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

[tjsnh]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

Proton

So I am revamping this launcher, but I think the current proportions are wrong.

• Maintain compatibility with old saves, keep wrong proportions?
• Make more accurate proportions?

The Proton is probably one of the few remaining craft that is in the wrong proportions, all others now are very accurate I think.

IMHO the second stage tank is slightly long compared to the "real world" dimensions. Other than that, the sizes/dimensions seem pretty solid. The overall height of the rocket will vary big-time based on payload (just like the real thing) and can get pretty seriously wobbly even with a light payload - so if a revamp is done, consider seeing if structural stability can be enhanced somewhat (maybe it's the decouplers or engine fairings?) as I end up having to use a pretty good amount of struts to keep it stable.

Just random thoughts.

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, tjsnh said:

IMHO the second stage tank is slightly long compared to the "real world" dimensions. Other than that, the sizes/dimensions seem pretty solid. The overall height of the rocket will vary big-time based on payload (just like the real thing) and can get pretty seriously wobbly even with a light payload - so if a revamp is done, consider seeing if structural stability can be enhanced somewhat (maybe it's the decouplers or engine fairings?) as I end up having to use a pretty good amount of struts to keep it stable.

Just random thoughts.

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement doesn't help?

[VenomousRequiem]

I say fix the proportions on the current proton. It's not like it'll break many saves. Who keeps an expandable rocket floating around anyways? 

The most notable thing I think that needs to be changed is the position of the engines on the first stage. They need to be scooted in towards the centre. And then the little spoiler things around the first stage engines taper inward irl, yours taper outward. 

Just my 2 cents. :3 

[Foxxonius Augustus]

12 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I say fix the proportions on the current proton. It's not like it'll break many saves. Who keeps an expandable rocket floating around anyways? 

~snip~

Just my 2 cents. :3 

I shall add mine to make 4. I will just point out that I for one have used the third stage tank extensively in service modules for orbiters, as we as in fuel depots both on the ground and in orbit. The same go's for (to a much lesser extent) the second stage tank.

[VenomousRequiem]

56 minutes ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

I shall add mine to make 4. I will just point out that I for one have used the third stage tank extensively in service modules for orbiters, as we as in fuel depots both on the ground and in orbit. The same go's for (to a much lesser extent) the second stage tank.

Oh, pfft, how could I be so absent minded. I use the third stage tank for a few things myself. I never really play the game in game modes where losing a particular part will destroy the entire save, so I guess it just doesn't matter to me. But that seems self centred, no? So I'm just going to let everyone else the proportions, but my statement about the first stage engine remains the same! 

Update: HooooOOOooooOOOoOo buddy. I just realized the exsistance of the "unflown" section of the Russian rockets on Andegraf.... Good god... We need some of THAT.

Edited February 8, 2016 by VenomousRequiem

[Foxxonius Augustus]

2 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Oh, pfft, how could I be so absent minded. I use the third stage tank for a few things myself. I never really play the game in game modes where losing a particular part will destroy the entire save, so I guess it just doesn't matter to me. But that seems self centred, no? So I'm just going to let everyone else the proportions, but my statement about the first stage engine remains the same! 

Update: HooooOOOooooOOOoOo buddy. I just realized the exsistance of the "unflown" section of the Russian rockets on Andegraf.... Good god... We need some of THAT.

Yeah the first stage is really only useful as a disposable launcher and your recommendations are dead on. As for the "unflown" section, you can get the Vulkan from another mod Beale develops for, AB Launchers.

EDIT: We definitely need a good UR-700/UR-700N though!

Edited February 8, 2016 by Foxxonius Augustus

[hraban]

8 hours ago, Beale said:

Proton

So I am revamping this launcher, but I think the current proportions are wrong.

• Maintain compatibility with old saves, keep wrong proportions?
• Make more accurate proportions?

The Proton is probably one of the few remaining craft that is in the wrong proportions, all others now are very accurate I think.

Hi Beale,

the proton (ALV) and Ariane 5 (CLV) urgently require the revision. Starting from the Soyuz launcher Ariane would traverse approximately 2.7m.
I played a little with CLV and put all the parts on a base diameter of 2.5m, then corrects the performance and adjusted the quantities of fuel and boost values corresponding to the scale. Works great and is an excellent fit for H2A and H2B from my Mod.

[VenomousRequiem]

If you re-make the CLV you'd better include the ATV config upper stage.

Update: Look what I did! 

I made an awesome direct-descent lander with some of the new TKS/Salyut parts! This is actually the first time I've bothered landing people on another celestial body in x3 scale KSP... it's a lot harder than stock.

Tbh I was desperate to use the new course correction engine. I don't know why, but I love it. It'll see many uses.

Edited February 8, 2016 by VenomousRequiem
did science

[tjsnh]

8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement doesn't help?

Haven't used it, I try to keep my mod count low.

[InsaneDruid]

11 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Yeah, but those were APAS ports, which are also in the pack in the right size.

They weren't. APAS was only used for ASTP (APAS-75), Buran-Mir (APAS-89), Shuttle-Mir (APAS-95) and some Sojus-based test flights.

The TKS-derived modules as well as the 37KE (Kwant) docked with the usual probe-and-drogue port to the DOS.

 

Fun Fact: the TKS double-cone is derived from the third stage of the proton. Its the tank butt of the udmh-compartment, with a docking port where the RD-0213 is  located on the Proton. The forward section is derived from the DOS middle section. (Source: Another ship, by I.Afanasev. "News of Cosmonautics")

[hraban]

5 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

If you re-make the CLV you'd better include the ATV config upper stage.

If Beale decides that Ariane 5 would rebuild in 2.5m Ø i can supply the upper stages. EPS / ESC-A and ESC-B are already built and will need "only" textures. ATV and CTV are already in Mod Contares. Only the original solar panels have yet to come.

[pTrevTrevs]

1 hour ago, InsaneDruid said:

They weren't. APAS was only used for ASTP (APAS-75), Buran-Mir (APAS-89), Shuttle-Mir (APAS-95) and some Sojus-based test flights.

The TKS-derived modules as well as the 37KE (Kwant) docked with the usual probe-and-drogue port to the DOS.

 

Fun Fact: the TKS double-cone is derived from the third stage of the proton. Its the tank butt of the udmh-compartment, with a docking port where the RD-0213 is  located on the Proton. The forward section is derived from the DOS middle section. (Source: Another ship, by I.Afanasev. "News of Cosmonautics")

Hang on, it looks like I was confused. I was thinking of the connections between Russian ISS modules and US ones, because those do use APAS ports.

Even the connections between the Russian modules themselves weren't any different from what was used on Soyuz, so we still have docking ports in the pack that will work for connecting Mir or Russian ISS modules.

[hanhan658]

The Return chute for Vostok didnt brake when deployed, and i smashed into the ground With the parachute. I think the reason is that the Realchute is downloaded...

[VenomousRequiem]

2 hours ago, hraban said:

If Beale decides that Ariane 5 would rebuild in 2.5m Ø i can supply the upper stages. EPS / ESC-A and ESC-B are already built and will need "only" textures. ATV and CTV are already in Mod Contares. Only the original solar panels have yet to come.

2.5m seems a little small, no? That's only 50% of the real one! It's nice to have it a little OP than way too small.. 

[spacecookie]

16 hours ago, Beale said:

 

Proton

So I am revamping this launcher

Cool news ! Do you plan to write " ALV II " ( or something else ) in the same vertical style than " PROTON " on the second stage ? With neat red letters that would be so great   I'm looking forward for updates !

PS: I'm having a lot of fun with the new alnair / TKS parts !

Greetings.

[Beale]

12 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

@Beale please share your trick. Also, I have noticed some inconsistencies lately with Andegraf. For example, the engines on Redstone and Atlas are wrong. It has been making me question the accuracy of the rest of the site.

Buried deep within (the very messy) source, find the table element containing the desired rocket, the background value contains a reference to the image used. The images directory of the site is forbidden, but you can link directly to the image!  

Why this is useful, for those wondering, some of the images are too large to be screen-captured (This method is also much quicker for mass-downloading).

For accuracy, it's true, I have noticed a few problems myself.
But, I think general sizing and proportions is very good source, if not details like engines.

 

12 hours ago, tjsnh said:

IMHO the second stage tank is slightly long compared to the "real world" dimensions. Other than that, the sizes/dimensions seem pretty solid. The overall height of the rocket will vary big-time based on payload (just like the real thing) and can get pretty seriously wobbly even with a light payload - so if a revamp is done, consider seeing if structural stability can be enhanced somewhat (maybe it's the decouplers or engine fairings?) as I end up having to use a pretty good amount of struts to keep it stable.

Just random thoughts.

11 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I say fix the proportions on the current proton. It's not like it'll break many saves. Who keeps an expandable rocket floating around anyways? 

The most notable thing I think that needs to be changed is the position of the engines on the first stage. They need to be scooted in towards the centre. And then the little spoiler things around the first stage engines taper inward irl, yours taper outward. 

Just my 2 cents. :3 

11 hours ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

I shall add mine to make 4. I will just point out that I for one have used the third stage tank extensively in service modules for orbiters, as we as in fuel depots both on the ground and in orbit. The same go's for (to a much lesser extent) the second stage tank.

Thanks for the feedback!  

The first stage I have found is also too long and slightly too thin. The taper on the radial tanks is also too short.

8 hours ago, hraban said:

Hi Beale,

the proton (ALV) and Ariane 5 (CLV) urgently require the revision. Starting from the Soyuz launcher Ariane would traverse approximately 2.7m.
I played a little with CLV and put all the parts on a base diameter of 2.5m, then corrects the performance and adjusted the quantities of fuel and boost values corresponding to the scale. Works great and is an excellent fit for H2A and H2B from my Mod.

How about 3.125m (new size ) for the Ariane? It is still incorrect, but closer to reality, still maintaining a "standard" size (or atleast, halfway between two standard sizes).

8 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I made an awesome direct-descent lander with some of the new TKS/Salyut parts! This is actually the first time I've bothered landing people on another celestial body in x3 scale KSP... it's a lot harder than stock.

Tbh I was desperate to use the new course correction engine. I don't know why, but I love it. It'll see many uses.

Cute! 

I am happy with the course-correction-engine, but I think some small details should be added to it.

34 minutes ago, hanhan658 said:

The Return chute for Vostok didnt brake when deployed, and i smashed into the ground With the parachute. I think the reason is that the Realchute is downloaded...

Try to delete the "PartDatabase.cfg" from your KSP directory.  

8 minutes ago, spacecookie said:

Cool news ! Do you plan to write " ALV II " ( or something else ) in the same vertical style than " PROTON " on the second stage ? With neat red letters that would be so great   I'm looking forward for updates !

PS: I'm having a lot of fun with the new alnair / TKS parts !

Greetings.

I think "ALV III"  

[hraban]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

How about 3.125m (new size ) for the Ariane? It is still incorrect, but closer to reality, still maintaining a "standard" size (or atleast, halfway between two standard sizes).

Take the middle with 3.0m Ø. For this diameter more then one rocket be found

[CobaltWolf]

5 hours ago, tjsnh said:

Haven't used it, I try to keep my mod count low.

I'm sorry but KJR is absolutely a must have mod, if only for performance reasons - you'll only have to use struts in extreme circumstances, allowing for much more realistic rockets. Heck, that along with Hyperedit and KER are the only mods I have on my dev install. I just bring it up because there's really no way for Beale to fix it on his end, but KJR is a universal fix for wiggly rockets from ANY mod.

[curtquarquesso]

On February 7, 2016 at 11:16 PM, davidy12 said:

So, @curtquarquesso, do you think you're going to update the tweak scale configs for the rockets? Also, we could use a tweak scale Antenna.

Yes. I'll try to as soon as I can.

22 hours ago, Beale said:

T A N T A R E S 33
A separate post for the LES was not a very good idea,because the release is ready now on Curse and KerbalStuff.

The two 1.25m ports were removed, as they no longer serve a purpose (The end of the TKS docking and service compartment is now a 0.9375m attachment point).
Similar ports may emerge in the future as CBMs, etc.

• - TKS Overhaul
• - Removed Alnair_Port_A*
• - Removed Alnair_Port_B*
• - Reduced thrust on Alnair_Engine_B

*Craft-Breaking!

Any bugs or feedback, let me know  

 

Whoo! 

22 hours ago, MK3424 said:

Perhaps, but they did use bigger docking ports for the coupling between MIR sections and ISS Russian sections...

 

21 hours ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

I'm not sure they did, still sad to see the 1.25m docking ports go. Now if I need to dock at 1.25m I'll have to resort to the awful stock one (they are so ugly). I suppose I will just re add them from an earlier version.

EDIT: I meant to ask this awhile ago but as it is release day there is no better time. I have been wanting to make sure that the RemoteTech config is up to date and as robust as it can be. Anyone who runs Tantares AND RemoteTech please be on the lookout for parts that don't work right, and let me know if you find one so I can fix it.

 

18 hours ago, Beale said:

Proton
So I am revamping this launcher, but I think the current proportions are wrong.

• Maintain compatibility with old saves, keep wrong proportions?
• Make more accurate proportions?

The Proton is probably one of the few remaining craft that is in the wrong proportions, all others now are very accurate I think.

Proton still needs to be 2.5m without a doubt, it's the height that needs tweaking. I'll send you an accurate diagram as soon as I can. I'm in the middle of cramming for an exam, so I'll get it to you sometime tomorrow.

18 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Yeah, but those were APAS ports, which are also in the pack in the right size.

Not quite. There's APAS, Probe and Drogue, and the Hybrid Probe and Drogue ports used on Zarya, Zvezda, Pirs, and Poisk. They are all compatible, but the collar is a larger diameter. The revamps of the ports I did are accurate for standard probe and drogue. I think it would make sense to make the full 0.9375m ports Beale did more like the wider diameter hybrid docking ports. Docking ports still need a lot of work.

15 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

@Beale please share your trick. Also, I have noticed some inconsistencies lately with Andegraf. For example, the engines on Redstone and Atlas are wrong. It has been making me question the accuracy of the rest of the site.

Andegraf is nice, but inaccurate in a lot of places. I agree. Be careful using this resource. 

14 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I say fix the proportions on the current proton. It's not like it'll break many saves. Who keeps an expandable rocket floating around anyways? 

The most notable thing I think that needs to be changed is the position of the engines on the first stage. They need to be scooted in towards the centre. And then the little spoiler things around the first stage engines taper inward irl, yours taper outward. 

Just my 2 cents. :3 

Agreed. Omelettes and eggs. I never have a problem with broken crafts really. I always favor improvement. I have more fun building than I do flying nowadays. 

10 hours ago, hraban said:

Hi Beale,

the proton (ALV) and Ariane 5 (CLV) urgently require the revision. Starting from the Soyuz launcher Ariane would traverse approximately 2.7m.
I played a little with CLV and put all the parts on a base diameter of 2.5m, then corrects the performance and adjusted the quantities of fuel and boost values corresponding to the scale. Works great and is an excellent fit for H2A and H2B from my Mod.

4 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Hang on, it looks like I was confused. I was thinking of the connections between Russian ISS modules and US ones, because those do use APAS ports.

Even the connections between the Russian modules themselves weren't any different from what was used on Soyuz, so we still have docking ports in the pack that will work for connecting Mir or Russian ISS modules.

2.5m is definitely too small for Ariane 5. Ariane would work best as a 3.0m launcher. You can't make it 2.7m, or the ATV barely fits. 

6 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

They weren't. APAS was only used for ASTP (APAS-75), Buran-Mir (APAS-89), Shuttle-Mir (APAS-95) and some Sojus-based test flights.

The TKS-derived modules as well as the 37KE (Kwant) docked with the usual probe-and-drogue port to the DOS.

 

Fun Fact: the TKS double-cone is derived from the third stage of the proton. Its the tank butt of the udmh-compartment, with a docking port where the RD-0213 is  located on the Proton. The forward section is derived from the DOS middle section. (Source: Another ship, by I.Afanasev. "News of Cosmonautics")

Good info.

2 hours ago, Beale said:

Buried deep within (the very messy) source, find the table element containing the desired rocket, the background value contains a reference to the image used. The images directory of the site is forbidden, but you can link directly to the image!  

Why this is useful, for those wondering, some of the images are too large to be screen-captured (This method is also much quicker for mass-downloading).

For accuracy, it's true, I have noticed a few problems myself.
But, I think general sizing and proportions is very good source, if not details like engines.

Thanks for the feedback!  

The first stage I have found is also too long and slightly too thin. The taper on the radial tanks is also too short.

How about 3.125m (new size ) for the Ariane? It is still incorrect, but closer to reality, still maintaining a "standard" size (or atleast, halfway between two standard sizes).

Cute! 

I am happy with the course-correction-engine, but I think some small details should be added to it.

Try to delete the "PartDatabase.cfg" from your KSP directory.  

I think "ALV III"  

3.125m wouldn't be bad for Ariane, but 3.0m would be perfect. I'd be happy with either really. I believe my TweakScale config allows for 3.0, and could easily be made to scale to 3.125m Play around with it and experiment.

Gemini Revamp:

There was talk of a Gemini revamp, so I solved the age-old Gemini dilemma, and it only requires one "off-size"

 

The divisions are these:

• Gemini_Port_A
  • 0.625m
• Gemini_Parachute_A
  • 0.625m
• Gemini_RCS_A
  • 0.625m
• Gemini_Crew_A
  • 0.625m x 1.5m
• Gemini_Engine_A
  • 1.5m x 1.875m

Not pictured are parts for Big G, MOL, and an alternate version of the service module split into two sections, a retro-propulsion module, and a life-support and experiment module. So, they could be done as one piece, or as two. Don't think too many people care.
The Big G crew compartment is 1.875m x 2.5m, the Big G service module is 2.5m x 3.75m, and the MOL crew compartment is a straight 1.875m compartment.

Dealing with conical frustums in Wings is maddening. I wish you could lock your slope angle, and then slide vertices along it, but alas, no. Trigonometry is required. I got lucky by just making loop cuts, and getting the correct loop diameter at the related height. Tricky stuff.

There are supporting orthographic drawings included in the Wings3D file. Should be uploaded to the drive now. As long as you don't change the overall dimensions, everything is cut up and scaled to avoid off-sizes, to make the slant-heights, and capsule slops, and part proportions as accurate as possible. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[OTmikhail]

@Beale As far as Proton is concerned I've felt like it was just right the way it is. But if you want to change the size that is cool too. I would recommend 3.0m diameter. But one thing that your Proton is missing is a Briz-M upper stage. I actually use the other Proton mod just for their Briz-M and thank you @InsaneDruid for your work on that Briz-M it's my most used rocket stage now. Although I replace the main engine every time

[curtquarquesso]

8 minutes ago, OTmikhail said:

@Beale As far as Proton is concerned I've felt like it was just right the way it is. But if you want to change the size that is cool too. I would recommend 3.0m diameter. But one thing that your Proton is missing is a Briz-M upper stage. I actually use the other Proton mod just for their Briz-M and thank you @InsaneDruid for your work on that Briz-M it's my most used rocket stage now. Although I replace the main engine every time

3.0m isn't possible. The current Mir modules are all 2.5m. It wouldn't be correctly scaled compared to them.

[hraban]

The Proton match with 1.875m or 2.0m good to Soyuz but then all Tantares Station- and TKS-Parts was to big.

BTW: You can use the Briz-M (simple model named as ZIRP-M) and Briz-KM (named as ZIRP-KM) with my Tantares addon mod CONTARES.

Edited February 8, 2016 by hraban

[spacecookie]

I made a Spektr spacecraft out of new Alnair pieces and diverse bluedogDB / stock parts to keep a stockalike appearance while being detailed .

I might build a new kerbomir

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by spacecookie

[hraban]

Hi Beale,

there is a Camera Focus error caused by the missing light animation in Alnair OB-L47 orbital block.

 

[VenomousRequiem]

When you make the new Gemini, will you please make the rendezvous engines and the retro pack separate? Also more realistic RCS set up?