Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chimer4

  1. Are those for reused stages? I prefer the more dirty option. IMO it would be better to try and colour match the interstage with the black legs from KRE, chances are that anyone who uses this mod will also be using KRE
  2. Yeah that's what I was doing, I was on target for the launch pad but as I was getting closer it drifted westwards for some reason (the trajectories marker was actually in the roof of the VAB in my picture). It was quite a heart pounding landing. I came so close to the roof of the VAB that if I had my legs out at the time they would have clipped it
  3. @damonvv @Bottle Rocketeer 500 yep it was a gidorah heavy side booster doing an RTLS. I was aiming for in front of the VAB but ended up in that corner instead. You can see in FMRS the other booster is landed, the core is waiting to be landed, and the second stage is on its way
  4. I don't think I could have landed this any closer to the VAB if I had tried. Judged my landing a bit long and just skimmed the roof of the VAB
  5. I've seen that before, but I don't think it's a problem with tantares as I've seen it with other fairings. In my own experiences, it happens if you stage the fairing at the same time you decouple the thing that it's attached to. Seems to be a bug present in stock, just tested it in my test install (no other mods) and I can replicate it.
  6. @Beale I think I have made a pull request, but it's by first time doing something other than downloading a branch on github so I may have done something wrong
  7. Thanks for those, I'll make some more accurate calculation tomorrow and see if I can work out how to do a PR. Turns out my Oscar B maths wasn't that far off, got 2.6m for the upper stage and 5.6 for the bulge tank I'll have to pull my replica out of storage to get myself ready (that's if its what I think it is)
  8. @Beale No problem! Of course you can link it on the first page, I made it with the intention to help other people. It may be easier to include it in the patches folder in the github repo, and change the file name to something like "alternatesizes.cfg.disabled". That way the patch is there when people download it, but they would need to remove ".disabled" in order to use the new parts. Also how do the fuel values look to you? They aren't brilliantly accurate because I just estimated the heights of the parts using oscar Bs If you could provide the heights of the parts then I could calculate a more accurate figure Updated the cfg to change the tags and the mass of the new parts (only the fuel tanks) //Use the new closer to real scale parts @PART[TLV_1_Decoupler_1]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] { @MODEL { @model = TantaresLV/Parts/TLV/Soyuz_1_Decoupler_1_E } @tags = 1.5 Decoupler Soyuz } @PART[TLV_2_Engine_1]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] { @MODEL { @model = TantaresLV/Parts/TLV/Soyuz_2_Engine_1_E } @tags = 1.5 TLV Soyuz rocket propulsion } @PART[TLV_2_Fairing_1]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] { @MODEL { @model = TantaresLV/Parts/TLV/Soyuz_2_Fairing_1_E } @tags = 1.5 TLV Soyuz Fairing Payload } @PART[TLV_2_LFO_1]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] { @MODEL { @model = TantaresLV/Parts/TLV/Soyuz_2_LFO_1_E } @tags = 1.5 TLV Soyuz Fuel Tank ?lfo } @PART[TLV_1_LFO_2]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] { @MODEL { @model = TantaresLV/Parts/TLV/Soyuz_1_LFO_2_E } @tags = 1.5 1.25 TLV Soyuz Fuel Tank ?lfo } ////Experimental fuel values, remove double slash to use //@PART[TLV_2_LFO_1]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] //{ // @mass *=1.26 // // @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] // { // @amount *= 1.44 // @maxAmount *= 1.44 // } // @RESOURCE[Oxidizer] // { // @amount *= 1.44 // @maxAmount *= 1.44 // } //} // //@PART[TLV_1_LFO_2]:NEEDS[TantaresLV] //{ // @mass *= 1.04 // // @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] // { // @amount *= 1.08 // @maxAmount *= 1.08 // } // @RESOURCE[Oxidizer] // { // @amount *= 1.08 // @maxAmount *= 1.08 // } //}
  9. Thought I'd have a go at making a MM config to change to the new parts without having to go in and change each of the configs. I've also had a go with some changes to the fuel values to bring them in line with the new sizes. Need a bit of help though, the fuel values for LFO_1 change, but they don't for LFO_2. Can anyone shed any light? *whistling* nothing to see here (I totally wasn't changing the fuel values on TLV_2_LFO_2 instead, swear). Also I messed up my calculations a bit and have since revised them
  10. I like the new part sizes @Beale. Personally I prefer them to the old sizes Am I right in thinking that you plan to make them switchable when making history comes along? Further down the line, would it be possible to have a wider lower part of the first stage to allow for building soyuz 2.1v? (Although that may be too much trouble as it would require a standalone NK-33)
  11. Just one itsy bitsy tiny thing I have noticed (which no normal person would probably notice ) is that the flappy bois are ever so slightly offset from centre so they don't perfectly line up when placed in symmetry
  12. Just noticed the update to this pack and it looks great! Both BFR and BFS look and fly really nicely Took the gojira out for it's first spin, and managed to land it back with just fumes in the tank. On a side note, when will we see something called mothra?
  13. Glad I could help! Give me a challenge and I'll give it a crack. If there's one thing uni taught me, it's how to improve my Google-fu @hraban will probably have to correct me on this, but are all 3 shown in the picture he posted of Soyuz and progress docked to Salyut? There's the ones on Soyuz/progress, the one at the front of Salyut and the one at the rear of Salyut. The one at the rear was also present on the mir core module and zvezda (I think) but not too be confused with the SDRN antenna on zvezda. I don't think it's visible in photos any more of zvezda because igla has now been supplanted by kurs. Then again I could be taking complete twaddle and might be completely wrong Edit. Oops, didn't see his post
  14. Just got sniped by @hraban was going to post that exact picture. Just thought, in reference to @Legcutters post, I may have been a bit hasty (and tired) in my reply. We may need 2 different IGLA antennas based on what we have seen. There is indeed a version that folds back as pointed out by @Legcutter that is placed on stations (iirc that is usually the transmitting antenna on the passive vessel) and there is the collapsible one that folds forward found on Soyuz up until Soyuz TM (I think)
  15. That's a good picture, but it's confusing me. At first I thought that it was the DM rather than than the OM (that could just be a perspective thing though) and is that zvezda or similar that it's mated to? Also, why are there solar panels on it. I thought it was only shenzhou that had solar panels on the OM. Finally, that would be the wrong type of docking port for a Soyuz, as that is the drogue rather than the probe. Edit. Sorry to say @Legcutter but it appears to be a picture of Salyut 1
  16. That's a sweet logo! In terms of IGLA, does this help? It looks like it is flattened in those pictures, so I would assume it pops up and then the sides fold in to provide stability. Just guesswork on my end though
  17. Really amazing job! I'm probably going to be the only person to say this, but I'd like to see angara and PPTS Other than that, probably energia (and therefore zenit ) or TMK
  18. @CobaltWolf would it be possible to have an option to toggle the external feed line on the centaur tanks (like on the S-IV tank) so that they can be used in other applications. No problem of you can't, just a small aesthetic consideration
  19. Nice! Am I right in remembering that the parts were launched with the Saturn 1C (and first use of AARDV tug?) Apart from the main part of Spacelab of course
  20. Personally, I would have it as two RCS modules. You can always put it on to fore by throttle anyway for the backup engine. But I see the appeal of either option
  21. Any relation to that super secret project a bunch of people were/are working on? But that Soyuz looks seriously good!
  22. I just imagine a cork popping sound when the kerbal comes out of that hatch Also what fuel tank is that? I thought it was an Oscar b at first
  23. It's an interesting system that's KOSMOS has. From what I can tell, those small tanks powered the gas generator for the 11D49, and the exhaust was used in those verniers for final orbit correction
  24. You shouldn't use any monoprop, it's less efficient than LF/O so you'll probably end up losing more than you gain. What I suggest is build the rocket as is (payload/decoupler/fairing/probe core/second stage tank/second stage engine/decoupler/first stage tank/first stage engine) nothing else added. For the payload just use a couple of monoprop tanks to make up a 2 tonne mass simulator payload. Fly that and see how it goes
  • Create New...