry and the result is spectacular explosions.
  20. CrisK
    I registered just to say that this is one of the most well-crafted KSP parts packs that I've come across. It's clear that the developer(s) have invested thought and care into each part. Thank you Beale & co.
×
×
  • Create New...