Mudwig

Assuming the thrust is for all four, though it isn't labelled as such ( it makes no sense otherwise ) it's too heavy and too powerful to be that diameter and that height. The listed dimensions don't work, nor do they match the drawing ( which shows something closer to a 67 inch diameter ). A 67 inch motor that height actually makes far more sense as far as the stats go, so the 47 might just be a typo. A GEM-60 scaled up to 67 inches ( everything multiplied by 1.11167 cubed ) has a gross mass of 46,868kg, a burnout mass of 5,182kg and a thrust of 1,235.411kn. and would be 18.32m tall. I think it's supposed to be a 67 inch motor, not 47. Everything else makes sense with that one change. Edit: Just going to the page that image came from confirms my suspicions. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlasnot.html

Clearly I need to learn how to read.

It's a Saturn M43 from Eyes Turned Skyward, an alternate history timeline. https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:eyes_turned_skyward_spacecraft_and_launch_vehicle_technical_data#saturn_multibody

Slight issue I just noticed: The 'Prometheus-III-3080 Liquid Fuel Tank' has it's nodes offset. The top and bottom nodes are both too high.

Ooh, Philip Bono stuff! I love Bono designs.

Ideally, KSP-ified Ariane 5 and Vulcan/ACES would be 3.4375m in diameter ( based on the 0.3125m increments BDB and some other mods use ), since they're both 5.4m in reality. It's a very underutilized scale in KSP mods at the moment.

So... New colors, new interstage variant with no holes and I'm guessing that's just a rescaled 2.5m DCSS and not a different 3.125m one, yes? I like them all, but I think I actually like the Atlas V-ish one the best. I tried the initial version of the DCSS from the Dev branch last night and it looks fantastic, but definitely needs some balancing. I tried it on Delta III and compared it with a Delta II 7920H lofting the same ~3t payload and the Delta II performed much better. It was far too heavy and had no monopropellant, necessitating additional mass. I'm guessing it just hadn't really been balanced at all yet, but I just thought I'd make note of it anyway. Would it be possible to separate the equipment shelf/engine mount into a different part to act as a control unit? It would remove the need to add a probe core for de-orbiting the stage.

I've never understood this point of view. The Delta family being defined by having a Thor derived first stage makes no sense when the name 'Delta' came from the upper stage. Delta IV has an upper stage derived form Delta III, which has a first stage derived from Delta II and so-on and so-on. If anything, based on this thought process, the Delta 7000 series was the last one, not Delta III. Even Delta IV was originally planned to be available with the Delta-K, although nobody had any use for it apparently. Last of the Thors? Sure. Last of the Deltas? Not really. Seems reasonable. I've been deleting that folder for probably more than a year now whenever I reinstall BDB.

Frankly, multiple sizes of hollow interstage adapters could have plenty of uses beyond just mounting the DCSS, especially with mating some of the awkwardly shaped station parts to launch vehicles ( looking at you, Gemini Ferry and Big-G SM ).

By 'decoupers' I mean interstages ( like the Delta-K, S-IV/S-IVB, S-II and Centaur have ). They may not be the same as normal decouplers, but functionally, that's what they are. By 'fairing bases', I mean... fairing bases... ( to put atop the stage and build a fairing from ) is there something else that they're called?

I cant wait to see the decoupler(s). It'll tell us so much. Will it have a unique fairing base like the various Titans and Centaurs do?

I had this problem before and it was due to toggling rigid part attachment on because I assumed it was something like KJR ( It isn't ), I haven't had any problems when just using autostruts and I have the N1 and it's engines rebalanced to be even heavier than normal. So if you are using rigid part attachment, just toggle it off and try again.

Ares V basically evolved into SLS ( and is itself an evolution of designs stretching back to the 1970s ) and J-2X is not exactly 'cancelled', it's just on ice until there's need/funding for it, which will probably be never. I like this idea and it would be a great way to de-clutter the parts list. A similar approach to adapters would be appreciated as well. Like: 1 adapter per bottom diameter with switchable top diameters/lengths/textures, though I admittedly don't know how difficult, tedious or complicated that would be to do.

Liftoff TWR was barely more than 1:1 without them. The test payload is nearly 200t of ore tanks, so it needs all the help it can get.

It's not exactly meant to be Jupiter III. It's inspired by it, obviously, but the core set-up is much different. It's a standard S-II upper stage ( with 4x APUs for attitude control ) and a S-II based core stage with 7x SSMEs. I wanted to use the MS-IIA tank for the core, but it's mass ratio is weird, so I had to use the normal one.

I was trying to use the MS-IIA as a basis for, something... ...and I noticed that the MS-IIA tank has a propellant mass fraction much lower than the standard S-II. This means that it's far better to just use the S-II tank than to ever use the MS-IIA one. I doubt this is the intended balance. I know MS-IIA was to be reinforced, but probably not so much as to fully offset the additional propellant's usefulness. S-II: Propellant mass = 71995kg Dry mass = 11875kg MS-IIA: Propellant mass = 75415 ( ~104% of standard ) Dry mass = 18160kg ( ~153% of standard ) I'm thinking it may need a bit of a balance pass.

Is this LV supposed to be based on something, or is it just a mash-up thing? It looks really cool regardless.

I tried the patch recently with JNSQ and found that it was very hard to loft payloads to LKO... payloads anywhere near the max for a given launcher, anyway. Higher orbits were more or less fine, but low orbits just don't have enough time for the low thrust stages to be effective with heavier payloads. The main problem with using a 25% scale thrust setup universally is that payload mass ratios are much higher than IRL, so you end up with far lower upper stage TWR than on the real deal and much less time to burn with it. This isn't as big a problem with the lower stages, since the payload represents a much smaller percentage of the total mass than with the upper stage, where it can easily be half or more of the stage mass. Ultimately it's up to the BDB team to decide what to do, but if the 25% patch is designated as standard, then I think the current thrust scaling should be available as a patch like the reduced thrust config is now.

MPLM + Orion SM = All the supplies you could ever need! Launches nicely with the Ares I from ReDirect and has oodles of delta v... if you're into that sort of thing. 66 parts though, which is maybe too many considering it's basically a space panel van ( 40 of those are just handles, so it's easy enough to trim down ). I don't actually have a station to send it to though.

Will you be doing a version of the boat-tail with the skirt that Delta IV has when using solids?

This looks fantastic! How many parts make up the orbiter itself? If it's scaled for 2.5m payloads ( the actual shuttle cargo bay was 15' or 4.572m wide, which would translate to about ~2.8125m in KSP, based on .3125m increments ), so does that mean this is quite a bit smaller than Pak's Mk3 based shuttle? The stock Mk3 parts are way too big for a properly scaled shuttle. BTW: You're recent rate of output is absolutely nuts!

The real ones were painted differently depending on which side they were on, so I ( perhaps wrongly ) was assuming that'd be the case here. I think I simply misunderstood the post about the TVC being switchable as being the model rather than the texture. I know the TVC fluid is necessary for the real deal boosters to function, but in game it doesn't matter at all. The TVC tanks are purely cosmetic.

That looks fantastic. Can't wait. So... two OG black-and-white and one Titan III Commercial/Titan IVA style white, with and without TVC tanks, that means... 6 variants?! Ooh, that's a lot. Will they be switchable independently when attached in symmetry mode, Like the Cormorant Aeronology thermal tiles?

It's 3.75m. Tweakscale can get it close enough to the right size. You'll have to fiddle with the thrust settings to dial it in though. Nertea's engines aren't as heavy as the ones in reDIRECT either, so there might be balance issues as well. Oh, also, the CryoTanks MM patches mess up the tanks in reDIRECT so that'd have to be addressed as well. I actually stopped using CryoEngines because I was tired of playing compatibility whack-a-mole with mod parts that already have LH2 configs.

It has the ICPS from the SLS, which is basically a 5m Delta Cryogenic Second Stage from Delta IV, but it doesn't have the RS-68 ( yet ) nor the tankage. There's 3.125m tank parts for Ares I, but they're not really long enough for Delta IV. You could make some stacked abomination with multiple Ares I oxidizer tanks, I guess, but still no engine, nor adapters for the upper stage. *Edited for fat fingers. Woo!