nothingSpecial Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Progress LFO Tankshttp://puu.sh/kgVtl/bd32586dae.jpghttp://puu.sh/kgVWR/595bace3d5.jpgYiss. Oh yiss. How do they look with current Vostok engine model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Yiss. Oh yiss. How do they look with current Vostok engine model?Interesting combo!A shame it is a MonoPropellant engine, perhaps that should be changed. Edited September 19, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nothingSpecial Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Interesting combo!A shame it is a MonoPropellant engine, perhaps that should be changed.http://puu.sh/kh0sT/a3f3312125.jpghttp://puu.sh/kh0GG/20b4c8e808.jpgJust perfect. It should make a really nice modular design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah_Blade Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Interesting combo!A shame it is a MonoPropellant engine, perhaps that should be changed.http://puu.sh/kh0sT/a3f3312125.jpghttp://puu.sh/kh0GG/20b4c8e808.jpg I think the Vostok engine should remain as a monoprop,OR make it have multiple configurations like the R7 Boosters/Corealso Beale do plan on a Voskhod? Edited September 19, 2015 by Noah_Blade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Why not just make the progress tanks monoprop? I mean what do kerbal stations need to be resupplied with more often? Lfo (rarely used unless repositioning or serving as a large scale depot that would need a tanker way bigger than progress) or monoprop (docking!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budgie Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I really like the multiple configurations idea. Ideally, I'd suggest that mod that lets you get rid of tanks you don't use completely, or make combinations. But in the interest of avoiding mod reliance, I would be happy with the option to switch from LFO and monoprop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Well, there's an existing 1.875m to 1.25m adapter that takes care of any issues that might arise with the end bottom node of the PCM being 1.5m for starters.During this little demo I whipped up, I found out that they make awesome looking habitation modules...http://i.imgur.com/1PyRkD6l.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/Ii8pmUbl.pngAs previously stated, the bottom of the SM has a 1.5 to 1.25m fairing making it play nice with 1.25m parts. http://i.imgur.com/XMcSLvWl.pngHello, I have a slightly off topic request, Could i get a download link? I'd love to use this Sorry if i sounded rude or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 On the idea of making the engine mode switching is there any real world cases where an engine can be both biproellant and monopropellant? Really wouldn't it just be simpler if all service modules were MP driven? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) I think the Vostok engine should remain as a monoprop,OR make it have multiple configurations like the R7 Boosters/Corealso Beale do plan on a Voskhod?Possible idea Voskhod I'm not sure, I cannot really make the airlock, which is the major thing of Voskhod I am feeling. Maybe a retro pack for current Vostok?Why not just make the progress tanks monoprop? I mean what do kerbal stations need to be resupplied with more often? Lfo (rarely used unless repositioning or serving as a large scale depot that would need a tanker way bigger than progress) or monoprop (docking!)It would be confusing, the progress cores of identical style and design hold LFO, at a glance you would expect these tanks to hold LFO also. On the idea of making the engine mode switching is there any real world cases where an engine can be both biproellant and monopropellant? Really wouldn't it just be simpler if all service modules were MP driven?Possibly a resistojet? The RS-52 uses a bipropellant, if I understand the science right (I don't) it could run on a single propellant...? Edited September 19, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Hey Beale, one last question, do you plan on remaking the LK in the future to make it a two stage LK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 Hey Beale, one last question, do you plan on remaking the LK in the future to make it a two stage LK?https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/LK_ascent_from_Moon_drawing.png/220px-LK_ascent_from_Moon_drawing.pngI do, at some point in the future (and only as an alternative to how it works currently, not a replacement).Due to KSP limitations, it will work like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I do, at some point in the future (and only as an alternative to how it works currently, not a replacement).Due to KSP limitations, it will work like this.http://puu.sh/kheLJ/1c5878a6f4.jpg Did you see what the Monkey Business guy did?http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111669-1-0-4-Monkey-Business-Inc-(ispeditor-partmod)You should probably just adopt that, it works nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 Did you see what the Monkey Business guy did?http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111669-1-0-4-Monkey-Business-Inc-(ispeditor-partmod)You should probably just adopt that, it works nice.Oh, I remember that one now. I will have to try it.In my old (painful) tests it become almost impossible to ensure separation was clean.Also little cleanup of Resistojet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Possible idea http://puu.sh/khecM/83aef00611.jpgVoskhod I'm not sure, I cannot really make the airlock, which is the major thing of Voskhod I am feeling. Maybe a retro pack for current Vostok?I think the fairing for voskhod was wonky because of that airlock anyway. the voskhod had two sets of solids on top one set was a backup decent engine in case the primary service module failed and could be made using LK nesting rockets the other was to slow the pod on landing since they couldn't use the ejection seat trick with three people crammed in there I'd recommend the landing engine if you go through with this. Speaking of vostok and voskhod did you see the SAS and tech tree balance shpeel's I posted a few pages back?It would be confusing, the progress cores of identical style and design hold LFO, at a glance you would expect these tanks to hold LFO also. but the unmanned cargo craft make lousy tankers! Especially for LFO where simply a larger upper stage with a docking port would serve the role better. Surely this is yet another reason to reevaluate the role of unmanned cargo craft or if anything you could just switch them to hold monoprop instead as it's usually only needed in the smaller quantities perfect for the size that the unmanned cargo craft come in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nothingSpecial Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 but the unmanned cargo craft make lousy tankers! Especially for LFO where simply a larger upper stage with a docking port would serve the role better. Surely this is yet another reason to reevaluate the role of unmanned cargo craft or if anything you could just switch them to hold monoprop instead as it's usually only needed in the smaller quantities perfect for the size that the unmanned cargo craft come in.Yeah, refueling with monoprop would be sane with given dimensions.I also, IIRC, used TKS once with HGR tanks instead of crew/cargo modules to refuel something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacsky33 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I just made a small update for LK 2 parts, btw:), go to my thread. hope it will be implemented in tantares mod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I do, at some point in the future (and only as an alternative to how it works currently, not a replacement).Due to KSP limitations, it will work like this.http://puu.sh/kheLJ/1c5878a6f4.jpgIs there anyway to make a two stage LK right now?- - - Updated - - -NVM. PS: Blacksky33, can you make it openable with MAC?- - - Updated - - -NVM I got it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 20, 2015 Author Share Posted September 20, 2015 I just made a small update for LK 2 parts, btw:), go to my thread. hope it will be implemented in tantares mod.Thanks!I've played around with them, they work a lot better than my attempts, separation is very clean everytime.But, I'm still not quite sure, the separation is not "satisfying" if that makes sense, when decoupler is fired LK flops and restes on the base of the support platform (for this reason I think split two-stage is better, if a lot less accurate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacsky33 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 some separator, or config tooglable engine when decouple do the job for smooth take off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) @Blacsky: For some reason when I open the N1 it doesn't work. And the decoupler is 20 m. Edited September 20, 2015 by davidy12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 21, 2015 Author Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) I think the fairing for voskhod was wonky because of that airlock anyway. the voskhod had two sets of solids on top one set was a backup decent engine in case the primary service module failed and could be made using LK nesting rockets the other was to slow the pod on landing since they couldn't use the ejection seat trick with three people crammed in there I'd recommend the landing engine if you go through with this. Speaking of vostok and voskhod did you see the SAS and tech tree balance shpeel's I posted a few pages back?but the unmanned cargo craft make lousy tankers! Especially for LFO where simply a larger upper stage with a docking port would serve the role better. Surely this is yet another reason to reevaluate the role of unmanned cargo craft or if anything you could just switch them to hold monoprop instead as it's usually only needed in the smaller quantities perfect for the size that the unmanned cargo craft come in.Monopropellant may be the best choice for Progress cargo then. On the SAS I am quite agreeing with your earlier post, makes sense to give it an edge over "Mercury" Mk1 (I wouldn't be totally opposed to making a Mercury capsule at some point though).some separator, or config tooglable engine when decouple do the job for smooth take off.I think my feeling is, it is difficult to look right unless both decouple and engine ignition happen at the same time, if I make sense.OMTexture is packed quite tight...How about an alternate service module, based on earlier Soyuz designs (With the band designs). Edited September 21, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Ohh, old SM? Yes please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerpyFirework Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Could the alternate SM run on monopropellant? Would make it more unique compared to the current one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 OMhttp://puu.sh/kjaC0/8c682c10a4.jpghttp://puu.sh/kjaLb/077b1c9142.jpgTexture is packed quite tight...http://puu.sh/kjbaZ/ac2ac7b608.jpgHow about an alternate service module, based on earlier Soyuz designs (With the band designs).http://puu.sh/kjbiF/f277cb02cf.jpgSo, how many Progress capsules do we have now?Also, do we still have a 0.9375m Progress Orbital module? (Top Node) Because you're on a Progress kick here, is there any chance we could see parts to make Pirs/Poisk? Perhaps not it's own unique module, but perhaps a collection of "Lego" parts to make it build able out of Progress parts? Annotated diagram of how you could chop up the module into logical, multipurpose, useful, lego-like chunks:For texturing, how about the thermal fabric texture you whipped up for ATV? As nice as gray is, I really would like to see more blanketed parts.As for an old SM, more greeble would be nice, as would an alternate engine nozzle layout. Could we get actual RCS thrusters on the bottom as opposed to the painted on thrusters on the current SM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted September 21, 2015 Author Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Ohh, old SM? Yes please!Could the alternate SM run on monopropellant? Would make it more unique compared to the current one.Interesting ideas So, how many Progress capsules do we have now?Also, do we still have a 0.9375m Progress Orbital module? (Top Node) A grand total of eight! Enough to do some really quite funky things. And yes the 0.9375m remains alongside 0.625m. Because you're on a Progress kick here, is there any chance we could see parts to make Pirs/Poisk? Perhaps not it's own unique module, but perhaps a collection of "Lego" parts to make it build able out of Progress parts? Annotated diagram of how you could chop up the module into logical, multipurpose, useful, lego-like chunks:http://i.imgur.com/FvurAwll.pngFor texturing, how about the thermal fabric texture you whipped up for ATV? As nice as gray is, I really would like to see more blanketed parts.As for an old SM, more greeble would be nice, as would an alternate engine nozzle layout. Could we get actual RCS thrusters on the bottom as opposed to the painted on thrusters on the current SM?Love that concept! Great idea Those adapters would be really great in general.I have some thoughts on thermal fabric, it can look good - but, is it "canon"? I can scratch my head, but it doesn't seem to exist the Kerbal universe (There's the Kapton foil, but that's a little different), so my current thermal fabric parts look out of place.Just a strange thought.On SM, do you mean the side ports?I forgot this was a thing also!Ugly Ugly Ugly Edited September 21, 2015 by Beale 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.