Raptor22

Where were you able to get the Martin Marietta Shuttle Derived Vehicle Space Station proposal drawings from? I tried looking it up on Google, but a cursory search hasn't yielded any results. I'm guessing it's on some obscure database somewhere?

If the Challenger disaster happens in your timeline (Judging by the fact that Challenger disaster happened on January 28, 1986, and the fact that you're up to June 1985, with flights every 3 months or so, then the 2nd flight after this would line up with Challenger), would that change their decision to have the ACRV? Or, if they don't want to invest in resurrecting the Apollo capsule for an ACRV, have Soyuz come and dock with the station? After all, if you have the Challenger disaster happen in your alternative timeline, there'd be a 21 month period (Jan 28, 1986 to October 3, 1988) where Skylab would be inaccessible. Plus, if there was enough funding to re-activate Skylab, add three major modules to it, add a new sun shield, and who knows how much equipment inside of it... surely they'd earmark some funds to have a lifeboat, right? Or, who knows. If you really want to cut corners, you could use the "KOOSE" mod's ELK system to replicate the use of the real-world proposed MOOSE (Man Out Of Space Easiest) system. I've used it from time to time, and you have to be very precise about your attitude control to prevent the Kerbal from burning up, but it works if you want a life boat on a shoestring budget.

Perhaps they can have a stripped-down Apollo (Maybe a Block III?) carried up in the Shuttle's cargo bay and berthed to the zenith port of Skylab? IIRC, back in the early days of planning Space Station Freedom and later the ISS, there were proposals for reviving the Apollo capsule as an Assured Crew Return Vehicle to be kept at the station; its role was later replaced by Soyuz. There was another ESA proposal for a scaled-up Apollo that held 8 crew and had a funky Soyuz-Alike system with no service module below it, but rather a small one above it that had the docking adapter and propulsion, and would be jettisoned before re-entry. It would have looked something like this: Note the manipulator grapple nodes located on it. It seems that it would have used a CBM docking port, which Skylab here doesn't have. The easiest option, IMO, would be having a Block III Apollo carried inside the Shuttle's cargo bay. It uses a roughly 1/3 to 1/2 sized Service Module, which is enough for short orbital jaunts (perhaps to another nearby station and back? IIRC, during the beginning of Mir, a Soyuz was used to carry crew from Mir to Salyut 7, grab some equipment, return back to Mir with it, and then return to Earth), or for returning back down to Earth / Kerbin. Just attach some manipulator grapple nodes on there - or, optionally, fly it unmanned out of the orbiter's cargo bay - and dock it to Skylab. With the position that the shuttle docks at, it would be incredibly easy to move it from the bay to the zenith port, since the bay would be directly facing it. Using the 5-seat pod, it could be used such that a crew can remain on the station continuously; 7 astronauts can launch on the first shuttle up with it, and 5 stay behind while 2 return. Each launch after, five swap out with five new ones, and 7 return back. With the Apollo Crew Return Vehicle docked there, the 5 full-time crew can stay there until the next shuttle arrives, with the assurance that they can evacuate the station and return back home at any time using the ACRV. Currently, that port is either empty or used for holding the TRS, but seeing as the Power Tower has four structural docking nodes (which currently aren't used for anything), and the TRS doesn't require a pressurized connection, any future stowage of one could probably be put up there, allowing the Crew Return Vehicle to occupy the remaining Apollo-Era cone-and-drogue port.

This thread has reached 1200 pages! Incredible!

LLRV?

I would also recommend using autostrut, and/or physical struts, and using a probe control point on the Shuttle C rather than the habtech panel - that way, if it starts swaying around inside the fairing, it won't mess up how MechJeb perceives the attitude of your rocket.

I think he meant you actually giving him details - what power systems? Which parts? How are they not working? What have you done to try to troubleshoot it? Do you have screenshots? Where is your KSP.log file?

I've been playing KSP since version 0.24.2, and the KSC has always been visible from space for as long as I can remember. I'm pretty sure that's a stock feature.

I just suggested a Viking follow-up with rovers, lol. Whether or not it makes it in to the mod depends on the decision of @CobaltWolf and the rest of their team. I'm hoping it will, but it's their mod, so they make the rules.

Alternatively, there were plans for a Viking III mission, which were more scaled back than the rover I showed above. Essentially, they took the existing Viking system, and replaced the three landing legs with three tracked wheels, referred to as the ELMS - Elastic Loop Mobility System I found some fairly specific stats for it that were apparently published in a Martin Marietta document, as well as some pictures of engineering mock-ups and prototypes. Attached in the spoiler below (to not make this post take up the entire page): Further documents for the workings of the Elastic Loop Mobility System can be found here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19760021186 There was also a proposal for a Viking '79 mission that would have carried a small rover with conventional wheels on a Viking lander. It has some very detailed drawings of various sub-systems like the integrated science package on the rover: You can read through the full 113-page "Summary" report document (Volume 1) on NTRS here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740011775 There is also a more detailed 404-page-long technical document (Volume 2)) for it here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740011776 Just for fun (I wouldn't recommend attempting to model these, lol), there were some even wackier designs that were considered in a 1987 Mars Rover Technology Workshop, which you can read about here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910005287 - but, beware! The document is 840 pages long; download it before reading, or else your page will seriously lag trying to load it. Though, frankly, I don't think that any besides the Viking-derived system would have worked all that well; I mean, for crying out loud, they had a mechanized spider as one of the designs, and one of the weirdest asymmetrical entry capsules I've ever seen.

Are there any plans for the Mars 1984 Viking Rover Mission? From what I can tell, it would have had two orbiters, two landers, and six penetrators. Diagram Legend: Diagram Legend: Diagram Legend: I'm willing to bet that several parts, like the lander body, aeroshell, descent engines, heat shield, landing legs, etc. could be reused from the baseline Viking. Not to mention that the entire orbiter would be pretty much the same. Since the penetrators would be difficult to implement in-game without additional plugins, they could just act as atmospheric or rough landing probes, or you could omit them entirely. But, I think that the Viking Rover is something that you should give some consideration to, as you wouldn't have to completely design it from scratch - after all, the whole point of the plan was to re-use as much of the existing Viking design as possible. More info here: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-sample-return-mars-1984.html You could have then in the LM just until the moment of lift-off, then transfer them over to the CM. Unless you have Connected Living Space installed - then you're out of luck. But, that's only a band-aid fix. Hopefully it can be patched in a future update.

Could you please upload some screenshots so that people can have an idea of what the mod looks like?

I get a good framerate, but still have the issue with the J2X activation. I haven't ever had this issue with any other engine in recent memory, and other deployable engines like the near future atomic rocket motors works just fine. It did, however, ruin my recent attempt at the Venus / Eve flyby mission, due to the J2X engine needed for TVI/TEI suffering the same issue as seen in the video there. Though, I have not problems with the ullage motor plumes. I have tried manually deploying the engine bell and then manually igniting the engine, but gotten the same result. I've tried shutting down the engine, but it is impossible to do so as the "shut down" button doesn't stay in the PAW long enough to click; I have not yet tried using the action groups, though. Eventually, I had to resort to blowing up the engine with the Kaboom mod (I couldn't stand the noise) and then using the two RL-10 engines that I had mounted (Used the LASS config for the S-IVB engine adapter) to do a much slower TEI burn. I managed to achieve the mission, but had to use a considerable amount of fuel on the Apollo CSM to do correction burns as I did not get as much performance out of just the two RL-10s as I would with the J2X firing.

I was thinking more of a motorcycle that has limits to how far it can lean over. Like, you can still turn like one, but without clever robotics work or a plugin, it'd be very difficult to coordinate SAS with steering for it. Though, I've put a total of about 5 minutes into the thought of it; if I put more time into brainstorming, there'd probably be a good solution to be found.

I mean, I've seen people be able to get motorcycles to work using stock parts, reaction wheels, etc. I don't think it's too out of the question. If push comes to shove, the bike could be equipped with invisible "training wheels" that collide with the surface if it leans too far to one side or the other in order to prevent it from toppling over.

Are we ever going to get the Lunar Motorbike planned for an LRV alterative or in addition to it for Apollo 20? It's just ridiculous enough to fit right at home in KSP, IMO.

There is a VERY rough diagram of the ET attaching to Skylab (literally just shown as a rectangle) on page 67 / III-23 of the SSI external tank applications paper (the first one I linked). From what I'm seeing, the pressurized attachment would be made from a module in the aft cargo container on the bottom of the ET, and looking at the shuttle attachment hardware, it seems that it would be attached shuttle side away from the station - my guess is that the shuttle docks it in position there before detaching and then docking to the normal docking port on the front of the station. There's not a whole lot of detail, so you'll likely have to improvise a lot. Though, it at least gives a good idea of how ENORMOUS the ET would be and how much it could add to the station. Here's a few other images for reference: It looks like they had some plans to re-use Centaurs as OTVs. Some of the hangar concepts are able to pressurize, while others don't. The Near Future Launch Vehicles cargo nose cone would be a good option for having the front of it open up as a hangar, or you could rotate it 180 degrees and have it come out the aft. I'd like to see what your creativity can do!

I've seen it mentioned in a document about general repurposing of the shuttle's tank, among other things like using it for the body of a space telescope or as an orbital fuel depot, along with the aft cargo carrier concept. I have seen some mentions in the BDB documentation about a shuttle external tank with Skylab. For general tank reuse stuff, I recommend reading through the Space Studies Institute's report on it: https://ssi.org/reading/ssi-report-on-tank-applications/ If that page is awkward to read it on, here's just a normal PDF version: https://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ssi_externaltanks_gimarc.pdf There's also plenty of things on the No Shortage Of Dreams blog (IIRC earlier you said this had no relation with it) that talk about ET utilization: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2023/03/space-shuttle-external-tank-et.html And via Astronautix: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html Judging by the graphics you used in the post above with the new solar shield, I'm betting you've read this document, but if you haven't: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790011998/downloads/19790011998.pdf It's worth reading!

If I recall correctly, they planned to use it as a hangar of sorts. So, I'm guessing they'd probably have some cutting done in orbit to remove one of the ends. Maybe they'd use the LH2 tank for the hangar and then the smaller LOX tank for a pressurized module for crews to work in. It could probably be done with Near Future Launch Vehicles' cargo bays - I was able to replicate a "close enough" sized structure with it. Though, the real problem is figuring out just how on earth it's supposed to attach to SkyLab; I haven't been able to find any drawings or anything anywhere that could give me a clue, so it will probably involve a fair amount of creativity from @TruthfulGnome- but, seeing how well the rest of their work has turned out so far, I have no doubt they can pull it off.

How did you get the new thermal shield on there? Was it made with flags, or is it a development thing for BDB, or a custom part, or what?

How did you get the new docking adapter module to look like that? The one included in BDB is far, far skinnier. I'm guessing that you kitbashed it together, but I can't find parts in BDB that would fit that size.

I've had the same issue. I'm going to try to fiddle around with it some more - but, if I can't get it working, I'll upload my log here. To clarify - at least from what I'm observing - the stock SRB effects will play constantly, regardless of whether the booster is ignited or not. When the booster is ignited, the waterfall effects will kick on for the duration of the booster burn, and then flame out, but the whole time the stock effects will continuously play. This also effects several Bluedog Design Bureau SRB effects for interstages, separation motors, and abort motors, in addition to the stock ones. I'm still trying to isolate the issue before making a full report here.

It should be possible. I've seen plenty of other mods that have elevators; it's no different than having any other animated part. There's a few mods for the MADV that have its elevator work fine.

I have updated it, and it seems that the issue has gone away. Thank you.

I'm not certain if this is an issue resulting from Artemis Construction kit, however, I've found my log getting spammed with literally millions of lines simply saying "Bones do mot match bindpose". The reason why I'm first investigating Artemis Construction Kit is that it does not appear in the log until it tries to load the Orion drogue chute, after which I start to see this: After a dozen or so lines of "Bones do not match bindpose", it loads the Orion double drogue chute; I'll continue to try to investigate this matter to see if it is a result of Artemis Construction Kit, but I thought I might as well post it here for posterity. I would try to upload my log, but unfortunately the no kidding millions of instances of "Bones do not match bindpose" showing up dozens of times every millisecond end up ballooning the file up to half a gigabyte, making it difficult to attach here.