kyrocon Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 best of luck with the bug then, I think it may also be causing the stock heat-shield shrouds to disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 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.jpg0.625m, because it is quite shamelessly based on this:http://puu.sh/iliaL/5e6bd8cc38.jpg1.25m could work, but I think looks strange. Plus, I think there's some kind of niche for a long, thin NTR (Cluster?).http://puu.sh/iliek/24cdeae401.jpghttp://puu.sh/ilhPu/772afff9be.jpghttp://puu.sh/iliCn/fb796bff72.jpghttp://puu.sh/ili1M/261a5dc83d.jpgDespite 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.http://puu.sh/ilin4/7d66ffed7c.jpgGood luck with that heat bro!http://puu.sh/ilizN/43df9fe22b.jpgI do it on purpose I can agree, is never easy to incorporate long engines into landers, but it can be fun!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.err... I dunno what I think of it I mean its great to have a nuclear symbol use for texture sharing mods but the part itself is refusing to hype me. First it just looks weird to me to have the engine bell or really the whole engine body bigger than the thrust plate. Second from my perspective 0.625 NTR's are fairly prevalent with examples of such in porkjet's "atomic rockets", kommitz's "FTmN", Hoojiwana's "RLA stockalike", and Ven's "stock revamp" though admittedly not all of those are officially updated to 1.02 at this time. third most of the examples from the other mods I listed beat it out visually thereby bringing the value of the parts ram costs into question unless its borrowing from an existing sheet with the nuclear symbol tucked into some free space. I'm not saying it's ugly or anything its just that NTR's have a higher bar for "required amounts of greebling" I would suggest either giving it another polish pass to make it closer to its inspiration or beyond(I am very curious as to what its inspiration is exactly though) or to instead try for a less realistic look where you can more easily get away with the simplicity. as for balance I should point out that the soviets actually experimented with NTR's at one point perhaps the soviet stats should be something to consider. (though on the other hand their engine is basically greebalthulu)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.I'd suggest removing the dual mode (such a function like trading thrust for isp is high tech tri-fuel engine territory anyway) keep the core stage stats on the stand alone engine parts and then weld the engine to the radial cone tanks and give the resulting single piece LFB's the lifter mode stats. This will also save part count on the R7 because while there is a valid point for why vostok should requires some tier 2 buildings upgrading the launch pad is way cheaper than upgrading the VABTantaresLV 12.011/06/2015Black ArrowBlack PrinceProton RevampProsperoFX Bugs fixesThere 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! http://puu.sh/ilklS/e709e22b27.jpgNow if you'll excuse me I have an "american revolution" to unleash up in the prince's engine bellI am very very sorry for any involuntary images this may have conjured Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Flok Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 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! Ah, I see. Looked it up alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) So, since I'm trying my hand at the Saturn 1 rocket, what do you say to this?Little Joe II, Apollo LES, and boilerplate Apollo CM?EDIT: Little Joe II will be stupidly easy to model, even for me. I can do it in two parts since it is a solid fuel rocket. The second part will be a fin. The harder parts will come when I try to do the LES and Apollo CM.EDIT 2: Well, I've modeled the booster, and got through most of the UV mapping before I realized that the way I had mapped it wouldn't allow for a texture similar to the rocket in the photo above. I'll have to try it again tomorrow.Not exactly an accurate nozzle arrangement from what I can tell, but it was easier for me and still looks good. Edited June 12, 2015 by pTrevTrevs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujm1 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 the docking ports in this mod stops the docking ports in ksos from working i havent tested stock ports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 the docking ports in this mod stops the docking ports in ksos from working i havent tested stock portsI don't see how that is possible this mod doesn't require docking plugins of any sort. are you sure it is not KSO's doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowater Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Anyone have craft file for BP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borisperrons Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 the shenhouz is the Chinese version of the soyuz. the chinese one carries two not three men.On their last Tiangong mission they had three taikonauts, though. Also on the EVA one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxxonius Augustus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Salutations!Just wanted to give you guys a heads up. Beale has decided to replace the default Tantares RemoteTech config with my reworked one and I figured the changes could use a run down in advance, so here it is. I tried to make sure every antenna had a use and that there was no one antenna that could do it all.T-CD Comm Dish - Changed from 2.5Mm Omni to 25Mm dish with 10* angle. This makes it useful for communication with KSC from the Mun but not much farther."priority" dish mk-5 - Reduced range from 400Gm to 100Gm. This will still let you stay in constant contact with Jool from KSC. Only Eeloo will give you problems and only for part of its orbit. This was for ballence and to keep the high tier RT antenna usefulL-LG1 - Exact same RT stats as the communotron 16. This was to offer a Tantares alternative for craft that wold look silly with the stock antenna.L-HG1 - Range now 25Gm. This makes it the smallest antenna that can make it to Minmus but also able to stay in contact with Eve and Moho. Depending heavily on where they are in their orbits it can also work Kerbin<->Duna.V-RE "Needle" - Added to RT config. Dish with range of 5Mm but with 15* cone and low energy cost it is still useful for low altitude orbits or dense satellite constellations.That is a brief rundown. I am still working on it and tweaking but I may make a more comprehensive post later. Hope you enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) err... I dunno what I think of it I mean its great to have a nuclear symbol use for texture sharing mods but the part itself is refusing to hype me. First it just looks weird to me to have the engine bell or really the whole engine body bigger than the thrust plate. Second from my perspective 0.625 NTR's are fairly prevalent with examples of such in porkjet's "atomic rockets", kommitz's "FTmN", Hoojiwana's "RLA stockalike", and Ven's "stock revamp" though admittedly not all of those are officially updated to 1.02 at this time. third most of the examples from the other mods I listed beat it out visually thereby bringing the value of the parts ram costs into question unless its borrowing from an existing sheet with the nuclear symbol tucked into some free space. I'm not saying it's ugly or anything its just that NTR's have a higher bar for "required amounts of greebling" I would suggest either giving it another polish pass to make it closer to its inspiration or beyond(I am very curious as to what its inspiration is exactly though) or to instead try for a less realistic look where you can more easily get away with the simplicity. as for balance I should point out that the soviets actually experimented with NTR's at one point perhaps the soviet stats should be something to consider. (though on the other hand their engine is basically greebalthulu)How can I forget the RLA suitcase nuke? But, fair points thank you for the feedback. I still think this particular engine is a little unique, as it still seems all the 0.625m nukes currently available are designed to be stubby and low powered.On footprint, might be able to get away with a 256x256 texture and it will still look fine - so I don't worry too much.Anyways - on some of your feedback, how about a bit more polish?The pipes are now supported.There's the "orange thing" that's found on various stockalike nukes (Someone enlighten me what this is...)The idea of making it bigger is slightly entertaining... I have to admit. But I think not.So, since I'm trying my hand at the Saturn 1 rocket, what do you say to this?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Apollo-_Little_Joe_II_Liftoff_(December_8,_1964)_-_cropped.jpgLittle Joe II, Apollo LES, and boilerplate Apollo CM?EDIT: Little Joe II will be stupidly easy to model, even for me. I can do it in two parts since it is a solid fuel rocket. The second part will be a fin. The harder parts will come when I try to do the LES and Apollo CM.EDIT 2: Well, I've modeled the booster, and got through most of the UV mapping before I realized that the way I had mapped it wouldn't allow for a texture similar to the rocket in the photo above. I'll have to try it again tomorrow.http://i.imgur.com/3bKM3cJ.pngNot exactly an accurate nozzle arrangement from what I can tell, but it was easier for me and still looks good. Looks decent so far!If you want to try your hand at vernier nozzles, it is a lot easier than you may imagine, simply make a separate nozzle object with the origin at 0,0,0 and I will walk you through the setup.the docking ports in this mod stops the docking ports in ksos from working i havent tested stock portsMod list? And you mean the ports in Tantares won't dock with KSOS ports? That would be intentional.Anyone have craft file for BP? I'll try and dig one up.Salutations!Just wanted to give you guys a heads up. Beale has decided to replace the default Tantares RemoteTech config with my reworked one and I figured the changes could use a run down in advance, so here it is. I tried to make sure every antenna had a use and that there was no one antenna that could do it all.T-CD Comm Dish - Changed from 2.5Mm Omni to 25Mm dish with 10* angle. This makes it useful for communication with KSC from the Mun but not much farther."priority" dish mk-5 - Reduced range from 400Gm to 100Gm. This will still let you stay in constant contact with Jool from KSC. Only Eeloo will give you problems and only for part of its orbit. This was for ballence and to keep the high tier RT antenna usefulL-LG1 - Exact same RT stats as the communotron 16. This was to offer a Tantares alternative for craft that wold look silly with the stock antenna.L-HG1 - Range now 25Gm. This makes it the smallest antenna that can make it to Minmus but also able to stay in contact with Eve and Moho. Depending heavily on where they are in their orbits it can also work Kerbin<->Duna.V-RE "Needle" - Added to RT config. Dish with range of 5Mm but with 15* cone and low energy cost it is still useful for low altitude orbits or dense satellite constellations.That is a brief rundown. I am still working on it and tweaking but I may make a more comprehensive post later. Hope you enjoy!Much more sensible, thanks for your work Edited June 12, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Lazarus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) thats one shiny nuke engine ~ Edited June 12, 2015 by Darth Lazarus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 http://puu.sh/im5Lr/7a20400a95.jpghttp://puu.sh/im5GO/3d1c9b651e.jpgHeh, as-if the Service Module didn't overheat enough already ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltervees Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 http://puu.sh/im5Lr/7a20400a95.jpghttp://puu.sh/im5GO/3d1c9b651e.jpgIs that first pic cheeki breeki like?Very nice engine, it's cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) How can I forget the RLA suitcase nuke? But, fair points thank you for the feedback. I still think this particular engine is a little unique, as it still seems all the 0.625m nukes currently available are designed to be stubby and low powered. that is because NTR rockets don't scale down well you need a certain amount of uranium to make a working reactor which in turn sets a minimum size and mass that is possible. to get around this while staying within a users suspension of disbelief most 0.625m nuke makers imply that their engines are RTG based (which is a real thing) instead. so if you want to say its a genuine nuke it will have to have a certain minimal mass and if it has a certain mass it will require a certain amount of dv in order to be the optimal choice over a lighter engine like the lv1 or the 48-s7 and in order for it to have enough dv it will need a lot of fuel can you imagine a 0.625m fuel tank long enough to supply this engine with an optimal amount of dv? I don't know about you but I imagine it would be inconveniently long and precarious to launch if it's implied that it is meant for fuel tanks of that diameter which brings us back to its diameter or rather the diameter of its thrust plate compared to the rest of the engine it's simply too small what would the fairing even look like a cone? not to mention what it means for the thematics of its radiation shielding (ntr's can't be shielded from all angles it's too heavy so the thrust plate instead doubles as a shield and casts a radiation free shadow over the rest of the rocket) you might get better results narrowing the engine bell and widening the thrust plate to 0.9 if you think 1.25 is truly tapped. or maybe if you clustered them for 1.875 I can say with certainty there are no nukes in that size despite multiple mods promoting the diameter.On footprint, might be able to get away with a 256x256 texture and it will still look fine - so I don't worry too much.Anyways - on some of your feedback, how about a bit more polish?http://puu.sh/im58x/513d7a4566.jpgThe pipes are now supported.http://puu.sh/im5l5/20f09bc61f.jpgThere's the "orange thing" that's found on various stockalike nukes (Someone enlighten me what this is...)http://puu.sh/im5lr/c1b735b241.jpgCertainly improved the specular you added also helped here are a few other things to think about.1. there is no plumbing connecting the engine to the thrust plate >.> (those sphere bits in the inspiration would go well here)2. the structural attachment seems flimsy perhaps if the support arms were moved to the outer edges of the body and had visible nuts bolts and attachment brackets?3. still seems sparse more nuts and bolts on the pipe supports too?... eh actually just sprinkle them all over the place like it's a rainbow maple bar donut from your local bakery ;p (about half of #3 is not a serious suggestion)4. where is the inspiration from again? Edited June 12, 2015 by passinglurker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimovski Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 IMO, the point of such a small NTR is that using a cluster of these nets you more thrust than a single 1.25 NTR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 thats one shiny nuke engine ~Thanks! Heh, as-if the Service Module didn't overheat enough already ;-)Ack! Is this still bug present? I'll fix...Is that first pic cheeki breeki like?.No one messes with the Breeki brothers m8.that is because NTR rockets don't scale down well you need a certain amount of uranium to make a working reactor which in turn sets a minimum size and mass that is possible. to get around this while staying within a users suspension of disbelief most 0.625m nuke makers imply that their engines are RTG based (which is a real thing) instead. so if you want to say its a genuine nuke it will have to have a certain minimal mass and if it has a certain mass it will require a certain amount of dv in order to be the optimal choice over a lighter engine like the lv1 or the 48-s7 and in order for it to have enough dv it will need a lot of fuel can you imagine a 0.625m fuel tank long enough to supply this engine with an optimal amount of dv? I don't know about you but I imagine it would be inconveniently long and precarious to launch if it's implied that it is meant for fuel tanks of that diameter which brings us back to its diameter or rather the diameter of its thrust plate compared to the rest of the engine it's simply too small what would the fairing even look like a cone? not to mention what it means for the thematics of its radiation shielding (ntr's can't be shielded from all angles it's too heavy so the thrust plate instead doubles as a shield and casts a radiation free shadow over the rest of the rocket) you might get better results narrowing the engine bell and widening the thrust plate to 0.9 if you think 1.25 is truly tapped. or maybe if you clustered them for 1.875 I can say with certainty there are no nukes in that size despite multiple mods promoting the diameter.Certainly improved the specular you added also helped here are a few other things to think about.1. there is no plumbing connecting the engine to the thrust plate >.> (those sphere bits in the inspiration would go well here)2. the structural attachment seems flimsy perhaps if the support arms were moved to the outer edges of the body and had visible nuts bolts and attachment brackets?3. still seems sparse more nuts and bolts on the pipe supports too?... eh actually just sprinkle them all over the place like it's a rainbow maple bar donut from your local bakery ;p (about half of #3 is not a serious suggestion)4. where is the inspiration from again?Thanks for the feedback!In terms of volume, I think the reactor is the same, or close to the stock NTR, it's thinner - but quite a bit longer. Mass/thrust balancing, I'm not so sure (I'm thinking 2 ton, 700~ isp and 50kn). The type of fuel tank it is designed for is probably 2.5m, meant to be clustered. I think now major altering the model (like altering the size of the nozzle and such) I think is out of the question.I agree mostly with the points 1 - 3. But, the polycount now is approaching 1200, and I really would not like to go much higher.The inspiration is this NERVA concept thing.IMO, the point of such a small NTR is that using a cluster of these nets you more thrust than a single 1.25 NTR.This is the plan, although you will need at minimum a 1.875m base if you want to cluster them without the nozzles clipping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The service modules might not be overheating anymore, I don't remember off hand, was just adding some humor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The type of fuel tank it is designed for is probably 2.5m, meant to be clustered. I think now major altering the model (like altering the size of the nozzle and such) I think is out of the question.-snip-This is the plan, although you will need at minimum a 1.875m base if you want to cluster them without the nozzles clipping.how would such a cluster be launched? you'd need something central to attach too if a home made cluster is meant to be mounted inline. and if it's meant to be clustered why not simplify assembly and ship it clustered? perhaps a different approach what about designing it as a radial version of the LV-N?as for the polycount how many sides do the pipes have? with reducing them could reduce the count dramatically. either way it still needs some way to to actually be fed fuel from the tank above it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) The service modules might not be overheating anymore, I don't remember off hand, was just adding some humor Ahaha, no problem.I think maybe we do need radiator parts though.how would such a cluster be launched? you'd need something central to attach too if a home made cluster is meant to be mounted inline. and if it's meant to be clustered why not simplify assembly and ship it clustered? perhaps a different approach what about designing it as a radial version of the LV-N?as for the polycount how many sides do the pipes have? with reducing them could reduce the count dramatically. either way it still needs some way to to actually be fed fuel from the tank above it.Good question, but that's a very wide problem in clustering any engine.The radial idea is a little more applicable... maybe that could be the best solution.The pipes are 8 sided, they were initially 4, then 6 - but neither looked right.In-game:Potential clusteringAs it worked out, it was more efficient to use a stock NTR for this craft, which delivered 4.6k m/s DV vs. my own which delivered 4.3k m/s of DV.So...General response of in favour of / against the nuke? It is just a throw-away part after all. Edited June 12, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxxonius Augustus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 General response of in favour of / against the nuke? It is just a throw-away part after all.I for one already have a few ideas for craft that could make use of it... and I agree whole heartedly that there are enough 1.25m engines already, especially with the new LV engines. That said I also think I would perhaps be more useful as a 1.875 cluster, 3x symmetry maybe? even if it remains .625 I can still think of uses for it and clustering CAN be done manually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svm420 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I like it looks better than stock IMO. Even if just an extra don't throw it away! Plus single engines lends to more creativity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Well despite my criticism I'd obviously be in favor provided there is at least pipe going between the engine and the thrust plate somewhere and those tin can thin supports were beefed up so it doesn't look like It'll snap off if I turn to hard. I wouldn't be providing so much feed back if I didn't want the engine implemented in some way.As for stats with its wider bell and slimmed down body it looks to me like its built more for efficiency than powerradial would meanwhile be simple to implement just put a round orange cap on top and a big strut and pipe pair out the side and bam! atomic age star trek engine nacelle (radial nukes are actually kinda unrealistic because of the radiation hazard so with everyone's expectations and suspensions of disbelief already shattered in making a radial one we are free to abandon all logic and reason and do whatever sounds cool.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm gonna make an NTR propulsion stage like the ones from the Constellation Mars mission. I've already got Ares I, and Ares V will be flyable after I do some work on it, so why should I stop there? I could try and do the entire mission with Tantares! It's going to be a chore juggling my modding misadventures, this thing, and my other insane projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Lazarus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) i could use the nuke engine for a nuclear UR700 ... Edited June 12, 2015 by Darth Lazarus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine is by far my favourite word to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.