Jump to content

Space Factory

MrTheBull

By MrTheBull
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

TonUpBoy

TonUpBoy

Posted
Posted
landingsystem is not quite well. It can start works on the escape Kerbin trajectory =)

i don't know about using it. What's about lights - i'll add it in next update..

I tried myself to add the lines (personal use only) direct from the Soyuz-Descent-cfg, but failed too. The landingsystem was activated by staging and the original engine didn't had any sound. :confused:

Only the counter and the effects worked...maybe Bobcat could help you. That would add even more realism.

FwKrIcs.png?1

Luna 19 build with part clipping in the VAB

s6C6aFN.png?1

The chute is hidden (upside down) under the docking mechanism, also part clipping

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've found some great pictures of the early Soyuz spacecraft.

7K-OK, Side view of PAO. I can make out an RCS thruster on the skirt, one thruster pointing up and sideways from the decoupler and another, pointing forward.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/melodysparks/7993554464/

Aft view of PAO, clearly showing the main engine, dual-chamber backup and four inclined RCS nozzles. Also note the toroidal section, it was actually jettisonable and only present on 7K-OK. It was either a fuel tank or an electronics compartment.

http://spaceexp.tumblr.com/image/63080537237

Another aft view, clearly showing the tank and also two dinky thrusters for forward translation:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jedi58/7205053232/lightbox/

ASTP, Low, side view (warning, huge!). Clearly shows RCS thrusters on decoupler, as well as one vertical thruster on the skirt. Also, there's something on the skirt, right under the panel. It seems like a forward translation and roll control block, but I'm not sure.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/olaborda/5543015204/sizes/o/in/photostream/

ASTP, Side view. A nice overview of the spacecraft, it's got

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Apollo-soyuz.jpg

7K-T, Side view. It seems to reinforce my assumption about the translation and roll control block. Also note two vertical thrusters at the bottom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Model_of_a_Soyuz_spacecraft%2C_1985.JPEG

Now, according to Astronautix, there are 14 "coarse" RCS thrusters and 4 "fine" ones. That would correspond to:

4 diagonal thrusters on the decoupler, evenly spaced, pointed outward (translation).

2 thrusters on decoupler, mounted on the sides, pointed forward (retrograde).

4 thrusters around the engine, pointed aft and towards the centerline (pitch and yaw).

2 thrusters in the skirt, pointed aft (prograde).

4 small, "fine" thrusters, mounted in the skirt and pointing up and down (roll).

Also, there was a backup system. Astronautix lists it at 8 "coarse" thrusters and 4 "fine" ones.

I can find:

4 thrusters mounted in pairs on the decoupler, facing up and down (up-down translation).

2 thrusters mounted on PAO, forward of the skirt, facing up and down (pitch).

2 thrusters I couldn't locate.

4 "fine" thrusters, probably somewhere on the skirt (roll).

I don't know if Astronautix is accurate (it gets thruster numbers for the Soyuz TMA right, but messes thrusts up), but I think it's a good overview of the real early Soyuz RCS. For TMA, someone did this already:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/3785-v1-2-1-Noyuz-Spacecraft-New-panels-available%21/page5

Oh, and in case anyone asked, there is only a single pick of a Progress 7K-TG. It seems that it's RCS layout is identical to Soyuz 7K-OK.

It'd be great if you could model thrusters like that so that we might use it on BobCat's Soyuz. There's a plugin in development that would allow RCS customization, and until that's ready, they can be switched around with action groups.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTheBull

MrTheBull

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Why are you using RD-191 for this? Rus-M used RD-180 in the first stage and RD-0146 in the second.

Emmm.Angara and rus-m are the same things?? Because i'm creating angara which use RD-191 on 1rst and second stages.

Any way. cool pictures you found. This Soyuz looks so old school)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Related, but not the same.

Angara:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5p.html

Rus-M:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ppts_lv.html

Angara is newer, Rus-M would be an accurate LV for the PPTS you made. But you can also make both. RD-191 is a single-chamber version of RD-180 (while you're at it, could you make RD-170, which is the original, quad-chamber version of it?) and RD-0146 is used in both LVs. Angara has different coloring, an additional stage using RD-0124 and different stats overall. Both rockets are quite modular.

If you made RD-170, you could also make Energia-5K:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia5k.html

It's larger than the previous two, and much more powerful.

Also, there are Yensei-5:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html

And Angara-100 rockets:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara100.html

Just in case you ran out of stuff to do. :)

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTheBull

MrTheBull

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Related, but not the same.

Angara:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5p.html

Rus-M:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ppts_lv.html

Angara is newer, Rus-M would be an accurate LV for the PPTS you made. But you can also make both. RD-191 is a single-chamber version of RD-180 (while you're at it, could you make RD-170, which is the original, quad-chamber version of it?) and RD-0146 is used in both LVs. Angara has different coloring, an additional stage using RD-0124 and different stats overall. Both rockets are quite modular.

If you made RD-170, you could also make Energia-5K:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia5k.html

It's larger than the previous two, and much more powerful.

Also, there are Yensei-5:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html

And Angara-100 rockets:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara100.html

Just in case you ran out of stuff to do. :)

I'll create Anraga. Then i'll think about Rus-m, energia and etc. now what do you want i create? Soyuz like on those photos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Some time ago I posted this:

First, the 7K-OKS. It'd require new solar panels, a radially-attachable Igla docking system antenna and a new capsule with IVA. The crew should be without helmets on this one. Perhaps also a slightly altered OM IVA, with helmetless crew (the external model would keep BobCat's "old Soyuz" OM).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Soyuz_7KT-OK_drawing.PNG

After that, the original 7K-OK would just require a new docking system, of which there should be two variants (probe and drogue). 7K-T would require an extendable "whip" antenna and a 2-Kerbal pod with IVA (in spacesuits, this time). The early Progress would only require a windowless version of 7K-T pod and a new OM. No IVAs would be needed for them. That's quite a few models to make, but would go great with R-7 variants pack, should you decide to make them.

This is just some additional info I've found on those early Soyuzes. If you made those parts, the RCS nozzles would be a nice addition. You'd need to make one small, double "up-down" RCS thruster and one larger, single thruster (which should have an elevated, forward pointing version and a short version for PAO skirt mount). That and a flat "coin" RCS thruster inclined 45 degrees would allow complete recreation of the layout. Other than that, you'd need to make two antennae (Igla and 7K-T whip), three new pods (one without IVA), a new OM (also no IVA) and a new solar panel. You could also make two new docking ports and a toroidal electronics compartment if you wanted to recreate Soyuz 7K-OK. While most pics I posted are of this type, RCS layout on the other types is very similar.

I've thought about this, because if you're also making Apollo, you could make the docking port and adapter for Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. That would require an old-style Soyuz to work, though.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wasmic

wasmic

Posted
Posted

I really don't think that we need more variants of the Soyuz capsule, Bobcat has made three already. Unless, of course, you're going to make the Soyuz's size-compatible with the stock parts, i.e. 2.5m or 1.25m. I just don't see why you should spend time on doing something that has been done already, even for a craft like the Soyuz. But of course, it's your choice, Mr Bull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wasmic

wasmic

Posted
Posted
Venera! Thats an excellent Mars probe, too

Correction: It's a Venus probe, not a Mars probe. Also, there were a lot of different probes with the name Venera - some were atmospheric probes, others were designed for landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimovski

dimovski

Posted
Posted
Correction: It's a Venus probe, not a Mars probe. Also, there were a lot of different probes with the name Venera - some were atmospheric probes, others were designed for landing.

As a Croat, I indeed now what Venera means, we Croats call Venus Venera actually... please dont correct me, rather say you dont undersrtand me... also the venera mission i was voting for is the venera 75 mission which has an orbiter and a lander... oh and many of the later luna probes had similiar looks, same for Mars probes

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wasmic

wasmic

Posted
Posted
As a Croat, I indeed now what Venera means, we Croats call Venus Venera actually... please dont correct me, rather say you dont undersrtand me... also the venera mission i was voting for is the venera 75 mission which has an orbiter and a lander... oh and many of the later luna probes had similiar looks, same for Mars probes

Sorry if I offended you, but it is oftenly quite hard to get what people mean over the internet - seen from my point of view, it was much more probable that you thought that Venera was a Mars lander, rather than you noting how the Venera could also be used as a mars lander/looked like a Mars lander. There were a lot of different factors that led me to assume that you thought Venera were Mars landers, so please don't blame me. Your wording wasn't exactly clear, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...