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

[passinglurker]

9 minutes ago, captainradish said:

I'm more thinking that if IRL both cosmonauts can fit inside the orbital module then both kerbalnauts should be expected to as well. It can't be comfortable to ride all day inside the descent module.

You run into the helmet space issues again. The point of the orbital module is that it's supposed to be holding all the inner workings that couldn't be justified to fit in the decent module because there was two non disposable kerbals packed like sardines in there taking up all the internal volume.

[captainradish]

6 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

You run into the helmet space issues again. The point of the orbital module is that it's supposed to be holding all the inner workings that couldn't be justified to fit in the decent module because there was two non disposable kerbals packed like sardines in there taking up all the internal volume.

Agreed with reservations. One of the issues we run into here is there are many many different versions of the exact same craft IRL. Is the orbital module here modeled after an early or late unit? The early units were considerably more crowded than the late model units which functioned primarily as a docking collar for space stations. Thus, the early model units I can see you being exactly correct. However, the later models would be more open and could accommodate more people.

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, captainradish said:

Agreed with reservations. One of the issues we run into here is there are many many different versions of the exact same craft IRL. Is the orbital module here modeled after an early or late unit? The early units were considerably more crowded than the late model units which functioned primarily as a docking collar for space stations. Thus, the early model units I can see you being exactly correct. However, the later models would be more open and could accommodate more people.

I think fussing over the model year is a step to far over the grey blury line between kerbal and replica, and if we wanted to get nitpicky the older model soyuz could only carry two just like tantares anyway.

Also unlike real life where soyuz's life is extended and upgraded as one underfunded project after another fails to replace it the kerbals get a real working tks for all their 3 man pod with leg room needs.

[captainradish]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I think fussing over the model year is a step to far over the grey blury line between kerbal and replica, and if we wanted to get nitpicky the older model soyuz could only carry two just like tantares anyway.

Also unlike real life where soyuz's life is extended and upgraded as one underfunded project after another fails to replace it the kerbals get a real working tks for all their 3 man pod with leg room needs.

True enough. I'm just thinking about the kerbal's comfort over here.

I also tend to use the Soyuz for quite a while myself. I just prefer it over the TKS as a shuttle.

Edited April 1, 2016 by captainradish

[passinglurker]

2 minutes ago, captainradish said:

True enough. I'm just thinking about the kerbal's comfort over here.

Well turning back to the game balance angle how much does an orbital module mass again? Last I checked it was what 0.3? 0.5? Stuff two kerbals in there and it would be the king of crew cabins. Plain and simply over powered.

[captainradish]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

Well turning back to the game balance angle how much does an orbital module mass again? Last I checked it was what 0.3? 0.5? Stuff two kerbals in there and it would be the king of crew cabins. Plain and simply over powered.

The real life unit is really lightweight itself, but it wouldn't survive reentry like the KSP unit does. If the orbital modules were nerfed so they burn up, that would probably satisfy everyone.

[passinglurker]

13 minutes ago, captainradish said:

The real life unit is really lightweight itself, but it wouldn't survive reentry like the KSP unit does. If the orbital modules were nerfed so they burn up, that would probably satisfy everyone.

I don't think relying on survivability as a balance point is a good idea. It never stopped the mk1 lander can from being the king of command pods for example. No the orbital module really should just be built for 1 and if the crew juggle is to inconvenient then one should look at using a different or custom vehicle instead.

Edited April 1, 2016 by passinglurker

[captainradish]

6 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I don't think relying on survivability as a balance point is a good idea. It never stopped the mk1 lander can from being the king of command pods for example. No the orbital module really should just be built for 1 and if the crew juggle is to inconvenient then one should look at using different or custom vehicle instead.

I don't see the issue with wanting to be able to move both kerbals from the descent module to the orbital module while in orbit. I'm just saying that the orbital module should be used properly. I agree that it should serve as an airlock for the soyuz as that is what it's used for IRL. I play the game similarly to how a real rocket program would work. Thus, I never ever use an improper reentry vehicle.

I also often build custom vehicles but usually based off a base unit such as the soyuz. I'll run it with a different orbital module if I'm flying to the mun, for example.

Edited April 1, 2016 by captainradish

[passinglurker]

6 minutes ago, captainradish said:

I don't see the issue with wanting to be able to move both kerbals from the descent module to the orbital module while in orbit. I'm just saying that the orbital module should be used properly.

I don't see how breaking game balance and possibly the constraints of physics and engineering constitutes the proper use of an orbital module, but hey I could be wrong I'm rusty and out of the loop at least so let go over those issues.

1. ballance: I don't care if it is made out of dry rice paper 0.015 tons of mass per enclosed kerbal seat is too little. Sure you can config edit your game to your taste and convenience, but as the default that is presented to mix company this just comes across as poorly balanced.

2. seating: Fitting two chairs in a part this small where the kerbals won't clip into each other much is hard. just look at the descent module, but the orbital module has an extra problem. unlike the descent module the orbital module is meant to be passed through that means there has to be enough clearance between the seat, and the hatches in the top, bottom, and side of the vessel to allow a kerbal to squeeze around and clamber through. There is no way to fit two seats and provide the needed hatch clearance.

3. volume: Assuming you solve the seating problem it would be at the expense of the space needed to represent all of the crafts other internal workings like batteries and reaction wheels.

[captainradish]

So...you're arguing that we should be using the orbital module as an airlock (like real life), but (assuming one actually CAN put two cosmonauts in it in the first place) we shouldn't use it like IRL.

Look, I can see the point you're making. Kerbals are an odd shape. I fully agree that there are going to be logistical problems. I can also argue that there are easy ways around this: for example, remove the orbital reaction wheels entirely and move them to the service module. You have now removed some stuff.

As far as I can tell, the orbital module IRL is intended for use as an orbital living quarters. It has a usable space of 5 cubic meters whereas the descent module has a usable space of only 2.5 cubic meters. It has a freaking bathroom in it. The design is already there. All we would have to do is scale it.

[Svm420]

10 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I don't see how breaking game balance and possibly the constraints of physics and engineering constitutes the proper use of an orbital module, but hey I could be wrong I'm rusty and out of the loop at least so let go over those issues.

1. ballance: I don't care if it is made out of dry rice paper 0.015 tons of mass per enclosed kerbal seat is too little. Sure you can config edit your game to your taste and convenience, but as the default that is presented to mix company this just comes across as poorly balanced.

2. seating: Fitting two chairs in a part this small where the kerbals won't clip into each other much is hard. just look at the descent module, but the orbital module has an extra problem. unlike the descent module the orbital module is meant to be passed through that means there has to be enough clearance between the seat, and the hatches in the top, bottom, and side of the vessel to allow a kerbal to squeeze around and clamber through. There is no way to fit two seats and provide the needed hatch clearance.

3. volume: Assuming you solve the seating problem it would be at the expense of the space needed to represent all of the crafts other internal workings like batteries and reaction wheels.

Really the problem is the choice to have 2 kerbals in a 1.25m form factor. That's the price you pay to play nice with stock. Compromises have to be made and Beale has done the best he can with a difficult situation. 

[captainradish]

3 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

Really the problem is the choice to have 2 kerbals in a 1.25m form factor. That's the price you pay to play nice with stock. Compromises have to be made and Beale has done the best he can with a difficult situation. 

Ok, I can agree with this statement. I acknowledge there are sacrifices that need to be made to ramrod real life rocket parts into as cartoonish of a game as KSP. I'm just of the opinion that if you have a descent module that holds two kerbals (and two people IRL) that goes along with another part (that can presumably hold two people IRL) then the KSP version of that part should be able to hold two kerbals. Based on pictures I found the orbital module would be tight, but it is capable of holding two people with more comfort than the descent block could. Don't forget, no one wore space suits inside the craft much after Vostok/Mercury/Gemini.

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

Really the problem is the choice to have 2 kerbals in a 1.25m form factor. That's the price you pay to play nice with stock. Compromises have to be made and Beale has done the best he can with a difficult situation. 

The descent module pulls it off just fine. It's not too light, realistically they only need to be able to transit through the top when performing an IVA transfer, and the any resources that don't fit in its volume can be offloaded onto the associated orbital module and service module parts. what we are talking about is giving the same seating capacity to the orbital module which as I explained above doesn't work so well. at least not in the same way it does for the descent module.

[captainradish]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

The descent module pulls it off just fine. It's not too light, realistically they only need to be able to transit through the top when performing an IVA transfer, and the any resources that don't fit in its volume can be offloaded onto the associated orbital module and service module parts. what we are talking about is giving the same seating capacity to the orbital module which as I explained above doesn't work so well. at least not in the same way it does for the descent module.

I can agree as the RL module doesn't have seats per-se. We need to get someone into this argument that actually does IVA designs. I just want to start my kerbals out in the descent module then move both of them into the orbital module when they get into space. My issue with the current design is honestly more that it bothers me I have to leave one of my kerbals in the descent module.

Edited April 1, 2016 by captainradish

[Tangle]

In regards to fitting lots of crew in small spaces: My headcanon is that kerbal helmets deflate and fold up into the collars. That's how they fit in the mk 1, and that's how a tweakscaled hitchiker can still carry 4. 

[Jabbman]

Beale, I would just like to chime in with the suggestion that the Tantares Descent Module and OM are both working fine for me and plenty others. They look and act well enough to be a balance between a Soyuz replica and a Kerbalised version of it.

As you mentioned previously, if people want a 3-Kerbal DM or a 2-Kerbal OM they simply have to alter the config file!

Keep up the god work!

[tjsnh]

So, relative to the discussion about the Soyuz/Tantares size and holding 2 or 3 crew, I just figured I'd throw in a few thoughts as this is something of a concern for me:

Kerbals are not Humans. Their heads are WAY too big for their torsos. Their space helmets are significantly wider, relative to their torso, than that of a human space helmet. A shape that fits three humans, scaled to Kerbal size, might not look right to fit even ONE Kerbal correctly.

I can live with that.

That said, the Soyuz DM at 1.25m is in my opinion too small for 3 Kerbals. I can live with having two in there, telling myself they're just cramped, but 3 is a stretch. I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit of "real world exact match" for the sake of playability and adaptation into the KSP universe.

When I play KSP, I often use a modulemanager config patch to scale the R-7 rocket parts, and the Soyuz parts (along with Vostok and a few other minor things like payload fairings), up to the 1.875m size. At this size, it is far more convincingly able to carry 2 Kerbals comfortably or three of them cramped. There are some occasional glitches and drawbacks to the rescale, but I can live with that. The major down side to re-scaling the Soyuz and R-7 parts is that they look out of whack when flying in proximity (say, docked to a station) to the TKS/VA or other parts. It's a give and take.

In the end, Beale had to pick a size to work with given the limitations of KSP and the goal of being "stock alike" (which, frankly, is one of the primary things that attracts so many of us to his parts!), and in my opinion the sacrifices and size/scale choices he has made haven't been inappropriate. After all , if we don't like it , we CAN simply change the configs.

[trooperMNG]

I think that the initial idea of making a stockalike Soyuz at 1.25 is pretty wrong, but the whole mod is based on this scale. And I'm really OK with it. Changing something would mean to change everything, from capsules to rockets. I, in fact, use a modified config for the DM, to enable the 3 kerbal crew. That's fine. No need for changes. @Beale 's work is astonishing, and a little detail like this can't change that. Anyway this is something that has been widely discussed earlier in this thread (and I think also on the dev thread) and Beale answered lots of times. Let's close this chapter!

[Beale]

21 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

I've been away from the thread for a while, but I'll chime in on the Grunt. 

Have you considered making the legs separate? That'd be a better solution than having both a three-legged and a four-legged Grunt. With 1.1 pre-release out, you can finally start making landing legs knowing that they're not going to be rendered obsolete any time soon. 

For the sample return capsule, (if planned) how a bout a tiny version of he Hamal descent capsule? Not sure at the moment what size would be best, but you could go down to 0.3125 like some of the parts in Taerobee are.

Separate legs could happen, but would lose out on some nice AO and etc.  

Since this new model is larger 0.9375m, scaled properly to the Fregat, the return capsule could be just plain old 0.625m

20 hours ago, captainradish said:

On the same note, I know it's not cannon, but can we get a version of the impactor that has a much much higher impact rating? When I first saw this thing I was thinking something along the lines of using it like a data retrieval pod that didn't need a chute. Suffice to say, my first trip with it ended up with it scattered across the landscape. I would love a version that can withstand very high speed 200 M/s+ impacts.

Which part do you mean? The Luna probe? (With the folding petals).

 

 

I'm not sure how the topic of seating has come up again, but I think the cutaway IVA view is a good example of why it is how it is and how it is not going to ever change.

LK looks pretty cool too, good example of why it is currently too big also!

 

 

Anyway!

The new tag system is excellent! It makes size sorting very useful!

What is nice, the search is not strict, 0.9 will bring the same results as typing 0.9375  

 

Edit:
More size housekeeping. Use editor filters  

Edited April 1, 2016 by Beale

[curtquarquesso]

31 minutes ago, Beale said:

Separate legs could happen, but would lose out on some nice AO and etc.  
Since this new model is larger 0.9375m, scaled properly to the Fregat, the return capsule could be just plain old 0.625m

I'm not sure how the topic of seating has come up again, but I think the cutaway IVA view is a good example of why it is how it is and how it is not going to ever change.
LK looks pretty cool too, good example of why it is currently too big also!

Anyway!
The new tag system is excellent! It makes size sorting very useful!
What is nice, the search is not strict, 0.9 will bring the same results as typing 0.9375  

Separate Legs Pros: 

• Adds another useful part to the Tantares catalog and stays true to the "lego-like" design philosophy.
• Provides alternative to the badly designed small stock landing legs. 
• Allows for proper part crash tolerance. Currently, the probe has a crash tolerance of 45, whether you land it upside down on it's sensitive side, or properly on its legs. 
• Allows for suspension so the part doesn't bounce like the current iteration does.
• Allows for proper friction definitions so the probe doesn't slide down gentle slopes like the current iteration does. 

Separate Legs Cons:

• No AO
• Increases vessel part count by 3-4 parts. 
• Not as quick and easy, and requires you to lean how wheels/legs work in 1.1

Return Capsule: 0.625m sounds too large, but I'll have to look at a diagram to see for sure. Either way, I think if you're going to revamp the Grunt, it needs the return capsule, and ascent stage. Tantares lacks small little probe parts. Paired with eventual 1.1 antenna relay changes, it could make sample return missions really cool.

Soyuz Crew Size: For a while, I thought it was an April Fool's joke on you...  I can't believe it's still debated. It's too small for three kerbals. All there is to it. 

Tag System:  Neat! It isn't possible to create a new bulkhead profile size, correct? That's defined by the game, and the game alone, right?

[captainradish]

56 minutes ago, Beale said:

Which part do you mean? The Luna probe? (With the folding petals).

Yes.

"This unfortunate space probe is designed to withstand a high-velocity impact onto a surface."

I would like this to be true. I know it's easy to simply edit the .cfg, but I think either the description needs edited or (preferably) the probe needs hardening.

4 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Soyuz Crew Size: For a while, I thought it was an April Fool's joke on you...  I can't believe it's still debated. It's too small for three kerbals. All there is to it. 

It's the eternal realism vs gameplay debate: the first model soyuz capsules carried three cosmonauts.

I agree with you that two is a good size. There are few capsules that are designed for two kerbalnauts.

[Beale]

8 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Separate Legs Pros: 

• Adds another useful part to the Tantares catalog and stays true to the "lego-like" design philosophy.
• Provides alternative to the badly designed small stock landing legs. 
• Allows for proper part crash tolerance. Currently, the probe has a crash tolerance of 45, whether you land it upside down on it's sensitive side, or properly on its legs. 
• Allows for suspension so the part doesn't bounce like the current iteration does.
• Allows for proper friction definitions so the probe doesn't slide down gentle slopes like the current iteration does. 

Separate Legs Cons:

• No AO
• Increases vessel part count by 3-4 parts. 
• Not as quick and easy, and requires you to lean how wheels/legs work in 1.1

Return Capsule: 0.625m sounds too large, but I'll have to look at a diagram to see for sure. Either way, I think if you're going to revamp the Grunt, it needs the return capsule, and ascent stage. Tantares lacks small little probe parts. Paired with eventual 1.1 antenna relay changes, it could make sample return missions really cool.

Soyuz Crew Size: For a while, I thought it was an April Fool's joke on you...  I can't believe it's still debated. It's too small for three kerbals. All there is to it. 

Tag System:  Neat! It isn't possible to create a new bulkhead profile size, correct? That's defined by the game, and the game alone, right?

Very convincing on the leg, I'll need to learn how the new system works (lurking on the modelling sub-forum, it looks very tricky!).  
Even a static leg is probably an option... maybe.

For bulkhead profiles, it is possible (kind of).
But, you cannot define the numeric diameter.

bulkheadProfiles = size0.5, srf

7 minutes ago, captainradish said:

Yes.

"This unfortunate space probe is designed to withstand a high-velocity impact onto a surface."

I would like this to be true. I know it's easy to simply edit the .cfg, but I think either the description needs edited or (preferably) the probe needs hardening.

You forgot the second part of that description "Just, make sure to slow it down a little first!"

I'm not sure how high it should be, the current impact velocity is 162km/h!  

The real probe only landed at 22km/h (and with airbags!).

Edited April 1, 2016 by Beale

[captainradish]

2 minutes ago, Beale said:

I'm not sure how high it should be, the current impact velocity is 162km/h!  

The real probe only landed at 22km/h (and with airbags!).

Again: gameplay vs realism.

I'd like to see one that has an impact velocity higher than terminal velocity. I'd like to use this thing to return science to Kerbin without any parachutes. As it is, I have to use a drogue chute, which isn't a particularly big deal, but I like the egg shape. It's currently kind-of pointless to use like IRL as it has no real built-in functionality (that I am aware of).

[Beale]

1 minute ago, captainradish said:

Again: gameplay vs realism.

I'd like to see one that has an impact velocity higher than terminal velocity. I'd like to use this thing to return science to Kerbin without any parachutes. As it is, I have to use a drogue chute, which isn't a particularly big deal, but I like the egg shape. It's currently kind-of pointless to use like IRL as it has no real built-in functionality (that I am aware of).

Fair point, I think that could be an interesting use for it.
Currently, it should have a use, with the "telemetry report" experiment, which is equivalent to half of a crew report IIRC.

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

 

[captainradish]

2 minutes ago, Beale said:

Fair point, I think that could be an interesting use for it.
Currently, it should have a use, with the "telemetry report" experiment, which is equivalent to half of a crew report IIRC.

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

 

This is true. It also has a built-in science container, an SAS, a reaction wheel, and it can survive reentry without any additional shielding. It's almost purpose-built to return science to Kerbin.

Edited April 1, 2016 by captainradish