Kairu

First of all - some thermal insulation. Then... In fact, there are a lot of stuff on the surface of the Russian space stations modules. So I think no matter what else will be added - will not be worse.

I just discovered a huge loss! Where did that little Angara winglet go?

If you\'re going to overhaul radiator and RSC tank with radiator, it seems to me that the best way is to make the surface of the radiators (both individual and on the tank) smooth, without ridges; that is it is not necessary to choose two parts just in the form as they are now - it is better to make them even simpler. If you then add the correct normal maps, the radiators will look almost like the real ones. But still I think in addition it is worth to keep TKS RCS tank.

Quick check of the new version showed that radiator panels turn to the star, not away from it, and RD-0124 still has only three exhaust jet streams. Also I can not attach one LK fuel or RSC tank to another. How can this be done?

Indeed. But also on real VA its RCS became active only after the separation of the capsule. Unfortunately in KSP you can\'t do this. Once I asked r4m0n to include the ability to do it in his plugin, but he felt that it was not necessary. I don\'t think there is a need to carry out such measures. You already chose the size very well. In addition, you\'ll have to redo almost all parts of the Angara-pack too.

For example TKS configuration. It has 4 RCS blocks on the main body and 4 excess thruster blocks in the capsule. And there is no way to use only main thrusters, RCS on VA can\'t be exclusively turned off. Fot myself I can change the part type of the VA RCS for strut or something else, that\'s not a problem. I just think in this case it would be handier to use one part instead of six, that\'s all

CBBP, if you\'re going to somehow remake VA, can you make a decoupler-type part, that can be used instead of VA upper decoupler, RCS tank and thrusters to build VA? I thought about it after the first release; sometimes it is unnecessarily to have RCS on VA.

What exactly do you want to know? TKS is a well-known spacecraft, so a lot of information is available about it. But for me the most difficult is to find the info in English So if there are specific questions it will be easier to answer (and I\'m sure the answers will be).

If you mean pictures from my 688\'th reply - it is only a concept, so there is no detailed information. I think that TKS VA is quite enough. But if you want to add another capsule, the best candidate is PPTS, which was chosen to replace Soyuz (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/acts.html): I like new RCS thrusters! I hope that a smaller version of RD-0146 will remain in the pack (along with the possibility to attach more than one to KVTK). Like another modification or something. That one was very good too (and not so big - it is also important ).

RKK Energia had been developing project of LEK direct-scheme lander. Only a few pictures are in the net. But I managed to find screenshots of the model for Orbiter (unfortunately, it seems that this project is abandoned):

Manned lunar complex proposed by Khrunichev Space Center:

One more problem in 0.15 - it is impossible to attach engine shrouds to engines.

I noticed that RD-0124 is too big compared to other parts of Angara. In reality its diameter is slightly less than the diameter of URM. So I have a little suggestion:

15D13:

I believe that LK-700 is more suitable for this pack. Direct-landing scheme, and it was designed by the same company as TKS and Almaz. But for now the question is only about a landing engine, and that one from LK is good too. (And I actually can not find a single picture of LK-700 landing engine).

Single-chamber RD-858 + two-chamber RD-859 - descent/ascent engine cluster of LK: If I did not have exams soon, I would have went to the museum and took pictures myself If you\'ll decide to make it, I think it would be enough to make only the external part - after all the engine must be protected from the lunar dust.

Be sure! It is hard to resist the use of such beautiful parts. If only my computer did not reduce framerate because of them... I would like to see, first of all, the completion of the Angara-pack: Breeze-M and Breeze-KM upper stages, wider URM for Angara-A7, different decouplers and fairings. Then, in the longer term, it would be great to see Yenisei and Amur (former Angara-100) launch vehicles - reincarnations of the Energia family by Khrunichev Space Center - as the further development of the Angara family.

The same KOSMOS pack gave me this idea. In real space systems all three groups do not operate simultaneously. And the separation of RCS engines is well suited for future addons from CardBoardBoxProcessor. But, most importantly, the ability to disable some of the RCS blocks will help better control the rocket in terms of their location relative to the center of mass of the launch vehicle and spacecraft before and after their separation (or separation of spacecraft modules). Also, when there are many RCS blocks, when they work together, their force is superfluous and the rocket is shaking like mad - this concerns, first of all, the early stages of flight, when the RCS engines work both on the rocket and the spacecraft. And in addition, it looks ugly, when the jet streams from control engines of the spacecraft make their way through the nose fairing.

I wonder if it is possible to make variable RCS engines? So that they can be grouped and enabled separately. If it is not possible with current release, can one expect an update with this feature?

To rotate solar panels use “9†and “0†keys, for radiator panel - “7†and “8â€.

As for me, the 1.5m upper stages will be enough for me And what do you think? In this situation it is very good, because one can expect more parts from you, than at first might think Look at this cool engine configuration: Maybe some additional engine mounts, so to be able to manage without legs?

Because of this picture from the site of GKNPTs (Khrunichev Space Center). I am sure you have seen it: From left to right first three upper stages: ???? - KVSK, “oxygen-hydrogen, middle classâ€; ???? - KVTK, “oxygen-hydrogen, heavy class†- basic version; ????-?7 - KVTK-A7, “oxygen-hydrogen, heavy class, for Angara-7â€. Or your bigger KVTK - is it the same case as with your shorter URM and taller URM-2? If so, then all is OK. Anyway, i really like your models from this pack and I will play with them, no matter what they look like and are called 8) If you want to give such a name as if it came up with Russian, you should consult with someone who speaks Russian and is familiar with the Russian space program. With me, for example ;P Drotik is a good choice, I think, especially considering your arguments.

It would be nice to make the main engine of KVTK non-gimballed and to add control engines - RCS blocks with small RCS tanks. But unfortunately in that case RCS on the spacecraft will work too, at the same time. The smallest should be named ????. And maybe it would be better to make the biggest 1.75m in diameter in the upper part and not so tall and to name it ????-?7? Also please rename Bropyaga (i guess the word “brodyaga†is meant) to something more suitable for the name of the Russian spacecraft part The common abbreviation PAO will be appropriate. But this, of course, is not important

Rus-M family?

Changed the hosting. For insurance the link: http://i.imgur.com/pUkVl.jpg