Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About NicolaSix

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'd probably end up MM'ing those into thinner parts if I did, docking parts are THICC Yeah, actually rereading through the documents I have, while there's mention of a "spin table assembly", it /seems/ like there was a set of two to four retros mounted into the Upper D assembly that would initiate a roll in the upper stages just prior to the separation event. I tracked down enough additional information[1] about them to get their thrust/burn-time/weight/dimensions etc, so I guess I'll MM myself some 25-50% scale Zoot kick motors from the Mercury and pretend they're the 1KS40, 0.6KS40
  2. I eventually found the answer in TM-749-48 (pg 9) which is that there was a coast period (to 130,000ft altitude) between first stage ignition and second stage ignition where the first stage remained attached, I was too used to the liquid engine/Kerbal concept of constant thrust during ascent, so I'm rewriting my kOS launch/ascent program to follow the launch protocol defined in the handbook. So technically it was reason 3, sudden dead-mass loss, but also partially that stage 2,3,4 were never even vaguely designed with an aerodynamic profile. Now if I can just work out the best way to make kO
  3. I did actually sit down properly for a day and flexed my research skills, so I now have way more information, including the flight operations manual and the elusive CR-165-950. I adjusted all my configurations to be in line with those, since they're gross weights for the SRM's + aerodynamic casing/piping, rather than just the SRM's and have spent since about Friday last week trying to replicate the avionics/pitch programs used by the scout in kOS, trying to get to a consistent orbital capability from it. Which I managed, but only for sub-100kg payloads (currently a Explorer I sitting on a ba
  4. Hmm, I'm not sure the scout stages can really lose any more mass, the Antares is only ~70kg dry (which is far lighter than the real Antares (even scaled..), except the Antares-3 -- that ones weird..*) currently, in 3.2x it puts a 90kg payload into a 200km orbit after a little tweaking so it 'feels' like it's about right, RSS you'd need about 4x the delta-V per stage, which is basically 'moar fuel' as far as I can guess via my spreadsheet I kinda just wanted to avoid having the Scout being capable of TLI of probes, since that's kinda what the Agena/Centaur is there for; the upside is switch
  5. Thanks! I realised the scout is a little oversize and it's honestly not my intent to 'rebalance' it in any meaningful way, it works perfectly in stock + 3.2x in my experience, just the thing with the fuel tanks threw me, I intend to throw a patch into the RealFuels that only fixes the RCS tanks and doesn't touch the engine configurations/mass otherwise. I tried to balance engine thrust values and mass around the original parts definitions, just with the ability to tweak the specifics; the patch provided atm is more for the "I want to play RO+RP-0 but don't want to learn a degree in rocket e
  6. Hi all, Very long time lurker, but anyway; hopefully a useful contribution! Playing through a 3.2x rescale with RealFuels I immediately noticed that the weights on the Scout's SRM pieces are... off slightly, normally <1KG or so, which obviously messes with the delta-V and TWR values quite a bit. Tracked this down to RealFuels replacing any Monopropellant tanks with Hydrazine unless told otherwise and also reducing the weight of the engine a bit because of realisticMass being set to true by default, so spent the last two days researching the absolute heck outta the early Scout SRM'
  • Create New...