schoff123

I don't think it should move, otherwise you are losing leverage when moving the nozzle. I would have it "mounted" onto the aft case, the same was it is in the ATK photo you posted. The angle should be just slight enough to provide clearance for the gimbaling in that direction. I don't see how you would need to see it move, it could be stationary and just a modeled cylinder coming out the end. I'd also image there would another one offset 90-deg CW to get 2 axis TVC

MOOG in upstate NY makes pretty much any rocket actuator for the US rocket industry - military and civilian. Historically, many liquid and solid systems used hydraulic or fueldraulic actuators to provide TVC, but electromechnical (EM) actuators are on the rise to replace them because of newly decreased cost and overall simplicity. I now MOOG makes them and I found an article saying the Castor-30 has EM TVC from MOOG: http://www.moog.com/news/operating-group-news/2016/electromechanical-actuation-system-supports-successful-u-s-air-force-orbital-atk-medium-class-stage-iii-static-fire-test/ However, I don't understand the nuances of EM TVC and haven't really had exposure to EM TVC systems. Either way, the Castor-30 above has EM TVC, not hydraulic! Well there you have it. So its an EM TVC with end to same-end leveraging. Thats pretty cool imo

With these types of solid rocket motors, the nozzle and aft closure are partially submerged into the motor case. You are correct that there is thrust vector control thanks to hydraulic actuators, but the nozzle throat assembly allows that to happen: The flexible portion is a series of vulcanized rubber and metal shims, and the nozzle entrance is typically a series of pieces, as pictured. Since the nozzle is not rigidly attached to the motor case, the actuators attached to the bell can vector it. The SRB's used a very similar setup, but also had a supporting oil bladder for sealing. The actuators themselves are usually attached to the aft motor section or thrust skirt to provide leverage during control. I highly suggest reading through Sutton's Rocket Propulsion Elements, Chapters 12 and 13 (8th Ed.) for a great overview and illustration of solid systems. EDIT: For nozzle extensions, any linear actuators would be anchored to the the bottom of the case and the specific nozzle section. locking tabs were sometimes used to secure the section once extended. There were sealing features involved, like carbon fiber ropes and stuff like that (think of fiber stove rope around a pellet or wood stove, for example).

Just wanted to identify a potential issue, I am having trouble with fluctuating requirements with certain contracts. More specifically, the "Build a station" contract will appear then cycle through being available and unavailable for several seconds before greying out. I do have all dependencies downloaded and have read through the FAQ. Would it be related to the "Sun is not a target" req? What exactly does that req mean?

I thought getting to Mun SOI was relatively easy, but making the landing was difficult for me. I went through 2 lander designs before I finally had enough fuel to make it back to Kerbin. Its ironic that landing on another orbiting body is conceptually easier than docking with another orbiting spacecraft.

I am speechless. That makes docking so much easier!

Rockets could gain so much efficiency from using fluorine oxidizers IRL. Its a shame it eats through freaking everything and is horribly toxic

Awesome! I'm so happy this made a return, it really provided an incentive to use IVA's. Thanks for taking up the project:D

As said by others, at this point in KSP's development many of the stock parts look rather ad-hoc and almost unprofessional. Most of the engines, for example, are simple shapes with a divergent nozzle attached to it and some greeble thrown in. Tantares engines have to go away from this in order to actually look like rocket engines!! But that doesn't mean Tantares has to abandon the aesthetics and artistic nuances of stock parts - abandoning that would be realism (or ugliness). IMO Tantares walks the line of stock-a-like very very well, and fleshing out existing parts doesn't change that. In fact, it avoids part bloat by stemming the constant out pour of more parts to fill roles that could be filled with existing parts after a little refinement. Squad may (hopefully:D) do an art pass in the future to bring them up to speed with Unity 5 and the level of talent that mod authors have. What passinglurker said, this may/may not effect how mod authors actually start modding, because their more beginner work may be crappy compared to the newer stock standards after the art pass. But that may not happen in the first place

I'm not quite for the one piece boosters, another 1.875 m engine meant for the boosters would be good because that part size is a little starved. Making the Soyuz little bit bigger would be a good idea. It seems a little on the small side. Unless the whole rocket, other than the bottom half of the core stage, went to 1.875 m. I like that generic design, but some flare with the stripes helps to break things up and add eye candy

Just a heads up, the FASA and KW RO configs move most of the nodes around, making some pretty odd stuff happen when building crafts with those parts. I didn't know if you were aware

This... this has to happen. I was unaware of the DIRECT studies until this thread, i will definitely be watching this!

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up! Out of curiosity, any planned additions after the Unity 5 integration?

Some odd node placements with RSS+RF+RO installed, see photo: http://imgur.com/a/pwo0x The heat shield is clipped into the CM already, and the CM/service decoupler has wonky nodes which make it attach to the CM higher than normal. Anyone experience this?

Does anyone have trouble reentering the atmo with the Vostok capsule? It seems like no matter what the reentry profile is (i've tried sooo many trajectories) i cant slow down below ~200 m/s. This is coming from an 80 km orbit. Nice work on the ATV panels! Very nice!!! (read with Borat voice)