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

[CobaltWolf]

Personally, this is the most convincing case for rescaling Black Arrow IMO.

[Beale]

On 2/17/2016 at 9:01 PM, InsaneDruid said:

Would be nice if you would switch to github. Its rather easy to do, you benefit from a great versioning tool and ckan integration is also easy. The guys from ckan have a perfect tutorial and are really fast & helpful. I switched two days ago and even host my own netkan in my repository which gives me full control over the ckan integration without the need for making a pull request each time I want a little change. Which helps them and me

I'll take a look  

19 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Personally, this is the most convincing case for rescaling Black Arrow IMO.

I'd rather rescale the Black prince to 2.5m, no matter how detached from the common scale that is.

But, that is such a cool launch vehicle!  

20 hours ago, Wuwuk said:

Ok.

Should be on CKAN now, I think...

 

Spacedock

I've uploaded both mods to spacedock for the time being.

Tantares

TantaresLV

Edited February 19, 2016 by Beale

[NeoFatalis]

Is that only me or the LK looks huuuuge compared to the scale of other parts and the kerbals themselves? or is that because of balancing ?

images

Edited February 19, 2016 by IsimonZx

[InsaneDruid]

Its not only you. It is huge. Far to huge. Was discussed before. I fixed it for me with my own little tweakscale and model-scale integration for the LK parts.

[Beale]

22 minutes ago, IsimonZx said:

Is that only me or the LK looks huuuuge compared to the scale of other parts and the kerbals themselves? or is that because of balancing ?

images

4 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

Its not only you. It is huge. Far to huge. Was discussed before. I fixed it for me with my own little tweakscale and model-scale integration for the LK parts.

I know it is too big, but what is the correct size for it?  

 

[InsaneDruid]

I change the Libra_Crew_A like this:

    @MODEL
    {
        @scale = 0.9375, 0.9375, 0.9375
    }
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0,  -0.6328125, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
    @node_stack_top    = 0.0,   0.7209375, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

And adjust the rest via tweakscale.

This was done just eyeballing it.

The real LK had a height (with legs retracted to the stored position, measuring from the feet up to the kontakt interface plate) of 5397mm, and astronautix states something like Diameter: 2.25 m (bot for height, only 5.2 m)

The LOK should be 10.06m long.

 

It has to fit well within the diameter of the block-d

 

[NeoFatalis]

 

16 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

I change the Libra_Crew_A like this:

    @MODEL
    {
        @scale = 0.9375, 0.9375, 0.9375
    }
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0,  -0.6328125, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
    @node_stack_top    = 0.0,   0.7209375, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

And adjust the rest via tweakscale.

This was done just eyeballing it.

The real LK had a height (with legs retracted to the stored position, measuring from the feet up to the kontakt interface plate) of 5397mm, and astronautix states something like Diameter: 2.25 m (bot for height, only 5.2 m)

The LOK should be 10.06m long.

 

It has to fit well within the diameter of the block-d

 

I played a bit with tweakscale now and I have also came to the conclusion that 0.9375 is far more better than the normal one...

[InsaneDruid]

Afair i had the other parts to something like .75% This messes up the Interface between the capsule and the tank due to the different scales, but I had it clipped in a bit via the offset tool.

[curtquarquesso]

23 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Personally, this is the most convincing case for rescaling Black Arrow IMO.

Heh. Very much like Russian nesting dolls. Rocket in a rocket in a rocket?

Blue Streak would be best with a 1.875m first stage, and a 1.25m second stage. 

Black Arrow's first stage should be 1.25m, the second stage is closest to 0.9375m, and 0.625m is about as good as you'll get for Waxwing. Currently, Tantares doesn't have any truly tiny, early-game launchers, so that'd be really nice.

4 hours ago, Beale said:

I'll take a look  
I'd rather rescale the Black prince to 2.5m, no matter how detached from the common scale that is.
But, that is such a cool launch vehicle!  

There aren't too many problems with making the British rockets inaccurate. Because they don't have bunch of stuff to scale against, or vehicles to be compatible with, they're fun no matter what size really.

Here's a quick mockup! 

The only issue, is that it's totally unflyable. The Blue Streak Warden  rocket engine has no ability to gimbal at all, and the only torque present is on the Prospero payload itself, so there's no way to control it. Apparently, these engines didn't gimbal, so much as they swiveled, to vector thrust, but I don't know how to make that work in Unity, so it'd probably just be better to give them a few degrees of gimbal to make this motor actually usable. 

The scales here are 1.875m Blue Streak, 1.25m Black Arrow S1, 0.9375m Black Arrow S2, and inside the payload fairing is the RLA Stockalike SMAC Payload Assist motor scaled to 0.625m playing the part of the Waxwing kick stage, along with Prospero as the payload, scaled normally.

1 hour ago, IsimonZx said:

Is that only me or the LK looks huuuuge compared to the scale of other parts and the kerbals themselves? or is that because of balancing ? images

1 hour ago, InsaneDruid said:

Its not only you. It is huge. Far to huge. Was discussed before. I fixed it for me with my own little tweakscale and model-scale integration for the LK parts.

1 hour ago, Beale said:

I know it is too big, but what is the correct size for it?  

@InsaneDruid is correct. Rescaling the LK and all its parts down to 0.9375m using the Tweakscale config makes it much easier to stack on the N-1. It's also less mass to take to the moon, or wherever you're going, and it's more practical. 

As far as the N1, and the lunar parts go, I could probably mock up some parts at the correct scales against an orthographic, and find convenient sizes for the stages. I would wait for a while before messing with N1 though. It's a lot of work, and there's so much else to do.

[CobaltWolf]

Ooph, I like it. For what it's worth, I've had to stick the Atlas in generalRocketry so the progression wouldn't be awful if Black Arrow was 1.25m in basicRocketry.

Here's some more images from that thread, which seems to be some sort of alt fiction about... Lucille Ball? From I Love Lucy? Or something?

[Beale]

4 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

 

The only issue, is that it's totally unflyable. The Blue Streak Warden  rocket engine has no ability to gimbal at all, and the only torque present is on the Prospero payload itself, so there's no way to control it. Apparently, these engines didn't gimbal, so much as they swiveled, to vector thrust, but I don't know how to make that work in Unity, so it'd probably just be better to give them a few degrees of gimbal to make this motor actually usable. 

The scales here are 1.875m Blue Streak, 1.25m Black Arrow S1, 0.9375m Black Arrow S2, and inside the payload fairing is the RLA Stockalike SMAC Payload Assist motor scaled to 0.625m playing the part of the Waxwing kick stage, along with Prospero as the payload, scaled normally.

 

Gimbals! Yes I have forgotten to add them for so long! No mystery I never use the rocket...

Okay, I like the scale a lot!  

4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Ooph, I like it. For what it's worth, I've had to stick the Atlas in generalRocketry so the progression wouldn't be awful if Black Arrow was 1.25m in basicRocketry.

Here's some more images from that thread, which seems to be some sort of alt fiction about... Lucille Ball? From I Love Lucy? Or something?

I love the renders! Great inspiration!

 

 

Gemini RCS

Question: Real Gemini does not have forward RCS thrusters, only main engine. Should Service module be configured as RCS thrusters (for easier docking).

I did a rendezvous with a Toybox, then managed to cram the Gemini inside the cargo hold, it's not very big!

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Beale

[curtquarquesso]

21 minutes ago, Beale said:

Gemini RCS vi piace?

Question: Real Gemini does not have forward RCS thrusters, only main engine. Should Service module be configured as RCS thrusters (for easier docking).
I did a rendezvous with a Toybox, then managed to cram the Gemini inside the cargo hold, it's not very big!

These reference images should answer that question:

Spoiler

The quad you have is simplified, but that's probably better for part counts, and useful for all kinds of things. Because the stock linear RCS ports suck, perhaps making a pretty, somewhat flush linear RCS port would be a good solution? Then people can lay out their RCS setup however they want.

The other obvious part to make would be a dual-nozzled 45º RCS block, as seen on the very rear lip of the service module.

As you have it currently, you have the main engines where the rear-facing RCS port should be, which is probably fine. I would make the FX for the main engines the white wispy hypergolic effect, and call it a "dual-mode" hypergolic motor. Take out all the LFO, and make it all MonoPropellant. It'll be much more efficient that way. Could you just put both thrustTransforms in the same place? 

Edited February 19, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[Beale]

Quote

The quad you have is simplified, but that's probably better for part counts, and useful for all kinds of things. Because the stock linear RCS ports suck, perhaps making a pretty, somewhat flush linear RCS port would be a good solution? Then people can lay out their RCS setup however they want.

The other obvious part to make would be a dual-nozzled 45º RCS block, as seen on the very rear lip of the service module.

As you have it currently, you have the main engines where the rear-facing RCS port should be, which is probably fine. I would make the FX for the main engines the white wispy hypergolic effect, and call it a "dual-mode" hypergolic motor. Take out all the LFO, and make it all MonoPropellant. It'll be much more efficient that way. Could you just put both thrustTransforms in the same place? 

Thanks for the advice  

Here it is:

GEMINI BETA 2

Place the folder "McDonnell" inside GameData.

Should be a lot better balanced than the last release.

The nose RCS is disabled by default, you must enable it in flight (This is accurate to IRL?).

Vanity shots:

Trying a normal-map.

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Beale

[tjsnh]

Dont know if it's a known issue, but the aerodynamics of the parachute for the new revised gemini beta are .. a bit off .. resulting in krakeny horizontal flight when deployed.

 

[Beale]

2 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

Dont know if it's a known issue, but the aerodynamics of the parachute for the new revised gemini beta are .. a bit off .. resulting in krakeny horizontal flight when deployed.

 

Yes, I've noticed this.

I thought it was a Drag-Cube error, but apparently not...

Any ideas?

[curtquarquesso]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

Trying a normal-map.

YES. If you're going to normal map anything, normal map the capsule itself. Ven's revamp of the stock Mk1 pod is a good look to target, even though I know that it needs to somewhat match BDB's style. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[Svm420]

Looking good @Beale. Very excited to see Big G!

Edited February 20, 2016 by Svm420

[CobaltWolf]

49 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

YES. If you're going to normal map anything, normal map the capsule itself. Ven's revamp of the stock Mk1 pod is an target look, even though I know that it needs to somewhat match BDB's style. 

I was just going to edit the textures for the BDB release anyways, so go nuts.

[hraban]

Hello Beale,

the parachute of McDonnel loses contact with the capsule when triggered in the correct height. It is not nice to look at when the capsule dive unrestrained to the ground just the parachute saves only himself.

to add in

_Gemini_Parachute_A.cfg

bodyLiftMultiplier = 0
childStageOffset = 1

That solve the Parachute-Problem!

For the decoupling of the Service Modules your technician should also once again revise the manual
 

Effective technology goes beyond beautiful appearance. If everything works, you can leave you with ink and brush

Edited February 20, 2016 by hraban

[tjsnh]

Are there plans to make a small 1.5-1.875 (or to 2.5) adapter for the new gemini capsule for use without the service module? (maybe a decoupler that doubles as a size adaptor up to 1.875?)
Specifically I'm thinking about things like the gemini direct-assent proposals for lunar missions back in the early 60s

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by tjsnh

[Beale]

3 hours ago, hraban said:

Hello Beale,

the parachute of McDonnel loses contact with the capsule when triggered in the correct height. It is not nice to look at when the capsule dive unrestrained to the ground just the parachute saves only himself.

to add in

_Gemini_Parachute_A.cfg

bodyLiftMultiplier = 0
childStageOffset = 1

That solve the Parachute-Problem!

For the decoupling of the Service Modules your technician should also once again revise the manual
 

Effective technology goes beyond beautiful appearance. If everything works, you can leave you with ink and brush

Thanks! I'll give it a try.

For the service module, how do you think about a docking-node instead of decoupler? 

59 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

Are there plans to make a small 1.5-1.875 (or to 2.5) adapter for the new gemini capsule for use without the service module?
Specifically I'm thinking about things like the gemini direct-assent proposals for lunar missions back in the early 60s

Got any pictures?  

 

Interesting Thing.

I thought I would share a potentially interesting solution to a part problem.

The Black Knight rocket motor is contained inside a frustum fairing (here 0.9375m -> 1.25m).

So What to do here is simple correct? Just make the frustum part a ModuleJettison, you then have a nice setup.
Wrong!
Fairings are toggle-able now! If you toggle it in a stack, you will have floating parts!

Solution!

Make two fairings, one is toggle-able (The outer shell), and the other only left behind on stage separation.

This is possible with the allowShroudToggle variable!

[tjsnh]

3 minutes ago, Beale said:

Got any pictures?

These projects: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/bygemoon.htm

Some example renditions:

 

I've been able to get some pretty slick re-creations of these with the existing tantares gemini and stock/existing-in-tantares parts. A new size gemini capsule will still be great for them, but a small size adaptor (again, maybe a decoupler that doubles as an adaptor up to 1.875) would be needed.

[Cdodders]

12 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

These projects: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/bygemoon.htm

Some example renditions:

 

I've been able to get some pretty slick re-creations of these with the existing tantares gemini and stock/existing-in-tantares parts. A new size gemini capsule will still be great for them, but a small size adaptor (again, maybe a decoupler that doubles as an adaptor up to 1.875) would be needed.

Imagine being in that tiny Gemini capsule for over a week...

Bet the Astronauts were glad they went with Apollo instead

[curtquarquesso]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

Interesting Thing.
I thought I would share a potentially interesting solution to a part problem. The Black Knight rocket motor is contained inside a frustum fairing (here 0.9375m -> 1.25m).

So What to do here is simple correct? Just make the frustum part a ModuleJettison, you then have a nice setup.
Wrong!
Fairings are toggle-able now! If you toggle it in a stack, you will have floating parts!

Solution!
Make two fairings, one is toggle-able (The outer shell), and the other only left behind on stage separation. This is possible with the allowShroudToggle variable!

Hmm. This is interesting. Ok... How many toggleable shrouds can a part have? How are they all defined in the .cfg and in Unity? I can't quite tell what the non-toggleable interstage looks like. Is it a truss structure or something? 

I ran into some of this while working on an interstage system to work between Antares and the Castor motor. When I have some time, I'll send you some screens. Tricky stuff... If Squad would just allow toggling between different meshes for fairings, shrouds, and interstages, and toggles on how they jettison, and from what end, things would be much easier. 

[Beale]

7 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Hmm. This is interesting. Ok... How many toggleable shrouds can a part have? How are they all defined in the .cfg and in Unity? I can't quite tell what the non-toggleable interstage looks like. Is it a truss structure or something? 

I ran into some of this while working on an interstage system to work between Antares and the Castor motor. When I have some time, I'll send you some screens. Tricky stuff... If Squad would just allow toggling between different meshes for fairings, shrouds, and interstages, and toggles on how they jettison, and from what end, things would be much easier. 

It's a simple frame  

For the other questions, I will have to return to you - but it will require both Unity and config work.