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

[gooddog15]

See! I knew my crew portrait concept would catch on! Great job! I like the construction center set. I should construct a VAB set for taking crew photos for American type launches.

By the way, 10% of the total profits from this mission go to me as royalties. Just saying.

Thanks. The hanger was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, with the second bird trying to make a scene like:this and this

I was originally going to import all everything into blender so I could make a nice render, but sadly the mod I was going to use to import the crafts is on the fritz.

Also, what type of profits are we talking about? We got 50 tons of potatoes from the Russians to make potato vodka during a gift exchange, so expect 5 tons of taters on your doorstep tomorrow morning

looks like I also started something.... I also claim 10% in profits!

Also+, nice saturn probe.

Very pretty! Mods used?

I'm loving a lot the 'press conference / training' centre!

Tantares (of course)

Tantares LV (also of course)

FASA

KSO (the emissive light things and giant orange solar panels only)

KIS

KAS

Hullcam

Tweakscale

Tweakable everything

Planetshine

Thanks.

Hey! Looks nice! Any problems with the TweakScale config? Feedback on how it works for people is really helpful.

Thanks.

Also your tweakscale config works like a dream.

As a separate exercise, I created a model to nest in the standard size Clamp-O-Tron port to make it resemble the "Androgynous Docking Interface" as shown in revision C of the International Docking System Standard Interface Definition Document dated 20 Nov, 2013.

I did this because as I was looking the document over I was stuck by how much the proposed standard looked like a Clamp-O-Tron with "fingers" or "petals" added to it.

Why am I posting this here? Well, I feel I'm among friends especially in this thread, but mostly because I could have NEVER done it without Beale's tutorials! And, because it pointed up an error in the Tantares APAS ports.

http://i.imgur.com/sM03qCn.png

Here's mine. Notice how the "petals" interleave when two identical craft are facing each other at 0º relative roll. This matches the documents mentioned above.

http://i.imgur.com/Oi65DEf.png

Here's the Tantares set, again two identical craft at 0º relative roll, and the fingers collide (or clip, this is KSP after all).

I know, I know I'm being an OCD twit about it but I can't help it.

And yes, the Red/Green are meant to show Port/Starboard just like on a boat, or airplane.

This sort of looks impossible to me. Did you happen to rotate your first APAS ports in the VAB?

Edited June 11, 2015 by gooddog15

[tg626]

This sort of looks impossible to me. Did you happen to rotate your first APAS ports in the VAB?

No, I very specifically did NOT. That's the whole point.

[gooddog15]

Just Released that your image is possible. Got confused by the locations of port and starboard indicators on docking port

Oh look, a bear!

Edited June 11, 2015 by gooddog15

[nothingSpecial]

Can I give my own couple of cents on Vostok? Goddamit I freakin' love Vostok. Sorry.

First of all - I'm all for adding more 0.9375 parts to make this size more universal legolike.

Then again - I understand the partlist clutter problem and partcount problem.

Here are basic proposals:

1. Make "hollow" .9375 decoupler. Or use one already existing - can't remember if any exists, sorry.

2. Make basic .9375-1.25 service module. Contains just enough monoprop to deorbit from reasonably high orbit for the basic ship.

3. Keep basic shape of capsule the same (sphere that is truncated at the top) but edit top cut to .9375 node to further promote new radius.

or

Do nothing with capsule.

or

Make both versions of capsule.

or

I have no idea!

4. Keep the spherical tanks for greebly recreation and extension of usability.

or

Make service module and/or decoupler more greebly (is monoprop-filled decoupler something insane?)

or

Make both minimal SM, greebly SM and greeble parts for minimal SM and for other crafts as well?

5. INSANE Make alternative 2-kerballed Voskhod crew appartment and Zenith/Biome probe core.

6. DANGEROUSLY INSANE AND TROUBLESOME Make spherical "decoupler" that has a node inside and .625 1 manned "inline" "pod" to put in inside OH COME ON WHY YOU STILL READING IT DISREGARD LAST TOO POINTS PLEASE

Edited June 11, 2015 by nothingSpecial

[passinglurker]

Can I give my own couple of cents on Vostok? Goddamit I freakin' love Vostok. Sorry.

First of all - I'm all for adding more 0.9375 parts to make this size more universal legolike.

Then again - I understand the partlist clutter problem and partcount problem.

http://i.imgur.com/A5bd4DH.png

Here are basic proposals:

1. Make "hollow" .9375 decoupler. Or use one already existing - can't remember if any exists, sorry.

2. Make basic .9375-1.25 service module. Contains just enough monoprop to deorbit from reasonably high orbit for the basic ship.

3. Keep basic shape of capsule the same (sphere that is truncated at the top) but edit top cut to .9375 node to further promote new radius.

or

Do nothing with capsule.

or

Make both versions of capsule.

or

I have no idea!

4. Keep the spherical tanks for greebly recreation and extension of usability.

or

Make service module and/or decoupler more greebly (is monoprop-filled decoupler something insane?)

or

Make both minimal SM, greebly SM and greeble parts for minimal SM and for other crafts as well?

5. INSANE Make alternative 2-kerballed Voskhod crew appartment and Zenith/Biome probe core.

6. DANGEROUSLY INSANE AND TROUBLESOME Make spherical "decoupler" that has a node inside and .625 1 manned "inline" "pod" to put in inside OH COME ON WHY YOU STILL READING IT DISREGARD LAST TOO POINTS PLEASE

1. the only existing 0.9m decoupler is the Alnair parachute decoupler for the TKS so a new "normal" decoupler will have to be made and while it should visually be hollow we don't need to go through the business of making its collider hollow because the vostoks collider will have to be blunted at the 0.9m point anyway for the sake of being compatible with all other parts.

2. as long as a recreation vostok can't reach the mun I think people will be happy as your first orbital ship it should be as forgivable as possible IMO

3. I don't see a point in making the top node larger as there is no justified payload to attach to it in a vostok recreation also you'd be taking away window realestate if we ever convince beale to place the windows in accurate spots. we can get away with a bottom 0.9m node because thanks to the spherical shape they would be clipping into attaching other sizes wouldn't look that bad (not as bad as attaching to a blunt surface anyway) and there is still the offset tool if people want to improve their visuals further when making a non-recreation

4. As long as the radial monoprop tanks are not NEEDED to make functional and capable vostok I'm happy. I do think the service module should be "greebly" to indicate its dual role as size adapter and fuel tank.

5. voskhod only flew like twice maybe three times and there is nothing to set it apart from the soyuz capsule other than its shape that being said we could still have some alternate vostok toppers like what is found on the vokshod and speaking of alternate toppers...

this is version of the vostok they tested immediately priory to the first manned flight one of the things it tested was the viability of solar panels evidently it didn't make the cut but it still looks cool.

as for probes I believe a hamal like probe version is already on beales mysterious todo list

EDIT: TIL that vostok-esque Bion satellites have flown as recently as 2013 O_o*wow*

Edited June 11, 2015 by passinglurker

[kyrocon]

Here is some context for you sir (or possibly ma'am).

when ever one of your engines is used as a root part of a craft ,and then one goes back to the space center screen, and then back to the craft, the engines will have shrunk!

the same can be said for the old docking ports.

Edited June 11, 2015 by kyrocon

[micha030201]

This is awesome! Two issues though: "Needle" (Vega_Antenna_C) doesn't have RemoteTech config. Is that intended? Also, everything seem to be broken with RealChute config.

[tjsnh]

This is awesome! Two issues though: "Needle" (Vega_Antenna_C) doesn't have RemoteTech config. Is that intended? Also, everything seem to be broken with RealChute config.

I noticed the same with, and just copy/pasted the RT config from the "regular" tantares/soyuz dish antenna for it.

[MDBenson]

Hmm... I've been playing a lot with Tantares the last few days in career mode and found that the Soyuz (Tavio) is mighty unstable in the atmosphere on ascent. Flying to about 6km it tends to flip or twist over. The core stage minus it's boosters is much worse too. Fitting lots of large fins to the bottom helps a good bit but looks silly I initially thought it was me nudging it over a few degrees, that wasn't the case. I thne swapped the PFairings for stock ones, still didn't help. It seems to fly fine with the Soyuz-esque spacecraft on the top, which is mildly confusing, so I'm a bit stumped. Anyone else find this?

Also the pre-deployment parachutes on some craft (TK crew module and the Soyuz crew capsule) don't offer enough braking in atmosphere IMHO. If I deploy the chute at 250m/s the capsule is still doing 150+m/s when the chute deploys fully causing spine-crushing levels of G-shock to the poor Kerbals

Edited June 11, 2015 by MDBenson

[micha030201]

I noticed the same with, and just copy/pasted the RT config from the "regular" tantares/soyuz dish antenna for it.

It's not that hard with RT configs, RealChute ones are much more tricky. I still can't beat them.

[Beale]

Hello!

Lots of replies, lots of replies!

Firstly, thank you all for the kind words!

I'm a little busy, but I'm working this silly thing in some free time:

Another Castor part?

Hi

is there a chance to make a little bit greater Soyuz for 3 Kerbals?

Sorry, sadly not possible. There is just not the volume available.

Of course like others have said - you can edit the config to fit three Kerbals, but the IVA is just not physically possible.

Hope you understand

I don't think it should be tier 1. Sputnik (earliest space application of the R-7) wasn't launched from a corn field... I far more appalled by the fact that the Mk1 capsule (Mercury) is available from day 1 in the stock game...

Spot on - Crewed orbital spaceflight? I think that should be Tier 2 at minimum - sounding rockets / sputnik for Tier 1. But, this is all just my opinion.

As a separate exercise, I created a model to nest in the standard size Clamp-O-Tron port to make it resemble the "Androgynous Docking Interface" as shown in revision C of the International Docking System Standard Interface Definition Document dated 20 Nov, 2013.

I did this because as I was looking the document over I was stuck by how much the proposed standard looked like a Clamp-O-Tron with "fingers" or "petals" added to it.

Why am I posting this here? Well, I feel I'm among friends especially in this thread, but mostly because I could have NEVER done it without Beale's tutorials! And, because it pointed up an error in the Tantares APAS ports.

http://i.imgur.com/sM03qCn.png

Here's mine. Notice how the "petals" interleave when two identical craft are facing each other at 0º relative roll. This matches the documents mentioned above.

http://i.imgur.com/Oi65DEf.png

Here's the Tantares set, again two identical craft at 0º relative roll, and the fingers collide (or clip, this is KSP after all).

I know, I know I'm being an OCD twit about it but I can't help it.

And yes, the Red/Green are meant to show Port/Starboard just like on a boat, or airplane.

Interesting!

This would be something I would never notice - and you have made a very good way of demonstrating it!

I will of course make this kind of change!

Possibly animate them too - now the APAS ports are out in the wild, I have all the time in the world to tweak them.

Wow. That's really neat. I too have been using a lot of Beale's resources. Remapping a remodel of my PMM. http://i.imgur.com/9GcNX6l.pngUVmapping sucks, and is hard.

It will get easier, in practice!

But, I quite liked the textured version you showed earlier! Either geometry or texture will look nice, but I might weigh a bit more on using a texture for each panel.

At the risk of spreading the influence the 0.9m menace further I present this mockup.

Can I give my own couple of cents on Vostok?

- Vostok Drawing -

I'll condense the Vostok stuff into one reply (sorry!)

But, I've read it all.

I agree a little with the use of the new size - it was one of the difficulties making the old Vostok how awkwardly thin 0.625m was for the "neck".

The sketches are very helpful to visualize it - and I don't think a million miles off of the final result.

Few things I am set in my mind:

• The parachute part needs the little "hoops", probably as part of the parachute cap.
  
• The shock plate is a travesty, nobody likes it and it will go away
  
• The Zenit/Bion core is available too.
  

Hope I have not lost anyone's input on the whole thing, but thank you!

I'd feel comfortable using these ranges in RT and of course it's OK to use and link. I feel privileged to be able to help this awesome mod in some small way.

Great!

So I'm not sure if this issue has been fixed yet, but I noticed I don't have any IVA pictures of my Kerbals when they are inside of a capsule from this pack, like the Heart capsule.

And plus, is this mod compatible with CLS and Ship Manifest? Because even if I connect the Heart capsule to, for example, an OKS module, it doesn't let me transfer the Kerbal through.

Hi!

Sorry, still working on IVAs, soon - hopefully!

No CLS compatibility either, sorry!

EDIT: I Got back to work on the S-IV-B today as well. Quick progress update on the J-2:

http://i.imgur.com/0AX3yGx.png

Also, for future reference, does Wings3D have a sort of symmetry function that will allow my to duplicate a part and place it around a set axis, similar to the editor feature in KSP? And, if I want a part to have a "ribbed" appearance, like some places on the S-IV-B, is it better to paint that on in the texture or do it in the model?

It's looking nice so far - you might want to keep a closer check on hard / soft edges - but I'm sure you know that!

No symmetry feature available in normal Wings3D IIRC.

You can use the MLAB version of Wings3D for symmetry, boolean operations - but I've never found a great benefit in those functions.

Best of luck!

This is awesome! Two issues though: "Needle" (Vega_Antenna_C) doesn't have RemoteTech config. Is that intended? Also, everything seem to be broken with RealChute config.

Thanks!

Will fix.

Here is some context for you sir (or possibly ma'am).

when ever one of your engines is used as a root part of a craft ,and then one goes back to the space center screen, and then back to the craft, the engines will have shrunk!

the same can be said for the old docking ports.

Ah okay!

No worries, this is slowly being fixed - It's due to a painful KSP reload bug.

Hmm... I've been playing a lot with Tantares the last few days in career mode and found that the Soyuz (Tavio) is mighty unstable in the atmosphere on ascent. Flying to about 6km it tends to flip or twist over. The core stage minus it's boosters is much worse too. Fitting lots of large fins to the bottom helps a good bit but looks silly I initially thought it was me nudging it over a few degrees, that wasn't the case. I thne swapped the PFairings for stock ones, still didn't help. It seems to fly fine with the Soyuz-esque spacecraft on the top, which is mildly confusing, so I'm a bit stumped. Anyone else find this?

Also the pre-deployment parachutes on some craft (TK crew module and the Soyuz crew capsule) don't offer enough braking in atmosphere IMHO. If I deploy the chute at 250m/s the capsule is still doing 150+m/s when the chute deploys fully causing spine-crushing levels of G-shock to the poor Kerbals

Yeah I've had similar experiences to your description...

I think I'd blame it on stock Aero, as it is currently. I've had decent success limiting my velocity lower in the atmosphere (much like a pre 1.0 ascent), but it's no silver bullet.

I would wait it out until 1.0.3, sorry! If there are still major problems then, I'll take a closer look.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Beale

[MDBenson]

It's worst after the 4 boosters are ejected and it is long and thin. I have had other issues with the stock aero too, what initially seemed to be a great improvement to the stock game is proving to be a total PITA, especially for mod parts I threw my teddy out and decided to try it with the new FAR version, we'll see

Oh, also I'm getting launch exhaust under the pad before the engines fire on the ALV and Tavio, I haven't tried others. It might be a mod conflict but I thought I'd mention it!

Edited June 11, 2015 by MDBenson

[biohazard15]

I'm a little busy, but I'm working this silly thing in some free time:

Another Castor part?

http://puu.sh/il7p0/8bdc50cc80.jpghttp://puu.sh/il9gz/7cbb468874.jpg

Nice Mini-Nuke!

Be sure to notify Nertea about this - so he could make a LH2 config for it (And Near Future has some little LH2 tanks to use with it, too!)

[VenomousRequiem]

Holy crap, @curtquarquesso, I just noticed you're making ISS parts, aren't you?

Are you going to make a stockalike PMA?? :0

I've been looking for one of those for a while now!

[curtquarquesso]

Holy crap, @curtquarquesso, I just noticed you're making ISS parts, aren't you?

Are you going to make a stockalike PMA?? :0

I've been looking for one of those for a while now!

Well, Beale has said that he's working on a PMA, and we briefly discussed changing slightly useless/redundant 1.25m - 0.625 probe and drogue ports into 1.25m CBMs as you could avoid breaking crafts that way. I've always wanted a good PMM/MPLM, so I figured I'd start with that. I'm extremely new to modeling and texturing. I also tried by hand at the active side of the CBM. We'll see how it goes. Don't expect anything any time soon.

Hello!

Lots of replies, lots of replies!

Firstly, thank you all for the kind words!

I'm a little busy, but I'm working this silly thing in some free time:

Another Castor part?

http://puu.sh/il7p0/8bdc50cc80.jpghttp://puu.sh/il9gz/7cbb468874.jpg

It will get easier, in practice!

But, I quite liked the textured version you showed earlier! Either geometry or texture will look nice, but I might weigh a bit more on using a texture for each panel.

I'll condense the Vostok stuff into one reply (sorry!)

But, I've read it all.

I agree a little with the use of the new size - it was one of the difficulties making the old Vostok how awkwardly thin 0.625m was for the "neck".

The sketches are very helpful to visualize it - and I don't think a million miles off of the final result.

Few things I am set in my mind:

• The parachute part needs the little "hoops", probably as part of the parachute cap.
  
• The shock plate is a travesty, nobody likes it and it will go away
  
• The Zenit/Bion core is available too.
  

Castor is looking good! Why the 0.625m attachment node though? Seems like a very large engine to be using on something as small as 0.625m probes. Heh...

My logic behind modeling the divisions in each panel, is that it will help the texturing be more precise. Rather than having to draw panels, I'll only have to derive one or two actual panel textures, and have them repeat. Also reduces the UV footprint by a lot. I don't know how you make your textures so precisely. I'm fairly unskilled with Photoshop, so I don't know all the neat little tricks that allow you to draw things precisely, align lines, create symmetry, and space elements. Feel free to screen-cap your next major texturing session.

As for Vostok, I think a 0.9275m decoupler would be a great choice, but I would also go ahead and make a 0.625m as well for it. The pack needs one anyways, and not everyone here likes or uses the 0.9375m size.

What will become of the current peachy-colored decoupler? Will it remain a decoupler, or will it become an SM?

• As for the parachute, if you incorporate hoops into the design, you'll need to come up with some kind of end-cap part as to replace the old chute. I know many of us use the Vostok parachute mainly as an end-cap for the six-way node. It won't break craft files if you add hoops, but it'd instantly put all the antenna bits onto everyone's Zarya, and Zvezda recreations. Just a thought.
  
• Shock plate I was never a fan of really. Sorry it didn't work out. Remember the hexagonal ablation pattern idea?
  
• Zenit/Bion? Oooh. Sounds neat.
  

[pTrevTrevs]

Oh no! I just started my own ISS today! Zarya is in orbit, and I have Unity and two homemade PMAs ready for launch inside a shuttle. I was working on the crew photo when I had to leave for IRL reasons. Hurry up and finish the PMM, I'll have to use it instead of Hitchikers and science labs for the USOS.

[Beale]

Nice Mini-Nuke!

Be sure to notify Nertea about this - so he could make a LH2 config for it (And Near Future has some little LH2 tanks to use with it, too!)

Thanks!

I will look into that compatibility, it would be really nice (And I would be kinda honoured).

Castor is looking good! Why the 0.625m attachment node though? Seems like a very large engine to be using on something as small as 0.625m probes. Heh...

My logic behind modeling the divisions in each panel, is that it will help the texturing be more precise. Rather than having to draw panels, I'll only have to derive one or two actual panel textures, and have them repeat. Also reduces the UV footprint by a lot. I don't know how you make your textures so precisely. I'm fairly unskilled with Photoshop, so I don't know all the neat little tricks that allow you to draw things precisely, align lines, create symmetry, and space elements. Feel free to screen-cap your next major texturing session.

As for Vostok, I think a 0.9275m decoupler would be a great choice, but I would also go ahead and make a 0.625m as well for it. The pack needs one anyways, and not everyone here likes or uses the 0.9375m size.

What will become of the current peachy-colored decoupler? Will it remain a decoupler, or will it become an SM?

• As for the parachute, if you incorporate hoops into the design, you'll need to come up with some kind of end-cap part as to replace the old chute. I know many of us use the Vostok parachute mainly as an end-cap for the six-way node. It won't break craft files if you add hoops, but it'd instantly put all the antenna bits onto everyone's Zarya, and Zvezda recreations. Just a thought.
  
• Shock plate I was never a fan of really. Sorry it didn't work out. Remember the hexagonal ablation pattern idea?
  
• Zenit/Bion? Oooh. Sounds neat.
  

Thanks!

0.625m, because it is quite shamelessly based on this:

1.25m could work, but I think looks strange. Plus, I think there's some kind of niche for a long, thin NTR (Cluster?).

Despite it's small node size, my my - it is a beast! More than I expected!

I'm thinking a lighter, cheaper, less efficient than the stock NTR, but with the same level of thrust.

Good luck with that heat bro!

- - - Updated - - -

TantaresLV 12.0

11/06/2015

• Black Arrow
  
• Black Prince
  
• Proton Revamp
  
• Prospero
  
• FX Bugs fixes
  

There are some issues with the Prospero's power production. I hope to fix this soon enough.

Now, get out there and spread the love of her majesty the queen - and let me know if bugs are found!

Edited June 11, 2015 by Beale

[T'Flok]

Nice looking nuclear engine! Doubt I'll be using it though, heavily radiating areas where I go.. just doesn't sit right with me. That and with long engines I always struggle with attaching landing legs, unless it's a VTOL thing.

EDIT: Agh! This a second time! Just as I finish my post.. update happens.

Edited June 11, 2015 by T'Flok

[biohazard15]

Nuke pics

Why would we need another 1.25m nuke? 0.625m variant is great!

[curtquarquesso]

0.625m, because it is quite shamelessly based on this:

There are some issues with the Prospero's power production. I hope to fix this soon enough.

Now, get out there and spread the love of her majesty the queen - and let me know if bugs are found!

Why would we need another 1.25m nuke? 0.625m variant is great!

Congrats on another release! 0.625m makes sense now. Time to see how many I can cram onto an interplanetary transfer stage...

I don't suppose in this release the R7 got its launchpad emissive effect fixed, did it?

[Beale]

EDIT: Agh! This a second time! Just as I finish my post.. update happens.

I do it on purpose

I can agree' date=' is never easy to incorporate long engines into landers, but it can be fun!

Why would we need another 1.25m nuke? 0.625m variant is great!

That's about it (and thankyou!) 1.25m engines are already well covered.

The only other 0.625m NTR I know of is the KANDL and the small FTmN, unless I've missed one.

Congrats on another release! 0.625m makes sense now. Time to see how many I can cram onto an interplanetary transfer stage...

I don't suppose in this release the R7 got its launchpad emissive effect fixed, did it?

That bug is fixed, as far as I can tell

EDIT, More detail: The surface FX is index sensitive, which is problematic for a dual-mode engine. For now the Soyuz engines don't have the surface FX. I confess I haven't looked into solutions (If the stock Rapier has surface FX for example). I'll see if it can be fixed in the future, important now is that FX spam is stopped on launch pad.

And thanks!

Four Green Blips!

Ahaha!

Edited June 11, 2015 by Beale

[Revenant503]

Cool

Suggestion...drop the dual mode on the R7 engines if its giving you problems. The two modes aren't that different (keep the core one) and the high thrust mode (booster) I usually wind back thrust levels to keep the starting TWR below 2 (i.e. keep the core one)

Have I said keep the core one yet?

[Third_OfFive]

I absolutely love the latest Tantares update, especially the new Soyuz designs. Do you know when the Orbital/Habitation modules will have IVAs?

[T'Flok]

I do it on purpose

I can agree, is never easy to incorporate long engines into landers, but it can be fun!

Haha. And true, I do have a few lander drafts that have long engines. So far they just haven't come out right but now that I think of it, I've always put engines on the bottom and with my latest unique small omni ship (omni ship because it can do everything from gathering science to scanning and mining, crumple-zone technology!), which has two beefed up ionized Farshots on the frontal sides. IMO my best looking small ship by far, uses that poor IVAless Kvant science capsule with MK1 lander can for piloting and RPM goodness. The reason why I haven't posted images of it yet is because I'm still developing that ship, it's finished but I need to be sure I have all it's issues ironed out first. It's supposed to be an omni-ship after all and everything has to work right. So, where was I, ah yeah Farshots ain't that long so it was easy to adapt them for my ship's use.

Anyway, thanks Beale!

[Guest]

Nice looking nuclear engine! Doubt I'll be using it though' date=' heavily radiating areas where I go.. just doesn't sit right with me.[/quote']

It's OK. The exhaust is not radioactive. Read up on NERVAs and you'll see how it all works. So no worries about getting chased down by Greenpeace!