bokrif Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 2 hours ago, tjsnh said: Its a new mod, he started it over from a "clean slate" It says the new tantares is not compatible with the old one. If it's a new mod, can you use it in parallel with the old one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf56 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Tantares + Bluedog Design Bereau + Kerbal Space Program =endless fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legoclone09 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, Shadow Wolf56 said: Tantares + Bluedog Design Bereau + Kerbal Space Program =endless fun Forgetting the visual mods! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf56 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, legoclone09 said: Forgetting the visual mods! +EVE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 12 hours ago, bokrif said: It says the new tantares is not compatible with the old one. If it's a new mod, can you use it in parallel with the old one? Kindof. Some of the parts in the "new" replace parts in the "old" so if you install both you'd want to manually delete the duplicate parts out of the "old" first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 23, 2016 Author Share Posted December 23, 2016 17 hours ago, SpaceToad said: Why is the new TantaresLV missing all the Soyuz stuff? Seems to have a lot less compared to old LV. This has been mentioned many, many times and is also in the readme and Spacedock... It's also called New TantaresLV It's also version 1.0 Merry Christmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeybafoey Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 46 minutes ago, Beale said: Merry Christmas. Buon Natale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 23, 2016 Author Share Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Joeybafoey said: Speaking of launch escape systems, if I made an LES for the N-1, would you add it to the mod? Something like this: I'll be moving onto these soon (But, if you want to make a model, I encourage you anyway - you might have fun doing it). Soyuz For the time being, ignoring 1.5m sizes, preferences? 1.875m Top. 1.25m Bottom. I had the idea maybe to do both, we then have chunky soyuz and slender soyuz. The more I look, 1.875m is pretty accurate... Edit: I forgot this was such a problem... The scale is a little bit off, but the end result is not so bad Edited December 23, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceToad Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Beale said: This has been mentioned many, many times and is also in the readme and Spacedock... It's also called New TantaresLV It's also version 1.0 Merry Christmas. Sorry, busy guy. Hopefully you add everything back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecookie Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Beale said: I encourage you to follow the plan, your parts are too thin, it makes the fairing holding the soyuz oversized on the top of that stick ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Beale said: Soyuz For the time being, ignoring 1.5m sizes, preferences? 1.875m Top. 1.25m Bottom. My ten cents, just bear with me as this rolls into a few other places. This is presuming that 1.5m is out of the question (though I think it would be the best option if the soyuz crew capsule stays 1.25m). Thoughts on the R7 stack (just calling it the R7 stack to distinguish it from the Soyuz crewed spacecraft, which I will call the Soyuz stack for now) being 1.875m: If the R7 stack goes up to 1.875 we gain a few things, and lose a few things. The fairing housing the Soyuz stack will "bulge" slightly less and look a lot more like the "real" launcher and spacecraft assembly. However, the engines and tanks will have slightly less utility value for use outside of the assembled R7 rocket. Upping the R7 to 1.875m would put it slightly more out of ratio to the Proton (presuming the proton stays 2.5 if/when it is eventually remade) compared to the current 1.25m R7 stack. It would also break compatibility with the Vostok (and other parts) from the "old" tantares mod. If the R7 stack stays 1.25m, the fairing stays "bulge-y" with the Soyuz spacecraft stack mounted inside it, but the parts retain their multi-use capability. What I would strongly caution against is having the top of the R7 stack cap off at 1.875 but the bottom of the core be 1.25m. The difference would be too drastic, and would look exceedingly odd. This is all presuming the Soyuz stack stays 1.25m. If the Soyuz spacecraft stack were scaled up to, say, 1.5m and the R7 booster stack scaled to 1.875m this would be an almost ideal solution for several reasons. It would make the Soyuz big enough to be modded for a crew of 3 without looking like a Tardis, but would allow the fairing off the R7 to "bulge" only a little bit and look a lot more like the "Real" booster+spacecraft assembly. Having the "top" and side-boosters as 1.5 and having the bottom "core" 1.25 (with a 1.25m soyuz spacecraft) would in my opinion be a great choice for a variety of reasons, BUT it also introduces an oddball size that isn't used for any other parts in the pack at the moment which I know you are very hesitant to do especially considering the lack of structural parts as size adapters, fairing bases, and so on. At the end of the day, I don't think there is an optimal solution given that the parts are meant to live in a larger world (the larger tantares mod, which contains more than JUST the R7 / Soyuz) and play nicely in that world. The key thing to keep in mind, which I think you do, is that the R7 rocket stack is going to sit below the Soyuz spacecraft stack and as such probably shouldn't look especially over/under sized compared to the Soyuz+fairing. The current sizes, based around a 1.25m spacecraft and 1.25m booster, work pretty well given the limitations of "playing nice" inside the game's parts ecosystem. Only change that formula if you are really sure. Edited December 24, 2016 by tjsnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeybafoey Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Beale said: preferences? Whatever is closer to real-scale is probably better for the rest of the parts in the long run. Edited December 24, 2016 by Joeybafoey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 27, 2016 Author Share Posted December 27, 2016 On 24/12/2016 at 3:00 AM, tjsnh said: Good words. Nice feedback there Because pictures say a thousand words my reply won't be so long (hooray for my fingers). I think yeah it is a bit of a fudge, but the end result is nice and fine. Thankfully, Current scale with the Proton is maintained (But, I will admit it is not perfect, but 'close enough'). Because I am only making the base tanks wider, but not taller. The bottom of the Soyuz now looks a whole lot more distinctive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 27, 2016 Share Posted December 27, 2016 7 hours ago, Beale said: Nice feedback there Because pictures say a thousand words my reply won't be so long (hooray for my fingers). I think yeah it is a bit of a fudge, but the end result is nice and fine. Thankfully, Current scale with the Proton is maintained (But, I will admit it is not perfect, but 'close enough'). Because I am only making the base tanks wider, but not taller. The bottom of the Soyuz now looks a whole lot more distinctive. Suggestion - consider having the tank not taper-off on the bottom as it does in these pictures, or perhaps have the bottom flare out in a shroud or something around the engine mounting. The one complaint I've had with the tantares R7 stack is that the bottom of the radial boosters flattens out instead of flaring out. The only real way to prevent that, that I can think of, would be to have the tank extend a bit beyond/around the mounting point for the engine in a shroud, or to have the engines which mount on the boosters be rather short. Or just have the engines include the flare shape, but it would prevent their use in other designs. Just 10 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeybafoey Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 Interesting idea related to Soyuz: maybe create a variant of the strapons that is thinner so six can fit around the central Soyuz tank with a central nuclear engine in the center: then you have YaKhR. Though not many resources exist on the whether or not this is true, in concept drawings it looks like the central tank is just a straight, longer variant of the central tank for the standard Soyuz. More info: http://www.astronautix.com/y/yakhr-2.html Staging would be set up as the strapons igniting first and, upon burnout, the nuclear one igniting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoFatalis Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 6 hours ago, Joeybafoey said: . I think that a 1.875 core would be more correct (it's says that the diameter of the core is the same as the boosters , 3.33 meters) also if the core would be straight then I think you could fit there 6 normal boosters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 This is what I was talking about in my last post, but was having a hard time articulating. Take a look at the bottom rocket, and how it "matches up" with the image in the middle compared to the top rocket. By shortening, or removing, the straight section at the bottom of the rocket it becomes a much closer match to the "real" one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, tjsnh said: This is what I was talking about in my last post, but was having a hard time articulating. Take a look at the bottom rocket, and how it "matches up" with the image in the middle compared to the top rocket. By shortening, or removing, the straight section at the bottom of the rocket it becomes a much closer match to the "real" one. It looks nice, but where do the engines go? They need to be straight really. Edited December 28, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Beale said: It looks nice, but where do the engines go? They need to be straight really. Flatter attachment plates like the old N1 frisbee engines? Attachment point slightly "up" inside the booster like behind a lip/hood or something? Where the dotted line indicates a recess up into the tank, and the green square is the engine part. The attachment point would be at the top of the green square in this pic, and the bottom of the tank forms a kind of fairing/lip around it. Not sure if I'm explaining what I'm thinking very well. Edited December 28, 2016 by tjsnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, tjsnh said: Flatter attachment plates like the old N1 frisbee engines? Attachment point slightly "up" inside the booster like behind a lip/hood or something? Where the dotted line indicates a recess up into the tank, and the green square is the engine part. Not sure if I'm explaining what I'm thinking very well. Thanks, you are very clear now. I'm not sold on the idea, it all becomes too specific. Maybe I will evaluate how it all looks once the parts are textured, then we can play around with nodes, etc. These will be pretty neat 1.875m engines, but you will have to use them in symmetry. Edited December 28, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Joeybafoey said: Interesting idea related to Soyuz: maybe create a variant of the strapons that is thinner so six can fit around the central Soyuz tank with a central nuclear engine in the center: then you have YaKhR. Though not many resources exist on the whether or not this is true, in concept drawings it looks like the central tank is just a straight, longer variant of the central tank for the standard Soyuz. More info: http://www.astronautix.com/y/yakhr-2.html Staging would be set up as the strapons igniting first and, upon burnout, the nuclear one igniting. Here's the new engines relocated around a 1.875m central tank. Edited December 28, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecookie Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) (This second stage needs to be larger.. please ;_; ) Edited December 28, 2016 by spacecookie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hraban Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, spacecookie said: (This second stage needs to be larger.. please ;_; ) Dont do that! Andegraf is not a good reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 13 minutes ago, spacecookie said: (This second stage needs to be larger.. please ;_; ) 5 minutes ago, hraban said: Dont do that! Andegraf is not a good reference. Andegraf is usually okay, but there are some oddities. The upper stage should be more 1.5m, but the difference is so small it looks fine with 1.25m diameter. The soyuz has wrap-around solar panels now, so can fit in much thinner fairing bases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecookie Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 It's really good to know that your new R-7 got a 1.5m upper stage Also may I suggest a small tweak for your soyuz docking antennas ? Maybe to be more angled when closed so the top of the fairing could be even sharpest 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.