Beale Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, lindemherz said: Hide contents Additionally, there are 4 more Z-pairs pointing towards the back on the base around the KDU (the Soyuz main engine). Try as I might, I couldn't find any more clear images of the back of the ship or even of Progress MS, either during processing or in orbit. Surprisingly enough, it seems the MS series doesn't have any skirt thrusters anymore; they have been quite conspicuous in the previous versions of Soyuz/Progress (and the MS thrusters seem to be the biggest ever), and unless they are hiding behind the "lollipop" antennae at the base of the skirt it'd be safe to say they are gone. That said, it seems the Z-aligned thrusters on the base are angled inwards, and may be playing a dual role, translating on the Z-axis when firing together, and pitching and yawing when used individually. RussianSpaceWeb does show skirt thrusters on their diagrams, but photos show nothing but thermal blankets on their supposed location. There are no thrusters on the orbital module; the only Soyuz to ever feature them was the LOK, and it carried its own tanks on the orbital module for that. 13 hours ago, Legcutter said: Forgive me for this, please https://goo.gl/photos/c8UH2c4bZz97zfRY9 Okay, how do they roll?! @lindemherz Great sources, many many thanks. But, I think it just raises more questions! I guess you could Yaw and Pitch with those centra thrusters too, but so close together the torque would be nothing (no redundancy too). 4 hours ago, Calvin_Maclure said: @Beale and whoever else thinks they have an answer Sooo... I'm in a bit of a pickle, Beale, and its all your fault! I apparently seem to have a fixation on using your parts to build... well... pretty damn much everything I do, apparently. So here's my situation: up to this point, I was on KSP 1.1.2 and now I'm upgrading (finally) to 1.2.2. So I downloaded the older and still compatible Tantares file ''Tantares Release 37.1'' and all is well, save the fact that I think you removed a few items from it at some point (Crater.Control, Fomalhaut.Science.A, Auva.LFO.A, Libra.LFO.B, ...)?? Anyways, that broke a few things, but nothing to scoff about. The issue is this, I was hoping to transition fully to the newest release of Tantares so that I can continue to stay up to date with KSP versions and due away with the old Tantares verion (even though it's still compatible) but as it turns out, that killed 79 of the 81 active flights I had and about 92% of all my builds were unavaible in the VAB/SPH. So, apparently, I use your stuff... like a lot... My concern is that unless I transition to the newest Tantares version, the ''Tantares Release 37.1'' I'm currently on in KSP 1.2.2 won't be compatible with subsequent KSP versions for too long and I'll be stuck or screwed. Besides rebuilding/hyper-editing everything back (which would be a pain to say the least), is there any way around this?? Cheers! If I think I understand, it's working for you now, but maybe worried it won't in future? Yeah, it's a tricky position, but not sure. The old version should keep working for quite some time (Basic parts mod with no dependancies). But, I'm not sure what I can offer I see two options: 79 of 81 fligths have an "electronic glitch" and stop responding. Huge set-back, but you will recover, we believe in you. Begin to maintain 37.1, it sounds a lot, but honestly probably not much needed, it works okay now I think? maybe minor config changes every few major KSP versions (There might no even be many more of them). You have me full and earnest support for anyone who wants to do this. All the best. @Deltac Beautiful station! I want to see it grow Edited June 6, 2017 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Dragon26 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Beale said: I see two options: 79 of 81 fligths have an "electronic glitch" and stop responding. Huge set-back, but you will recover, we believe in you. Begin to maintain 37.1, it sounds a lot, but honestly probably not much needed, it works okay now I think? maybe minor config changes every few major KSP versions (There might no even be many more of them). You have me full and earnest support for anyone who wants to do this. Personally, I would go with option 1 (as long as Jeb survives :P). True, I didn't have THAT many crafts with Tantares parts, but IMO they do make for nicer crafts than the 37.1 ones. I had to re-do the whole ROS of my ISS build and some other crafts though but it was worth it. Looks cleaner than it did previously I think: Btw: does anyone have a good reference/information concerning translation thruster placement on the Zvezda module? I kinda can only find the location of the roll and yaw thrusters Edited June 6, 2017 by Dark_Dragon26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRedTom Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dark_Dragon26 said: Btw: does anyone have a good reference/information concerning translation thruster placement on the Zvezda module? I kinda can only find the location of the roll and yaw thrusters This thread has been trawling Google looking for how the Soyuz rolls and now you want another?! I am so glad you asked for this because I hit the jackpot! Here you can see from these blueprints I found, Zvezda has 6 main groups of thrusters around her belt - 2 for Roll, 4 for Pitch and Yaw. The search for Prograde and Retrograde thrusters continues, unfortunately. Edit: The Pitch thruster packs are angled Prograde so maybe they were used? Maybe they used the big reboost engines for Prograde? Edited June 6, 2017 by TheRedTom ?Retrograde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) @TheRedTom @Dark_Dragon26 I think it's the case zvezda had no translation capabilities? Zarya handles the "active" side of docking while Zvezda sits pretty, same for previous MIR? Salyut cores with the IGLA system needed to make countermotions with the approaching craft, so I wonder what they had. Arrgh! It's a hornets nest, the RCS, thankfully there's a periscope to distract me. Awesome iss by the way! Edited June 6, 2017 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRedTom Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Beale said: @TheRedTom @Dark_Dragon26 I think it's the case zvezda had no translation capabilities? Zarya handles the "active" side of docking while Zvezda sits pretty, same for previous MIR? 1 Spoiler Seems that Zarya, has 4 pods of 2 types - 2 forward packs of 7 engines on either side of the docking module shown here, and 2 slightly smaller packs at the aft of 5 engines seen here just behind the side radiators. Spoiler From this image, I can't see any other thrusters on the Zenith. Wikipedia is no help 46 minutes ago, Beale said: Salyut cores with the IGLA system needed to make countermotions with the approaching craft, so I wonder what they had. 1 Looking at Kristall it appears to have the same thruster packs aft but slightly different fore thrusters Spoiler Edited June 6, 2017 by TheRedTom Formatting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindemherz Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 18 hours ago, Beale said: @TheRedTom Salyut cores with the IGLA system needed to make countermotions with the approaching craft, so I wonder what they had. AFAIK Salyut only needed to do attitude changes to point the docking port towards the approaching craft, with the translation in charge of the active craft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, lindemherz said: AFAIK Salyut only needed to do attitude changes to point the docking port towards the approaching craft, with the translation in charge of the active craft. Makes my life a lot easier Avoiding the bigger things (Pirs) and doing the little things. RCS Block and Mooring and Orientation Engine together at last. New & Old. The new nozzles are at a less extreme angle, which will be much better handled by KSP's rcs logic. Would this kind be useful? Edited June 7, 2017 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Beale said: Makes my life a lot easier Avoiding the bigger things (Pirs) and doing the little things. RCS Block and Mooring and Orientation Engine together at last. New & Old. The new nozzles are at a less extreme angle, which will be much better handled by KSP's rcs logic. Would this kind be useful? Modeling looks excellent. I really love the design and nozzle configuration. I've been majorly out of the loop, and this was the first I've seen of this model. My first thought when looking at the part was "huh, weird that he shaded the model, but didn't apply any textures or color." There definitely needs to be a contrast between the nozzles, and their housing. It has the appearance of an RCS nozzle made from clay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabbman Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 10 hours ago, Beale said: (Snip) Would this kind be useful? Yes! I tend to agree with Curt, the nozzles would benefit from being just a little darker. Looking great Beale-o! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-313 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 10 hours ago, Beale said: *snip* Would this kind be useful? Yesyesyesyesyes! And with a separate outwards-facing single-nozzle RCS unit the set would finally be complete. And *dreams* so much more convenient for constructing TKS-like RCS systems... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 10 hours ago, Jabbman said: Yes! I tend to agree with Curt, the nozzles would benefit from being just a little darker. Looking great Beale-o! I tend to agree with Curt and Jabbman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 18 hours ago, curtquarquesso said: Modeling looks excellent. I really love the design and nozzle configuration. I've been majorly out of the loop, and this was the first I've seen of this model. My first thought when looking at the part was "huh, weird that he shaded the model, but didn't apply any textures or color." There definitely needs to be a contrast between the nozzles, and their housing. It has the appearance of an RCS nozzle made from clay. Perhaps like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Dragon26 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 On 6.6.2017 at 11:56 PM, TheRedTom said: This thread has been trawling Google looking for how the Soyuz rolls and now you want another?! I am so glad you asked for this because I hit the jackpot! Here you can see from these blueprints I found, Zvezda has 6 main groups of thrusters around her belt - 2 for Roll, 4 for Pitch and Yaw. The search for Prograde and Retrograde thrusters continues, unfortunately. Edit: The Pitch thruster packs are angled Prograde so maybe they were used? Maybe they used the big reboost engines for Prograde? Much thanks for those detailed blueprints. That resolution was really useful (I've only seen smaller versions of one of those prints previously). But that seems to confirm that Zvezda (and the Mir Core Module too I'd assume since they're so similar) only have (had) the pitch, yaw & roll thrusters. On 7.6.2017 at 0:18 AM, Beale said: @TheRedTom @Dark_Dragon26 I think it's the case zvezda had no translation capabilities? Zarya handles the "active" side of docking while Zvezda sits pretty, same for previous MIR? Salyut cores with the IGLA system needed to make countermotions with the approaching craft, so I wonder what they had. That would make kinda sense, especially considering Zvezda has the passive docking port and taking a look at the thruster blocks on Zarya. The angled ones at the front and aft look like they can be used for translation sideways as well as prograde/retrograde movements if fired accordingly but that seems like it wouldn't really be fuel efficient if they basically have to cancel out prograde/retrograde movement to translate... Though that leaves me with a bit of a dilemma.... I placed some thrusters where those star mapping devices are located (which is a kinda useful location for prograde thrusters) but if I remove those (and those I placed for retrograde movements) that would leave a bit of the part count I could use to greeble my SM up a bit more. Taking a look at those detailed blueprints @TheRedTom provieded, that gives me a headache already. Seems I have quite a lot of greebling ahead of me On 7.6.2017 at 0:18 AM, Beale said: Arrgh! It's a hornets nest, the RCS, thankfully there's a periscope to distract me. Looking forward to that one already. Then Jebediah could finally see what he keeps crashing into all the time and why KSC sends him those humongous bills for trashing up their stations On 7.6.2017 at 0:18 AM, Beale said: Awesome iss by the way! Thanks. I tried to put quite a lot of attention into it with my FGB module. This time I'm even happy with the outcome of that. Though I've been using quite a bit of the Contares parts for the greebling (mostly antennas and external tanks). I found the monoprop tanks from Contares better fitting when putting 2 in front of each other, yours seemed a bit too long in that case plus Contares has ones with the long offset radiator pannels which give a nice fit against the docking compartment. That radially attached radiator is also quite nice looking... do you have any plans to include one of those yourself? Besides those I also found those TKS-style thruster blocks from Contares quite useful, they help save a lot on the part count compared to trying to replicate those with individually placed thrusters. That aside, the rest of my ROS is proudly built with Tantares parts almost exclusively! I even have a preliminary power module ready. I'm even still using your Cygnus (Phoenix) parts from 37.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notJebKerman Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Beale said: Perhaps like? To me, that's perfect. I use these thrusters on most of my spacecraft, not just the ones included in Tantares, so a neutral, stock-alike color scheme would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 More ProgressVostok: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3R0_0NL1N3 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 I think a good simplified version of the RCS would be to do the block for translation and the other thrusters in the skirt. It may not be wholly kerbal, but it's a good simplified design, even if it doesn't follow the MS exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBKerman Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 11 hours ago, Beale said: Perhaps like? With the darker nozzles, they look great. Like notJebKerman, I too use the thrusters on many non-Tantares crafts and the stockalike look makes them blend in nicely. 2 hours ago, IronCretin said: More ProgressVostok: That is awesome! Will the capsule have a working EVA hatch? I've written a config file for the old Vostok that adds an ejection seat via the Parachutes & Ejection Seats mod and would love to use it with your version, but it requires a hatch to function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NISSKEPCSIM Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: Have you made sure to set the cabin pressure to a manageable 8 psi? You don't want your station to... how do I put it... explosively decompress when transferring from one module to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Angry Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 On 08/06/2017 at 8:12 AM, Beale said: Would this kind be useful? Yes. Yes it would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) On 2017-6-8 at 8:03 PM, Dark_Dragon26 said: Thanks. I tried to put quite a lot of attention into it with my FGB module. This time I'm even happy with the outcome of that. Though I've been using quite a bit of the Contares parts for the greebling (mostly antennas and external tanks). I found the monoprop tanks from Contares better fitting when putting 2 in front of each other, yours seemed a bit too long in that case plus Contares has ones with the long offset radiator pannels which give a nice fit against the docking compartment. That radially attached radiator is also quite nice looking... do you have any plans to include one of those yourself? Besides those I also found those TKS-style thruster blocks from Contares quite useful, they help save a lot on the part count compared to trying to replicate those with individually placed thrusters. That aside, the rest of my ROS is proudly built with Tantares parts almost exclusively! I even have a preliminary power module ready. I'm even still using your Cygnus (Phoenix) parts from 37.1 Great feedback, many thanks. More radiators are on a to-do list (shorter variants, etc.). TKS thrusters would be very unique, I might like those to do. 18 hours ago, IronCretin said: More ProgressVostok: Beautiful! Only the top-antennas left to go. 5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: And the motivation to somehow clean up my textures a little gets greater Very nice. 24 minutes ago, Fly Angry said: Yes. Yes it would. GOOD BAM Edited June 9, 2017 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Beale said: Beautiful! Only the top-antennas left to go. Actually, the engine isn't finished yet, and I figure people can use the hoop antennas on the top for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Angry Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Beale said: GOOD BAM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Angry Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Also, just in case people think I've forgotten about the colour schemes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenex Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Fly Angry said: Also, just in case people think I've forgotten about the colour schemes.... Can I has pls? Edited June 10, 2017 by Drakenex 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.