Jump to content

TheBedla

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    110

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TheBedla

  1. TheBedla
  2. TheBedla
    First of all, this seems awesome. I was hoping something like this would hatch, and I can see how Tantares is inspiring in this way. As you mentioned, a meaningful way for stations and (light) station maintenance would be almost necessary. This could be done with contracts (I often found myself dismissing dozens of contracts just hoping to get another "Build a station in LKO with room for X Kerbals" contract), which would be the easiest version. From the pure Science perspective, there could be a simple system of experiments that would have various combinations of the following conditions: a) location (obviously) number of seats/kerbals on the station/ship (ideally the number of seats would be higher than the number of kerbals require to promote "realistic" station and crew size) c) a specific module (which could be represented in various Salyut/Spacelab and MIR and ISS/Freedom components) d) maybe some time aspect, but this would not be necessary Maybe the experiments could be set up so that even their physical recovery would not bring back the entire science sum (if that is possible to set up) and would require processing in the stock science lab and/or delivery of multiple in multiple ships, so you would be forced to do some servicing, if you wanted to get all the science from a specific set of conditions. In addition to station experiments, having some sort of telescope experiments would be nice, and I believe these have been implemented in various mods already, it might be worthwhile to check them.
  3. TheBedla
    I quite like that! I originally thought even the forward-facing thruster ("rearing thruster") could be incorporated in the "skirt" of the SM, you already have the nozzle holes there in the model. Actually, this thread shows the position of the real-life Soyuz quite well (actually better than anything I could find, so I don't really know. But it makes sense to have them there).
  4. TheBedla
    Concerning the landing - I'm not sure how Landatron does it, but maybe it could just be hacked together using the Parachute module. Set a (very) low "opening" altitude, delete the parachute (or make it invisible), add 'splosive flame. Could it work? Otherwise I think the soyuz is pretty much there. Maybe slightly tweak the OM's shape so it's a little closer to cylindrical than spherical (it can be seen in some ref pictures but not others - maybe there were different OM versions? I think maybe the RCS ports could use a re-think. Those in the bottom of the SM are only monodirectional (perhaps retro-facing RCS ports could also be integrated in the "skirt"?), and while the dedicated small RCS ports look OK, they look rather futuristic being nozzle-bell-less (heh). I think adding small bells would fit with the style more. Maybe the little docking antenna should fold forward instead of backward? That'd make it easier to fit in the front of the OM without overlapping with the OM body.
  5. TheBedla
    The redesign is looking great, Beale! However, I'd suggest you add some "texture" on the main tank between the six radial tanks on the first stage, so far it looks a little blank. Maybe just some panelling like in the other stages? There certainly is something there IRL. I can also seem to see some sort of fuel pipe?
  6. TheBedla
    Well, I think if that were the case, the VA capsule would not need its own separate deorbit propulsion and could have just relied on the FGB propulsion to get it to deorbit.
  7. TheBedla
    Actually, you have it upside down (which is understandable given the confusing nature of the TKS). The Kvant-1 was delivered with a TKS-derived FGB module, yes, but it retained its double-cone front docking part, and it was the VA capsule that was replaced by the aerodynamic cone. Otherwise they would have to flip engine orientation within the FGB, which I suppose is not possible (or would be too complex to be practical). So just like all TKS-derived spacecraft the Kvant (as well as Polyus and probably Zarya [citation needed]) had to flip after decoupling from the launcher. See for example this image I shared earlier in this thread, in the second figure you can see the Kvant launch configuration with the outline of the complete FGB. For KSP purposes I built mine using Procedural Fairings which would cover the area between Kvant and the TKS, but it was not very satisfactory, so some artistic licence is probably required.
  8. TheBedla
    Ah, I didn't realize the thing about the engines, as I never use pre-built craft. Yes, the docking part orientation is confusing, as I have informed Beale as well a few months(?) ago myself I don't think that would be the case. The interior is quite spacious, as seen here, so the remaining crew could have been facing "forward" as well during the orbital maneuvers. Also, it seems the force applied on the crew by the TKS main engines would be nowhere near enough to slap them. Now I'm not great on maths, but my calculations seem to suggest a TWR of 0,04 (= thrust of 1763 lbf ea / weight of 38603 lb). My calculations could have been incorrect, but the engines still don't seem to be powerful enough judging solely by their size and design. I've been wondering the same thing, but I think it could have been possible to keep the FGB in orbit (after all, it makes for great space station modules even today), and just dock a fresh VA to it. I don't have any support for that, so it's just conjecture, but similar arrangement was initially designed for Almaz, and the TKS could have been designed along similar principles.
  9. TheBedla
    Yes, the TKS is one of the more interesting concepts for orbital travel, and I find it really fascinating. I've attempted reconstructions in KSP long before there was Tantares, but I was not very happy with it. Tantares makes it possible, and very gorgeous looking. I think the best basic info is here. If you look at the diagram and the description, it should be clear how it operated. A TKS basically consisted of two parts - the VA return capsule with deorbit engines (the long pointy end) and the FGB cargo block, containing circularization and orbital engines, propellant, orbital module, docking port, solar panels and docking antennas (the bigger part of the spacecraft). It was indeed launched with the capsule upwards, the escape tower was coupled to the "nose" of the deorbit section of the VA capsule, and after the booster separation it had to flip in orbit, so that the docking port faced forward and the capsule backward, so that the FGB engines (in the diagram labelled as "randezvous and correction engines") thrusted the correct way, past the VA capsule. After its mission was done, the VA capsule would separate from the FGB, and used the thrusters in the "nose" to deorbit. The nose would then separate, burn in the atmosphere, and the VA capsule would land on parachutes. Does this answer your question? If not, try to ask a little more specifically. I'm no expert, but the TKS is probably my favourite spacecraft and I can try to answer any questions concerning it you might have (or at least point you to the relevant sources).
  10. TheBedla
    Excellent work so far! Have you considered updating the stock wheels too? I would appreciate that, especially if there was a way to make all of them fold partially. I don't think it would affect their external (deployed) dimensions, but would greatly help in creating rovers that are more streamlined at launch. I think most real rovers were at least partially folded up (the lunar rover is an extreme example, but Curiosity was a nice one), and getting the large tank wheels up there looks ridiculous.
  11. TheBedla
    The Consolidated PBY Catalina, I've fancied this plane since my father introduced it to me when I was a kid, and even bought me a plastic model. It's a flying boat, which is awesome, I love the distinct shape, the wings on the pylon, the so-ugly-it's-beautiful nose, the waist gunner blisters, folding floats and the ingenious (and huge) retractable gear. It has a very dieselpunk vibe, now that I think about it, and it wouldn't look too out of place in Crimson Skies, for example. And yet it was not some marginal concept, but a true workhorse of a flying boat.
  12. TheBedla
    Stations around Kerbin. For some reason, I seem to be doing a lot of them, mostly single-module ones (Salyut/Spacelab style). I blame the Tantares pack for that, there's just too many excellent parts for that.
  13. TheBedla
    Just wondering, any ideas how the Fuji was planned to be launched? I imagine an Apollo-style launch configuration requiring the TD&E maneuver, as I can't picture having that huge OM in front of the capsule soyuz-style... but cannot find any indication this way or the other. Are there any resources I'm missing?
  14. TheBedla
    That is literally what I wanted, well, not for Christmas, but I was thinking about a mini mod that would add a small nosecone probe core with limited capabilities to get that early start. Of course, not that I could ever hope to make that mod, and this is much more expanded than what I imagined it could be... You just struck the perfect niche for me, RoverDude. Can't wait for my new 0.90 career now!
  15. TheBedla
    I really enjoy this mod, brings the stock parts really to par with other parts from skilled modders. I do have a suggestion though: Would it be possible to have togglable engine fairings? Especially for your resized 2.5 m engines that fit inside 1.25 stacks it would be great. Even just being able to turn the engine fairings on/off would be fine. Sorry if it was requested already, could not find it in the recent posts.
  16. TheBedla
    Uh, there's a bunch... 6.4x rescale, Engineer, RemoteTech, StationParts expansion, HGR (soon to be phased out thanks to Tantares), Procedural Parts, FAR... but nothing that springs to my mind really which should have made that happen. I'll try a Tantares reinstall during the weekend.
  17. TheBedla
    I had to start a modular Chinese-style station. Tianzhou included on the right, pretty pleased with it However, my node glitched and all its docking ports are hovering above the nodes. No idea what could have caused it, I tried launching again and at least on the launchpad it looked okay. (see detail here).
  18. TheBedla
    It seems to be a recreation of the MAKS shuttle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAKS_(spacecraft) http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm
  19. TheBedla
    I finally had some time to properly test the R7, excellent work Though I did have to extend the boosters and first stage slightly to get a Soyuz to orbit in 6.4x, it still looks really nice (thanks to that procedural texture, yay!). Just one nit to pick - the soyuz engines are arranged rectangularly (see), while the Tantares engines are diagonally oriented. It is a small matter and I would still sleep calmly if it never got fixed, but if you want a better match, Beale, you could rotate the models by 45°. I think the Lyappa arm (if you get round to it) should use the claw module, so that we don't have to stick more parts to the stations and it would have more versatility. The Shenzhou looks great (from the pictures) and it seems to have excellent functionality. I like how it would provide more features while increasing weight, so I'd be forced to upgrade my lifter to account for it once I decide to get that far in the tech tree. And since it's a command module, I'm sure it will find plenty other uses.
  20. TheBedla
    Wow, thanks! Beale, the Friendly Neighbourhood Modder! And good luck for your n-body work!
  21. TheBedla
    Having either (or both) would be great, it's just a matter of having a consistent style. I don't care too much about precisely matching the textures, more about maintaining a certain palette or scheme to have a consistent look across my craft. Thanks!
  22. TheBedla
    Congrats on the R7, Beale, can't wait to try it out. One thing occurred to me - would you consider making a matching set of textures for Procedural Tanks? I have no idea how demanding that is, or how much of your previous work could be used for them, but it would be really awesome to have tanks of any size matching with your parts. I do love the freedom procedural parts give me, but those textures look definitely sub-par compared to yours, and I think it is mostly a matter of style, not the procedural..ness? On the subject of the 1.875 probe core - that would definitely come in handy for some missions, but I still imagine a drone core integrated in the docking command module of the FGB would be a more elegant solution. Anyways, keep up the great work!
  23. TheBedla
    Just a question - what do you guys use to command your station components? Vega-derived ones are clear, you have that awesome manned/unmanned 1.25 control tube (forgot the name), but what about TKS-derived ones? I don't like clipping 0.625 drone cores somewhere, nor do I enjoy sending Kerbals up without return capsules. So, how do you do it? I'm currently considering adding remote control capabilities to the TKS aft (actually front) control block, which would resolve this difficulty. I think I also found the next component I'd love to see in the Tantares pack: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_node.html
  24. TheBedla
    Thanks for the challenge, but I don't really have the patience. I currently have only very limited KSP time available, and this exercise would require considerable amount of it. I currently experiment with the 6.4x Kerbol system, so that comes with its own set of challenges - I haven't managed to get a spaceplane anywhere near orbital velocity yet in the 6.4 scale, so I'll stick with that. Keep it up though, I'll keep watching from the shadows!
  25. TheBedla
    I've got nothing to contribute, but let me just briefly express the amazement and respect you guys stirred in me. When lurking around this thread I felt as if I was watching Chuck Yeager "push the envelope" towards Mach 1. This is what I find the best about the KSP community, and humans in general - having enough dedication and imagination to push what is possible further on.
×
×
  • Create New...