AppleDavidJeans Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This picture I took while playing around in the VAB just gave me an idea:The FOBO lander could be, after scaling up to (2.5m or 1.25m? I'm leaning towards 2.5m) and its texture, and possibly model too, useful as a manned lunar lander stage, kinda like the Apollo Lunar Exploration Module lander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Oh, I almost forgot - please add some fuel into TLV LES. Currently it burns for half a second, which is barely enough to clear the rocket. I suggest quadrupling it at least (from 15 to 60), which allow a nice 2-second burn for safe escape.Fix'd Well, not quite 2 seconds, it is now 40 SF, burns for 1.7(?)My new space lab:http://i.imgur.com/MqysZXr.pngUnfourtantly bad action group planning meant my Fuji's service module was detached when I extended the solar panels on the lab. I'll have to use the ATV's engines to lower the orbit enough to let my kerbals reenter in the Fuji, and then hope I can reboost the station into orbit again with the ATV.Cool! I like these little scenarios.Send the Kerbal down in the ATV! It has the TWR. Unless you're using DRE.I managed to use the new Proton to send a TKS to Minmus and land it to fulfill a stations contract. I'm a fan!I'd be happy to share screenshots. What's the best service to use with this forum? imgur?What are you guys using in terms of separators or decouplers with the protons? The stock ones ruin the color scheme (and are quite ugly). I've been using the blue TR-XL separators, but at 900 a pop that's an expensive option since separators can't be recovered (even with stage recovery).It speaks volumes about balance! Still, cool! An umodified TKS or a "lander" one? I'd like to see Decouplers:I've made one.about the balancing issues of the Proton-redux:every russian/soviet/ukranian(...) rocket was/is slightly overpowered on liftoff compared to european or murrican counterparts. but yes 3000 on liftoff (for 20 tons) is overkill. why not aiming for something like thiswith a 21 ton payload and dV budget of 4500 m/s to 4700 m/s to reach a stable 75 x 75 kilometer orbit:first stage: TWR of 1.6 to 1.7 thrust ??second stage: TWR of 1.4 to 1.6 thrust ??thrist stage: thrust of ~300 for orbital insertion (similar to the real deal)i got these numbers after watching some KSP streams on KSP TV (mostly with Das Valdez, awesome guy). The "normal" two stage rocket for KSP should have ~ 4.500 m/s dV, frist stage TWR of ~ 1.7 and secodn stage TWR of ~1.5. This is pretty good and teh rocket roars to sky fast, but not to fast. So this could be used as a calculationbase for the new Proton. about engine weight:just go with 1.25 to 1.5 tons PER big nozzle. wich means the second stage engine could have a weight between 5 and 6 tons. why such numbers? i just compared it with the stock LVT 30 and 45. so one vissible engine of teh Proton which consists of a nozzle, turbopump and plumbing weights should be similar to the weight of the visual similar-sized stock counterparts.The numbers are good The trouble is, I have difficulty calculating the actual L. of fuel, KG of tanks and engines, ISP and thrust needed.After some more tweaking I'm pretty happy with the balance now, in it's current state, it's not so good for a Mun mission, bad choice, good for interplanetary probes and LKO, IMO more or less correct Beale, as much as I love the Russian pack theme, I think you need to add a few other rockets. Maybe some American ones, or an ESA one (for the ATV). Just a thought. And if you've ever considered making the Dragon... Heh.Anyway, I'm super-excited about the new Proton! It's awesome!Nah, there's enough stock-alike American rockets already - you've got nearly everything except maybe Atlas (its 1 1\2 stage design is hard to reproduce, so use FASA).I don't have the interest really .Nothing wrong with American and European rockets, just in general, I like the Russian stuff.This picture I took while playing around in the VAB just gave me an idea:http://i.imgur.com/Qpj0GgJ.pngThe FOBO lander could be, after scaling up to (2.5m or 1.25m? I'm leaning towards 2.5m) and its texture, and possibly model too, useful as a manned lunar lander stage, kinda like the Apollo Lunar Exploration Module lander.If you put rescaleFactor to 2.5m, combine with the small lander can = perfect mini-apollo-like Well, not perfect, not by a long shot. Edited January 7, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 It speaks volumes about balance! Still, cool! An umodified TKS or a "lander" one? I'd like to see Decouplers:I've made one.http://puu.sh/ecakP/e1d1c643c2.jpghttp://puu.sh/eck2j/40ae8d9dd6.jpgThank you for the decoupler!I sent two Protons to Minmus and got a screenshot of the result. I sent the first Proton with the lander, then sent another one with a V-C3 block. I used the ALN descent engine to drop a V-C3 block into a docking position onto the lander. It took a few tries! I had to fire the descent engine perfectly to stop the momentum exactly over the docking port, rotate the block perfectly, etc. As you can see, I stuck a fuel tank under the ALN engine because of the issue that others have mentioned here (not enough fuel for a ~3 second burn) and now I have a surplus of fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Just curious if you ever plan to revisit the VA capsule model. The model that comes in the pack seems to be a little short, and feels like it's too small to hold 3 kerbals (or two, really). It's the only one of your command pods which doesn't seem to quite fit the size/shape of the others. If you compare these two pictures to the VA in the pic directly above this post, it might make what I'm saying a little more clear : Trust me, I'm not complaining - this parts pack has completely changed the game for me - just asking the question if you plan to revisit the VA at any point, or any of the older parts really. Edited January 8, 2015 by tjsnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbobjebkirk Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 and feels like it's too small to hold 3 kerbals (or two, really). Actually, kerbals are pretty small, especially with their helmets off. The stock parts are way oversized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Actually, kerbals are pretty small, especially with their helmets off. The stock parts are way oversized.Well, even if so, the VA looks off-scale compared to the other parts and seems too "short" compared to the actual capsule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just curious if you ever plan to revisit the VA capsule model. The model that comes in the pack seems to be a little short, and feels like it's too small to hold 3 kerbals (or two, really). It's the only one of your command pods which doesn't seem to quite fit the size/shape of the others. If you compare these two pictures to the VA in the pic directly above this post, it might make what I'm saying a little more clear : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/TKS_cutaway.png/800px-TKS_cutaway.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Kosmos_1443_return_capsule.JPG/768px-Kosmos_1443_return_capsule.JPGTrust me, I'm not complaining - this parts pack has completely changed the game for me - just asking the question if you plan to revisit the VA at any point, or any of the older parts really.Yeah, lots of things need redoing. LK could probably do with a redesign, mostly to incorporate the detachable landing legs present in the real LK. It's good to see that Beale has started the process of modernizing and improving the parts, unlike some developers who just make a game or mod the way they want, and leave it at that. This mod and its maker definitely deserve more attention! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tygoo7 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Is there a config that makes it so the original ALV doesn't get overwritten? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobotsAndSpaceships Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 PPTS when? I demand it of you. That, and more probes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 PPTS when? I demand it of you. That, and more probes.Am I alone in not being enthusiastic for a PPTS? It just seems like yet another cone pod to me unless there is something innovative about it that I missed reading the articles on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobotsAndSpaceships Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Am I alone in not being enthusiastic for a PPTS? It just seems like yet another cone pod to me unless there is something innovative about it that I missed reading the articles on it.It looks pretty darn cool, thats why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 brown paint job=cool? beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess I certainly won't loose sleep if beale makes one I can always delete to save ram if I don't wind up using it I'm just saying in my eyes compared to the smexy rocketry the russians have turned out it looks kinda meh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobotsAndSpaceships Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 brown paint job=cool? beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess I certainly won't loose sleep if beale makes one I can always delete to save ram if I don't wind up using it I'm just saying in my eyes compared to the smexy rocketry the russians have turned out it looks kinda meh...I think the brown was just a placeholder for the model. I always thought that it looked very modern and stylish compared to the Soyuz and Orion, due to the tall capsule with the smaller service module. And those RCS ports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just FYI, the Odin from NovaPunch is pretty much stock-alike PPTS. The only drawback is that it doesn't support DRE (yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobotsAndSpaceships Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just FYI, the Odin from NovaPunch is pretty much stock-alike PPTS. The only drawback is that it doesn't support DRE (yet).Yeah, I tried it out a while ago, and never really liked it's texturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowWhite Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 brown paint job=cool? I want to beelive that this thing is not brown. There are some problems with PPTS CM. I really hope that they will be solved soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I want to beelive that this thing is not brown. http://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2012-04/1334268932_ppts.jpgThere are some problems with PPTS CM. I really hope that they will be solved soon.do those those problems have anything to do with the asymmetric RCS chin? *can't stop staring at chin* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimovski Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Uhh, how ugly. Soyuz is too beautiful and organic to be replaced with that... cone...EDIT:Does anyone know about a video or mp3 file with russian-speaking mission control during launch preparations of a rocket, or the launch itself? All I've found is a couple of sentences during Vostok-1 and Salyut-1 launches Edited January 8, 2015 by dimovski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartanChief Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You can try Roscosmos youtube channel and search for videos with words "ÃلĄÂú" for actual launches or "Òыòþ÷" for delivery to launch complex. But those mostly do not have separate audio channels for mission control and cosmonaut's voices, so they are mixed in with all the ambient noises. If that is problematic, try this collection by Sven Grahn (also used by Chatterer mod), they are a little clearer. It is mostly older stuff, from Soviet era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowWhite Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Does anyone know about a video or mp3 file with russian-speaking mission control during launch preparations of a rocket, or the launch itself? All I've found is a couple of sentences during Vostok-1 and Salyut-1 launches Take this: do those those problems have anything to do with the asymmetric RCS chin? *can't stop staring at chin*Yes.UPD: Everything is ok for now! Edited January 8, 2015 by SnowWhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardBoardBoxProcessor Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The original PPTS was supposed to land under it's own power like Dragon 2. Though, this after dropping the orbital propulsion unit which was between the lander and the heat shield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just curious if you ever plan to revisit the VA capsule model. The model that comes in the pack seems to be a little short, and feels like it's too small to hold 3 kerbals (or two, really). It's the only one of your command pods which doesn't seem to quite fit the size/shape of the others. If you compare these two pictures to the VA in the pic directly above this post, it might make what I'm saying a little more clear : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/TKS_cutaway.png/800px-TKS_cutaway.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Kosmos_1443_return_capsule.JPG/768px-Kosmos_1443_return_capsule.JPGTrust me, I'm not complaining - this parts pack has completely changed the game for me - just asking the question if you plan to revisit the VA at any point, or any of the older parts really.Well, even if so, the VA looks off-scale compared to the other parts and seems too "short" compared to the actual capsule.It's a perfectly valid critique to make.Basically, you notice the VA engine completes the "top" of the capsule? This was done to preserve standard part diameters at the nodes (0.625, 1.25, etc.).The rememdy, use the correct diameter for the VA engine "0.9375m" and the top of the VA capsule has a "0.9375m" top, then have adapters from this size to 0.625m and 1.25m for general use.I didn't think of that when first making it.Could even make a mini-part selection of "0.9375m" parts.Yeah, lots of things need redoing. LK could probably do with a redesign, mostly to incorporate the detachable landing legs present in the real LK. It's good to see that Beale has started the process of modernizing and improving the parts, unlike some developers who just make a game or mod the way they want, and leave it at that. This mod and its maker definitely deserve more attention!Thanks! The LK, yes, needs quite major work.But, I really mean major, so not for a little while.Is there a config that makes it so the original ALV doesn't get overwritten?There is, but it is a bit of a DIY, you need to rename the folders and part.cfg "name" values something else, as the new parts have the same names and folders.You could rename the parts ALV_Engine_tygooA, ALV_LFO_tygooA, etc... For example. Then they are safe from overwrites.If they do get overwritten, older versions are available from KerbalStuff.PPTS when? I demand it of you. That, and more probes.PPTS: SnowWhite is working on the models, which are coming along nicely. At the moment I focus on Energia, so...Uhh, how ugly. Soyuz is too beautiful and organic to be replaced with that... cone...EDIT:Does anyone know about a video or mp3 file with russian-speaking mission control during launch preparations of a rocket, or the launch itself? All I've found is a couple of sentences during Vostok-1 and Salyut-1 launches It is a less unique design than the Soyuz, I can agree with that.But, all good things must end, and the Soyuz will leave a service length and safety record (beyond a few early incidents) unlike any other spacecraft before it.The original PPTS was supposed to land under it's own power like Dragon 2. Though, this after dropping the orbital propulsion unit which was between the lander and the heat shield.Yeah!It's a really cool concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardBoardBoxProcessor Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 It is actually a really silly concept. Probably why they aren't bothering with it. The dragon you get all RCS thrusters, heatshield, tanks, etc etc back unharmed and no need to repack the chutes. However the PPTS shed all that so adding landing legs just to not deploy a parachute made no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niemand303 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Yay, Energia confirmed! Would like to try it. So much possibilities with the new stock Shuttle system. Meanwhile RSSA prepares to flyby Eve on a Salyut-derived system with 6500 m/s of DeltaV, using only 1 launch of every available rocket (Proton for Hab block, N-1 for heavy propulsion system and a Soyuz to transport crew):Javascript is disabled. View full albumSadly, soon after this triumph of Kerbiet Union, a shocking news were announced: failure while returning from Salyut station and a tragic death of first Kerbal in space, Hero of the Kerbiet Union Jebediah Kerman and a newly trained kerbonaut Patlock Kermin accompanying him in this flight. Edited January 8, 2015 by Niemand303 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Basically, you notice the VA engine completes the "top" of the capsule? This was done to preserve standard part diameters at the nodes (0.625, 1.25, etc.).The rememdy, use the correct diameter for the VA engine "0.9375m" and the top of the VA capsule has a "0.9375m" top, then have adapters from this size to 0.625m and 1.25m for general use.I didn't think of that when first making it.Could even make a mini-part selection of "0.9375m" parts.I did notice that, actually :-) It just seems that after detaching, or if used without the top engine, the VA looks so short that the crew would be packed in like cigars lol :-) I suspect tapering the "slope" of the capsule's exterior to taper to 1.25 (and just having the top engine slightly scaled up to start at 1.25) might not look too bad, or even look too "wrong" compared to the IRL design. Or maybe, as you mentioned, just having the junction between the top of the VA and the engine be 0.9365m (with, or without, other adaptors).Again, just random thoughts. 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.