Pappystein

Members
  • Content count

    393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About Pappystein

  • Rank
    OOBE Historian/Engineer
  1. Like @Jimbodiah I use the version in BlueDog... Same model, newly updated textures. But as I stated above, when it comes to the Big-G model, it is a VERY bare-bones model (No paraglider or Landing gear to START with ) and in the end, it is of limited use. I have cobbled together a few SMs for it but none have worked "JUST RIGHT...." and lets not talk about docking going backwards AT ALL
  2. Thanks for at-least considering the Idea of Big-G. Many mods have a bare-bones variant (FASA even has a 2.5-3.75m SM for it) but none have anywhere near the complete program as proposed in 1968 or finalized and canceled/ignored in 1971. I knew the SM would be an issue but I figured it would solve your geometry issue since the top would be 0.625 and the Bottom would be 2.5m. I think most mod developers stay away from this beast for exactly two reasons... 1) Multiple configurations of SMs. 2) Docking port BEHIND the capsule... not in front of it. In your diagram above the Docking port would RETRACTED into the bottom of the bottom cone... Then extend out about a meter and a half and connect with a Station. Incidentally, in my notes, I have several references to the 2.5mx3.75m conical SM being the least preferred version of the SM (Unsure if NASA or McD-D was calling it "least preferred") It appears a 2.5m (Kerbal Scale) Cylindrical SM would be used for both Apollo and via an Adapter... Titan IIIM (Ala Titan IVa) In Kerbal scale Titan should be ~2M (1.95m to be exact.) same is true of the UA-120x SRM family (120" = 3.048m = 1.95m in Kerbal Scale) The UA-156x family of 156" then becomes almost exactly 2.5m (2.53m to be exact.) *Considers looking into learning Blender, how to do layers in PaintShopPro and how to use Unity to make a Big-G mod....
  3. @Shadowmage I was just about to post about the VA... the SM for VA is FGB and the combination of-course is called TKS. IF VA launced it would launch with FGB module. This is what made the FGB architecture so robust that it is used as the basis for several previous/current and future proposed Russian modules on the ISS and beyond. Just like Gemini-B, VA has a hatch in the heat shield. However I am guessing that the Soviet/Russian space program didn't design it well, didn't like it or just preferred to stay with Soyuz (all are EASILY possible.) since VA was never landed maned..... that we know of.
  4. So, Gemini is the part of the NASA space program I liked the most. A Pure science in preparation for Apollo missions that was added to speed up Apollo. HOWEVER, there are many hurdles as several people have mentioned. Since @Shadowmage mentioned he was concerned about the Geometry, since many people have mentioned that the docking port on Gemini is not passable (very true.) Might I suggest an alternative? I give you BIG-Gemini! The Nose is no longer used for docking but instead has a LANDING GEAR! The tail end diameter is STOCK 2.5m (the front of the nose would be 0.625 but wouldn't matter for much.) It uses a PARAGLIDER to land and @linuxgurugamer already has a modlette to support deploy-able lifting surfaces and someone else we know should have a good grasp on wheels/skids by this point . It is designed to, and supports, many OTHER parts already in SSTU. Parts like, I don't know... .STATION parts. And it's two primary service modules (3.75m for Saturn launched and 3.125m for LDC-Titan Launched) would have the docking ports, Life-support consumable/cargo and Retro thrusters. Also Early on it would have used the Apollo Mk2 CSM. The whole point of Big-G was to support Space Stations starting in the mid 1970s. More cargo and cheaper to build/maintain than Apollo Blk III/IV. Via Part switching the CM can have a crew capacity from 14 down to 4 with a capability to increase stowed consumables for the station (Life support.) If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologize. But it is a way to get one of the three variants of Gemini in the game without worrying about the geometry BTW stay away from Wikipedia on this one folks. It has data makes it sound like BigG was a small program with one path... the neat thing about Big-G was that it was pretty modular and the only fixed points were that it was LOOSELY derived from Gemini. Very few parts were the same however. Rather it was a new space-craft with a structural similarity to an in production space craft at the time of proposal (Gemini-B) The below link has some good RW documentation on it http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37347.80 Had NASA gone the route of many Space Stations like they thought they would in the late 1960s.... Big-G would likely have been built since it would have been cheaper than any Space Shuttle program. To be clear. Big-G is not a space shuttle replacement... rather it is a cheaper alternative for several of the rolls Space Shuttle was designed for. Historically, as soon as the Follow on order for Saturn rockets failed to happen (in two consecutive years) there was no point to develop Big-G since no more Saturns meant no big Space Stations.
  5. Except the Production LR-87-LH2 was supposed to be 2 or 4 bells and actually MORE powerful than J-2. J-2 just one due to less moving parts. Full up LR-87LH2 was to be scale-able to the launcher. The TEST article is what you see stats for on astronautix and Wikipedia was a SINGLE bell configuration designed to replace the similar LR-91 on a Titan LDC upper stage. Saturn used, LR-87LH2 would have had >= ISP to initial J-2, MOAR thrust and MOAR parts... NASA chose simple instead of efficient.... That being said, I have used parts from another mod to make my own single and twin bell version. And if they ever release their LDC Titan (3.125m kerbal scale.) I will have a TRI, QUAD or QUINT bell for Saturn-NOVA type missions. But... @Shadowmage I am curious about Gemini. Most "in update" mods that have Gemini have the Capsule being 0.625 to 1.5m, with the SM maxing out at 1.875m Are you setting the capsule to max diameter of 1.875 to limit your sizes? Titan RW to Kerbal Scale is just under 2 meters I think... (I am going by memory..) others (FASA) that are in a maintenance mode only seem to be 2.5m The reason I ask is because it matters if you want to later make a BIG-Gemini version (Big-G for short.) Big-G would fit perfectly on the Apollo SM without any adapters (meaning in KSP scale it would be 2.5m base.) I have a LARGE collection of data on Titan/Gemini if needed and am willing to share. Most of it is data I have just collected across the web to support other mods. But I did find a link to diagrams of the BIG-G Paraglider setup.... As Tater stated MOST of the LR-87 variants and MOST of the LR-91 variants were Hypergolic (either UDMH or AZ-50 with NTO.) The -3 variants of both engines where RP-1/LOX. And as Jimbodiah has alluded there WAS a Hydrolox Engine tested BEFORE The J-2.... For Intents and purposes the LR-91 is just a single bell LR-87 with smaller pumps and a larger bell (those were the bulk of the changes between the two engine types.) Unrelated I have to say YES! a quality VA capsule! I can't wait for that and TKS (Well actually I CAN wait but you get my meaning!)
  6. So to quote a REALLY OLD video game..... " Mein Leben!" <Deleted un-needed whining!> But I REALLY like the texture update for the Agena parts.... and that probe is too cute and actually will fit under an approved Agena payload fairing!
  7. I have had this problem before with single bell engines, including stock, in addition to on the Landvermisser . It seems the Landvermisser is more susceptible than others. Possibly do to the odd shape/placement of the engines. I WILL not use CKAN (because I don't want all the extra "artifacts" that CKAN leaves behind when you remove/update a mod) So the ultimate solution in my case was time-consuming. DELETE KSP and start over with a whole new install of the game! (obviously back up your save first!) THIS has often times solved the above issue for me... BUT I will admit I have not tried the Landvermisser in 1.3 yet (Just re-downloaded the master file a few minutes ago.) IF you use your STEAM install as your MOD install for KSP you can try to validate your files first.
  8. I would add two things to this. 1) if you don't want to use smart parts you should probably stage the SRMs like real life. all 9x at the same time. Whether or not you have some that are air ignited! 2) I too do the SRMs in 3x symmetry 3x times. BUT you almost HAVE to have Editor Extensions installed to safely eject the larger GEM rockets from the 1.5m Thor EELT body
  9. I don't know about ALL the parts but the Multi-body is in the BDB Extras folder (MM stretch to preexisting parts.) The Pegasus Upper Stage is the Saturn I engine assembly with a larger tank on top, The Rover appears to be made of KAS/KIS assembled parts including KIS stowage boxes. The Inter-stage has a Procedural Fairing base so I am guessing PF is required and last by not least the Artemis landers themselves.....NCAA
  10. Thanks for the Feedback! I ALMOST want to tackle a MM file on that wing just so I can tame the Wingemini again..... But I will be the first to admit I probably would have better luck poking a Grizzly bear with a #2 pencil
  11. Out of Curiosity, Did you try to put Control surfaces ON the gemini capsule and balance them like an Aerospace plane before you added the Airfoil? also did either of you build any sort of keel on the bottom of the capsule? Some mass on the bottom SHOULD help attenuate the floppsie/bouncy flight you both describe. I will re-emphasize ***SHOULD*** I should add, I have NOT played with this and the only gliding Gemini I have flow was in that OTHER mod... Pre 1.02
  12. Thanks for the explanation... I hope you have a series of Blinding Eureka moments and it becomes the easiest code you have ever written
  13. So if B9PartSwitch does not allow select-able CFG / Select-able Upgrades IS there a method to do so? I have looked into SSTU and while it is an awesome mod, it is a bit daunting and requires a full download of the SSTU mod. To be Honest, I was hoping B9PartSwitch handled this because it seems to be the easiest and quickest/simplest of any mods I have looked at for any sort of Functionality changes... Also given how quickly you have updated it to solve issues... one of the most efficiently supported nope not any sort of gratuitous brown-nosing here just the truth! The Upgrade process as laid out by Squad would sort-of work. But I have several rockets that really can't take advantage of the improved versions of the engines and further If I want to go back to older variants I can't I know I am wandering off Topic but since the discussion was started here I thought I would/should ask.
  14. @Gordon Dry Um, that is the Saturn IV tank..... I think you are looking for the later Saturn IVB tank. The tank you have found is used in conjunction with 6x RL-10 Hydrolox engines and not the J-2. The tank named is for Saturn I and not Saturn IB/Saturn V. It sounds like you have not unlocked the Saturn IB/V parts yet
  15. Ok so I am just starting to play with B9PartSwitch. A couple questions 1) Is there a way that B9 Part switch can switch between different Configs on the same model? I am looking for a way to eliminate duplicate parts... I am thinking for the LR-87-5/7/9/11/11A family. I could see going the route of SSTU but that adds a lot of complexity because whole models are swapped in and out. In the case of the LR87 family... not much changes visually at the KSP level thus no need for additional models/parts..... If swapping is possible. Obviously the Part Upgrade path is an alternative but it brings about it's own problems (I may WANT the older version down the line.) 2)what order does B9PartSwitch process CFG files that affect it? Is there a way to "patch" the B9PS Cfg files with other files similar/with MM? I am trying to add four Hypergolic fuels in three combinations to multiple mods that each have their own B9PartSwitch Fuel. Both mods (Bluedog_DB and FueltankPlus) use MM files to add the B9PartSwitch to their Tanks... The B9 process is NOT built into the core Cfg files of any of the tanks in question. Thanks for help with NOOB questions!