NBZ

Feature request: Now that maneuver nodes need to be researched, I have put Orbital Speed and Circular Orbit Speed together in my Orbit window. However, it would be nice to have a "Burn time to circularize" or even a "Time to circularization burn" (just as we have the "Time to suicide burn"). Which brings me to a very cool thing you could implement when you have plenty of time and energy: In the Custom Window Editor, add [Custom entry], which gives a pop-up where you can enter text. Enter "[Circle it out in]=(([Orbital Speed]-[Circular Orbit Speed])/[Max Acceleration])/2" MechJeb adds the custom item. Even cooler: While entering the formula, you can click on other visible items to insert their tag, just as Excel inserts a reference if you click on a cell while entering a formula.

Can you at least put 0.5 on ksp.necrobones.com so that I can start playing?

Thanks. This is a product of a couple of Heavenly (pun intended) coincidences: There are very few ratites, but many raptors. Elon Musk just happened to chose raptor names that begin with letters for which there are ratites too, and both raptor and ratite begin with an R. Further, over this weekend I have been studying avian taxonomy. And then you asked for suggestions. The Merlin engine comes in a vacuum rated variant, which is used singly, and a atmosphere rated variant which is used in a cluster. You modelled this by varying the characteristics of the M1 vs the M5 and M9. (I can call them that from now on, right?) However, KSP really has a gap in the 400 kN range. I would have requested a K1-Vac, bot I did some simulation, and it comes down to a very little difference in Delta-V over 2 LV-Ts. Maybe the K1 should be an all-purpose engine, in line with the LV-Ts, but at about double thrust and TWR, and at much higher price? I am not so happy about its red cylinders. I think you should stick to SpaceY "purplish cyan-blue". In the part list, the nozzle is sufficiently different color to distinguish it from the R1, just as like the Mainsail's gray nozzle is the main visual difference from the Skipper. (The M1 and the R1 can be distinguished by their adapter plates.) Maybe add a single large white letter to the cylinders in SpaceY font: K, M, R. Don't forget to update the description texts to include the new full ratite names. The R5's text doesn't mention that it is made of 5 R1s. I think a heavy lift radial mounted MonoPropellant engine is a very SpaceY-ey idea. Heavy payloads have heavy landers. The stock O-10 is inadequate to land even an Mk1-2 pod, and can barely handle an Mk1 pod. Call it SuperDibamus. I am thinking twin-nozzle, about 80 kN (SuperDraco is 73 kN), as there is a gap between the LV-909's 50 kN and the Mk 55's 120 kN. This will be extra useful from .90 when we can recess radial stuff. See the SpaceX SuperDraco below for inspiration. Which brings us to another idea: Maybe a heavy duty 5-way MonoPropellant RCS thruster called Dibamus? I don't know if it is possible to combine modules like that, but if instead of the above two, you could create a 5-way thruster with one-way (down) engine capability, it would be both cool and another "first". [TABLE=width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD=align: center]Concept Dual-purpose SuperDibamus MonoPropellant RCS/Engine [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]SpaceX Draco RCS in action [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]SpaceX SuperDraco [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Yeah, now I think about it, you are probably right. I am just so used to Fine Print that I don't think of the missions as coming from a different source. However, now that Arsonide is working for Squad, it is likely that he has been put in charge of the other mission types as-well. Maybe there is hope. EDIT: I rewrote my post. Thank you for sparing me further embarrassment. Have some rep.

Arsonide, I really love your work, and has been using it since it came out. I am mainly into rockets, and generally avoid the surveillance's un favor of bases and satellites. Here are some suggestions for things that can be added to bases' requirements to spice things up: Add orbital parameters, but with larger margins. Especially important for solar bases which are trivially fulfilled by bases en-route to planetary destinations. Add science part requirements, just like satellites. Add specific size to docking port requirement. Add splashed down on Eve or Laythe (or any future sea) as an additional type. Require a certain number of Kerbonauts to be present (maybe even by specialty). Especially interesting after 0.90 when one will have to balance the (temporary) reduction of (valuable) crew. Require a certain amount of one or more resources. Is it possible to have the orbital precision be scalable as a setting in the initial difficulty panel? I don't know if you have any influence on the stock missions, or if you are able to mod them. In case you are, there are certain aspects of engine/SRB testing that bothers me: Some do not have the [Run Test] option, and need to be staged. It is always possible to use them first by clicking [Activate Engine], and to artificially stage later, so why not just add [Run Test] to all engines/SRBs (not to decouplers, their need for actual action makes them more of a challenge)? They do not need fuel. SRB may be emptied before launch, and the Ion engine doesn't need electricity or Xenon to test. Many contracts are trivial like this. I suggest requiring additional parameters: engine active fuel>0 for 10 seconds throttle>0 for 10 seconds When all conditions are met, the player can click [Run Test] (This requires multiple parts to become experimental when asked to test the Ion Engine, or alternatively, to withhold the mission until the node has been researched.) Actual test rigs for "landed" and "splashed down" would be so much more fun than a Mk1 pod with an engine! [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Actual Rocket Test Rigs [/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Liquid Fuel Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Solid Rocket Booster[/TD] [TD=align: center]Ion Engine[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Don't forget the new "D" 1.25m lifter engine! While not an upper stage engine, it is SpaceY's smallest, and therefore parallel to SpaceX's Kestrel. I think you should strive for three things: Using SpaceX-style K1, M1/M5/M9, R1/R5 for mnemonic value (avoid confusing F1/F-1 and D1/Draco) Not be the same as real life names – just as stock engine names are not Kerbal style parody SpaceX uses names of fierce raptors (birds of prey); Kestrel and Merlin, the biggest one being just Raptor. SpaceY uses names of docile ratites (flightless birds); Kiwi, and Moa, the biggest one being just Ratite. However, if you want a bird name for the biggest engine too (consistent, not like SpaceX), use Rhea. While SpaceX's Draco (flying lizard) is an RCS engine, the Ejectatron could be renamed Dibamus (blind and legless lizard), just for fun. [TABLE=width: 800] [TR] [TD=align: center]SpaceX [/TD] [TD=align: center]SpaceY [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Kestrel [/TD] [TD=align: center]Kiwi [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Merlin [/TD] [TD=align: center]Moa [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Raptor (red-footed falcon) [/TD] [TD=align: center]Ratite (Rhea) [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Draco [/TD] [TD=align: center]Dibamus [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Oh, and "Kiwi engine" – that just sounds sooo cute...

Beautiful. You pulled it of very well. Stronger launch clamps are sometimes needed. I have never had them break or let go, but they have occasionally been sliding outwards like overloaded landing legs. I still think SpaceY's colors should be harmonized. What is it, tank-blue or launch clamp/logo-purple? (I'd prefer blue.) I don't know if it is doable, but I think it would look really cool if those two horizontal sticks would come out of the back (pushing the "button" out) when released. At such strength, it is unreasonable for them to telescope. Are the clamps not RAM-hungry? They seem to use lots of new textures.

Me likeY. I think they look too naked, though. The stock ones (like in real life) are very "busy" with girders, a white panel, and a tube. Some Ideas: Add fuel lines to the sides of the vertical white pillar*, since it supplies fuel. Change the color if needed so you can use the lines from the tanks that only work on white. Make the square dark-blue sides white (or even better: an X girder with see through), and put flags on them. Add an antenna and a fence on top, since the area is big enough for a kerbal to stand on. And some questions: How does the supplying fuel work? Does it enter the tank that the clamp is connected to? Usually the clamp would be above COM, which may well be an upper stage. What happens then? Where does the fuel come from? Does the clamp have a finite supply? If not, how is the fuel cost integrated into carrier?

Since we are both perfectionists, allow me to suggest blue triangles on the radial decouplers too.

Aaaand we've got another fairing "first". I hereby crown NecroBones as KSP's (un)official King of the Fairings: 1. First slanted fairing 2. First multiple fairings 3. First adaptive adapter All I have to say is: Holy shrouds!

Hey there. Maybe you can reduce part count by using multiple attachment nodes? There's a spacey mod that does that. Thought you might be interested.

Yay. Maybe you should split the pack into two: "SpaceY Heavy Lifter Engines and Tanks", and "Multi-Point Adaptive Adapters and Thrust Plates"... I cannot wait for you next update. On a different note: My keyboard has a blank key between F4 and F6. Do you happen to know what it does?

I knew you would fall for the temptation. I am not sure I understand you right. Two options per part, or two options per shroud? Your first point sounds like the former, the second like the latter. If two completely separate shrouds on the same part is possible, but with a maximum of two shrouds per part, you could make a 3.75m>2.5m adapter, with normal nodes on top an bottom, but with an additional floating node above and one too below. The top one activates a shroud extension from the top 2.5m>1.25m, whereas the bottom one extends the bottom 3.75>5m. Happy experimenting. It isn't exactly rocket science, but, oh, well... whatever.

Would it be possible to make a dual-size adapter using the dual fairing ability. E.g. a 5m bottom plate with two nodes hanging in the air above. The lower node generates a fairing 5m>2.5m and the upper node shrouds 5m>1.25m. If you do the paint job and heights right (so the sides' angle remains constant) it would look really cool. If possible, staging and ejection should be disabled. You would have a third fairing "first". Besides, rightfully, and adapter should adapt. Hard core: Two top nodes, and two bottom nodes: 5m/3.5m > 2.5m/1.25m would give have possible uses: 5m>2.5m 3.5m>2.5m 5m>1.25m 3.5m>1.25m Just make sure they look like conical adapters, not fairing shrouds.

Why could I not use an upside-down decoupler like I did with my Babies?

Yeah, super heavy duty landing legs like these:

I know this doesn't have the right shape, but maybe you can use it for hints on how to do things. It has a generous license.

I use Tweakable Everything to double the gimbal range of all engines, as KSP's values are way too low. This is one of the few strange cases where KSP, contrary to Squads philosophy, is unrealistic in a way that makes gameplay harder: [TABLE=width: 300] [TR] [TD]Engine[/TD] [TD]Gimbal range specification[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]RD-0146[/TD] [TD]4°[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]F-1[/TD] [TD]6°[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SSME[/TD] [TD]10.5°[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]RD-180[/TD] [TD]8°[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]RD-171[/TD] [TD]6° (10° mechanical limit)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SS-SRB (!)[/TD] [TD]8°[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]NERVA[/TD] [TD]3° (4.5° mechanical limit)[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Your shrouded thrust plates are very versatile, but as I have documented before, most really do not have any reasonable use case, other than for LV-N and Aerospikes. Oh, and then I have tried some alternative uses for the insane rockets division, some actually quite nice. I still would like you to revamp all the stock tanks in competition with Ven.

Uhm, did you copy the hype text from pre-0.25?

R1 in upper-staged in clusters? Should be allowed singly too then. Why not allow a stage below the F5? I suggest tuning the R1 for vacuum, parallel to the the F1, since there will probably be a Raptor vacuum engine for the BFR's upper stage. Also, put a conical fairing on the F5 to match 7.5m mods. (I think angle required to reach the 7.5m at the right length will just fit the conical engine-bays.) Really the Srf/Vac tuning should just be a tweakable like on Procedural Parts' boosters, but I know you don't want plug-ins. I sometimes get confused by the names especially F1 vs. F-1! Your F comes from the launch vehicle name, while your R comes from the engine name. Being that the 9 Raptor vehicle (the Big F....... Rocket) doesn't have a name yet, maybe F1/5/9 should be renamed M1/5/9? If not, at least include this into the OP: [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD=align: center]SpaceY[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD=align: center]NASA (50% scale)[/TD] [TD=align: center]SpaceX (137% scale)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]F1[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈[/TD] [TD=align: center]J-2/S-IVB[/TD] [TD=align: center]Merlin Vacuum[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]F5[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈[/TD] [TD=align: center]S-II[/TD] [TD=align: center]Falcon 5[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]F9[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Falcon 9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]R1[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈[/TD] [TD=align: center]F-1[/TD] [TD=align: center]Raptor (Vacuum?)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]R5[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈[/TD] [TD=align: center]S-IC[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center](R9)[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]BFR[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] What is the R1 good for if you can't build a Raptor powered SpaceX BFR? But at the current engine-to-stack scaling, you cannot fit 9 R1s under 5m. This bring us to a different issue: [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD=align: right]Real Life Part[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: right]KSP[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Scale[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Mercury Capsule[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.8m[/TD] [TD=align: center]Command Pod Mk1[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.25m[/TD] [TD=align: center]69%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Apollo CM[/TD] [TD=align: center]3.9m[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mk1-2 Command Pod[/TD] [TD=align: center]2.5m[/TD] [TD=align: center]64%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]NASA SLS[/TD] [TD=align: center]8.4m[/TD] [TD=align: center]Kerbodyne parts[/TD] [TD=align: center]3.75m[/TD] [TD=align: center]45%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Falcon 9[/TD] [TD=align: center]3.7m[/TD] [TD=align: center]SpaceY parts [/TD] [TD=align: center]5m[/TD] [TD=align: center]137%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Saturn V & BFR[/TD] [TD=align: center]10m[/TD] [TD=align: center]SpaceY parts [/TD] [TD=align: center]5m [/TD] [TD=align: center]50%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Ideally we should have had: [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD=align: right]Real Life[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: right]KSP[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Scale[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Mercury Capsule[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.8m[/TD] [TD=align: center]Command Pod Mk1[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.25m[/TD] [TD=align: center]69%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Apollo CM, Falcon 9[/TD] [TD=align: center]≈3.8m[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mk1-2 Command Pod[/TD] [TD=align: center]2.5m[/TD] [TD=align: center]64%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Falcon X[/TD] [TD=align: center]6m[/TD] [TD=align: center]SpaceY F9 and F1 [/TD] [TD=align: center]3.75m[/TD] [TD=align: center]60%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]NASA SLS[/TD] [TD=align: center]8.4m[/TD] [TD=align: center]Kerbodyne parts[/TD] [TD=align: center]5m[/TD] [TD=align: center]59%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Saturn V & BFR[/TD] [TD=align: center]10m[/TD] [TD=align: center]SpaceY F5 and F9 [/TD] [TD=align: center]7.5m [/TD] [TD=align: center]75%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Too bad about that ARM pack... Guess you'll have to redo all of KSP! However, notice that even if one were to ignore the scaling issue, it is impossible to build a Falcon 9 using SpaceY parts. The upper stage is the same width as the lower stage, just as on the Saturn V. I think you'd better keep it the way it is. It is a nice pack extending KSP to 5m, inspired by SpaceX and Saturn V, but not in any way intended to facilitate replicas. 9-1 configurations in each stack size: 7.5m, 5, 3.75m, 2.5m: SpaceX's Falcon 9 should be the one on the far right, at 60% scale, whereas the BFR should be the one on the far left, at 75% scale.

That look amazing. Funny that you raised the center F5 bell. I thought about suggesting it, but refrained because I figured matching the F9 was a priority. But this does make more sense. I can't wait for the update to be pushed! :-)

You may like NecroBone's SpaceY pack: R1 engine 2 MN under a 2.5m stack R5 cluster 10MN under a 5m stack

I have almost 30 mods, but only three have parts, and one's never used, one's very rarely used. I never involved myself in a mod's development before. This pack is the only one I feel good about, and I am happy to help you with feedback and suggestions. Just let me know if it becomes too much. 4: I took a look at possible scenarios. We are talking about 5m adapters for 5 or 7 1.25m engines: [TABLE=width: 590] [TR] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]3.75m stack[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 2, align: center]5 × 1.25m[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-909[/TD] [TD=align: center]0.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]50[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]2.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]250[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Poodle[/TD] [TD=align: center]2[/TD] [TD=align: center]220[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Aerospike[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]175[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]7.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]875[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Atm Isp –[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-T45[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]200[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]7.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]1000[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1500[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-T30[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.25[/TD] [TD=align: center]215[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]6.25[/TD] [TD=align: center]1075[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1500[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-N[/TD] [TD=align: center]2.25[/TD] [TD=align: center]60[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]11.25[/TD] [TD=align: center]300[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Vac Isp –[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]3.75m stack[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 2, align: center]7 × 1.25m[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-909[/TD] [TD=align: center]0.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]50[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]3.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]350[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Skipper[/TD] [TD=align: center]3[/TD] [TD=align: center]650[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Aerospike[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]175[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]10.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]1225[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Atm Isp –[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-T45[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]200[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]10.5[/TD] [TD=align: center]1400[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1500[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-T30[/TD] [TD=align: center]1.25[/TD] [TD=align: center]215[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]8.75[/TD] [TD=align: center]1505[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1500[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]LV-N[/TD] [TD=align: center]2.25[/TD] [TD=align: center]60[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]15.75[/TD] [TD=align: center]420[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Vac Isp –[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So two heights will be enough, one that just fits an Aerospike (would anyone want a stage below jets?), and one for the LV-N. The Aerospike (TurboJet?) does not need additional spacing as it does not have a lower attachment node. I am sure the ability to easily stack clusters of Aerospikes will be very well received. Fitting 2 2.5m engines under a 5m stack (visually similar to Titan II) could also be useful: [TABLE=width: 590] [TR] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]5m stack[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 2, align: center]2 × 2.5m[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Engine[/TD] [TD=align: center]Mass[/TD] [TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Poodle[/TD] [TD=align: center]2[/TD] [TD=align: center]220[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]4[/TD] [TD=align: center]440[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Isp –[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Skipper[/TD] [TD=align: center]3[/TD] [TD=align: center]650[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1300[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1500[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]F1[/TD] [TD=align: center]2[/TD] [TD=align: center]725[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]4[/TD] [TD=align: center]1450[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High TWR –[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]1500[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]12[/TD] [TD=align: center]3000[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]KS-25x4/F5[/TD] [TD=align: center]9.75[/TD] [TD=align: center]3200/3300[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center]R1[/TD] [TD=align: center]5[/TD] [TD=align: center]2000[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=align: center]10[/TD] [TD=align: center]4000[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High TWR –[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Two Poodles is an interesting way to get medium TWR and Isp, and Two F1s is good for an intermediary upper-stage, but since two R1s would only be useful in a lower-stage, it does not need a fairing. So again, two sizes is enough; one Poodle-length and one F1 length. 7&8: No, no, you are right. Your stripes should match the stock. Here is an alternative: Have the conical tank (but not the empty cone) and the decoupler connect the black stripes from an upside-down tall Kerbodyne tank to your stripes (and possibly to your quad-coupler too). This solves both the LOX-line-on-black issue and the red-triangle-on-black issue: 9: Why is that triangle red? While the smaller decouplers have red triangles, The 3.75m decoupler is all B/W. Wouldn't it be interesting to have SpaceY's logo the same color as the inner-tanks, and have the decoupler's triangle match? Just got an amazing idea for when you get around to redesign all the tanks and decouplers: [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD]Size[/TD] [TD]Manufacturer[/TD] [TD]Logo[/TD] [TD]Inner-tank and decoupler-triangle color[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]5m[/TD] [TD]SpaceX[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]blue[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]3.75m[/TD] [TD]Kerbodyne[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]orange[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2.5m[/TD] [TD]Rockomax[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]gray?[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]1.25m[/TD] [TD]Jebediah's[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]GREEN! (because Jeb)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]0.625m[/TD] [TD]Probodobodyne[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]red[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Wow, that was a mouthful.

That looks amazing. I think you have two engine fairing "first"s now: Cones and multiple sizes. By now, I would love to have you re-do all the stock tanks with different inner-color for each size. 3. Looked into it. This seems to be the most likely explanation: The middle engines of Saturn V's S-IC and S-II did not gimbal like their surrounding neighbors. This is not an option in Falcon 9, as only the center engine is reignited to soft-land the stage. The offset provides clearance. 4. Yes, that is what I meant. Currently there is no simple way to enshroud a cluster. Multicoupler > Engines > Decoupler is ideal. Compare Procedural Fairings' Thrust plate > Engines > Decoupler > Fairing holder > Fairing! New points for when you resume work: 5. Don't forget to replace the screenshots in the OP and on Kerbal Stuff, Curse.com, and ksp.necrobones.com with your latest editions. 6. The x5 clusters' outer engines are not aligned: F5 is + (N-S-E-W), while R5 is × (NE-SE-SW-NW). Saturn V schematics from '66 had it the S-IC's 5 F-1s and the S-II's 5 J-2s arranged like this, but actual photos appear about 22.5° rotated. I suggest you rotate the F5 to be like the R5, the stock KS-25x4, and R&S Capsuledyne's stock-alike Quadroodle. (Would be more out of the way if some crazy daredevil would be coming down at an angle to to land on the center engine bell...) 7. Consider adding oxygen lines to the conical tank, so it can be distinguished from the structural cone even when assembled. 8. The decoupler matches the checkers of the cones. This means two of the red triangles are in the black, and somewhat difficult to see. Try rotating all the checkers 45° and all vertical stripes 22.5°. Then let the red arrows and oxygen lines be exactly on the border of white and black. I think it would both increase visibility and aesthetics. Notice the much cleaner look: [TABLE=width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD=align: center]MSPaint ;-) simulation[/TD] [TD=align: center]Current design[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

These things probably have to wait for next week. You have done plenty this week: I would say the quad-adapter should again be styled like the thrust plates, just as it was previously when they all had vertical black stripes. I thought cone-shaped fairings was impossible, so I never suggested it. But really, who would stack 3.75m > F1 > 3.75m? Stacking 3.75m > F1 > 5m makes much more sense, just as on the Saturn-V: 6.6m > 1 J-2 > 10.1m. Also, it would be a nice compromise, instead of saying you cannot put anything under the F1 (or R1), your are allowed on condition that you increase the width: Allow 2.5m > F1 > 3.75m. Allow 3.75m > F1 > 5m (requires longer fairing = lower node). Allow 3.75m > R1 > 5m. Why are the center F engines placed lower than the surrounding ones? If you want the thrust plates to be conical below then recess the center engine accordingly. Could you design a 3.75m-to-1.25m quint-coupler (5) and sept-coupler (7) so people can design their own clusters? They would complement the stock-couplers nicely. Keep up your excellent work. I am sure Squad will contact you shortly.