[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [16.1][28.05.2024][Mars Expedition WIP]

[CrisK]

How do you mean, like the left-most version in the picture I linked to? Actually, I am currently leaning towards the far left-hand side one (linked to again below, also), rather than the old white/black/orange, or the middle-ground of the the centre version.

Yes, I far prefer the simpler, more conservative look of the the N-1 in the picture. But that's just one person's opinion.

Here's hoping for a Beale x Lack crossover.

[DGatsby]

Yeah, I like Lack's one, but I think it will be really good for the sake of self-containment, the mod will be just complete, it's like past (N-1), present (Soyuz, Proton) and future (PPTS and Angara) of Russian space program. It would be possible just to install this mod, Kosmodrome, KER and play, that's all you will need, so complete it would be. That's why I really look forward for N-1 complex. It would complete the mod, only some smaller projects could be made, like (possibly) Lunokhod, Zvezda lunar base or possibly go to other countries projects like human-rated ATV or HTV (AFAIK it was the HOPE project).

That true, it would be a very complete mod with the N1.

[Lexx Thai]

Personally I'm not convinced Tantares needs an N1...

You're not alone. N1 is very... strange machine. I think, it had not future even with success of lunar program. In some construction features it was a step back even with R7 family (too many engines on first stage... for 75tons payload is simplest example).

[Beale]

You're not alone. N1 is very... strange machine. I think, it had not future even with success of lunar program. In some construction features it was a step back even with R7 family (too many engines on first stage... for 75tons payload is simplest example).

This is why I like it, it is weird!

TKS, very small progress...

[Darth Lazarus]

N1 was not a rocket without future ...

it was more "stable" in construction then the Saturn V

it only used 30 engines in the first stage, because the russians were never able to build big engines during like the american F1 that time, only later

there were plans as heavy payloadlifter for several (military)payloads.

no future? i dont think so. it only failed, because of politics and money.

[Niemand303]

N1 was not a rocket without future ...

it was more "stable" in construction then the Saturn V

it only used 30 engines in the first stage, because the russians were never able to build big engines during like the american F1 that time, only later

there were plans as heavy payloadlifter for several (military)payloads.

no future? i dont think so. it only failed, because of politics and money.

A small correction: it would be possible to make a big engine, but Glushko refused to work with kerolox, that's why Korolyov had to address to the manufacturer of JET engines, Kuznetsov, who had no experience with large engines.

[dimovski]

Well, the ludicrous 11D51M from the '65 study had a thrust of 2800kN in vacuum, keeping the same dimensions. That also means it had higher chamber pressure => higher Isp => not such a huge deviation between sea level and vacuum thrust.

So that lowers the engine number to 17 I think.

(Good luck with that chamber pressure tho)

PS:I'm still convinced that the N-I was doomed (and it's future) by the decision to cancel the N-II and N-III. These would've kept the production line of the giant N-I alive, and many components would get cheaper and cheaper over time, with the frequent launch rates of these smaller lifters.

[Beale]

Well, the ludicrous 11D51M from the '65 study had a thrust of 2800kN in vacuum, keeping the same dimensions. That also means it had higher chamber pressure => higher Isp => not such a huge deviation between sea level and vacuum thrust.

So that lowers the engine number to 17 I think.

(Good luck with that chamber pressure tho)

PS:I'm still convinced that the N-I was doomed (and it's future) by the decision to cancel the N-II and N-III. These would've kept the production line of the giant N-I alive, and many components would get cheaper and cheaper over time, with the frequent launch rates of these smaller lifters.

You might want to dig up those old N-II and N-III drawings if you can, they would be quite helpful to me in making them possible

Also: Modelling is reaching its conclusion, just about...

Nothing major to look at, but texturing can begin soon.

Edit: Except that middle bit, that is not done.

Also, crew tank two, for those who do not like cargo.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Beale

[Darth Lazarus]

N1: http://www.astronautix.com/fam/n1.htm

N11: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n11.htm

N111: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n111.htm

[Lexx Thai]

N-11 - the N-1 without first stage (medium lifter, like Soyuz, if I remember it right)

N-111 - cryogenic upper (3rd) stage for N-1 and N-11.

One picture from Internet, just for fun:

[pTrevTrevs]

You might want to dig up those old N-II and N-III drawings if you can, they would be quite helpful to me in making them possible

Also: Modelling is reaching its conclusion, just about...

Nothing major to look at, but texturing can begin soon.

Edit: Except that middle bit, that is not done.

http://puu.sh/ffyqn/2751156059.jpg

Also, crew tank two, for those who do not like cargo.

http://puu.sh/ffB3f/f49173b214.jpg

Do you think that we will have any issues with the FGB parts breaking crafts when they are updated? How much do they differ from the old models?

[Niemand303]

N-11 - the N-1 without first stage (medium lifter, like Soyuz, if I remember it right)

N-111 - cryogenic upper (3rd) stage for N-1 and N-11.

One picture from Internet, just for fun:

http://pics.livejournal.com/rotkringel/pic/000a0d3q

Don't forget, not everyone here understands Russian, so just for info: between Energia and Falcon Heavy there is a Vulkan, and between Falcon Heavy and SLS there is a rocket named "Vilyuy", Russian proposed heavy launcher. But I've never heard about Vilyuy, possibly one of those many proposals that exist only in rumours. The last one, however, seems interesting.

[Beale]

N1: http://www.astronautix.com/fam/n1.htm

N11: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n11.htm

N111: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n111.htm

N-11 - the N-1 without first stage (medium lifter, like Soyuz, if I remember it right)

N-111 - cryogenic upper (3rd) stage for N-1 and N-11.

One picture from Internet, just for fun:

http://pics.livejournal.com/rotkringel/pic/000a0d3q

Many thanks, both of you, for these!

Do you think that we will have any issues with the FGB parts breaking crafts when they are updated? How much do they differ from the old models?

The VA has a new size.

The rest of the FGB: Same size, although cannot say for sure about the Spektr yet.

Speaking of FGB:

Edited January 30, 2015 by Beale

[Niemand303]

Found a photo of PPTS capsule mockup from 2013.

And IVA:

I've found out also, that last week some guys from the government criticized the PPTS, Angara and Super-Heavy rocket projects. Hope everything will go fine and PPTS will fly as well as Angara!

[Beale]

Found a photo of PPTS capsule mockup from 2013.

http://i71.servimg.com/u/f71/09/04/83/61/imgp9910.jpg

And IVA:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/ptk_np/va/neva_storage_1.jpg

I've found out also, that last week some guys from the government criticized the PPTS, Angara and Super-Heavy rocket projects. Hope everything will go fine and PPTS will fly as well as Angara!

Wow, these are great!

Will help a lot when it comes to texturing.

These are recent: they are still toting the heatshield landing leg things?

And I still hope the PPTS will fly!

[pTrevTrevs]

The VA has a new size.

The rest of the FGB: Same size, although cannot say for sure about the Spektr yet.

Speaking of FGB:

http://puu.sh/ffOPX/8f17bf9a9c.jpg

http://puu.sh/ffOQV/4176cfcab6.jpg

Good. I'm wanting to get to work on either OPSEK or a ISS type station with a reduced number of modules. Not sure which yet. Heck, might even use the mini ISS as a starting point to build OPSEK like they plan to do in real life. Anyway, I wanted to make sure that I could start construction without having to worry about the Russian modules be broken when the update hits.

Speaking of the update, when I download the Beta, where am I supposed to install it? Does it go in the GameData folder, or in the Tantares folder itself? If so, where in the Tantares Folder?

[curtquarquesso]

Just the vehicle folder. So, replace old "SOYUZ" with the newly downloaded "SOYUZ".

[Niemand303]

Wow, these are great!

Will help a lot when it comes to texturing.

These are recent: they are still toting the heatshield landing leg things?

And I still hope the PPTS will fly!

Yep, they decided that last 50 meters of descent will be powered landing,something like Soyuz retrorockets, but installed in the capsule instead of hanging on the parachute strings.

[Darth Lazarus]

hrmm ... i have the urge to finish my stock Energia Family. Already Energia M is serving my fleet very well, no need for Energia or Vulcan right now .. BUT ... just having them is nice ....

[Beale]

Good. I'm wanting to get to work on either OPSEK or a ISS type station with a reduced number of modules. Not sure which yet. Heck, might even use the mini ISS as a starting point to build OPSEK like they plan to do in real life. Anyway, I wanted to make sure that I could start construction without having to worry about the Russian modules be broken when the update hits.

Speaking of the update, when I download the Beta, where am I supposed to install it? Does it go in the GameData folder, or in the Tantares folder itself? If so, where in the Tantares Folder?

Just the vehicle folder. So, replace old "SOYUZ" with the newly downloaded "SOYUZ".

Yep, what curtquarquesso says!

For sizing, the FGB should be exactly the same size, at least the cargo, crew and docking module. But, cannot guarantee.

Yep, they decided that last 50 meters of descent will be powered landing,something like Soyuz retrorockets, but installed in the capsule instead of hanging on the parachute strings.

Ooh!

That's really cool! I thought it was scrapped.

hrmm ... i have the urge to finish my stock Energia Family. Already Energia M is serving my fleet very well, no need for Energia or Vulcan right now .. BUT ... just having them is nice ....

You can't not do Vulkan.

Edit: Also, another question: I have in mind to make the old radial VA chutes a bit more drogue-ish. As they are significantly smaller than the stock chutes.

How about it? I know people do use those chutes in quite a few other designs though.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Beale

[Darth Lazarus]

reworked the fairings quickly:

Energia M - 41tons to 75x75 Orbit, 188 Parts without payload, flys like bird

edit: mainengine still subject to change...

edit 2: wrong Energia M, now correct picture

[pTrevTrevs]

Hmm, I just noticed that the new VA could possibly be used as an Apollo Command Module. Do not be suprised if I desecrate the capsule by using it in American style moon mission in the near future.

[tjsnh]

Edit: Also, another question: I have in mind to make the old radial VA chutes a bit more drogue-ish. As they are significantly smaller than the stock chutes.

IMHO, they're seriously OP as they currently are due to their small size (when stuffed and attached). Honestly, I usually delete the part so I'm not tempted.

If they were drouge-ish, that would probably make them a lot more balanced, especially since the VA now has the in-line chute.

[Darth Lazarus]

i encoutered a serious problem with a Stock Vulcan (and normal Energia). Energia M works perfectly in small size, but getting bigger shows trouble with the amount of fuel and efficieny and thrust of the core. 4 Mainssails produce enough thrust, but eat to much fuel for the normal sized NASA tank with proper length.

i would need an engine with an ISP around 400 for the liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen coreengines of the real Energia / Vulcan

an i would need slightly bigger tanks. with some magic in clipping, it works. but both clipping workarounds i tried increase a lot the partcount. the test vulcan had already ~270 parts ... without fairings !

second problem, while normal energia works "just" well with the engines (and the clipping), Vulcan gets some serious lag trouble ... because of t eamount of engines i use.

the Zenitboosters have 8 engines each to get enough thrust, 8 boosters mean 64 engines plus Core ... 68 and more engines are not cool anymore

the test vulcan can lift 200 tons to orbit but it's a slow and laggy ride. and normal sized Kerbin is not good for a nearly 2-3 minutes orbit insertion burn... one Energia engine for the upper stage is seriously not enough for pushing 200 tons to orbit. in real life, it could worked, because the radius of the orbits are far greater so it had more time. But in normal sized kerbin, there is not enough time to spend the roughly 1000m/s dV for the orbit insertion for a normal 75x75 orbit

edit: omg.. just googled Energia and Energia M datasheets to doublecheek power and payloadcapaticities ... and i noticed i did a big mistake in enginepower distribution between Zenitboosters and core. boosters must be stronger and core weaker ... LOL

Edited January 31, 2015 by Darth Lazarus

[hoojiwana]

i encoutered a serious problem with a Stock Vulcan (and normal Energia). Energia M works perfectly in small size, but getting bigger shows trouble with the amount of fuel and efficieny and thrust of the core. 4 Mainssails produce enough thrust, but eat to much fuel for the normal sized NASA tank with proper length.

i would need an engine with an ISP around 400 for the liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen coreengines of the real Energia / Vulcan

edit: omg.. just googled Energia and Energia M datasheets to doublecheek power and payloadcapaticities ... and i noticed i did a big mistake in enginepower distribution between Zenitboosters and core. boosters must be stronger and core weaker ... LOL

Remember that stock Energia would have a very very heavy core compared to the real one. Real Energia and derivatives use a liquid hydrogen core which is much less dense than stock fuels, so the same size for Energia core in stock has a significantly higher mass.

This is one of the main balance problems for AB Launchers. If you guys have any suggestions on what route to take I'd love to hear them over in that thread.

Edited January 31, 2015 by hoojiwana