TSADSS V1.2 Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and More!

[OscarBubbles]

True Scale and Distance Solar System (TSADSS)
Included in the new TSADSS V1.2 is,
V1.1
Mercury,
Venus,
Earth,
The Moon,
Mars.

New in V1.2
Phobos,
Deimos,
Ceres,
Jupiter,
Saturn (With rings),
Uranus (Also with very faint rings),
Neptune
and Pluto!

Also all textures have been fixed.

Please leave suggestions or any mistakes you find in the comments.

I tried adding in Halley's Comet but I couldn't find out how to make the heightmap but if I'm able to I will add it in.
All objects are to scale except Phobos and Deimos because when the size of them is changed the heightmap is distorted and they just look like weird circular shaped objects.

To download click here -->TSADSS V1.2.zip
And then move all contents to your 'Custom Solar Systems' folder.

If you have already downloaded TSDASS V1.1 and you don't want to restart your progress then you can download this file ---> TSADSS V1.1 Upgrade.zip
And move all the contents of 'Planet Data' to your TSADSS V1.1 Planet Data and do the same with the Texture Data.

Hope you enjoy!!!

PS. V1.3 will probably be More Moons Update

 

[plusho]

Very big

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Very big

That’s what she said.

 

[Kaen]

Now that's what I call ksp at hard difficulty with realism overhaul.

Btw Earth is like a Freaking Jupiter!

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Now that's what I call ksp at hard difficulty with realism overhaul.

No.

Have you tried IRIS here on the forum?

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

No.

Have you tried IRIS here on the forum?

Or the real scale Earth?

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Or the real scale Earth?

There are some guys called NASA who always play that planet pack in Real difficulty mode, and with realism overhaul, and guess what? They went to the Moon 50 years ago...

Still... most people thinks they are dumb/lazy for some reason...

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

There are some guys called NASA who always play that planet pack in Real difficulty mode, and with realism overhaul, and guess what? They went to the Moon 50 years ago...

Still... most people thinks they are dumb/lazy for some reason...

Oh lol yeah , I've heard about those legends beatin the robots.

Apparently those are the people who didn't watch the first steps on the mün

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Oh lol yeah , I've heard about those legends beatin the robots.

Apparently those are the people who didn't watch the first steps on the mün

And what’s even better is the kind of people that thinks because some guys who are new to this business can recover and reuse 4 times a SUBORBITAL booster that can’t even leave the atmosphere they already made it better than NASA’s ORBITAL Space Transport System, that flew to the orbit and back for 30 years...

That kind of people...

 

[Pink]

And what’s even better is the kind of people that thinks because some guys who are new to this business can recover and reuse 4 times a SUBORBITAL booster that can’t even leave the atmosphere they already made it better than NASA’s ORBITAL Space Transport System, that flew to the orbit and back for 30 years...

That kind of people...

Are we talking about New Shepard?
I think that barely goes above the Karman line... Like by 1km, going verrry slow (in spaceflight terms).

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Are we talking about New Shepard?
I think that barely goes above the Karman line... Like by 1km, going verrry slow (in spaceflight terms).

No, falcon 9 and spaceX fanboys. A falcon 9 booster never goes beyond the Karman Line.

 

[Pink]

No, falcon 9 and spaceX fanboys. A falcon 9 booster never goes beyond the Karman Line.

Formosat-5, the booster climbed to approx. 247km.
SpaceX Falcon 9 : Formosat-5 : SLC-4E Vandenberg : Aug 24, 2017 : UPDATES

Starlink launches (the majority of Falcon 9 launches at this point) climb to over 100km too. Taking Starlink-27 as an example: (blue line is booster)

Looking at the chart, it flew approximately this distance in 8 minutes: (just in a north-east direction)

And that was B1051's 10th landing.

Sure, it's suborbital. But it's comfortably over the Karman line. And flies a very long distance, reaching over Mach 6 on atmospheric re-entry.

Contrast that to the other sub-orbital rocket we know and love, New Shepard.

Calling both New Shepard and Falcon 9's booster "sub-orbital rockets" is perfectly accurate. But it's like calling a Handley Page V/1500 and a B-52 both "Heavy bombers". The classification requires sub-classes to be useful.

SUBORBITAL ..... can’t even leave the atmosphere

That's an oxymoron by the way. By definition, a sub-orbital flight has to cross the Karman line (or whatever the fuck the equivalent in Imperial units is if you live in America) in order to be a sub-orbital flight.

Some say the exosphere should count for "boundary of space" purposes. In which case the shuttles never left the atmosphere, but the Apollo missions did.

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Formosat-5, the booster climbed to approx. 247km.
SpaceX Falcon 9 : Formosat-5 : SLC-4E Vandenberg : Aug 24, 2017 : UPDATES

Starlink launches (the majority of Falcon 9 launches at this point) climb to over 100km too. Taking Starlink-27 as an example: (blue line is booster)
View attachment 64114

Looking at the chart, it flew approximately this distance in 8 minutes: (just in a north-east direction)
View attachment 64115
And that was B1051's 10th landing.

Sure, it's suborbital. But it's comfortably over the Karman line. And flies a very long distance, reaching over Mach 6 on atmospheric re-entry.

Contrast that to the other sub-orbital rocket we know and love, New Shepard.
View attachment 64116

Calling both New Shepard and Falcon 9's booster "sub-orbital rockets" is perfectly accurate. But it's like calling a Handley Page V/1500 and a B-52 both "Heavy bombers". The classification requires sub-classes to be useful.


That's an oxymoron by the way. By definition, a sub-orbital flight has to cross the Karman line (or whatever the fuck the equivalent in Imperial units is if you live in America) in order to be a sub-orbital flight.

Some say the exosphere should count for "boundary of space" purposes. In which case the shuttles never left the atmosphere, but the Apollo missions did.

Alright, they do go beyond the Karman Line. My mistake.

I still say the comparison is unfair. Is a F9 booster cheaper than a STS? Of course it is, but the comparison makes no sense, for two main reasons: one is because is modern technology compared to 1970’s technology (most of the STS program’s development phase took place in the ‘70s), and two because the F9 booster is not doing half of the job the STS does. It goes beyond the Karman Line, traveling 646 km, and reaching speeds of Mach 6, fine. Then people (not you, but people) keep saying is cheaper than the STS... Of course it is! is not even doing one third of the job!
It’s like comparing a bycicle with a car. It’s obviously cheaper, since is simpler, and does much less, but there is no point in comparing them.

646 km, Mach 6, beyond the Karman Line, okay fine.

The STS comes down from orbit at 7800 m/s, that’s more than Mach 24. That’s why I don’t think they should be compared, I think the comparison is totally unfair.

When Starship comes out, Starship will do the exact same thing and spacex fanboys will go ahead and say is better than the STS cause it does better the same things, and I will still think the comparison will be unfair, cause people will be comparing 1970’s technology with 2010-2020’s technology.

That’s like saying the 2020 Lamborghini is better than the 1967 Lamborghini. Of course it is, there’s 40-50++ years of difference between them.

And it’s even worse when people say SpaceX/Rocket lab/BlueOrigin are better than NASA. NASA has 50++ years of space history and is so far, the only space agency that has actually send not only men to the Moon, but Interstellar probes, and other interplanetary missions and people think SpaceX is better cause starlink gives them faster internet, yeah sure haha...

When SpaceX takes us to Mars, Jupiter, other planets, whatever sure, SpaceX will be better than NASA, but at this moment, in this very same second spaceX/blue origin/whatever haven’t done a third of the things NASA has done and suceeded.

 

[Nagini]

Alright, they do go beyond the Karman Line. My mistake.

I still say the comparison is unfair. Is a F9 booster cheaper than a STS? Of course it is, but the comparison makes no sense, for two main reasons: one is because is modern technology compared to 1970’s technology (most of the STS program’s development phase took place in the ‘70s), and two because the F9 booster is not doing half of the job the STS does. It goes beyond the Karman Line, traveling 646 km, and reaching speeds of Mach 6, fine. Then people (not you, but people) keep saying is cheaper than the STS... Of course it is! is not even doing one third of the job!
It’s like comparing a bycicle with a car. It’s obviously cheaper, since is simpler, and does much less, but there is no point in comparing them.

646 km, Mach 6, beyond the Karman Line, okay fine.

The STS comes down from orbit at 7800 m/s, that’s more than Mach 24. That’s why I don’t think they should be compared, I think the comparison is totally unfair.

When Starship comes out, Starship will do the exact same thing and spacex fanboys will go ahead and say is better than the STS cause it does better the same things, and I will still think the comparison will be unfair, cause people will be comparing 1970’s technology with 2010-2020’s technology.

That’s like saying the 2020 Lamborghini is better than the 1967 Lamborghini. Of course it is, there’s 40-50++ years of difference between them.

And it’s even worse when people say SpaceX/Rocket lab/BlueOrigin are better than NASA. NASA has 50++ years of space history and is so far, the only space agency that has actually send not only men to the Moon, but Interstellar probes, and other interplanetary missions and people think SpaceX is better cause starlink gives them faster internet, yeah sure haha...

When SpaceX takes us to Mars, Jupiter, other planets, whatever sure, SpaceX will be better than NASA, but at this moment, in this very same second spaceX/blue origin/whatever haven’t done a third of the things NASA has done and suceeded.

The things that NASA does compared to private companies are truly amazing: landing on the moon 50 years before any private company made it to orbit, creating a partially reusable launch vehicle that’s SRBs are still the heaviest thing to get recovered by parachute and with an orbiter that can get recovered FROM ORBIT! But, when and if starship starts flying, I don’t think you can compare bellyflopping to a 40 degree reentry angle, or... Never mind that! It’s just clear that how the orbiter was recovered - flying like a brick with wings - is nothing compared to belly flop to tail down. Sure, the orbiter and the entire Space Transportation System were developed in the 1970s, but still, you said “exact same things”. I’m trying to stay neutral, and I’m sorry I’m being so nitpicky.

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

Wait guys, we are veering off course now. Let's go BOT before this thread explode into NASA vs 21st Century Tuna

 

[Nagini]

Great idea!

 

[Chax208]

Can we have Jupiter’s moons back?

 

[Kaen]

Have you tried IRIS here on the forum?

IRIS???

 

[Altaïr]

IRIS???

That a challenging planet pack I made: Inspired from Reality Intermediate System (IRIS): "SFS hard mode"

But let's keep the thread on topic please guys

 

[OscarBubbles]

Does anyone know how to turn the planets back into solid when you change the scale??

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Does anyone know how to turn the planets back into solid when you change the scale??

You have to freeze them. It changes the gas back into a solid.

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Does anyone know how to turn the planets back into solid when you change the scale??

In 1.52 there is a tool called “TerrainCollider” in the planet files. Set that to ‘true’ and your planet will be solid, set it to ‘false’ and it will be gaseous.

 

[Gurren Lagann]

In 1.52 there is a tool called “TerrainCollider” in the planet files. Set that to ‘true’ and your planet will be solid, set it to ‘false’ and it will be gaseous.

IIRC, wasnt that parameter named just "collider", or did it change between patch updates?

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

You have to freeze them. It changes the gas back into a solid.

Lol

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

IIRC, wasnt that parameter named just "collider", or did it change between patch updates?

I’ve got no clue. I just know the information people posts.