SpartanChief

You can try Roscosmos youtube channel and search for videos with words "ÃلĄÂú" for actual launches or "Òыòþ÷" for delivery to launch complex. But those mostly do not have separate audio channels for mission control and cosmonaut's voices, so they are mixed in with all the ambient noises. If that is problematic, try this collection by Sven Grahn (also used by Chatterer mod), they are a little clearer. It is mostly older stuff, from Soviet era.

For a first stage engine this is a valid approach, but for 2nd/3rd stage I'd say it makes more sense to stick closer to real world numbers - such as these. Take into account thruster plate/fuel tank reinforcements and something like 2.5 - 3 tonnes for second and 0.8-1.5 tonnes for third stage engine appear reasonable. It might seem really low, but don't forget that those engines are not great at all categories - their ISP curve is considerably worse than in comparable stock engines.

Well, up until soyuz cosmonauts would need to fit much smaller volume than today, so they were mostly average/below average at height and weight. So, I guess, stick arms up, exhale, push yourself forward and hope that last snack wasn't too much.

Oh, okay, sad to hear that you having a problem with your concept, yet I'm glad you're considering other ideas too. If after all you'll settle for crew module, would you consider doing a decorative hatch as part of the texture on the bottom of VA? Speaking of which, I was surprised that in real life that hatch would've been only 0.55m in diameter! Crazy stuff.

Beale, you mentioned before that middle section of Alnair will be cargo bay, but does that mean that there won't be any crew space in there at all, not even a tunnel to back part of the ship? It'd be a shame not to see such an original concept from TKS realized in Alnair.

You need dry/wet mass and also ISP to calculate that (thrust is irrelevant for that as far as I know). Here is the equation itself (effective exhaust velocity in that equals ISP times g (~9.81 m/s^2)). In example, if TKS weighs 2 tons empty, and carries 1000+ units of monoprop (meaning 4 tons of fuel mass - that is, if KSP wiki is right about its density) that gives ship with monoprop engines about 318 m/s as opposed to 428 m/s if that fuel mass would be LFO with engine's ISP at around 390 s (now I have a feeling that those values are suspiciously small - better double check them). Edit: Yes, absolutely, radial engines, whatever the fuel type, are a better idea. EDIT 2: Disregard my example above - I forgot to multiply ISP by g (yes, even after stating myself that this is required - I'm that good). Correct figures are ~ 3.12 km/s and 4.2 km/s accordingly. So, not so much of a worry for me now (unlike my apparent inability to concentrate sometimes).

Expanding on that - if you make the portion of LES that is cut from VA hollow then it is possible to put radial chutes under it making overall craft look smoother. That one I'm conflicted about. Radial engines is better idea (allows more customization) and simplicity of that system would be good, but I'd expect from TKS at least similar to Tantares performance on dV front, which, because of how much monopropellant would be needed to feed engines, concerns me. So, a related to that question - how much of your TKS's mass would be that of fuel?

Don't know how sane this idea is, but after I looked at photos in this article I realized - that particular part is just a LES system/retroengine and can be modeled as single part therefore giving you freedom of using any non-standart dimensions all along the LES tower while only maintaining standart size at its base (I'd recommend 1.25m with that approach).

All right, then EVA transfers it is. A small price to pay for such a wonderful crew transport craft, honestly. Edit: I also got distracted and forgot to put one line in description of Vega (damn you German football team, why you had to score 5 goals in such a short span of time) passable = true I'll add that to my original post (and sorry for this error). Although, I'm not sure if it would make a big difference for the plugin, since the pod was already defined to be, in effect, EVA accessible only.

Wow, that texture is superb! Also, I can't remember if it was done before, but here is some code I've quickly slapped together to allow those modules to be used with Connected Living Space @PART[Tantares_Crew_A]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true impassablenodes = bottom } } @PART[Tantares_Orbital_A]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Tantares_Parachute_A]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Tantares_Crew_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true impassablenodes = bottom } } @PART[Tantares_Orbital_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Tantares_Parachute_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Libra_Crew_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true impassablenodes = top, bottom } } @PART[Polaris_Crew_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true impassablenodes = bottom } } @PART[Orbital_Crew_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Spica_Crew_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true impassablenodes = bottom } } @PART[Spica_Orbital_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Vega_Crew_1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Vega_Crew_2]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } @PART[Vega_Crew_3]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } Can't decide what to do with 0.625m docking port though, as it defined as impassable for crew both by in-game description and default config in CLS. I guess it should be left as is, but that ruins part of the reason why those ships need their orbital modules.

I have the same problem and menu disappears only when I click CANIOT can from SXT. Do you also happen to use TweakableEverything in your setup? I suspect it might be the contributor to that problem (mind you, I haven't tested it myself, just an idea about root of the conflict).

Well, the real spacecraft's VA had 2.8 m diameter, and reentry capsule of real Soyuz is at 2.2 m, which is certainly not as big of a difference as between ingame 1.25 m and 2.5 m capsules (~1.27 proportion for real world, 2 for game). So I'd say go for 1.25 capsule diameter to keep current scale and make bigger radial fuel tanks for it.

That's wonderful, thanks for still considering the possibility (and high-five from another Planetes fan).

Don't know if i'm late with suggestions, but this would be so wonderful if you did that one. That concept seems ideal to fill the niche of ultra-light supply tugs, largely because of that retractable unpressurized cargo bay.

Thanks, I followed Lack's instructions and that fixed all the SXT stuff, but still, stock parts I mentioned before have the same problem. What should I do to resolve that issue? I can't seem to locate code describing textures in stock parts configs, should I just copy that from SXT configs(changing particular texture references, of course)?