Soyuz 7K-TM

[Urwumpe]

I still think this soviet drawing is closer to the reality and show the thermal cover to be a closed hemisphere.

 

[Lucy]

Currently it just shows a broken thumbnail image...

 

[castorp]

Currently it just shows a broken thumbnail image...

==> http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/soyuz13.jpg

 

[4throck]

In short: addon developers are unlikely to to publish addons that cannot compete with the addons that are already published.

Don't want to start a OT discussion, but I do disagree.

I myself don't compete with anyone in the orbiter world. For that I have real world 3D modeling and programming competition on business projects :thumbup:!

It all comes down to what you want out of your add-on.

Let's say I want to get a working Soyuz, and quickly configure it as a lunar Zond? Or one of the other lunar Soyuz projects that involved multiple launches? Then I don't see why I shouldn't do it using sc3 (simple and quick for me). The worst thing that can happen is someone else doing it better and releasing it first... I which is in reality a win win situation.

I work for my own satisfaction, regardless if it's better or worse than someone else's addon. I totally reject the notion that an add-on must be created using only certain programing languages and as a part of an organized team. My experience shows that such formal arrangements generally fail.

Individual contributions in an informal way work much better.

 

[castorp]

My experience shows that such formal arrangements generally fail.

Individual contributions in an informal way work much better.

amen, to that, bro!

 

[Urwumpe]

I totally reject the notion that an add-on must be created using only certain programing languages and as a part of an organized team. My experience shows that such formal arrangements generally fail.

I made the experience that exactly the opposite is the case. Informal cooperation or contribution works great for small projects, when things are still at the beginning and the project is not taking longer than a weekend.

But things don't stay like that. The more work you put into something, the more you need to structure your work. Otherwise, you will waste the little free time you have for fixing the lack of organization. For example having to find out what you programmed three weeks ago.

 

[castorp]

revised fairing with smaller enclosure aperture ==>

 

[n72.75]

Urwumpe: If you want to be the project leader then go for it.

I have no problem with rigorous code documentation standards and I'm sure no one else here does.

 

[castorp]

and the accompanying mesh file...

 

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe: If you want to be the project leader then go for it.

I have no problem with rigorous code documentation standards and I'm sure no one else here does.

Well, let me first program something that can act as a starting point for future developments. The 2D panel might not be necessary, but support for Lua scripting is sure critical.

Looking at other open-source projects, you need a core team that does the hard dirty work, so contributions of casual contributors can be included at all.

 

[castorp]

I still think this soviet drawing is closer to the reality and show the thermal cover to be a closed hemisphere.

possibly, but even this drawing (to my eyes at least) seems to suggest that the top/front of the fairing does have an opening (that south-west corner of the cutaway on the fairing)... and of course the interior mechanism in the drawing doesn't seem to have much resemblance to anything looking like the Orion-2... and what of the drawing from A Universal Spacecraft showing an entirely exposed mechanism? and then of course there's the analogue of the DOS-1 station where the Orion-1 is seated in an open 'tunnel' of sorts (ie recessed into the DOS-1 body)?

???

arrgh, so many unknowns! :lol:

in any event, barring any further objection, here's a 'final' version of the -AF BO [attached]. i believe that it largely conforms to the extant iconographic data we have, but of course i'll be happy to do further tweaking under fresh insights/information as to how it should all look!

now, on to the -TM!


cheers
hc

 

[cosmonaut2040]

Hi,
first, I'd like to say that those models look great!

But I have a little comment concerning your following source of information:

==> http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/soyuz_7k-t-af.htm

The Soviets were quite secretive with their military space programm, so I think that what you consider as "protective housing" is simply a result of image manipulation for the purpose of censorship (it was quite common for Soviets, see e.g. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union"]Censorship of images in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]). Therefore I would believe more the drawing where the instruments are more exposed:

As a similar example, compare the propaganda photos of first automatic Soyuz docking (performed by Kosmos 186 and 188):

and this similar drawing which is not manipulated (Kosmos 186 and 188 were standard Soyuz spacecrafts, looking exactly like Soyuz 4 and 5):

(those images I just googled up, I'm sure that other similar examples can be found)

Cheers

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

on the other hand, now I had a look at the Astronautix page for Soyuz 13 (http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz13.htm), and the drawing shown there appears to be uncensored. So perhaps I was too quick with my conclusion...

 

[castorp]

on the other hand, now I had a look at the Astronautix page for Soyuz 13 (http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz13.htm), and the drawing shown there appears to be uncensored. So perhaps I was too quick with my conclusion...

it's all very confusing and contradictory, isn't it?
:lol:

welcome to soyuz madness...

 

[Urwumpe]

I think there would be a pretty closed dome around it for thermal control reasons, since the telescope "object" (could also be a mock-up) isn't showing any signs of thermal protection. or the telescope would have layers of thermal protection cloth (similar to MLI) around it, but then the dome would not be needed at all - and at the Expo 2000 was a naked mock-up. Like often in the soviet Union.

Does anybody know a contact address for writing a friendly email and ask? Doesn't Energia have a history department?

One issue I just remember, which I did always forget... the thermal protection foils are too green in the add-on. While it looks stylish and like on the original photographs, that is not the true color - the foil is gray. The green color is caused by soviet film material, which was more sensitive for green light. The thermal protection foil on Soyuz didn't actually change at all in history, it still has the same color as in 1968.

So, if properly textured, stuff would look actually like that nice little fellow:

One more for the trivia collection: The same foil was also already used on Vostok. Never mistake mock-ups for the real thing in soviet exhibitions.

 

[4throck]

I remember investigating the thermal foil for my MIR re-textures.
I can confirm it is closer to grey when new, but it quickly changes to dark green once in space. Nevertheless, it always has a greenish tint, even when new.

Here's a nice reference image from Apollo-Soyuz:

There are some clouds on the bottom for white reference. The green tint is there but more subdued than on the add-on.

 

[castorp]

The green tint is there but more subdued than on the add-on.

There's a relatively quick&easy do-it-yourself fix for this (and I'll make sure to adjust it in subsequent meshes) ==>

in the materials section of the requisite .msh file (all the way toward the end), change the cccpserv and servshade values to the following:

MATERIAL cccpserv
0.894 0.878 0.894 1.000
0.894 0.878 0.894 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0 0 0 1

MATERIAL servshade
0.467 0.447 0.467 1.000
0.467 0.447 0.467 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0 0 0 1

that will/should nicely (and correctly) fix the overly-green tint without having to swap out textures.

cheers
hc

 

[4throck]

I've been testing a very simple VC and got something like this working:

I've rotated the VC so that the Vizor is facing forward and you can use it for orientation. It's not accurate and it distorts the panorama projection, but it kind of works.

I have other ideas I'll try, but if you you guys want a simple "cubic panorama" VC, just say so, so that I can texture it (right now I'm just using the original panorama as it is).

 

[castorp]

I've been testing a very simple VC and got something like this working:

I've rotated the VC so that the Vizor is facing forward and you can use it for orientation. It's not accurate and it distorts the panorama projection, but it kind of works.

I have other ideas I'll try, but if you you guys want a simple "cubic panorama" VC, just say so, so that I can texture it (right now I'm just using the original panorama as it is).

WOW! very nice!!
:thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

I just work on disassembling the 7K panels into the layers for a 2D Panel, which would then fix the problem with the Vizr orientation (and could even permit tilting the periscope head)

The KEI would be a tiny problem since it can display TV camera streams, but I think I can solve this.

Currently, the plan is to have the panel split into four parts:

Left side, with Window and CSU <====> Center panel <=====> Right side with window and CSU
^^^^
vvvvvv

Vizr.

 

[4throck]

Well, I got a solution for the periscope CameraMFD !
Here's my current cockpit with better texturing:

It works perfectly because you can use the normal external view to set up your instruments (in this case night vision and camera tracking) and switch to the cockpit and immerse yourself in it! I don't have much time in the next weeks to get this finished, but its something that I will certainly try to do.

Of course, I'm looking forward to your efforts!

I've also tried to setup "my" Soyuz for launch, but for that I'd need to have the meshes with the solar panels, periscope, antenas, etc, retracted... I can do it but I think it's better for Castor to do it if possible.