Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About CAPFlyer

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Close. Atlas III introduced the "Common Centaur" configuration used from then until today. The idea was to be able to just build tanks and plumbing and then be able to choose at the end whether to use 1 or 2 engines. The Atlas IIIA used the SEC (Single Engine Centaur) and the IIIB used the DEC (Dual Engine Centaur). With the Atlas III and the introduction of the RD-180 engine and true 2 stage configuration, the need for a Dual Engine Centaur (and its impulse) was greatly reduced, allowing Centaur to transition to this new design and with the Atlas V, be primarily used in the Single Engine
  2. Okay, I'm trying to use this is 1.11 and I can't get either part to ignite. I've got a bunch of addons, including Engine Igniter but I'm also using the RN_US_Rockets Aerobee and when I look, the two have identical CFGs and work fine, but CNAR shows no ISP and the engines won't ignite.
  3. I agree with the reduction in total part numbers and higher use of variants via B9 Part Switch. Being able to trigger between setups and textures to get what you need is much simpler and keeps the UI much less cluttered. Since the Agena B & D main tanks (for example) are the same length but had different dome positions, using 1 tank for both made sense. As well, having 1 tapered tank segment for the Atlas LV-3 made sense as well and allows you to set it for 4 or 5 different early Atlas configurations, meaning that you can take the same base "Atlas" subassembly and then just change that
  4. Just a question, not a request (unless you want it to be) but can this be adapted for inflatable satellites? There were several inflatable satellites that were basically just big weather balloons flown in the early days of the space race and I think they have a use in KSP as well since they can be used as "cheap" relay satellites, especially with CommNet. Thanks for taking on all these addons and bringing them up to date!
  5. Okay, read through that and I see how that could be the culprit. I've (for now) chanted the Physics.cfg to add a couple decimal places to the default minimum, but it mentions in the comment that a new RBMin mass can be specified by part, so can I be safe to believe that this is something that will be added to this project (and probably others) as we move forward and I won't have to change it with each update at some point?
  6. Also, just to clarify - this is all BDB rockets. I tested it again in a new save on the most current version of 1.11 and *only* the BDB engines have this problem with performance not matching calculations when using MechJeb PVE ascent guidance. When I use stock, or even like Missing History or other similar "stockalike" addons, PVE is rock steady on its predictions and it does what it says it'll do and I end up where I should be. With BDB, the dV calculations are not matching performance, meaning I'm consuming fuel at full rate, but what's coming out the back isn't right. I don't understan
  7. Works, yes. Well? Not so sure. I don't see where anyone has addressed the issue of the thrust/consumption being off with the new version. I'm still having problems getting existing ships into orbit when before I had more than enough ISP. I don't know if its a change in the way its calculated or something that isn't save-game compatible, but it's not working right and I haven't seen anyone address it despite there having been multiple reports of an issue several pages ago (including mine) that got buried pretty quickly unfortunately.
  8. Hey, great addon! Glad to see the Sounding Rockets getting some love. The previous mods are decent, but they're showing their age now. Getting a modern, fully upgraded sounding rocket set is definitely going to be nice for those of us who like progressing through Historic Spaceflight or just being more realistic with unmanned flight before manned.
  9. Actually, I think it's all upper stages. I just tried flying an Agena D flight, and once it got into vacuum, all the performance calcs went wonky and the stock burn timer was running at about 1.5 speed even though I wasn't using time acceleration. So something got changed in how vacuum performance is calculated or read and that's where the problem is. Up until that point, everything seems to run fine. Also, it had the same issue with TWR changing but the actual acceleration not changing (while the burn time was decreasing at more than realtime) so maybe that's a clue as well?
  10. But the problem is your premise is faulty and that's what I was pointing out. If it was NASA's fault for not using a "forced designation system", then why is it that the DoD, who also launched many satellites (if not more than NASA) on the Thor/Delta family, didn't force their designation system on the launchers? Because neither were actually buying the rockets. They were buying the launch service. I know the contracts say for the rocket and the launch service as separate items, but when it comes down to it, the only thing that the launch customer actually owns and controls is the satelli
  11. Don't blame NASA for Douglas's problems with naming. The only rockets that NASA ever had direct naming responsibility over were the ones they specifically ordered (aka Apollo, Space Shuttle, Constellation, and SLS). All other rockets were existing commercial or military rockets that were modified for NASA use. Even so - naming *was* consistent. The change from "Thor Delta" occurred at a time when rocket designs were standardizing and the need for simplified naming was desired. So the change was made as the Delta B came into service (the first "operational" Delta version). However, intern
  12. Yes, OSCAR 1 (and several other similar satellites) were launched during the early Keyhole Programs (mainly KH-2 Corona and KH-5 Argon). Speaking of which, and I apologize if I missed it, is there any plan to add any of the other SIGINT/ELINT Heavy Ferrets that preceeded the Strawman?
  13. Ahh, okay. I understand why you were doing that then. I did find it odd to have both requirements, but I didn't think too much about it beyond maybe being something changed that you missed (there's a lot of missions, so that's a lot to keep up with).
  • Create New...