_Augustus_ Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 34 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said: Btw, why is the LK a two kerb pod anyway? There were plans to somehow cram 2 cosmonauts in an LK (with nowhere near as much room) to use it as a lunar base ferry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneDruid Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Never heared of this. I know the LEK, the LK-3, the LK-700, but a two manned LK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said: Never heared of this. I know the LEK, the LK-3, the LK-700, but a two manned LK? Yep. They thought it would save money compared to the LEK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoFatalis Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 1 minute ago, _Augustus_ said: Yep. They thought it would save money compared to the LEK. I know that it won't be very realistic but why don't make a smaller LK that will seat one kerbonaut and bigger LK that will seat two..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 12 hours ago, curtquarquesso said: I think a Phobos Grunt return capsule would fill that niche. The Luna probe isn't meant for return. I don't think it even has ablator. The Luna probe wasn't made to be an impactor, or survive anything extreme. It would would decouple a few meters above the ground, and was intended to land land at a speed no greater than 6m/s (14mph) I think the Luna 9 probe needs to have a simple experiment on it, and the Phobos Grunt sample return capsule needs to be a science container only. I think for the sake of not being totally OP, they shouldn't have reaction wheels. The whole point of the Luna probe's petals is to right the probe on the surface. It makes gameplay more interesting. Crazy OP reaction wheels have seriously spoiled the KSP player base. Soyuz Docking Probes: When I went through the thread, and was racking my brain for what could be wrong, and what 1.1 could have broke. There's nothing remotely hacky about the Unity setup, just basic collider exploitation, so 1.1 shouldn't effect anything. Glad to find out it's a silly error, and not something big. Also, nudge, nudge, complete docking port revamp development roadmap, nudge, nudge... Cygnus: I love Black Cygnus! Clever! Most of the major components for the revamp are basically done, but I need a roadmap of what you want in order to finalize things. We need to decide on how the Antares revamp will be done, what the tolerance is for the off-size associated with Cygnus is, and how PBR stuff will be handled. In general, Tantares needs some dev road-mapping. We have a lot of half-finished revamps... A roadmap? I'll put together something like that Yes, lots of confusion right now on the progress of certain things (Fuji, what happened to that...). 2 hours ago, InsaneDruid said: Btw, why is the LK a two kerb pod anyway? When finishing the IVA, there was so much space left-over, so an extra seat could not hurt Really, it is because the current LK is far too big. Which might be fixed soon... @_Augustus_, I've seen the two-seat LK passed around a lot, and I once believed in the concept myself - but it seems to be nothing more than a note in a history book. If you have any other sources, that would be super helpful! Quote A two-crew version of the LK was studied for support of the Zvezda DLB lunar base planned after the initial landings. Space was so limited that special recesses would have to made in the cabin wall to accommodate the helmets of the two suited cosmonauts. However this was a moot point, since the increased payload required major modifications of the engines and propellant tanks, which were specifically designed for the single-crew, 5,500 kg LK. In the end it was decided that this was not practical. Larger lunar landers were instead designed by Korolev's bureau using Soyuz return capsules and descent stages copied from the American lunar module layout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneDruid Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 So they had the same problems with IVA spaces and helmets, too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 28 minutes ago, Beale said: A roadmap? I'll put together something like that Yes, lots of confusion right now on the progress of certain things (Fuji, what happened to that...). Hmm... if fuji was 1.875m it could fit in a mk2 cargo bay sideways... lift a lander base in the same cargo bay and a transfer stage on a separate launch and you have a low tech, career mode, kerbal version of the Early Lunar Access scheme! http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html but yeah what did ever happen to fuji? I'm surprised it wasn't released what I was gone? I'm sure you had your reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, passinglurker said: Hmm... if fuji was 1.875m it could fit in a mk2 cargo bay sideways... lift a lander base in the same cargo bay and a transfer stage on a separate launch and you have a low tech, career mode, kerbal version of the Early Lunar Access scheme! http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html but yeah what did ever happen to fuji? I'm surprised it wasn't released what I was gone? I'm sure you had your reasons. I got frustrated with several parts of the Fuji, mainly that I had UV unwrapped it... less than effectively. Then, more, I ran into problems with the fuel tanks. For the size, it is not really possible to make it smaller. At 2.5m there is only barely enough room for two Kerbals. More testing of Black arrow, I think its maximum payload is in the region of 500kg, but I may be wrong. Here is the latest files (Including the tag search functionality). Tag search "NLV" to get all the parts for Black Arrow, Black Knight, Black Prince and Waxwing Edited April 2, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 4 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: There were plans to somehow cram 2 cosmonauts in an LK (with nowhere near as much room) to use it as a lunar base ferry. I think its the LEK. The LK, HAD plans to carry 2 but was scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainradish Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, davidy12 said: I think its the LEK. The LK, HAD plans to carry 2 but was scrapped. I like the idea of a one-manned LK as it corresponds to the two-manned Soyuz. One kerbal goes to the moon and one stays in the ship and makes sure it doesn't explode or something. Edit: on a side note, I always liked the Soviet moon program. It seems like such a basic, no-frills kind of program. I mean, you had to eva to even get into the lander. Edited April 2, 2016 by captainradish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamerscircle Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Firstly - I want to apologize for the question that I am about to ask. I would like to say, that I have read through the past 10 post and didn't see the question or an answer, again I don't mean to be redundant. I am going to do an historical type career in KSp and would like to know if this mod is available for 1.1? thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, gamerscircle said: Firstly - I want to apologize for the question that I am about to ask. I would like to say, that I have read through the past 10 post and didn't see the question or an answer, again I don't mean to be redundant. I am going to do an historical type career in KSp and would like to know if this mod is available for 1.1? thank you Both mods work fine in 1.1, as far as I can tell. Minor things are missing, such as part tags and etc, but nothing that should interrupt your career game. Just keep an eye out on this thread as I will update both soon. Edited April 2, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainradish Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, gamerscircle said: Firstly - I want to apologize for the question that I am about to ask. I would like to say, that I have read through the past 10 post and didn't see the question or an answer, again I don't mean to be redundant. I am going to do an historical type career in KSp and would like to know if this mod is available for 1.1? thank you Mostly. I've seen issues with the antennas not transmitting science, but everything else seems to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 8 minutes ago, captainradish said: Mostly. I've seen issues with the antennas not transmitting science, but everything else seems to work. Can't seem to reproduce. Again, what problems are you having? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainradish Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Just now, Beale said: Can't seem to reproduce. Again, what problems are you having? The hoop antenna says it's transmitting science, then it doesn't. The science disappears rather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, captainradish said: The hoop antenna says it's transmitting science, then it doesn't. The science disappears rather. Okay, thanks. It looks like there are issues with all non-animated data transmitters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainradish Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, Beale said: Okay, thanks. It looks like there are issues with all non-animated data transmitters. Make the hoop antenna spin around like Robby the robot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamerscircle Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Beale said: Both mods work fine in 1.1, as far as I can tell. Minor things are missing, such as part tags and etc, but nothing that should interrupt your career game. Just keep an eye out on this thread as I will update both soon. Thanks - three more questions. Is this mod supported by KSP-AVC , the download link is current? [wait I see that it does go to spacedoc and not kerbal stuff] are the Vostok and Salyut supported? Edited April 2, 2016 by gamerscircle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 1 minute ago, gamerscircle said: Thanks - two more questions. Is this mod supported by KSP-AVC and the download link is current? [wait I see that it does go to spacedoc and not kerbal stuff] Yep, I still need to update the icons to say SpaceDock For KSP-AVC, no, it isn't supported. It is on CKAN, but I don't recommend using that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainradish Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Beale said: Yep, I still need to update the icons to say SpaceDock For KSP-AVC, no, it isn't supported. It is on CKAN, but I don't recommend using that. CKAN has always worked properly (for me) in the past. I'm curious why you don't recommend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, captainradish said: CKAN has always worked properly (for me) in the past. I'm curious why you don't recommend it. It has been a trend that weird errors have been reported when using the CKAN version. Now, I don't know what is the case, either: Tantares is configured wrong on CKAN (And I have no idea, nor do I have the enthusiasm to fix that). As has happened many times before CKAN has encouraged a person to download many many other mods (200 in one case, this literally happened) and then blame the resulting mess on Tantares (Which as a simple parts mod is a less chance of being true). It also cannot be exaggerated how helpful getting to know the KSP file structure can help you! You can fix and tweak things to your liking. Edited April 2, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I can confirm that everything works great in 1.1. Great job Beale! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainradish Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 44 minutes ago, Beale said: It has been a trend that weird errors have been reported when using the CKAN version. Now, I don't know what is the case, either: Tantares is configured wrong on CKAN (And I have no idea, nor do I have the enthusiasm to fix that). As has happened many times before CKAN has encouraged a person to download many many other mods (200 in one case, this literally happened) and then blame the resulting mess on Tantares (Which as a simple parts mod is a less chance of being true). It also cannot be exaggerated how helpful getting to know the KSP file structure can help you! You can fix and tweak things to your liking. I have installed Tantares many many times via CKAN and have never had any issues with it at all. I suspect the latter bullet to be more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) Reaction Wheel The first part to come through Unity 5 Just some more engines in the 0.9375 factor and you can build an entire rocket. Plans: 0.9375m Engine - Low Thrust 0.9375m Engine - High Thrust Edited April 2, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 FYI - some testing with tantares/tantaresLV in the 1.1prerelease (otherwise stock, no other mods or patches): R-7 significantly easier to fly than in 1.05 (without fins clipped into the tanks or any other tricks), both "sputnik" and "soyuz" configs. R-7 way, way, overpowered - worse than 1.05. "sputnik" config R-7 can boost a vostok into a 200km circular orbit without even using the wayfarer vostok stage. "soyuz" configuration can similarly boost a soyuz WITH R-7 upper stage into a 120km circular orbit BEFORE staging into the R-7 upper stage. With the upper stage, and without soyuz service module, it's easily capable of getting to Minmus. VA/Soyuz DMs re-enter like a charm. Performance is excellent. Vostok DM has thermal issues on re-entry, slightly worse than 1.05. Out of 10 re-entries with various profiles (angle between 10km and 30km) spontaneous explosion on 3 out of 10 attempts. 20km seems to be the "magic angle" for not overheating and exploding. Changing the part's max temp may resolve the issue. Aerodynamic breaking is LESS of a problem than 1.05, all 7 successful re-entry attempts slowed down enough to deploy the chute with altitude to spare. There were bugs staging into some non-engine parts. Mainly a couple of the decouplers, and the soyuz parachute. I had to right-click to use them, staging was ineffective - no idea why. No clipping/mesh issues with any parts, textures all loaded great (except one of the 3-panel solar panels, I suspect you already know about that one), docking ports seem to work, etc etc. Will probably do more testing and throw more random feedback tomorrow. 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.