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

[daswolfe1]

Great mod! I love it, question though, my pet peeve when it comes to KSP mods is that I have to create the crafts exactly how they were historically made or how the mod author created them, considering the large amount of parts in the mod, is there the craft list of the ships in the Imgur album? Thanks again!

Edited December 7, 2015 by daswolfe1

[Beale]

 

On 12/6/2015, 7:08:21, curtquarquesso said:

Salyut

• Don't worry too much about the parts looking bare. It's the player's job to clutter them up with RCS thrusters, antennae, and monopropellant balls. The only thing the player can't really do, is add decals, handrails, windows, propellant lines, access panels, warning labels, and typography. That's what you can do. I really like it when you use those elements to spice up an otherwise bare part. 
• Ah. Cool beans then. Didn't know if they were the same part. Should be handy for some things. Any willingness to make just a shorty 1.25m structural or crewed tube? There's nothing that currently fills that void.
• Great. A Kvant-2 airlock has great potential for a really fun IVA one day. 
• Ugh. Almaz... Such a tricky vehicle. It's hard to replicate as it was highly secretive, and each of them were very unique. Be careful you don't get requests for more Almaz parts. Could be a can of worms. With the Salyut 1 and Salyut 4 OMS engine, would you redo it similarly to the diagram I sketched up?

Kvant

• Sure! The octagonal section had an X-Ray telescope on it, as well as an observation window right below on the main working section. Pictured here. I would definitely do both. I'm a big fan of windows. What the octagonal section could use is greeble and hand-rails. Here's another reference picture that shows some of the greeble you have to choose from. Take your pick!
• Whatever works, hatch or no hatch, though I do like the idea of modules that have specialties, and limitations. Makes station building more fun if each module has a specific function.
• I REALLY like the brown striped Kvant.  PLEASE go with this paint scheme. If you do a widow on the octagonal section, you'd need to move or alter the handrail. 
• It'd be similar to the old PPTS heat shield adapter shroud, but I see the difficulty... Having a docking node in front of the module would mean that the shroud would never be able to jettison. If I work on this problem, would you ever consider it? Here's a mockup with the general idea. Also shows window placement.

DOS Core

• I'm still a bit confused. How long is your current DOS 2.5m crew cabin? I've got a bunch of schematics, and I'm trying to find out the true lengths of the sections that make up the DOS type stations. There's a lot of conflicting info unfortunately. I have blueprints and schematics that seem to disagree with one another. 
• DOS modules, from Salyut to Zvezda, have working compartments that are about 2.5m long, and then a integrated docking and propulsion module, like on Salyut, Mir, and Zvezda, or a smaller diameter orbital propulsion module, like on Salyut 1 and Salyut 4. If you make one long, 3.0m block, then you can't replicated Salyut 1 or Salyut 4 well, and you have to clip propellant in to power the integrated type aft design. I'm still trying to figure out if Salyut 6, Salyut 7, Zvezda, and the Mir Core Module all have the same diameter wide section. I can't reach a consensus with my drawings. I think I've been staring at them too long. Someone else might want to give it a go. I've got references in the albums from a few pages back, as well as these fully dimensioned sketches from a Princeton university article.
• In a nutshell, I'd think about chopping down the crew cabin you have, and letting players choose to add on an 1.25 diameter Salyut 1 style engine, or add on a 2.5m propulsion/docking unit. If you went that route, you could leave the crew block just a block, and not worry about the ends too much, and then you could really get fancy with the integrated docking and propulsion unit, and make it look nice. Naturally, it'd be sans docking port. 

Docking Ports

I'm sorry to hear that. Let me know if you need help. @NathanKell said that the new parameters were pretty self-explanatory, but I honestly couldn't figure them out. I'm going to need help from someone who understands that end of KSP better. They really need proper documentation in the CFG documentation wiki.

 

Apologies for the rambling! 

 

Hello!

SALYUT

- Sure thing. I think this time nothing as explicit as "MONDO" painted in huge letters, but a few little details I have added to polish it up.
- The way everything is UV mapped, yes that would be very easy. All the 1.25m parts should share the same IVA.
- Almaz is a can of worms, I can agree there  I think the propulsion system is a good replacement for VEGA_ENGINE_A (Currently that engine and VEGA_ENGINE_B are nearly identical so I want to solve that).

KVANT

- Window(s) and greeble will be added
- Paint scheme, not sure. I'm a big fan of the twin stripe, but eh - it's up for you guys to choose really.

- Could make the KVANT part a stock procedural fairing base... Maybe? Rather than an engine-like fairing.

MS-DOS Oh I'm So Funny

- Currently 2.4375m in length, nearly a perfect "Square" in width and height. The extension section would extend the length to 3m overall length.  I think looking for the schematics is a rabbit hole, current shape was based from a few sources on Salyut 1, but I still doubt it is absolutely correct.
- I just plan a small block, to extend the station - it can have fuel or... seats? I don't really know yet  So you are able to build all variances.

15 hours ago, Leszek said:

Beale,.

I have updated the Station Science configs to work again. (Was broken)  Check the following for the udpated files:

  Reveal hidden contents

New contents of _Extra_StationScience.cfg

@PART[Vega_Crew_D]:NEEDS[StationScience] 
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = StationScienceModule
    moduleName = Station Science Facility
    requiredTrait = Scientist
    ConverterName = Research Lab
    StartActionName = Start Research
    StopActionName = Stop Research
    AutoShutdown = false
    GeneratesHeat = false
    UseSpecialistBonus = false

    INPUT_RESOURCE
    {
      ResourceName = ElectricCharge
      Ratio = 0.00138888888
    }

    OUTPUT_RESOURCE
    {
      ResourceName = Eurekas
      Ratio = 0.00027777777
    }
  }
}

New Contents of  _MIR_Crew_D.cfg

PART
{

name = Vega_Crew_D
module = Part
author = Tantares

MODEL
{
   model = Tantares/Parts/SALYUT/MIR_Crew_D
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.4, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_top    = 0.0,  1.4, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
bulkheadProfiles = size1, size2

TechRequired = advConstruction
entryCost = 7000
cost = 2000

category     = Science
subcategory  = 0
title        = V-DOS-D "Quantum" Science Block
manufacturer = Tantares Space Technologies
description  = A dedicated science module for your growing space station.

attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

mass = 1.9

dragModelType  = default
maximum_drag   = 0.20
minimum_drag   = 0.15
angularDrag    = 2
crashTolerance = 10
maxTemp        = 3400

vesselType = Station

CrewCapacity = 1

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleScienceContainer
		reviewActionName = Review Data
		storeActionName = Store Experiments
		collectActionName = Take Data
		evaOnlyStorage = True
		storageRange = 2
		allowRepeatedSubjects = True
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleScienceLab
		containerModuleIndex = 0
		dataStorage = 500
		crewsRequired = 1
		canResetConnectedModules = True
		canResetNearbyModules = True
		interactionRange = 5
		SurfaceBonus = 0.1
		ContextBonus = 0.25
		homeworldMultiplier = 0.1
		RESOURCE_PROCESS
		{
			name = ElectricCharge
			amount = 10
		}
	}



MODULE
{
	name = ModuleSAS
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleReactionWheel
	
	PitchTorque = 7
	YawTorque = 7
	RollTorque = 7
	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ElectricCharge
		rate = 0.4
	}
}

RESOURCE
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	amount = 50
	maxAmount = 50
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceExperiment	
	
	experimentID = crewReport
	
	experimentActionName = Crew Report
	resetActionName = Discard Crew Report
	reviewActionName = Review Report
	
	useStaging = False	
	useActionGroups = True
	hideUIwhenUnavailable = True	
	rerunnable = True
	
	xmitDataScalar = 1.0
}


}

 

 

Great! Many thanks Leszek!

6 hours ago, billbobjebkirk said:

You could do the fairing by adding a second node with a decoupler module that would hover underneath the docking port, but I can easily understand why you would not want to do that.

Procedural fairings?

They would have to "bulge" a little around the railings, or I could arrange them a little different.

1 hour ago, daswolfe1 said:

Great mod! I love it, question though, my pet peeve when it comes to KSP mods is that I have to create the crafts exactly how they were historically made or how the mod author created them, considering the large amount of parts in the mod, is there the craft list of the ships in the Imgur album? Thanks again!

@CaptKordite  has some amazing things here! (I love this collection a little bit too much).

I have never made crafts for the IMGUR album available, unfortunately it just gets forgotten a little bit.

To some degree Tantares is still a huge mess in some areas (balance, mod support, alternate textures and more), but I have not the time to fix it completely.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Beale

[Beale]

Scaling Issue

I thought I might illustrate the scaling problems a little more clearly.

From Left-To-Right:

• Salyut 1 image.
• Current model (Near perfect size for Salyut 1)
• Salyut 7 image.
• Salyut 7 image.

You see, there is some disagreement on the size of Salyut 7 core.
My previous size of 3.0m is totally wrong, it is looking more like a length of 3.75m in total. That's quite a large module!

[Beale]

Rear Trunk

200 Units of Monopropellant and a seat for two Kerbals.

The end points are very plain - because there may be 1.25m, 0.9375m, whatever sized placed there.

 

The ETS Salyut has been a fun inspiration, but at 330,000+ polygons, it's hard to work with!

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Beale

[davidy12]

Where'd you get that Salyut model?

[curtquarquesso]

On December 7, 2015 at 1:49:43 PM, Beale said:

SALYUT

- Sure thing. I think this time nothing as explicit as "MONDO" painted in huge letters, but a few little details I have added to polish it up.
- The way everything is UV mapped, yes that would be very easy. All the 1.25m parts should share the same IVA.
- Almaz is a can of worms, I can agree there  I think the propulsion system is a good replacement for VEGA_ENGINE_A (Currently that engine and VEGA_ENGINE_B are nearly identical so I want to solve that).

KVANT

- Window(s) and greeble will be added
- Paint scheme, not sure. I'm a big fan of the twin stripe, but eh - it's up for you guys to choose really.

- Could make the KVANT part a stock procedural fairing base... Maybe? Rather than an engine-like fairing.

MS-DOS Oh I'm So Funny

- Currently 2.4375m in length, nearly a perfect "Square" in width and height. The extension section would extend the length to 3m overall length.  I think looking for the schematics is a rabbit hole, current shape was based from a few sources on Salyut 1, but I still doubt it is absolutely correct.
- I just plan a small block, to extend the station - it can have fuel or... seats? I don't really know yet  So you are able to build all variances.

Great! Many thanks Leszek!

Procedural fairings?

They would have to "bulge" a little around the railings, or I could arrange them a little different.

On December 7, 2015 at 4:05:09 PM, Beale said:

Scaling Issue

I thought I might illustrate the scaling problems a little more clearly.

From Left-To-Right:

• Salyut 1 image.
• Current model (Near perfect size for Salyut 1)
• Salyut 7 image.
• Salyut 7 image.

You see, there is some disagreement on the size of Salyut 7 core.
My previous size of 3.0m is totally wrong, it is looking more like a length of 3.75m in total. That's quite a large module!

 

Great responses.

Salyut

• The Mondo lettering didn't bother me, though I'm not crazy about the name itself. Ideas? 
• If it helps, the Almaz propulsion system is very similar to the integrated docking and propulsion unit found on latter generations. Should be the same length.

Kvant

• If you want twin stripes, go with the brown stripe on the octagonal section, and the white stripe on the habitation section like you have on the current iteration. It'd be accurate, and look great as well. 
• I'm almost sorry I mentioned the shroud for Kvant now. Didn't think it'd get that much attention. Heh. For now, I wouldn't do it. Remember, you can always implement it later.
• For the railing, I'd just make sure it doesn't stick out so if you ever do implement the shroud, you don't have to remodel. 
• As far as detail to Kvant-1 goes, the top face of the octagonal section could use a little detail. When you put a docking port on the top, it just looks slapped on there, and not integrated. If you look at pictures of Kvant-1 without the cloth covering on the octagonal section, you can see the tubular docking passage that runs through it. Perhaps you could allude to that with a node, and some indentations on that side?

DOS

• I'm determined to figure out once and for all what's actually correct. Went to my university library and did an interlibrary loan for some Soviet space technical memorandums by Teledyne Brown, and requested a copy of Russia in Space by Anatoly Zak, the russiajnspaceweb guy. Might end up just buying a copy for myself now that it's back in print. For now though, I'm pretty sure of some dimensions. (all in Kerbal dims)

(Salyut 1 and Salyut 4) 

From what I can see, you've got a working compartment that's just shorter than square. Usually, it's measured as square because it's pressurized aft bulkhead extends into the propellant section a bit. The propellant is stored in the aft section, as well as some in the smaller diameter engine structure. It's worth mentioning that this engine is the exact same engine present on the Soyuz of the day. Might help with stats. Salyut 1 and Salyut 4 were greater in overall length than their successors. To make things easier, you could make the working compartment an even 2.0m, and reduce the length of the propellant section, it's up to you. The total length from the start of the working compartment to the end of the orbital engine should be about 3.7m, or 3.75m if you want. It was definitely longer than it's successors, but had less internal length and volume. 

(Salyut 6, Salyut 7, Mir, and Zvezda) 

This diagram I pulled from a library find, which I later found on the web. Soviet Space Stations as Analogs by B.J. Bluth. The diagram is by C P. Vick, who is basically the ultimate soviet space super sleuth. (even had a book wrote about his work) He figured out what the N1 looked like from satellite imagery before the CIA did. There are a bunch of ways to chop up the aft section. I would just keep the working compartment the same, and then make the aft integrated docking and propulsion section whatever length is necessary to bring the total length of the entire section to 3.0m. I know for a fact that on Salyut 6, 7, Mir, and Zvezda, the entire aft section comes out to 3.0m long assuming a 2.5m diameter. 3.75m is certainly too long. Interesting as an alternate maybe, but definitely not accurate. As far as I can tell, the second generation DOS cores never changed in length, or arrangement. 3.0m is accurate. 

 

I started this reply yesterday, went to the library for more resources, and got stuck in a rabbit hole like you said, and you replied before me anyways. Heh. Starting second reply in a new post. 

Edited December 8, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[curtquarquesso]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

Rear Trunk

200 Units of Monopropellant and a seat for two Kerbals.

The end points are very plain - because there may be 1.25m, 0.9375m, whatever sized placed there.

The ETS Salyut has been a fun inspiration, but at 330,000+ polygons, it's hard to work with!

 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure if I like how bare the part is. It doesn't fit with most of your work very well. If you look at the aft section of the second generation DOS type stations, there's just so much great greeble there. The way you've done the top node of the working compartment is nice, as it looks like it would look good with multiple sizes, though Id have to play around with it. Is there any way you could be convinced to make low-profile attitude thrusters during the Salyut revamp?

Spoiler

 

My recent binge on spacecraft dimensions has left me with a ton of material. Would anyone be interested in some kind of huge spacecraft documentation thread for add-on creation? I don't just have a ton of info now, I now know where to find even more. University databases, congressional reports, and old magazine publications are ripe with this kind of info. 

Edited December 8, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[CobaltWolf]

22 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

My recent binge on spacecraft dimensions has left me with a ton of material. Would anyone be interested in some kind of huge spacecraft documentation thread for add-on creation? I don't just have a ton of info now, I now know where to find even more. University databases, congressional reports, and old magazine publications are ripe with this kind of info. 

Yes please!

[Beale]

2 hours ago, davidy12 said:

Where'd you get that Salyut model?

Eyes Turned Skywards  

1 hour ago, curtquarquesso said:

Great responses.

Salyut

• The Mondo lettering didn't bother me, though I'm not crazy about the name itself. Ideas? 
• If it helps, the Almaz propulsion system is very similar to the integrated docking and propulsion unit found on latter generations. Should be the same length.

Kvant

• If you want twin stripes, go with the brown stripe on the octagonal section, and the white stripe on the habitation section like you have on the current iteration. It'd be accurate, and look great as well. 
• I'm almost sorry I mentioned the shroud for Kvant now. Didn't think it'd get that much attention. Heh. For now, I wouldn't do it. Remember, you can always implement it later.
• For the railing, I'd just make sure it doesn't stick out so if you ever do implement the shroud, you don't have to remodel. 
• As far as detail to Kvant-1 goes, the top face of the octagonal section could use a little detail. When you put a docking port on the top, it just looks slapped on there, and not integrated. If you look at pictures of Kvant-1 without the cloth covering on the octagonal section, you can see the tubular docking passage that runs through it. Perhaps you could allude to that with a node, and some indentations on that side?

DOS

• I'm determined to figure out once and for all what's actually correct. Went to my university library and did an interlibrary loan for some Soviet space technical memorandums by Teledyne Brown, and requested a copy of Russia in Space by Anatoly Zak, the russiajnspaceweb guy. Might end up just buying a copy for myself now that it's back in print. For now though, I'm pretty sure of some dimensions. (all in Kerbal dims)

(Salyut 1 and Salyut 4) 

From what I can see, you've got a working compartment that's just shorter than square. Usually, it's measured as square because it's pressurized aft bulkhead extends into the propellant section a bit. The propellant is stored in the aft section, as well as some in the smaller diameter engine structure. It's worth mentioning that this engine is the exact same engine present on the Soyuz of the day. Might help with stats. Salyut 1 and Salyut 4 were greater in overall length than their successors. To make things easier, you could make the working compartment an even 2.0m, and reduce the length of the propellant section, it's up to you. The total length from the start of the working compartment to the end of the orbital engine should be about 3.7m, or 3.75m if you want. It was definitely longer than it's successors, but had less internal length and volume. 

(Salyut 6, Salyut 7, Mir, and Zvezda) 

This diagram I pulled from a library find, which I later found on the web. Soviet Space Stations as Analogs by B.J. Bluth. The diagram is by C P. Vick, who is basically the ultimate soviet space super sleuth. (even had a book wrote about his work) He figured out what the N1 looked like from satellite imagery before the CIA did. There are a bunch of ways to chop up the aft section. I would just keep the working compartment the same, and then make the aft integrated docking and propulsion section whatever length is necessary to bring the total length of the entire section to 3.0m. I know for a fact that on Salyut 6, 7, Mir, and Zvezda, the entire aft section comes out to 3.0m long assuming a 2.5m diameter. 3.75m is certainly too long. Interesting as an alternate maybe, but definitely not accurate. As far as I can tell, the second generation DOS cores never changed in length, or arrangement. 3.0m is accurate. 

 

I started this reply yesterday, went to the library for more resources, and got stuck in a rabbit hole like you said, and you replied before me anyways. Heh. Starting second reply in a new post. 

You are like a cold-war spy here

Very good info. For simplicity's sake, I will not adjust the Salyut current 2.5m part. (Working + Propellant) are close to 2.5m in length anyway.

So! The airlock part I have just shown, that will be a different part to bring the length to 3.75m. I will need a new propellant tank part to bring the whole core length to 3.0m, this new propellant tank part can have the same handrails as the airlock.

On Airlock, the end is too plain... perhaps you are right. The image you posted of the green thing would be a great low-profile structural part / engine, with a 0.9375m node on the end.

On Kvant, I think I can agree with your feedback. It needs a little more detail.

Really admire the research here! You should definitely put this all down in a thread somewhere I agree.

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Beale

[curtquarquesso]

23 minutes ago, Beale said:

You are like a cold-war spy here
Very good info. For simplicity's sake, I will not adjust the Salyut current 2.5m part. (Working + Propellant) are close to 2.5m in length anyway.
So! The airlock part I have just shown, that will be a different part to bring the length to 3.75m. I will need a new propellant tank part to bring the whole core length to 3.0m, this new propellant tank part can have the same handrails as the airlock.
On Airlock, the end is too plain... perhaps you are right. The image you posted of the green thing would be a great low-profile structural part / engine, with a 0.9375m node on the end.
On Kvant, I think I can agree with your feedback. It needs a little more detail.
Really admire the research here! You should definitely put this all down in a thread somewhere I agree.

Huh. I just figured something out.  "Enter/Return" starts a new paragraph, not a line break like vBulletin. Use "Shift+Return/Enter" do just do a line break. The more you know...
See? Line break, not a paragraph.

2.5m x 2.0m would be optimal, but I'll take what I can get, heh. I guess in terms of pressurized volume, it's probably more accurate, at least on the inside. Moreover, 2.5m x 2.5m will make for a roomier IVA, and give you an easier time of making it one day. Poor Kerbals never seem to get much legroom it seems. So, if the working compartment will be 2.5m x 2.5m, I take it integrated docking and propulsion compartment would be about 0.5m or so to bring the total length to 3.0m, correct?

Airlock/DOS Aft: Either way would work I suppose, but I think one integrated unit would be preferable from a safety and physics standpoint. Because you'd be attaching a docking port to it, and docking to said port, you have more physics joints between the two vessels, and things would likely jiggle and wobble. It's important from a gameplay standpoint that station cores have really solid structures. Less joints, the better. One unified part, sans-docking port, would be best; Basically, a part much like the Zvezda aft section technical drawing. 

Kvant: I'm still partial to brown stripe on the octagon, and white stripe on the hull. The white stripe could definitely be wider, like the older iteration. Allow it to intersect the window. Love the fine panel detail. What the octagon could use is the ATV fabric texture underneath it all. Jus try it. It looks solid, yet it's really a covered frame. That might help with that. You've basically got it down.

A thread is now in the works, though it will take a while to get up. Gotta find a way to host all the info, provide credit to all sources, and make it easier to comb through for info. Perhaps I'll just make it a request-type thread, where people ask for info, and I dig it up. Probably a lot of work, but I don't mind so much.

 

Edit: Just now seeing the pictures, all looks good.

Edited December 8, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[WuphonsReach]

Looking at: https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/303/Tantares%20-%20Stockalike%20Soyuz%20%26%20More

There's definitely some questions and answers that could be put there:

• What parachutes are added and their approximate mass / stopping power
• List of capsules (mass, crew size, diameter, specials such as built-in RCS)
• What docking ports are compatible with what stock docking ports (or even each other)
• List of solar panels added (mass, power, size)
• List of antennas (mass, range, cone, RemoteTech compatible?)

 

[legoclone09]

Beale, I have made a mod (modulemanager configs) that adds 2.5m, 3.75m, and 5m fairings with the model and texture of your fairings. Is this OK that I upload it to KerbalStuff and make a thread for it? I will give it a MIT license if that is OK.

[Beale]

14 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

Airlock/DOS Aft: Either way would work I suppose, but I think one integrated unit would be preferable from a safety and physics standpoint. Because you'd be attaching a docking port to it, and docking to said port, you have more physics joints between the two vessels, and things would likely jiggle and wobble. It's important from a gameplay standpoint that station cores have really solid structures. Less joints, the better. One unified part, sans-docking port, would be best; Basically, a part much like the Zvezda aft section technical drawing. 

Edit: Just now seeing the pictures, all looks good.

The physics part is important yes. It may need caution when testing a part like that...

The Kvant definitively needs work on the octagon section, yes it is too plain! 

12 hours ago, WuphonsReach said:

Looking at: https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/303/Tantares%20-%20Stockalike%20Soyuz%20%26%20More

There's definitely some questions and answers that could be put there:

• What parachutes are added and their approximate mass / stopping power
• List of capsules (mass, crew size, diameter, specials such as built-in RCS)
• What docking ports are compatible with what stock docking ports (or even each other)
• List of solar panels added (mass, power, size)
• List of antennas (mass, range, cone, RemoteTech compatible?)

 

Hello!

I think yes the information needs to be up-front. I will take some time to list.

8 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

Beale, I have made a mod (modulemanager configs) that adds 2.5m, 3.75m, and 5m fairings with the model and texture of your fairings. Is this OK that I upload it to KerbalStuff and make a thread for it? I will give it a MIT license if that is OK.

Of course! Sounds great

 

Propellant Tanks

Based on the Airlock module, thin and long propellant tanks to fuel the station engines. The thin part will bring a core module to the correct* length for Salyut 6/7.

*To great dispute.

KVANT & ETC Texture Sheet

Trying to keep things quite compact.

[pTrevTrevs]

Hang on... Isn't the Salyut airlock in the front docking compartment?  Mir and Zvezda are similar, except the airlock is actually in the mode on the front. Before Kvant-2 was added to Mir (Or Pirs to the ISS), EVAs were done through the node hatch.

Maybe... Just maybe... Perhaps you could give the node a hatch and crew capacity?

I will check my Soyuz Owner's Workshop Manual, I seem to remember it having good info on Salyut hardware.

[curtquarquesso]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

The physics part is important yes. It may need caution when testing a part like that...
The Kvant definitively needs work on the octagon section, yes it is too plain! 
Propellant Tanks
Based on the Airlock module, thin and long propellant tanks to fuel the station engines. The thin part will bring a core module to the correct* length for Salyut 6/7.
*To great dispute.

KVANT & ETC Texture Sheet
Trying to keep things quite compact.

All looks very good! The slim tank indeed does make the section the correct size. Perfect.  Could one of the tanks have longer, more stream-lined hand rails? Just to give people options?

1 hour ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Hang on... Isn't the Salyut airlock in the front docking compartment?  Mir and Zvezda are similar, except the airlock is actually in the mode on the front. Before Kvant-2 was added to Mir (Or Pirs to the ISS), EVAs were done through the node hatch.

Maybe... Just maybe... Perhaps you could give the node a hatch and crew capacity?

I will check my Soyuz Owner's Workshop Manual, I seem to remember it having good info on Salyut hardware.

Yep. We already have those though. The node part is a bit small to support crew I think. Could also break some balance things. If Squad one day supports fluid IVA like with the Free IVA mod, then it might have a purpose. Currently, though, there's little point in giving it a hatch. A better solution would be a Kvant-2 like airlock for Mir, with the hatch on the nose, which has been discussed, or a Pirs/Poisk type airlock, which has already gotten some parts made for it.

[pTrevTrevs]

Yep, I thought so. I don't think the extension part needs a hatch or crew capacity either. It should contain monopropellant and electric charge, and maybe some life support (if the proper mods are installed. Basically, it should increase the station's lifespan and boost the amount of time Kerbals can spend aboard before running out of consumables. Or, if could be an upgrade to the Salyut 1/4 engine, with more fuel and maybe higher thrust. I don't know if the Mir engines ever got their thrust buffed from 1.0KN, but if they haven't, they should be made so that two of them will at least equal the Salyut 1 engine.

 

Huh, I just used an entire paragraph to tell you to ditch the hatch and make it a utility compartment.

[trippytripp]

Its hard to see, but I really like the contrast that the green Soyuz has against the greyness of the other parts.

[CaptKordite]

So, after grunting this station into orbit (and don't even ask about why the Khleb capsule doesn't have a service module) I find that I am unable to transfer crew into the inflatable lab. When I click on it during the transfer, it puts the crew in the Smoke module. Right click on the inflatable and there is no one there. I built some test craft on the ground and could not transfer any crew into either inflatable module. If it is attached to another module (such as the Smoke here) the crew goes there instead of into the inflatable module. If it's separated, it's as if it's not there to be transferred into.

Anyone else noticing this problem?

[CobaltWolf]

16 minutes ago, CaptKordite said:

So, after grunting this station into orbit (and don't even ask about why the Khleb capsule doesn't have a service module) I find that I am unable to transfer crew into the inflatable lab. When I click on it during the transfer, it puts the crew in the Smoke module. Right click on the inflatable and there is no one there. I built some test craft on the ground and could not transfer any crew into either inflatable module. If it is attached to another module (such as the Smoke here) the crew goes there instead of into the inflatable module. If it's separated, it's as if it's not there to be transferred into.

Anyone else noticing this problem?

The inflatable hab is from CONTARES

[hraban]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

The inflatable hab is from CONTARES

Hello CobaltWolf,

the problem is, the inflatable Part of the Habitat has no collider. With the Docking Ports on the sides of the Airlock the collider of the Habitat is blocked. The only way to transfer Kerbals is to reach the collider of the Habitat. Remove the Docking Ports and it works.

With Version 1.6.1 the inflatable Habitat and Lab will be reworked and the inflatable Section has a own collider also comes Habitat and Lab  in 2 Versions. With and without Airlock.

Recommendation: Use until next update the plugin Ship Manifest for crew transfer.

Edited December 11, 2015 by hraban

[Beale]

18 hours ago, trippytripp said:

Its hard to see, but I really like the contrast that the green Soyuz has against the greyness of the other parts.

That's really pretty!

Nice job!

 

Salyut 1 OMS.

 

 

[Beale]

Because I don't know how to insert quotes into an existing post...

On 12/9/2015, 6:56:18, curtquarquesso said:

All looks very good! The slim tank indeed does make the section the correct size. Perfect.  Could one of the tanks have longer, more stream-lined hand rails? Just to give people options?

Thanks!

Not so sure on alternate rails, but I can see the square hand-holders to be a love/hate thing. They are based on some images of Salyut 7, but not sure if entirely accurate.

On 12/9/2015, 8:44:41, pTrevTrevs said:

Huh, I just used an entire paragraph to tell you to ditch the hatch and make it a utility compartment.

I suppose we have both now. The part with the Hatch, which can contain Kerbal-related things and the part without the hatch, which can contain the fuel-related things...

 

 

The Salyut revamp is steaming ahead!
Of course I will try to push this out before the vacations. While I am in such a station-y mood, the TKS will be a nice addition too...

Don't forget the Fuji! It is being remodeled slightly to accommodate a larger door.

Here's a nice size comparison. Because the flame of debate must be kindled.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Beale

[CaptKordite]

8 hours ago, hraban said:

With the Docking Ports on the sides of the Airlock the collider of the Habitat is blocked.

The ones I tested on the ground didn't have the docking ports on the side so that's not what's going on. And, oh, forgot they were Tantares.

[curtquarquesso]

8 hours ago, Beale said:

Here's a nice size comparison. Because the flame of debate must be kindled.

 

That's perfect. Great find. Go with that. Debate over. Heh. 

Edited December 12, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[MrMeeb]

Quick question...did the structural node rounded end-cap thing ever get released? I can't seem to find it 

Also, @curtquarquesso, what's happened to your TweakScale config? It was so useful

Edited December 12, 2015 by MrMeeb