Jump to content

lindemherz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    38

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by lindemherz

  1. lindemherz
    Hey Beale! You might want to check out http://space-architect.com/en/; the closest thing to an official website I could find for Galina Balashova, the actual interior designer for manned soviet spacecraft (after Vostok, Korolyov not only wanted them life-supporting, but livable). @kopapaka's picture is one of her designs.
  2. lindemherz
    A bit to the party, but I. AM. SO. DROOLING. RIGHT NOW.
  3. lindemherz
    Grunge level 1, 10%, for me. Even for stuff that has just come out the assembly building you can see a little bit of stuff here and there coming into the creases just by sitting at the pad, or being manipulated. If it's not absolutely mission critical, chips of paint *will* fall off, glosses will dull, blacks will decolour at spots, just by cleaning them up. A living vehicle will have been tested and retested, filled and drained, over and over, and at least minimally stained and cleaned and wiped. But not so much. Kerbals might be reckless, but they ain't filthy.
  4. lindemherz
    Hey Cobalt, those shots look gorgeous. Care to share which visual mods you use?
  5. lindemherz
    More possible reference material here. Unearthed Nash Vek (Наш век), an impressionist film-essay by Artavazd Peleshyan about cosmonautics up to 1983; although mostly about cosmonauts in training, it has myriad seldom seen shots of soviet hardware (including a very nice view of an engineering mockup of a first generation DOS, if not the actual Salyut-1 or DOS-2 during preprocessing).
  6. lindemherz
    To think those crazy stand-up guys actually thought of it...
  7. lindemherz
    AFAIK Salyut only needed to do attitude changes to point the docking port towards the approaching craft, with the translation in charge of the active craft.
  8. lindemherz
    Damn, them DPOs be Russia Stronk
  9. lindemherz
    A bit late to the party, but here I am. The Soyuz/Progress MS has totally revamped it's DPO (Dvigateli Prichalivaniya i Orientatsii, Berthing and Orientation Engines) system, having now at least 10 pairs of thrusters midship (4 pairs on the Z-axis, 4 pairs on the Y-axis, and 2 pairs on the X-axis pointing towards the front). They can be seen quite clearly in the pictures below, 2 Z-pairs around the Instrument/Descent/Orbital umbilical and a 2 Y-pairs 1 X-pairs next to the root of the solar panels. Additionally, there are 4 more Z-pairs pointing towards the back on the base around the KDU (the Soyuz main engine). Try as I might, I couldn't find any more clear images of the back of the ship or even of Progress MS, either during processing or in orbit. Surprisingly enough, it seems the MS series doesn't have any skirt thrusters anymore; they have been quite conspicuous in the previous versions of Soyuz/Progress (and the MS thrusters seem to be the biggest ever), and unless they are hiding behind the "lollipop" antennae at the base of the skirt it'd be safe to say they are gone. That said, it seems the Z-aligned thrusters on the base are angled inwards, and may be playing a dual role, translating on the Z-axis when firing together, and pitching and yawing when used individually. RussianSpaceWeb does show skirt thrusters on their diagrams, but photos show nothing but thermal blankets on their supposed location. There are no thrusters on the orbital module; the only Soyuz to ever feature them was the LOK, and it carried its own tanks on the orbital module for that. One last question remains: How the f@#! do they roll??
  10. lindemherz
    If anybody could please copy us the correct values for them I'd appreciate it immensely. I'm only getting a huge yellow ball with a buzzer haircut no matter which values I have.
  11. lindemherz
    On bright side, Komandir Kerablya can finally touch instrumentiy with own hands. On down side, even less instruments than Vostok Such is life
  12. lindemherz
    Dammit, I leave for a few months to deal with real life shenanigans and @KSK's already built a functional Kerbal language that even accounts for sociological/historical factors and that might even give us a clue to the greater way of thinking of the Kerbals (like in, to my understanding, the ambiguity of Kerba's "negative-statement" constructions leaving room for them actually meaning "superseding/exceeding/surpassing-statement," which basically embeds possibility and hope in parsing the meaning of every expression - a quintessential Kerman characteristic if any). You the man =D Also, my vote goes for -ad, if only because Firesvarad reminds me of Nagyvarad (Oradea), my currently favourite city in the world, Hungarian, and its agglutinations (which language inspired Old Kerba grammar anyway?). Absolutely love the terrible territory the Kerm and Kerbals are plowing through now, Jeb's desperation at the best of Kerman not being able to offset the worst of Kerman, and Val's being so bloody smart she can figure out how to defeat infrareds using the sun even though she hasn't seen seeking missiles in her life. Cannot wait to see where we're going now that the war's really burning.
  13. lindemherz
    Not bad! But after seeing it again, I think you get away with just pulling up the existing connectors to where the new one is right now, widen the point where they connect to the tankage so they have the same triangular footprint as the belt struts, and call it a day. They would be even sturdier than a belt strut - and you can always pass them off as heat shields.
  14. lindemherz
    My pleasure, Beale! With you bringing us all this cool stuff, helping you out is the least one could do. Assuming the large cylinders on top of the engines are the turbo pump casings, the side-ways ring, although it is aesthetically pleasing, wouldn't have an internal spar that would make it a rigid ring (since this spar would go through the turbo pump). It'd just be holding on to the casing itself, so the lateral forces are actually transferred to the casings instead of being dampened by the ring itself. In the current design, the casings are the thrust bearing structure (thus sturdy as hell), so no worries about regular forces ripping off cases, but I would be worried about an exploding or otherwise "bad" engine affecting the thrust structure of a "good" engine when the forces of the failure get transferred to another engine, losing two for the price of one.
  15. lindemherz
    Jesus, Beale, that's gorgeous. Totally dig the new scheme. And I'm always amazed at how much mileage you can get out a single texture sheet. Engineering nitpicking time! On the third stage, the long boxes on the fuselage of the stage should be aligned with the engine mounts. In real life they were covers for fuel lines that went over the liquid oxygen tank, so it would be easier for them to go straight into the engines instead to have to do two 90 deg turns inside the thrust structure. On the second stage, the last fixture for the engine thrust structures/turbopump assembly/etc. is that dark grey thick strut right before the orange stripes, and roughly halfway between the powerheads/engine bells and the thrust attachment point to the stage. Considering the power of the engines we're dealing with, in real life that could allow the engine mount a lot of room to vibrate before these vibrations reach an structural element that damps them (one of the reasons why in real life powerheads are fastened to something sturdier as soon as possible in the vertical axis, even going through the hassle of putting the turbopumps to the side of the powerhead). Vibrating powerheads + vibrating fuel lines = pogo. Although there is a strut ring right after the orange stripe, these struts would transfer those vibrations to and from the other engines, not really solving that. I would probably just pull down the dark grey fixture from before the orange stripe to were the strut ring is, if not even a bit further down, perhaps changing them into a triangular structure like the third stage struts or having the triangular structure and the original fixture if you can spare the polys. Btw, structurally speaking, if we are dealing with the same engines, the third stage should have similarly robust fixtures, although the length of their assemblies is short enough to give it a pass. Nitpicking apart, this thing looks beautiful and I'm more than aching to get Jeb stranded in Duna with it.
  16. lindemherz
    The NK-33 had the turbopump to the side; so they looked stockier. Beale's either has a vertically integrated powerhead/thrust structure or he hasn't modeled the pumps yet. Here's a pic of the NK-33 Also, in the N-1, the engines were a lot closer to the stage, and had a circular thrust load structure they connected to, making everything look stockier (Renders by Nick Stevens, who did the technical drawings for the N-1 For the Moon and Mars book)
  17. lindemherz
    Thank you, KSK. I've never been happier to have to come up for an explanation on why a 30 year old man was crying like a baby at the office.
  18. lindemherz
    Zenit and Proton (at least, without the skirt tanks) diameters are within 20cm of each other, so that baseline idea does seem really nice. Zarya/ATV are roughly the same diameter in real life, but we have the precedent of Cygnus/Antares being significantly off-scale in Tantares. Soyuz/Vostok seems problematic; haven't done the math but I think Tantares simply cannot carry two kerbals believably being smaller than 1.875, and an off-scale Almach on an 1.875 upper stage risks looking ridiculous. Better, Faster, Cheaper. Pick two =/
  19. lindemherz
    1.25 Soyuz... how'd two kerbals fit there? I'm going with passinglurker here, perhaps the best way to deal with this would be a careful retweak of the length of all the stages of the Tantares booster series (and by extension AB launchers). It's like designing a transformer without cheating - no matter what you do, chances are you cannot make something that looks perfect on one mode without it being ghastly on the other, so you are stuck with coming up with something that looks cool enough in both.
  20. lindemherz
    Jesus, KSK. With all the socio/cultural, biological, and technical brainstorming you've put into the story, I don't think I am the only one here who would LOVE to peek into your notes for First Flight after you are done with it. Something tells me they might be as long as FF itself.
  21. lindemherz
    The only reason Voskhod existed was because the development of Soyuz (or rather, Sever back then), was running too long and it wouldn't be ready before Gemini. Even with the detour taken in 1964, with all the historical problems in its development it seems unlikely that Soyuz would have had its first flight before early '66 (opposed to November '66 as in real life). PS. I just found out Soyuz 7KT-OK only had 210m/s of deltaV. Gemini had only 98! I cannot even deorbit with that!
  22. lindemherz
    If I'm not mistaken, in the IDS the petals' centerline is offset 60deg clockwise (looking from inside to outside) from the port's (and module's) top-down axis, while in both APAS-89 and 95 one of the petals' centerline is aligned to the port's axis. Although impractical, that would make Tantares APAS accurate to reality.
  23. lindemherz
    Beale, Lexx Thai is right, LK has three-axis control; the thing here is that I think you and MACman have different frames of reference. Looking engine block to Kontakt, the 40kgf thrusters provide pitch and yaw, and the 10kgf provide roll (MACman's FOR). Looking like a cosmonaut out of the window, the 40kgf provide pitch and roll, and the 10kgf provide yaw (your FOR). Edit: Interestingly enough, astronauts in the LEM would have to do this frame of reference transition for CSM rendezvous, which worried some Grumman engineers a bit (the other engineers went more like "Meh, they're pilots; they'll handle"). I don't know if cosmonauts with Kontakt ever had to deal with that.
  24. lindemherz
    Manually docking, I've been able to reproduce the bug only coming in hot and misaligned starting at about 0.3 m/s. Lots of petal on petal rubbing there, so I second that being a thing of collider interaction. Add my vote to the don't-abandon-APAS camp; I do use it as my primary docking port due to the aligning precision, and I missed it dearly after KSP updates rendered it buggy. Btw, CBBP, what are the chances of an 89/95 type inner petal APAS-96? If you need help with modelling it, or an implementation of the International Docking System Standard, I might be able to give you a hand.
  25. lindemherz
    Ahhhh, now that takes me back to my childhood =). Beware, though, even though those illustrations are *mostly* correct, they were drawn in the early 80s AFAIK, and can sometimes include some errors, like depicting the radiators on top of the TKS's fuel tanks as solar panels.
×
×
  • Create New...