DaveyJ576

Surveyor 1 on the Moon! It flies quite well. It is a little different from the Coatl version, and I found that to land safely I had to burn the verniers at full thrust at the same time as the solid motor, at about 70k on KSRSS. On Coatl I could light the solid first then the verniers after separation, but doing that with this model does not slow it down fast enough. These verniers really sip the fuel, so you have plenty of gas to land even when they are used in conjunction with the solid. I set it down with about 15% fuel remaining. If I recall correctly burning the verniers and the solid at the same time was the actual procedure used to land the Surveyors. @akron, thank you for all the great missions with your version! I still use a lot of the Coatl parts!

As far as the Belle-RNRD nose cone for the GATV is concerned, is it supposed to be jettisoned once the vehicle arrives in orbit? As it currently stands it does not have any separation force at all. If you try to stage it during the ride to orbit while the vehicle is still under acceleration it will get hung up before eventually falling away, potentially causing damage. If you wait until reaching orbit, it does separate cleanly, but with virtually no separation delta-V. I could not find a definitive reference which stated when the shroud was jettisoned, but I think it is a safe assumption that the intention was to get rid of it once out of the atmosphere but before the vehicle reached orbit, in a fashion similar to all other shrouds. It would save weight and improve vehicle performance, and it would eliminate a potential debris hazard for the Gemini vehicle as it approached for docking. @Rodger

Throwback Saturday! What Gemini 9 could have been if they had avoided the "Angry Alligator". The astronauts on this mission are Tony Nelson and Roger Healey. No sign of anyone else in the area...

MechJeb 2.0. While not perfect, MechJeb will provide you with a smooth ride all the way uphill, ending with a nice, very nearly circular orbit. I am currently playing the older (non-Reborn) KSRSS on 2.5x, flying mostly BDB and SOCK. There are a few caveats. First, the MechJeb learning curve is steep, and it can be frustrating at first. There are a lot of parameters to consider as MJ is loaded with features. I use only about 25% of the features so it is not as daunting as it may seem, once you get used to it. Second, it is an extraordinarily complex software program, and even though the dev team has done an amazing job replicating spacecraft operating parameters, there are a few things that are just a little wonky. Play it and you will find them. Be prepared for some occasional weirdness. All in all it is a great complement to KSRSS.

On 26 June 1984, STS-14 (41D) experienced the first post-ignition, pre-launch abort since Gemini 6A. The SSME start sequence was aborted after only one engine had started. In the immediate aftermath of the abort, while still strapped in his seat on the flight deck, astronaut Steve Hawley deadpanned, “Gee, I thought we would be a lot higher at MECO!”

I would like to correct an earlier post that I made concerning the shuttle rolling to the heads down and later to the heads up position during launch. It turns out I was badly misinformed. It really had nothing to do with SRB separation. The shuttle rolled to a heads down position immediately after launch for several reasons (in order of importance): 1. It greatly reduced the effect of aerodynamic forces on the wings. The shuttle was flying at the absolute limit of its structural integrity during launch. Trajectories were very carefully planned so that the structural limits would not be exceeded, which would very quickly lead to a loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew incident. Rolling to heads down greatly aided in this effort. 2. It resulted in significant reductions in drag and thrust vector losses, resulting in a nearly 20% increase in payload to orbit performance. 3. It allowed the shuttle to align itself with the correct and desired launch azimuth. Very nearly all rockets perform a roll maneuver for this reason. The reuse of the Saturn launch pads forced the shuttle stack to be oriented with the vertical stabilizer (tail) pointed south, thus making a roll maneuver a necessity in order to launch to the east. 4. It made RTLS aborts easier as the pilots would already have a view of the horizon, saving precious time in aligning the vehicle in an abort situation. 5. It provided the S-band comms antennas that were (by necessity) mounted on the upper sections of the orbiter's forward fuselage with a clear line of sight to the communications stations at Merritt Island and Bermuda. This enabled a continuous comms link on the ride uphill. Staying in a heads up orientation would have blocked these stations by the bulk of the orbiter/ET stack. Staying in the heads down position all the way to MECO was the normal procedure for all flights up to STS-87. That flight (in November 1997) was the first to use the Roll-To-Heads-Up (RTHU) maneuver at the T+6 minute mark, which enabled communications through TDRS 2.5 minutes sooner and allowed NASA to close the Bermuda tracking station. Renowned historian Dennis R. Jenkins stated that "most" flights after STS-87 used the maneuver, but he did not list which ones did not. I believe it to be a reasonable assumption that very nearly all of them did. The original post that prompted my earlier and now incorrect post was in regards to a theoretical shuttle/ET stack launched on a Saturn S-1C stage. Given the statements above, it would have still been necessary to roll the vehicle to a heads down position immediately upon launch, even without the side-mounted SRBs. It would only be advantageous to perform a RTHU maneuver when sufficient TDRS coverage had been obtained. @Blufor878, I apologize for the confusion concerning your cool Saturn/Shuttle pics. By the way, has anyone ever tried an RTLS abort using SOCK in game?

Bravo! The square shaped coupler/decouple used to mate the Spartan to the payload bay truss, where did you get that?

@Kuiper_Belt and @pTrevTrevs, Absolutely epic work! The Spider mission was fantastic. If only we could have done that IRL… I have only recently began shuttle operations and I wanted to ask you two questions, 1.) are you using KSRSS, and 2.) if so where did you get your Edwards AFB? I have seen a couple of mods that provides one, but they are sized for RSS and don’t seem to have configs for 2.5x. Thanks!

Thanks. I already found that one, but it appears that it works only with RSS. There are no configs for the smaller KSRSS.

Here is the web archive link. It is all there, for the time being: https://web.archive.org/web/20220416202322/http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

Hello! I have two questions: 1. Does anyone know of a good Edwards AFB mod that will fit KSRSS? 2. If I want the KerboArm to operate via Breaking Ground as opposed to IR, do I just delete the IR_next.cfg patch from the hTRobotics folder? Infernal Robotics is a bit wonky for me and I would like to try the arm with just the Breaking Ground functionality if that is possible. Thanks!

I have been running KSP for 3 years so I am reasonably proficient. I have been running BDB on a 2.5x KSRSS setup mostly. Recently I decided to get into the brave new world of shuttle operations. It has been fun for the past week and I thought I would offer my thoughts on SOCK and ReDirect as a newbie, in no particular order. 1. Orbiter construction was a breeze and was well thought out. The only thing that puzzled me was the placement of the KU-band antenna. Once I figured out that it needs to be on a longeron attachment point I got it. One observation: this antenna was switched over to a rendezvous radar when approaching a station. The dish was rotated upward in relation to the payload bay for this. Could this be a future upgrade? 2. The incredible detail that is available on the orbiter (Recolored and Repainted are a must!) is stunning. One suggested upgrade: could we get the original rudder configuration that did not have the drag chute bay? The first four orbiters were built without the drag chute, they had it retrofitted after the Challenger accident. Only Endeavour was built with it. What is a suggestion for a good chute to use? 3. I thought that it was a bit unusual that the ReDirect SRBs lacked a forward attachment point. I then took the recommended step of switching over to the Photon boosters and that was resolved nicely. For the ET decoupler is it possible to have crossfeed on as a default? I puzzled as to why the SSMEs were not firing for quite a while until it dawned on me. I also can't think of a reason why the bipod would be off. I think it should be always on. 4. I found it easier to build the orbiter as a separate assembly, with the ET decoupler attached to it. I would then build out the ET/booster stack and attach the orbiter/decoupler assembly. If I built the ET/booster stack with the decoupler, I found that attaching the orbiter was difficult as it had a tendency to attach to the ET node and not the decoupler node. 5. The whole stack flies well uphill with MechJeb PVG. The roll to heads down could be a little smoother, but after that it is rock solid. Trying for a periapsis lower than 200 km will result in some weird pitch down movements, and I found that a 225x125 orbit works great for the initial ascent. The roll to heads up was easy. With MJ still engaged you simply change the force roll number from 180 to 0 and click outside the MJ box. The orbiter rolls smoothly back to heads up this way. I got to my initial orbit with a little gas left in the ET and without an OMS burn. I circularized at periapsis and commenced orbital ops. 6. Two stock sepratrons at the base of each SRB is a must. Without them the Photon booster nosecones are over-powered and they will cause collisions with the ET or the orbiter at separation. I tried the BDB S-IVB ullage motors, but they are overpowered and have to have the thrust cut way back. The stock sepratrons work well and even look a little like the real thing. 7. Coming downhill the orbiter flies beautifully. MechJeb SmartASS is a must for reentry. Using the SVEL+ function I could keep a steady 30 degree upward pitch with no unwanted rolling or yawing. I would adjust the angle as needed to get to my target. After reentry, Atmosphere Autopilot enabled a smooth and easily controllable WASD flight to touchdown. I have stuck 4 out of 4 landings, although only one was on the runway! More practice is needed there. DO NOT take extremely steep down angles (greater than 30-35 degrees) if you miss your landing mark. This will result in nasty flat spins and uncontrolled flight. It is better to go past and turn around or pick an alternate runway. 8. I haven't tried docking yet. I have to get the basics down first. There is a very detailed description of how to dock several pages back. I copied and pasted it into a Word file for my own use. It should help a lot. All in all this is an outstanding effort @benjee10! Thank you for all the hard work. It is appreciated!

Tried that. Not there. I must be missing something.

Hello! I am new to this mod (just two days ago) and I need help. For the life of me I can not figure out how the SRBs attach to the ET at the upper end. I have the lower ET-SRB radial decoupler in place, but there doesn't seem to be an upper decoupler. Also, does this mod have a separation motor for the lower SRB skirt or do we have to use one from another mod? Thanks. Excellent work @benjee10! Everything looks great so far!

This issue actually has nothing to do with MLP. The size 0 launch pads from Tundra are actually slightly undersized. You should be able to upscale them by pulling up the Kerbal Konstructs menu for the pad. Alternatively, just move the launch tower to the left until all four legs sit on the pad surface. This reduces the historical accuracy as it interferes with the ramp that was used to bring the Atlas booster to the launch mount. Unfortunately, there isn’t a perfect answer.

Please forgive my late entry into this discussion; just yesterday I finally decided to jump into the brave new world of KSP shuttle operations, and not without a great deal of trepidation. Anyway, as I understand it, the shuttle rolled to a heads down attitude right after launch in order to enable the SRBs to separate cleanly. Apparently simulations showed that separating the SRBs in a heads ups attitude tended to have them impact the wings due to aerodynamic forces, even with the separation rockets. Thus, the roll to heads down. Therefore, without the SRBs there is no need to roll, and you eliminate one potential failure mode. Indeed, late in the ride uphill the shuttle/ET stack would roll back to a heads up attitude so that the S-band antennas could communicate with TDRS. By the time of ET sep there was little or no aerodynamic forces left so separating the ET in heads up was not a problem. Edit: Please disregard all of this. I was badly misinformed and I will correct this with a later post.

That oops gave you one thing… the world record for a javelin throw!

For the Saturn I Block 1 flights (SA-1 to 4) I use an AARDV control unit attached to the top of the first stage. I then build the "upper stages" attached to that. Fairings hide the AARDV unit so you can't see it. Works pretty damn well for these simple flights. I don't have the game up right now so I can't attach screenies. Unfortunately BDB does not have a "Version 0" of the IU, but that is not a problem.

@GoldForest, excellent work as always. However, I must ask that you forgive a small picking of nits. The Pegasus missions were SA-9, 8, and 10. Those three missions flew with a revised shorter and lighter weight Version 2 of the Instrument Unit (IU). The one you used here is the Version 1 model and it flew only on SA-5, 6, and 7. Both versions of the IU are available in-game. The Saturn I Block 1 missions (SA-1 to 4) had their flight avionics contained in several pressurized canisters attached to the top of the first stage, as the upper stages were inert mockups. I suppose this IU version could be called Version 0. Version 1 (shown in your photos above) had the avionics components contained in two pressurized tubes that crossed in the center. An inert gas (probably nitrogen) filled the tubes, providing a simple environmental control that helped dissipate heat generated by the electronic components. Rapid advances in avionics and cooling techniques allowed the elimination of the tubes in the last three Version 2 units, enabling a reduction in height by half, and gaining a noticeable weight savings that improved booster performance. An enlarged and updated variant of the Version 2 was used on the Saturn IB and the Saturn V. I have a weird fascination with the Saturn I. Admittedly it is kind of a homely child, but I love flying it. I have been able to put a short-fueled Block I CSM in a low (100 km) orbit in an attempt to replicate the planned manned Apollo Saturn I flights that were ultimately canceled in late 1963. A Saturn I Block 3 version (the original C-1 proposal) with the Centaur upper stage would have made a handy NASA launcher for lunar and Mars probes like Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, and Mariner.

SORTING OUT THE MERCURY BOILERPLATES AND PROTOTYPE SPACECRAFT PART 2 There were two other extremely important test objectives in the early phase of Mercury development. The first was proving the LES under actual flight regimes, especially in the critical region of maximum aerodynamic pressure. The second was showing that the ablative heat shield for the spacecraft would actually work. Max Faget was very confident in his heatshield calculations, but he knew that an actual flight test would be needed. Two support programs were drawn up to conduct these vital tests, Little Joe and Big Joe. The Little Joe rocket was developed by Max Faget and a team at Langley. It was a simple cylindrical airframe with four large fins at the bottom, powered by combinations of Castor and Recruit solid rocket motors. Once the design was finalized, a contract was awarded to North American Aviation to produce seven airframes and one mobile launcher. These tests would encounter actual flight conditions and high altitudes and would require a much more sophisticated craft than the simple sheet metal boilerplates. A pressurized compartment was needed for instrumentation, and for the Big Joe test a rudimentary RCS was required to properly orient the spacecraft for reentry. There was an urgency to get the Little Joe and Big Joe programs underway, as it was desirous to incorporate the data from these tests into the final design of the production spacecraft. The contract for the production of Mercury spacecraft was put out to industry in mid-December 1958, and McDonnell was chosen as the prime contractor on January 9, 1959. However, the Little Joe and Big Joe sub-programs predated the McDonnell contract, with their origins all the way back in early 1958, when the shape of the Mercury spacecraft was still to be determined. The Space Task Group gave the job of developing the prototype craft for the Little Joe and Big Joe tests to Langley in late 1958. The configuration is shown in the diagram below. The original design is on the left, with the final two different designs on the right. Construction of the prototypes was joint effort, with Langley building the upper sections and the Lewis Research Center in Cleveland building the lower pressurized section. Final assembly was at Langley and Wallops. The lower section was built from fiberglass and contained mission instrumentation and a primitive RCS. It was even capable of supporting a pressurized primate couch. The top of the pressurized section was hemispherical and could be unbolted to allow access to the interior. Once sealed, the ribbed sheet metal upper section with the recovery system was bolted to the top of the pressurized section. These prototypes were not intended for orbital flight, they flew mid and high altitude sub-orbital missions only. In these photos taken at the Langley shop the separate sections can be clearly seen. Small camera pods were mounted on the sides of the pressurized section. Although not nearly as sophisticated as the McDonnell production spacecraft and never intended to carry an astronaut, these craft were much more than the simple sheet metal boilerplates that preceded them and thus should be properly called prototypes. The term boilerplate has been genericized over the years to describe both craft, even though this is technically incorrect. The coloration of the prototypes varied, with the top canister and the pressurized section usually painted in orange or orange and white, with the upper metal ribbed section usually silver in color. A prototype is shown atop a Little Joe mockup at the Airpower Park in Hampton, Virginia with a production style LES. The exact number of these prototypes that were built is not known to me, but there was a least five, and these were used on the Little Joe, Big Joe, and MR-BD flight tests. It also appears that they were not numbered or serialized in the same way that the Apollo boilerplates were. The first flight of one of the prototypes was to be Little Joe 1 (LJ-1). This test failed when a stray electrical current fired the LES while the booster was being prepped on the pad. Luckily, no one was hurt and the booster was essentially undamaged, but the capsule sustained heavy damage when it crashed into the surf just off shore. Desirous of getting in a basic test of the Little Joe rocket, and without an immediate replacement for the damaged prototype capsule, the booster was quickly recycled with one of the D-shape boilerplates atop (painted to look like a prototype) and successfully launched as LJ-6 on October 5, 1959. Meanwhile, the much-anticipated test of the ablative heat shield was flown as Big Joe 1 on September 9, 1959. A full Atlas D missile was used as the booster, and the prototype capsule used was built specifically for the test. The pressurized section was painted black, with the upper section silver with vertical white stripes. Notice in the diagram photo the conical section is referred to as the “afterbody”. This is because the Mercury spacecraft was intended to fly in a retrograde position for all phases of the flight except for the boost phase. Any Mercury spacecraft that you may fly in KSP/BDB should be flown with the heatshield forward at all times to be historically accurate, with the obvious exception of when it is mounted to its booster. In essence, you could say that Mercury rides uphill upside down! Color photos of the Big Joe capsule prior to launch are quite rare, so it is often hard to determine exactly what the color scheme was. The photo atop the Atlas booster is one of the exceptions. Notice also that the capsule was launched without a LES tower. The sub-orbital flight of BJ-1 was mostly successful as it fully demonstrated the capability of the ablative heatshield. However, the booster section of the Atlas failed to separate and that negatively affected the overall performance of the rocket, but not to the point where it was considered a failure. The photo of the recovered Big Joe prototype gives a good detail view of how the upper section was constructed, and how it was bolted to the lower fiberglass pressurized section. The very small pitch and roll RCS thrusters can be seen near the base of the pressurized section. Only two of the protoypes survive to this day, the one mounted to the Little Joe mockup in Virginia, and the Big Joe variant at the NASM. The rest of the prototypes were either destroyed in testing or broken up once no longer needed. Three more prototype capsules flew on Little Joe flights before that program transitioned to using production spacecraft from McDonnell. The prototype used on the LJ-1B flight was reused on the Mercury Redstone Booster Development (MR-BD) flight on March 24, 1961. This was the last flight of a prototype capsule. It flew with an inert LES and the capsule stayed attached to the rocket for the duration of the flight. It was intentionally destroyed at the end of the flight when the entire assembly crashed into the Atlantic. The photo below is a very rare color shot of the MR-BD liftoff. The prototype spacecraft can be clearly seen. Once McDonnell’s production came on-line, they produced several boilerplates. These were used in additional drop tests, as egress trainers for the astronauts, as trainers for the recovery forces, as facilities checkout vehicles, etc. The exact number produced is not immediately known. The configuration for each was unique based on what it was built for. Some (the egress trainers) closely mimicked the production spacecraft while others (facilities checkout vehicles) were just basic sheet metal affairs with no internal equipment. None of these were intended for powered flight. Some of them survive today in museums. None of these boilerplates or prototypes are represented in BDB, although there are some color changes for the Mercury spacecraft that somewhat mimic the configurations seen here. I once posed the question of incorporating the boilerplates and prototypes to @Invaderchaos and he stated that there were no plans to do so. His reasoning was valid and I fully respected it. At this late point in BDB1 development it actually makes a lot of sense not to waste time to do so, but perhaps the dev team can look into it once KSP/BDB2 is up and running later this year.

SORTING OUT THE MERCURY BOILERPLATES AND PROTOTYPE SPACECRAFT The basic premise of Project Mercury, putting a man into orbit and returning him safely to Earth, was a radical and completely untried concept in the 1950’s. No one knew exactly how to do it. One of the most difficult decisions was deciding on the basic shape of the spacecraft. Should it be pointed, aerodynamic, or blunt shaped? Which shape would be stable in flight, and most importantly which shape would best resist the extreme heat of reentry into the atmosphere? Physicist H. Julian Allen’s research strongly indicated that a blunt shaped vessel would best resist the reentry heating, and backed up by extensive research headed by NACA’s Maxime Faget, it was this shape that NACA/NASA and eventually NASA’s Space Task Group settled on. In a conference at the Ames Research Center in March 1958, four blunt shapes were proposed for further study. These are shown below: Further testing showed that the A and B shapes were unstable in some flight regimes, so research concentrated on the C and D shapes. Through the fall of 1958 and into 1959 a series of aircraft drop tests were made to test the aerodynamic stability of a full scale craft, and to develop the parachute recovery system proposed for Mercury. Several C-shape capsules were constructed in-house by the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia for these tests. These were deliberately simple sheet metal affairs, constructed (supposedly) from boilerplate steel obtained from the nearby Norfolk Naval Shipyard. These craft were colloquially referred to as “boilerplates”, the first use of this term. A circular access hatch was cut into the side, to allow access not only for interior construction, but for subsequent placement of instrumentation. These craft were unpressurized and contained no crew provisions, avionics, or control systems, only the most basic electrical equipment needed to support whatever testing was underway. As it can be seen, other than the basic overall shape, these craft bore little resemblance to the final Mercury production spacecraft, but they were adequate low-cost test rigs to prove out the basic concepts. Most of these boilerplates were painted white, some with “United States” on the side. The aircraft drop tests were conducted mostly out of the Wallops Station on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, with the type C boilerplates dropped from helicopters. These tests went a long way towards demonstrating the basic stability of the craft, along with the parachute systems. On March 11, 1959 a type C boilerplate participated in the first Launch Escape System test. This test was meant to confirm the basic concept of a tractor-type LES (favored by Max Faget), and even though the configuration did not match that of the planned production Mercury version, it provided valuable data that showed that the concept worked. The tower was a simple tripod design, and the rocket was a single Recruit motor refitted with three nozzles, its center of thrust slightly offset to ensure the craft would clear the launch area. The craft launched as planned, but it spiraled three times before crashing into the sea just off the Wallops coast without the parachute deploying. A problem with one of the rocket’s nozzles was the culprit. A second test, also with a C-shape, occurred on April 15, 1959 and it was entirely successful. The series of photos below, often mislabeled as the much later BA-1 test, shows this April flight. Wanting data from a higher fidelity design, Langley also constructed at least two D-shape boilerplates concurrent with the C-shapes. While these craft much more closely mimicked the final Mercury design, they were still of simple construction, lacking nearly all of the Mercury systems and the distinctive Inconel corrugated shingles on the exterior. One was used in a series of aircraft drop tests. In these tests a D-shape was rolled out of the back of a C-130 aircraft on a sled. It promptly separated from the sled and free fell a distance, demonstrating the basic aerodynamic stability of the design. The parachute system had all of the basic elements of the proposed system for Mercury, and when activated, it was entirely successful. The D-shapes were the first to have a separable top canister (later called the antenna housing) with its drogue chute, along with the main chutes packed underneath it in the cylindrical section. These tests were conducted between April and July 1959. On July 22, 1959 another beach abort test was conducted, this time with a D-shape and the full production version of the Mercury LES. The only missing element was the aerospike at the top of the LES motor. In the photos note the circular hatch, a sharp contrast with the standard Mercury semi-rectangular design. The test was entirely successful. Apparently, John Glenn and Gus Grissom observed this test, as one of the photos below shows them with the recovered boilerplate. It should be noted that several sources badly mis-identify this test. Wikipedia has a listing for the Beach Abort, with all of the accompanying pictures showing the C and D-shape tests, but with the text referring to a later beach abort test, the official BA-1 flight shown here on May 9, 1960 using McDonnell production spacecraft #1. In this test the spacecraft had some painted orange banding over an unusual silver color. The top canister (antenna housing) was painted silver and black. Also notice that the LES, while essentially complete, was still missing the aerospike on top. All told, as noted above, there were a total of four beach abort tests, but many sources get this all confused and mashing them together into just one test. This has been part one. I will post part two tomorrow that will cover the Little Joe and Big Joe prototype spacecraft.

Yes, I am a member at NSF, but I do more lurking than posting. It is a great source of info, but since I am a USN sailor by trade many members there are on a level of expertise that far exceeds mine. I consider myself a very well informed and enthusiastic amateur in the spaceflight genre. The “golden age” of spaceflight has always fascinated me, so BDB fits right in. No worries on recovering from the crud. My wife and I had it for almost 2 months. A lot better now!

Excellent work as always. I have been using the Coatl version for some time and it is an excellent render, but I am looking forward to adding this version to my VAB. I would like to take the opportunity to pass on my sincerest thanks and appreciation to all of the Bluedog dev team: @CobaltWolf, @Jso, @Zorg, @Invaderchaos, @Rodger, and @akron, with special mention to @Friznitand his excellent Wiki. I am probably one of the older KSP players, having watched Neil and Buzz walk on the moon when I was a wee lad. I became fascinated with space travel at that moment, and KSP/BDB allows me to tickle that fascination whenever I choose. The attention to detail in this mod is over the top, and the dev team's dedication to getting it right and the willingness to respond to player requests is commendable in the extreme. I am always stunned at the BDB team's eagerness to spend so much time perfecting a product that they do not get paid for, working long hours simply for the fun of it. Believe me when I say that it is greatly appreciated. It is a bit bittersweet to realize that development of BDB1 is rapidly coming to an end, but there is an anticipation of very cool things to come with the looming introduction of KSP2. I look forward to what President Kennedy referred to as "setting sail on this new sea", and spending (my wife would say wasting ) many hours exploring the new BDB mod when it comes. Once again, my sincerest gratitude to the entire dev team and all the users of this forum. Wishing you all the very best holiday season and a great new year!

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, @Rodgeradded a small patch to the dev branch. The enhanced Mercury retropack now has actual EC and Monopropellant when you switch to that variant. It enables much longer duration missions like what was planned for Alan Shepard's 2nd flight, MA-10 (it never flew). Thanks @Rodger! I appreciate the effort.

Yes, please add it to the dev branch. An official version is preferred over my cobbled together patch. Thanks!