[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [26.0][18.12.2023][Things are happening]

[passinglurker]

I wouldn't drop the vostoks batteries and reaction wheels and Move them to the SM after all relative to mercury it was a very capable craft that could stay in orbit for a week if necessary should it's retro rockets fail and it had to deorbit naturally. Also taking it's wheels and resources makes it more of a pain to use for non recreations

What ever is done with the design please do away with the radial mono prop tanks they are killer on part count a vostok should be able to be launched with tier one buildings

[curtquarquesso]

I wouldn't drop the vostoks batteries and reaction wheels and Move them to the SM after all relative to mercury it was a very capable craft that could stay in orbit for a week if necessary should it's retro rockets fail and it had to deorbit naturally. Also taking it's wheels and resources makes it more of a pain to use for non recreations

What ever is done with the design please do away with the radial mono prop tanks they are killer on part count a vostok should be able to be launched with tier one buildings

Mmm. Good counter argument. Maybe just nerf its reaction wheels a bit. I feel like it should be a far cheaper, weaker alternative to the currently OP Mk1 capsule. The Vostok decoupler is just kinda pointless for anything else besides Vostok recreations. It'd be nice if it were a bit of a multi-tasker. It's pretty large to be just a decoupler.

Also a good point on the radial mono prop tanks. I use both the white and the gray radial mono prop spheres for all kinds of other things, so I'd be sad to see them go. I think Squad's part count restriction is silly anyways. I understand mass and cost restrictions, but not number of parts. I should be able to put as many parts on as I please as long as the pad doesn't crumble underneath the weight, and I can afford it. What can I say, I like greeble. Regarding changing the decoupler to an SM, and sliding a 0.625m decoupler in between the CM and SM, does that make sense?

Edited June 10, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[passinglurker]

Unless I am mistaken the vostok currently has near probe core levels of torque if any thing it needs more for the sake of controlling rockets that aren't covered in fins and gimbals like the r7

Also let's not compare balance to stock pods there is no consistency or balance between them it would be better too balance tantares pods against themselves according to a consistent formula and ignore stock until squad gets thier act together

With 0.9m parts being a thing the issue with the decouple and mono prop tanks could be solved I a simple fashion. We simply divide the current decoupler at the 0.9m point the upper half becomes a conical and relatively streamlined decoupler and the lower half becomes a conical monoprop tank complete with the characteristic bulbous grebals to fuel the retro rocket.

Now don't get me wrong the radial tanks can stay for the sake of the artistic sorts but as long as there are part count restrictions I don't want it to be a necessary component to make a vostok

[Noah_Blade]

This my Favorite russian craft mod

reasons: 1 stockalike, 2 low on ram

this is why it trumps bobcat and even KOSMOS.

[Cheesecake]

Hi

is there a chance to make a little bit greater Soyuz for 3 Kerbals?

[VenomousRequiem]

Hi

is there a chance to make a little bit greater Soyuz for 3 Kerbals?

Oh, boy. You weren't here for the huge discussion about this, were you?

There's an issue with the seat placement in the IVA for 3 Kerbals, so it's been said that that probably won't happen.

On a slightly related note, has it really been a year?

I havn't been here as long as others, but from the pictures, you've really learned some things, huh?

One whole year, thick and thin, actual development and just... loafing around.

Proud of you, Beale!

This particular thread is by far my favorite community on the forum, so as far as I'm concerned, we're all friends here.

Sorry for getting sentimental, I'm just in a good mood~

Edited June 10, 2015 by VenomousRequiem

[pTrevTrevs]

Hi

is there a chance to make a little bit greater Soyuz for 3 Kerbals?

Of course, you could always modify the part to seat three Kerbals. The IVA would be broken, but you could possibly use the VA IVA when it gets done (nudge, nudge, Beale)

Also, off topic, but my copy of The Martian arrived today. I think it was someone in this thread that first told me about the book.

[curtquarquesso]

Hi

is there a chance to make a little bit greater Soyuz for 3 Kerbals?

Oh, boy. You weren't here for the huge discussion about this, were you?

There's an issue with the seat placement in the IVA for 3 Kerbals, so it's been said that that probably won't happen.

NOOOOO!!!1! Jokes aside, we already had a discussion about it, and there are many reasons why two Kerbals should be the max. It's just not balanced to have a pod that's only got slightly more head-room than the Mk1 pod carry three times as many Kerbals. Kerbals have larger noggins than humans, so it just doesn't work out really for the IVAs.

On a slightly related note, has it really been a year?

I havn't been here as long as others, but from the pictures, you've really learned some things, huh?

One whole year, thick and thin, actual development and just... loafing around.

Proud of you, Beale!

This particular thread is by far my favorite community on the forum, so as far as I'm concerned, we're all friends here.

Sorry for getting sentimental, I'm just in a good mood~

Yeah, it's crazy, right? I feel like this is a really unusual release thread. I haven't seen a single release or dev thread on here with so many neat photos and craft files, and so much neat information and advice. It's just a really cool thing. @Beale, Thanks for allowing all of us to virtually hover over your shoulder while you build up this add-on from what it was a year ago, to what it is now. Even in aerospace and engineering, I don't have too many people I can nerd-out over Soviet space history with, or learn modeling and texturing skills from. Congrats on a year Beale.

Unless I am mistaken the vostok currently has near probe core levels of torque if any thing it needs more for the sake of controlling rockets that aren't covered in fins and gimbals like the r7

Also let's not compare balance to stock pods there is no consistency or balance between them it would be better too balance tantares pods against themselves according to a consistent formula and ignore stock until squad gets thier act together

With 0.9m parts being a thing the issue with the decouple and mono prop tanks could be solved I a simple fashion. We simply divide the current decoupler at the 0.9m point the upper half becomes a conical and relatively streamlined decoupler and the lower half becomes a conical monoprop tank complete with the characteristic bulbous grebals to fuel the retro rocket.

Now don't get me wrong the radial tanks can stay for the sake of the artistic sorts but as long as there are part count restrictions I don't want it to be a necessary component to make a vostok

Hmm... I've found a potential issue for the part count issue. Stripped down, to the bare minimum, the Vostok 1 comes in at exactly 31 parts, without antenna, sep motors, fairings, or MP tanks, so aiming for Vostok 1 to be a tier 1 vehicle, might be pointless anyways.

Just the R7 alone is too heavy for the 1st tier launch pad.

Looks like the Vostok needs to be balanced to be a tier 2 vehicle, for the VAB, and the launch pad.

I'm not sure I like the idea of an adapter and a decoupler all in one. It may be un lego-like. I believe a thing, 0.625m decoupler, in-between the capsule and the Vostok SM would be the best route.

Of course, you could always modify the part to seat three Kerbals. The IVA would be broken, but you could possibly use the VA IVA when it gets done (nudge, nudge, Beale)

Also, off topic, but my copy of The Martian arrived today. I think it was someone in this thread that first told me about the book.

If you haven't watched the trailer, DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. It spoils everything. I can also recommend the audio book. Can't wait to put together a Tantares Hermes when I get some time, and get more images. That'll be a challenge.

Edited June 10, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[pTrevTrevs]

Hehe, advice taken. I won't start on the book for another week or so, because I still have to finish reading The Lord of the Rings. But if I happen to see the trailer on TV, I'll make sure not to watch it.

[ModZero]

Hmm... I've found a potential issue for the part count issue. Stripped down, to the bare minimum, the Vostok 1 comes in at exactly 31 parts, without antenna, sep motors, fairings, or MP tanks, so aiming for Vostok 1 to be a tier 1 vehicle, might be pointless anyways.

While that's not exactly accurate, all my Vostoks had only 2 verniers on the upper stage. Also I kinda like the idea of requiring an upgrade of the launch pad before the 1st orbital mission - though arguably that's something that *really* asks for the missing barn stage.

[Noah_Blade]

Hi

is there a chance to make a little bit greater Soyuz for 3 Kerbals?

I belive the capsule is modeled after the Chinese shenhouz

[tg626]

I don't think it should be tier 1. Sputnik (earliest space application of the R-7) wasn't launched from a corn field... I far more appalled by the fact that the Mk1 capsule (Mercury) is available from day 1 in the stock game...

[curtquarquesso]

I belive the capsule is modeled after the Chinese shenhouz

...And I believe the Shenzhou is modeled after/actually is the Soyuz.

I don't think it should be tier 1. Sputnik (earliest space application of the R-7) wasn't launched from a corn field... I far more appalled by the fact that the Mk1 capsule (Mercury) is available from day 1 in the stock game...

I agree. Makes sense now. Squad said that the reason that the Mk1 pod is available at start is because it's Kerbal space program, therefore, it has to have Kerbals in it from the get-go, which I don't really get entirely. They can't EVA anyways without an upgrade, so you might as well send a probe.

[Noah_Blade]

...And I believe the Shenzhou is modeled after/actually is the Soyuz.

I agree. Makes sense now. Squad said that the reason that the Mk1 pod is available at start is because it's Kerbal space program, therefore, it has to have Kerbals in it from the get-go, which I don't really get entirely. They can't EVA anyways without an upgrade, so you might as well send a probe.

the shenhouz is the Chinese version of the soyuz. the chinese one carries two not three men.

[Kibble]

Shenzhou resembles, but is completely unique hardware from, Soyuz. Three of the five piloted missions of Shenzhou carried three Taikonauts.

[tg626]

As a separate exercise, I created a model to nest in the standard size Clamp-O-Tron port to make it resemble the "Androgynous Docking Interface" as shown in revision C of the International Docking System Standard Interface Definition Document dated 20 Nov, 2013.

I did this because as I was looking the document over I was stuck by how much the proposed standard looked like a Clamp-O-Tron with "fingers" or "petals" added to it.

Why am I posting this here? Well, I feel I'm among friends especially in this thread, but mostly because I could have NEVER done it without Beale's tutorials! And, because it pointed up an error in the Tantares APAS ports.

Here's mine. Notice how the "petals" interleave when two identical craft are facing each other at 0º relative roll. This matches the documents mentioned above.

Here's the Tantares set, again two identical craft at 0º relative roll, and the fingers collide (or clip, this is KSP after all).

I know, I know I'm being an OCD twit about it but I can't help it.

And yes, the Red/Green are meant to show Port/Starboard just like on a boat, or airplane.

[curtquarquesso]

Let's not get off topic. Beale's Tantares is meant to replicate the Soyuz capsule primarily. Any resemblance to the Shenzhou is because they look nearly identical. Beale made a Shenzhou OM, but the capsule is so similar, you can use the capsule for either vessel. That's about it really. Beale's capsule can only really physically fit two Kerbals.

As a separate exercise, I created a model to nest in the standard size Clamp-O-Tron port to make it resemble the "Androgynous Docking Interface" as shown in revision C of the International Docking System Standard Interface Definition Document dated 20 Nov, 2013.

I did this because as I was looking the document over I was stuck by how much the proposed standard looked like a Clamp-O-Tron with "fingers" or "petals" added to it.

Why am I posting this here? Well, I feel I'm among friends especially in this thread, but mostly because I could have NEVER done it without Beale's tutorials! And, because it pointed up an error in the Tantares APAS ports.

http://i.imgur.com/sM03qCn.png

Here's mine. Notice how the "petals" interleave when two identical craft are facing each other at 0º relative roll. This matches the documents mentioned above.

http://i.imgur.com/Oi65DEf.png

Here's the Tantares set, again two identical craft at 0º relative roll, and the fingers collide (or clip, this is KSP after all).

I know, I know I'm being an OCD twit about it but I can't help it.

And yes, the Red/Green are meant to show Port/Starboard just like on a boat, or airplane.

Wow. That's really neat. I too have been using a lot of Beale's resources. Remapping a remodel of my PMM. UVmapping sucks, and is hard.

Edited June 10, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[passinglurker]

At the risk of spreading the influence the 0.9m menace further I present this mockup.

basically what I proposed earlier with splitting the decoupler at 0.9m and making the lower half a fuel tank except that the upper half decoupler is now a straight instead of a cone which I think looks better this way (note tantares presently doesn't have a normal 0.9m decoupler also this would mean moving the vostok attachment node even further up.)

[Gristle]

...

Hey!

Great stuff! Many thanks

How would you feel if I used these ranges for RT?

And - okay if I link this in first post?...

I'd feel comfortable using these ranges in RT and of course it's OK to use and link. I feel privileged to be able to help this awesome mod in some small way.

[lindemherz]

As a separate exercise, I created a model to nest in the standard size Clamp-O-Tron port to make it resemble the "Androgynous Docking Interface" as shown in revision C of the International Docking System Standard Interface Definition Document dated 20 Nov, 2013.

I did this because as I was looking the document over I was stuck by how much the proposed standard looked like a Clamp-O-Tron with "fingers" or "petals" added to it.

Why am I posting this here? Well, I feel I'm among friends especially in this thread, but mostly because I could have NEVER done it without Beale's tutorials! And, because it pointed up an error in the Tantares APAS ports.

http://i.imgur.com/sM03qCn.png

Here's mine. Notice how the "petals" interleave when two identical craft are facing each other at 0º relative roll. This matches the documents mentioned above.

http://i.imgur.com/Oi65DEf.png

Here's the Tantares set, again two identical craft at 0º relative roll, and the fingers collide (or clip, this is KSP after all).

I know, I know I'm being an OCD twit about it but I can't help it.

And yes, the Red/Green are meant to show Port/Starboard just like on a boat, or airplane.

If I'm not mistaken, in the IDS the petals' centerline is offset 60deg clockwise (looking from inside to outside) from the port's (and module's) top-down axis, while in both APAS-89 and 95 one of the petals' centerline is aligned to the port's axis. Although impractical, that would make Tantares APAS accurate to reality.

Edited June 11, 2015 by lindemherz

[pTrevTrevs]

Oh yeah! Got another mission for you, this time, it's a probe to Saturn. "But wait, KSP doesn't have a Saturn analog yet!", you may ask. Well, with the help of the magnificent Outer Planets Mod, I have sent an orbiter to the ringed planet and obtained photographs of every one of its moons.

The spacecraft lifts off aboard an Ariane 5 rocket, thanks to a deal made with ESA. They handle launch, and we put some of their instruments ob the spacecraft. I thought for some time about what this probe should be named, and eventually settled on the somewhat generic and irritatingly uninspired "Outlander".

Ariane booster separation... and subsequent collision.

Core stage burning for orbit. We have a two hour window between launch and the optimum period for a transfer burn to Sarnus.

Fairing separation shortly before reaching orbit.

Outlander and Block D separated, probe hardware deployed. It actually looks like an outer planet probe, unlike my past designs.

Here is the Outlander's "Charbroiled Record" It is a heatshield converted into a time capsule which contains photographs and recordings of life on Kerbin in case the probe is discovered by extraterrestrial life.

One escape burn later, the empty Block D and Outlander are rapidly flying away from Kerbin, never to return.

A short while after Block D separation, Outlander tested its instruments on Kerbin so the control team could calibrate them and fix any problems while the probe was still close enough for signal delay to not be a problem.

A last look at the Blue marble. The next thing Outlander sees will be a pale red basketball. With rings.

A short five and a half years later, Outlander has entered Sarnus's gravity well and is close enough to begin observation.

The first moon to welcome us is Tekto, a moon with a thick, opaque atmosphere similar to Titan. Too bad I didn't bring a mini lander for it.

The reason for this is that I had originally planned for Outlander to be a flyby mission, but during the outward voyage, I reasoned that since it has over 3,000 m/s of Delta V, there was no reason why I shouldn't put it into orbit.

Shortly after the Tekto flyby, Outlander ignites its engine for the originally unplanned Sarnus Orbital Insertion.

New desktop background, anyone?

A few hours later, the probe paid a visit to Slate, another moon of Sarnus. Not sure which real life moon it represents.

It's moments like these that make me love KSP. It's such a beautiful game. I showed these pictures to my friend, and now he is interested in KSP!

Maybe I will finally have a friend in real life who plays KSP...

Still the first orbit, and I have an Eeloo flyby too! Everyone here wants to see the new kid on the block! yeah, Eeloo is moved to orbit around Sarnus to represent Encelaudus by OPM.

This was actually the first time I had legitimately been to Eeloo without cheats. Unless you consider putting it next to a massive gas giant inside an enormous gravity well cheating...

Eeloo helped me out and put me in a somewhat inclined orbit with a high apoapsis. I made a small burn at AP and lowered Outlander's orbit a little to get a good look at the planetary rings. Again, it's such a pretty game.

Hey? What's that? Quick, grab the camera, it looks like a moon! That small pebble near the rings is Ovok, yet another of Sarnus's moons, but a much small one, comparable in size to Pol or Bop.

Outlander made a small inclination change to allow for another flyby of Tekto. I had realized long ago that using your fuel only to engineer gravity assists to get you where you need to go is the best way to navigate a many mooned system such as Jool or Sarnus.

This is what the Outlander team has named 'The Inner Planet Family Portrait" From left to right, Duna, Eve, Moho, Jool, Kerbol, Dres, Kerbin.

Another well placed burn, and Outlander is even closer to the mysterious rings. OPM is now one of my favorite mods, along with Tantares, of course.

I see you, Hale! Don't try and hide from me in the rings! I know everything!

Hale is the innermost and smallest moon of Sarnus, and usurps Gilly as the smallest body in the game, measuring only 6 kilometers in diameter. The cheeky ....... thinks he can hide from the all seeing eye of the Outlander Imaging Platform! Well... he almost can. I chose the NavCam because I thought it would have the cool filter, but for an unknown reason, it did not.

The second flyby of Tekto. This was done to alter Outlander's orbit in a more efficient manner than the spacecraft's engine. Next time I haul a probe all the way out here to this collection of rocks held together by a giant cloud of gas, I'm bring a lander for Tekto.

Well, the mission is so far a complete sucess, and with the magnificent photos of Sarnus and its moons, the Outlander team is convinced that they have trumped the Manned Spacecraft Department with their fancy crew photos. Have they? I'll let you guys decide...

[tg626]

I must know EXACTLY what you have that gives you that ringed planet!!

[Insanitic]

So I'm not sure if this issue has been fixed yet, but I noticed I don't have any IVA pictures of my Kerbals when they are inside of a capsule from this pack, like the Heart capsule.

And plus, is this mod compatible with CLS and Ship Manifest? Because even if I connect the Heart capsule to, for example, an OKS module, it doesn't let me transfer the Kerbal through.

[pTrevTrevs]

I must know EXACTLY what you have that gives you that ringed planet!!

The Outer Planets Mod adds planets to represent Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, pluto, and moons for most of them. it's a great mod. Also, I have the EVE config for OPM.

Here, I'll get you the link for OPM...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104280-1-0-2-Outer-Planets-Mod-(1-7-Beta-2)-Wal-playable-atmospheres-balanced-and-much-more-17-May

EDIT: I Got back to work on the S-IV-B today as well. Quick progress update on the J-2:

Also, for future reference, does Wings3D have a sort of symmetry function that will allow my to duplicate a part and place it around a set axis, similar to the editor feature in KSP? And, if I want a part to have a "ribbed" appearance, like some places on the S-IV-B, is it better to paint that on in the texture or do it in the model?

Edited June 11, 2015 by pTrevTrevs

[jaxydog]

Looks awesome! Great job with the textures!