Marcelo Silveira

heck yes! Ranger and Mariner would be a great think to have in KSP

yeaaaahhh boooooi, an entire LEO communications constellation on a single launch!!! @Pappystein,I did the math, the magic number is 194.094 dB

I remember seing something similar due to RealChute. Sometimes it used the dragbox as if the parachute was open.

Maybe the RT compatibility patch uses :FOR instead of :NEEDS

If I remember correctly the 5 F-1 engines managed to hit over 210 dB's at the launch pad. Anything beyond 190 dB's isn't even a sound wave anymore, it's a shockwave! The Space shuttle hit 180 dB at the payload bay (although the space shuttle barely had any sound insulation for the payload bay. The Falcon-9 hits 131 dB inside the Payload fairing and around 160 dB outside.... So yeah... the F-1 engine sound is quite LOUD hehehe FATATLAS has a stage and half design, both Kerbal Engineer and Mechjeb are not capable of calculating the TWR, dV and so on... that's why I did the dV math. I would love to make the dV charts for FATATLAS so people could use it (and maaaaybe someone might want to dive deeper in the numbers), but I will only have some time available to make them by mid to late December... so... until then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Check in the files created by ModuleManager, the ModuleManager.ConfigCache has all the cfg's that are actually loaded in KSP. Check if the BDB antennae have the ModuleDataTransmitter or not.

Try using Realchute, you will have to make a module manager patch for the drogue chute though. You can find a version compiled for ksp 1.8 on github

Interesting... but I think a part like that would greatly benefit from B9PS. A DPAF-like part can have multiple lengths in a single part. I don't think it would be a very complicated think to model, just a hollow cylinder with CFRP texture although the colliders could get tricky Could it even use the new Delta III payload adapters texture?

Some time ago the engines thrust were changed, so I had to update the Atlas dV calculations (the old ones were no longer accurate). Good news is: The graphs on the wiki are now updated! There were also some changes in how I calculated those things, but that is not very important

I had some free time today and did the thing! I had to redo some calculations because there was an engine rebalance, so the old delta-v maps are not as accurate. Keep in mind that I did not test this in ksp. So if something is too far off the calculated delta-v , please tell me I will redo the delta-v maps fo the other Atlas versions (but not fat atlas for now)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH... I was thinking fat Atlas not the Atlas V heavy

eeyup! stage and half designs are a lot trickier than stack designs. will the Atlas heavy parts be on future releases? I haven't KSP in quite a while, if thy will be I can make the delta-v map for the Atlas heavy soon™

Yes, it's possible with hullcam vds. Just needs a cfg patch for that

It was...

Actually it is more complex than this. I would like to add something to that discussion. Solid fuel motors are substantially easier to manufacture than liquid fuel ones. This doesn't mean they are easy, just less complex. SRMs don't need all the plumbing and specially turbopumps as the liquid fuel ones require. That's why sounding and college level rockets are usually solid fueled ones - see IREC The design process involving a SRM is simpler than a liquid fuel ones. Sure, SRMs have massive combustion instabilities and some propellant mixes (HTPB) will shoot fragments of burning aluminium with the exhaust gasses, but they don't have to deal with the liquid propellant sloshing in the tanks neither with the really complicated problem of mixing the liquid fuel and the oxidizer in the combustion chamber. SRMs usually have smaller chamber pressure and temperature than liquid fuel motors. This simplifies the design process and makes possible to use more 'common' materials, so you can use a steel alloy instead of a niobium alloy. However the smaller pressure and temperature makes for a smaller exhaust velocity as well, thus decreasing Isp. When loaded (or fueled) SRMs are not safe and are prone to explosions for a longer period of time (as it happened with the brazilian VLS in 2003), while liquid fuel ones are only fueled moments before launch (as happened with the R-16 in the 60s). Neither are completely safe, the only types of propulsion that are completely safe cannot produce more than a few newtons of thrust (ion or photonic propulsion for example) SRMs are used when you A) don't need too much control, B) when you don't have experience with liquid fuel motors or C) when you are on a budget. TL;DR: rockets are complicated explody machines.