biohazard15

Members
  • Content Count

    1,515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

451 Excellent

About biohazard15

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The 1st core stage was definitely air-lit, AFAIK there were no Titan III/IV launches with it ground-lit. Some unflown Titan-derived proposals did have their core engines ground lit, though (LDC, Barbarian, 3L) What do you mean by "march diamonds"? I took a look at some launch photos where you can clearly see LR-87 at launch (Wikipedia has two good examples for IIIC and 34D), and there are nothing I would describe as "march diamonds". As for performance - launching Titan III with typical payload and with both SRB and core ground-lit is overkill in JNSQ-sized rescale, not to mention stock. YMMV, of course.
  2. Think of it as of asteroid rendezvous, not interplanetary transfer. What you want to do here is to match inclination and approach it as slowly as possible, thus minimizing dV required for orbital insertion. Here's NEAR Shoemaker's flight path:
  3. Same here (I hope this would serve as a hint for guys and gals in BDB thread... Can you guess the spacecraft? It is modeled after a real proposal to this particular body!)
  4. If these will be regular decouplers, no one will use these in actual missions due to added weight Hmmm, no one tried to guess the spacecraft... come on folks, it's real easy! Well, the body at least. There is not too many bodies with rings in the Solar System Speaking of the spacecraft... I have a suggestion: a B9 switch for that OGO core that will enable it to function as a deep space probe. Less Ec, but more Monoprop. Almost half of said spacecraft is a fuel tank. On a completely (well, almost) unrelated note, another proposal: please add a "true" engine variant for single and double R-4D RCS blocks. Why I ask? IABS. It needs two R-4Ds, but putting these without proper node is a pain in the back, to say the least.
  5. I wonder if this can be actually replicated, even if just for aesthetics. SAF can auto-jettison fairings, right? Assume there is two such modules in the said part - first one jettisons fairings, and the second one jettisons "scuppers" at a much lower altitude. In theory, this can be used for Centaur jettisonable insulation panels, if Cobalt decide to include them.
  6. You can construct some quite interesting stuff with dev build... I wonder if anyone can guess this spacecraft (and body): Hint: This body is inspired by actual body in the Solar System, and this spacecraft is modeled according to actual mission proposal to the aforementioned real body.
  7. Gotta love the "cover up" bits. "Bazooka-like weapon for close support". Well, technically they're not wrong...
  8. Looks awesome, trying it right now. Hopefully rescaling (2.5x) will work properly on these.
  9. That got me thinking. And building. The plan calls for on-orbit assembly. This most likely means two Shuttle launches - "STS-1" with two Orbus-21s (lower part), and "STS-2" with two remaining Orbus-21s (upper part) and payload. In theory, STS-1 payload could be launched on Titan-IV (or 34D) and then intercepted by STS-2, GATV-style. First, let's build STS-2 half: I use Titan II nose cone with lead ballast, with 88 units of lead it gives 1318 kg launch mass - a good estimate for an interplanetary probe with a small monoprop or ion engine. As you can see, two Orbus-21s give it 2969 m/s of dV - not something extraordinary, but respectable. I used Mk2 docking port from Mk2Expansion as interface between two halves. Now, the second half (STS-1): 1153 m/s, 4122 m/s total. That's all what you get for doubling the amount of Orbus-21s. Will it justify another launch? For me, probably not. Maybe if we remove lead ballast from ex-warhead? This gives us a 319 kg launch mass (compare that with 370-kg Ulysses): 5736 m/s total, with 4441 m/s in STS-2 and 1295 m/s in STS-1. Now let's try the "light" variant - Orbus-6 + three Orbus-21s. No screenshots, only the numbers. 1318 kg: 3701 m/s, with 2292 m/s in STS-2 and 1409 m/s in STS-1 319 kg: 5480 m/s, with 3850 m/s in STS-2 and 1630 m/s in STS-1 For comparison, here's Centaur-T with two RL-10A4s: 1318 kg - 4391 m/s max, 319 kg - 5810 m/s max. Actual numbers will likely be lower due to boiloff. To conclude: there may be missions that call for such setups. For example, IUS (and solid motors in general) are exceptionally good when used as orbit insertion motors for ion-powered probes (namely on Moho). But if extra dV on Kerbin escape is all what you're looking for, better get a Centaur.
  10. I can confirm that issues I've reported are seemingly gone. Totally unintended, but quite useful side effect: Build your own Burner stage! Now with jettisonable Star 37 and a lot of walls to add your own stuff! Had to re-add original bottom node (non-decoupling) in order to interface it with 0.9735m decouplers or interstages. Nimbus decoupler looks best on it. You can add Star 48: Or Orbus 6: Or a full-size IUS, because what IUS always lacked is a third stage: (This uses Agena structural skirt and generic 0.9375 decoupler) Or a nice mount for Delta-K:
  11. @PART[bluedog_Agena_MultiPayloadAdapter]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB] { @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.29838, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1 } @PART[bluedog_Agena_StandardFairingBase]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB] { node_stack_MPA = 0.0, 0.921487, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0 } @PART[bluedog_Agena_SAC]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB] { node_stack_MPA = 0.0, 0.921487, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0 } Made Agena multiple payload adapter work as intended. Basically this copies KNES Ariane 5 MPA (which I mentioned on previous page). Use new node on fairing base as visual aid. Can be properly attached only to Agena standard fairing base (both stock and SAF). Interesting note: technically, film bucket does not need decoupler thanks to a build-in one (in the chute). However, its force is so small (1.0) that it can't push the bucket properly, and it bumps into Agena (or vice versa, IDK). Proper separation (and nice looks) can be achieved with 0.3125m PSM.
  12. Not only icons - parts themselves also has issues: To resolve this, you need to switch fairing type. However, this reveals another problem - second fairing type starts opaque even if transparent is selected: This can be resolved by switching it to opaque and back to transparent.
  13. You mean in-game? Personally I like how Knes did it with Ariane 5 (extra node can be used as visual aid): Although IMO it's better to make extra node toggleable via B9PS.