Pappystein

Members
  • Content Count

    1,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

645 Excellent

1 Follower

About Pappystein

  • Rank
    OOBE Historian/Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Our sponsors wanted us to use a lot of superlative words to describe the new Gemini-Agena Target Vehicle parts. Here they are: ..... As you can see we are speechless! ====================================== These new parts look Amazing Cobalt! If/When Gemini is redone will that require a new GATV-docking port or will the geometry not be changing much at the docking end of the nosecone?
  2. Not without some seriously major hacking. And what is not updated past 1.6.1 in your game (AKA why are you afraid to upgrade?) I don't know of any (well any non RO type mods) that don't support 1.8.1 now.
  3. A) That rocket is awesome. One of the better kit-bashes I have seen recently! B) I could never fly that rocket as is in my game. Running AZ50/NTO through the LR87s adds a bit of weight (and with the weight, more performance) But sadly the Weight is the limiting factor. I am estimating that I would need to run likely 4x Soltan SRBs to get the orbital performance you are getting with what appear to be Castor 2s
  4. That is pretty much what I do except I am launching with UA1204s instead of 05s due to the lower time in high thrust (gotta not Black out my pilots on the flight!) And the Transtage is setup as a relay satellite (a couple of solar panels and a relay antenna. There have been several such proposals, the earliest was in the mid 1970s... well AFTER the Gemini lunar time-frame. And no, Shuttle Centaur was not designed with that as an option. Given the compressed time tables and the need to focus on man ratting I am surprised they even pulled out better/larger tankage for Shuttle Centaur. But then again, the Glenn/Lewis folks were wizards at making Centaur do new things. If such a system had been developed I think we would still see Titan IVBs flying... Or the Centaur T would be flying on a new rocket.
  5. I don't believe any of these drawings are "Real" That is to say they seem to be a creation of a website author and not that of McD/NASA etc... However, I too agree, The Gemini lander needs a "home" like the Apollo lander. Short of using some of the Inter-stage options in either Proc-Fairings or SSTU, I have a hard time getting that to the Mun without flying two full up rockets. Now the drawings themselves are fun... Why do you need a full Agena Guidance section on a Centaur? Further, How the heck can a Centaur (with it's boil-off issues) be used to get a Gemini capsule HOME from the Mun. The only reason to put an Agena Guidance system on a Centaur is if the Centaur Guidance system is suspect/non functional.... The several hundred successful Centaur launches would lead me to believe that that is not true. I think the only drawings in this line that are accurate is the Gemini on-top of a Centaur to get TO the Moon and the Agena SM that is not pictured here but is in the same family of drawings. An Agena alone does not have enough Delta V to get a Gemini Capsule + SM from the Moon to Earth. And Further, @GoldForest as Cobalt has already stated the Agena with the Lander on it is literally someone transposing the lander on a Agena GATV. The Location of the lander replaces all the batteries and 1/3rd the fuel tank. Making Agena un-usuable. I have also seen that picture listed as a one way AUTOMATED lander using the Agena guidance section on top of a Langley Gemini Lander. That also wouldn't work due to the fact that it has no radio to reach Earth from the Moon and Agena has no logic for landing. So in the end the drawings are made up to "inspire" us, not as factual design drawings.
  6. So MLV stuff already in the core database: AJ-260 SRB/SRMs MS-IVB stages (extended tank for S-IVC is 'correct' length for long MS-IVB) MS-II 7engine engine plate Bonus S-IVC tank extension is about the right size for the tank extension on top of a Large AJ-260 (for thrust structure alignment. Convert to LF/O and add fuel lines from your AJ-260s to the MS-IC tankage) And if you install the Pafftek folder under BDB_Extras you get the following MLV stuff (based on re-scaled parts): MS-IC tanks (all lengths) Flat or common Bulkhead MS-1C tanks (including two not proposed versions) MS-II tanks (two new lengths the 3rd length is mentioned on Astronautix but none of the actual MLV docs.) HG-3 and HG-3SL engines (re-using J-2 engine models.) 400,000 lb/f version of the J-2T torrodial engine (as listed in MLV documents) My list of parts missing to complete all the MLV studies: 156" SRM (likely not CSD so it wouldn't look like a scaled up UA-120x) M-1 engine and appropriate mounting hardware MS-IVN Nerva, new engine mount and Nerva engine required and possibly a completely new stage And my list of parts that are really needed to take advantage of MLV: new larger SM/CSM/Lander for Mars missions (aka no longer Apollo) Actively cooled Hydrogen tankage (reduces/eliminates LH2 boiloff) This probably is not a complete list but I hope it helps. A LOT of the MLV stuff is already in game... you just have to "think/work" it together. Three pictures of the largest MLV buildable with 4x AJ-260s:
  7. I am going to assume that the CKAN craft files are the old ones, since at last public announcement RE BDB&CKAN, the BDB team does not actively maintain anything on CKAN.
  8. They did last I played with it (1.7?) I switched to JNSQ in 1.7+ because I wanted something new. but not as drastic as the Galileo planet pack. I think that Galileo is not updating the Rescale! thread as it is just configs for SD + Kopernicus to make the scale work "easier"
  9. I would add that there are a lot of "under the hood" Changes to JNSQ that actually make it HARDER than just a rescale to 2.7x I have had several failed missiosn that in a 2.7x system alone would have gone off without a hitch. This is mostly due to repositioning Mun and Minimus beyond just rescaleing them to 2.7x (including their orbits) Just last night I attempted to launch a VEGA based Comm-sat in my DSCN-Mk1 system Goal was 3 Satellites on the same orbit as Duna. Launcher was a LDC Titan derived launcher. 4x UA-1207, 4x E-1s for first stage power and 2x LR87-LH2(VO) for the 2nd stage. LAunch went fine but due to the spool down (and a mistake I made in not observing the map after LR87 cutoff) I ended up with a backwards slingshot of the Mun. Missed the mun by less than 2km or less (Only way I slowed down THAT MUCH) Vega Upper stage had JUST enough Delta V to get Comm-sat in a circular orbit between Mun and Minimus. DSCN Mk1 Launch 1 is a failure! Here was my Mun Lander. Please note that the changes to the landing legs by Restock (Plus the 2.7x system) cause this mission to be a failure as well. Agena lander (which landed safely on the Stock mun repeatedly) Tumbles over even on flat ground.
  10. I have been toying around with my own tech tree. Problem is, it can become very easy to get lost between the Trees and the Forrest. After all Stock and BDB and Real Life... weelllll none one of them have anything to do with the other... Timeline wise I have been postulating a "Fuel" based Tech tree. Each branch of the tree is based on fuel type. The problem is I see need for a DLL to run it all and I may be many things but I am NOT a coder. The goal would be that at a certain point, other branches become cheaper as you progress down the initial branch you try. So lets say I choose LF/GOX (airplane) after 3 or 4 nodes LF/LOX (LFO) would become x% cheaper to unlock, with each further progression down the LF/GOX branch further reducing the LF/LOX branch.... So if anyone has an idea how to put science rebates into Tech Tree nodes (ones that can be turned on and off...) I can build a cool tech tree. If not... welll....
  11. So my answer on this is BOTH. With the Tech Tree so compressed we get too many COMM-SAT choices early. (esp if we are using PROBES PLUS! in addition to BDB) BDB antennas that are COMM-SAT worthy are not usable on COMM-SATS (Relay function is not enabled.) The new MOL dish and Beam/Dish antennas being prime examples as well as the Ranger Big dish Really need a way to space these out in the Tech Tree (and I don't see one without a new tech tree.) This is at least the 2nd set of comm-sats in the last 2 dev cycles? (Jso's ICPS or whatever it was called, and I think there was something else as well!) All filling the same basic role. Now one big thing I have to say. I LOVE THESE MODELS they look AWESOME.
  12. NICE! I used to live a stones throw away from Roger B. Chaffee Blvd (which was +/- a mile from where he grew up.) Nice to see you skipping the Apollo 1 Fire. Rocket derivative of Kolyma(SP)'s Shadow?
  13. Sadly, I read that on a now dead website that was talking about aircraft ENLINT/COMINT rolls and why they were important for aircraft to maintain the roles. I just remember the article talking about a space Based ENLINT program and describing how the satellite would function and why it was not as good/accurate/preceise as Aircraft in this role.
  14. I play in career with the Dev branch. Others have stated, you *COULD* have problems but I haven't ever run into any insurmountable ones. I think the USAF launched the Secondary Engine system a grand total of TWICE... as part of an experimental ENLINT system(electronic Signals intelligence.) And both of these payloads needed precise orbital parameters. But the engines, as others have stated, were actually DESIGNED for the Gemini Agena Target Vehicle and not the Spysat Agenas. Therefor since GATV has not been started yet...... no you shouldn't have them. Cobalt has already covered a bunch of this. BUT most of what I understand about the 6K stage (per some description work on the JPL Vega document) it was to be a truss and tank type construction, meaning that the skin we are getting shouldn't be there (it would have been covered by a Fairing on either Juno or Atlas-Vega) That alone should save significant amounts of mass. An All up 6K IRL should mass 2803.17kg (based on converting from Imperial 6181lbs) (Joe Powell's Vega Document) That is Tank, GCU and Engine. Joe Powell cites a Ranger document that talks at length about the 6K stage and using Vega instead of the 45K stage on Juno IV and based on his cites it has perspective performance info. If you want to read the original material (I haven't yet at is is 600 pages long) here is the link. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710029215.pdf