Jump to content

Legcutter

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    124

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Legcutter

  1. Legcutter
    The single Kvant module looks a little bit small to be the heaviest It was Kvant + FGB tug (made from TKS without a VA return capsule). Something like this: Also it's strange for me to have a potent space astrophysical observatory being worser than that stock giantish aluminum can
  2. Legcutter
    From these images it also looks a lot emptier inside)
  3. Legcutter
    Hi, Beale) I was thinking - maybe it'll better be a short Salyut-1 one-illuminator body, long Mir three-illuminator body and something in the same diameter like that big monoprop tank with a side hatch from the old version of Tantares to extend short Salyut-1 body to long Salyut-6 one? Three different parts for building three different bodies and even more.
  4. Legcutter
    Is that a "short" Salute-1 to 4 body? It's looking not so short) (a jackal quality photo, but it's a real Salute-1 in space) And one more thing (I'm being dull, I know it ) - "long" bodies for Salute-7 and Mir are a bit different. Mir had two extra illuminators on port and starboard sides in crew cabins. Will it be three bodies or just two for simplicity? Or maybe an extra illuminator part?
  5. Legcutter
    I'd say this space is looking OK
  6. Legcutter
    Not funny. Really.
  7. Legcutter
    Mahaty... My poor eyes are bleeding when i see an infinitive form of a verb ("to wave") is used as a name. Please no P.S. Cyrillic characters included, товарищ)
  8. Legcutter
    Nah, Paz is really not the best idea. It should be some space theme name, continuing the Salyut\Vega line. Like... some other star or constellation (gonna be the best choise for the multi-module station ) name. Like Orion.
  9. Legcutter
    Dat's not the boosters but the stage 1 blocks. So, I suppose we already have that second stage @Beale was talking about)
  10. Legcutter
    So stereotypical...
  11. Legcutter
    Yup... just like this:
  12. Legcutter
    Hm... third stage engine shape actually seems OK. 10% taper, maybe.
  13. Legcutter
    They did make them for further N-1F launches alongside with two complete N-1F vehicles, and then soviet Lunar program was cancelled by Glushko (N-1 hater) and the N-1 program folloved, and these vehicles were destroyed. Engines should be destroyed too, but Kuznetsov managed to save them.
  14. Legcutter
    Nope) NK-15 is a NK-33's father, a little less powerful and anvanced. It was specially designed for N-1 rocket and it was used in all four launches of N-1. Also there were NK-15V model for high altitude and NK-15F with amplified trust.
  15. Legcutter
    N-1F was a N-1 version with modified engines - NK-33 eigines instead of NK-15 on the first stage, NK-43 (high altitude model of NK-33) instead of NK-15V on the second stage, NK-31 instead of NK-21 on the third stage and NK-19 instead of NK-9V on the fourth stage. This rocket could make it to low orbit with 100 tons of payload, instead of N-1's 90 tons (34 tons instead of 31 to the Moon). N-1M was a project with LOX\LH2 engines and 155-175 tons of payload to low orbit. These engines were mever made, though.
  16. Legcutter
    Well, okay. Since there's nothing about it in English wiki: It was assumed that there will be operated a whole launch vehicles family based on N-1 design, including the N-1F forced version and the modified N-1M with LOX/LH2 engines and higher payload mass, smaller versions like N-11 (three middle stages of N-1 - blocks B, V and G) and N-111 (third and fourth stages, V and G), and in further perspective - some bigger launch vehicles N-2, N-3 and N-4, wich were the two lower stages of N-1 rocket on top of an even more powerful first stages. N-111, N-11 and N-1 rockets No pics of N-2,-3,-4, sorry)
  17. Legcutter
    A-and... should we investigate N-2 too?)
  18. Legcutter
    But why? The heterogeneous ports are in "mom&dad" relations, so IRL you need one "male" and one "female" port to dock. And all the universality of these "supposedly universal" homogeneous ports that they are genderless and can dock to any of the same type. Cross-type docking is impossible due to the differences in design З.Ы. Of course, if one stops thinking the replica way, maybe there should be a possibility to dock nearly everything to everything for convenience
  19. Legcutter
    Сontares has tons of stuff, but all these low-poly models and "9 out of 10 damned jackals" textures are sometimes looking worse than stock, especially when mixed up with smth like Tantares parts. The only reason to have it is its antennas and periscopes, wich should probably be added to Tantares sometime later cuz all these fancy "decoration" parts add +100500 awesomness to any craft.
  20. Legcutter
    Speaking about port compatability - inside Tantares mod it's easy: three different sizes of APAS, two sizes of "thin-side" ports and one "thick-side" port. And one slim docking shute wich i've never used so far, but that one can't be confused with any other, I hope. And 'bout port compatability between different mods - I don't think it's even possible. A-a-and... since we're talking about ports - need to say I really miss that one (or just unable to build it with mod parts, unlike LK port)
  21. Legcutter
    Wow... didn't know about that one, thanks. Time to build one more replica)
  22. Legcutter
    I think I'm gonna need some hivemind help with this. Look at the photo - is it really a Soyuz\Progress ship docked to the Kristall module via APAS-89 port? 0_o
  23. Legcutter

    Replicas building time

  24. Legcutter
    Energia corp. site confirms this to be the third stage (block V) of N-1 rocket, so awful animation is applied to good models.
  25. Legcutter
    Hi Beale, this new N-1 is looking great! One small thing about this particular detali - note the engine shroud at 2:25 And many warmest thanks to you for making the main reason i'm still playing 1.1.3
×
×
  • Create New...