Zorg

Not really. No one on the team is a particularly big FAM fan. The designs in that show are fine for what they are in the show but compared to IRL designs, IRL concepts and well thought out alternate history concepts such as from ETS, they are really not all that plausible and wouldn't fit in with what we have in that sense. Why make half baked hollywood designs when we have a plethora of real concepts such as the various LM derivatives cobalt added? I think we all agree the initial Jamestown module and interior looks cool though but there are no current plans to actually make it. If something from FAM ever makes it to BDB thats probably the only thing that has any chance at all.

Do you mean the fact that 1 booster is rotated the other way? thats the way it is in the IRL design. The nodes on the Delta IV should allow for all 3 cores to be oriented identically like the real thing.

There's a ton of pics on the San Diego Air and Space Museum's Atlas negatives flickr archive. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=OV1+atlas https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=ov1&user_id=49487266%40N07&view_all=1

Starting on the OV1s OV1-1 OV1-10 Not sure if I'll do any more. Perhaps 17,18 or 19 sometime. But will do the pods next. Side mount Atlas Retained Structure, the nose mounted "dual ARS" and the regular fairing that can carry two or three.

I've added the Atlas A nose cone which was not an RV just an aero nose cone probably with some instrumentation like pitot tubes. Functionally it has the optional lead ballast tank. Cobalt has outlined why we are generally hesitant to add warhead parts. I dont judge people who are into all that and I do play some milsims myself but when it comes to KSP I like the "purer" more innocent spirit KSP and Kerbals represent for me. That said the mk II RV has a nice shape and was mostly a research vehicle. That part is a maybe and I might do it like the Titan II cone or as an atmospheric probe if I do go ahead. I have no interest in the mk3 and mk4 RVs though (pictured is a mk3 I think).

Definitely not CryoTanks. Perhaps RationalResources

I think its worth clarifying for the un-initiated this Atlas F is a completely different beast to the Atlas F we actually ended up actually getting.

There's not much about it but I believe its regenerative. I would think its the hydrazine I think not the flourine oxidizer being circulated. BTW the F1 was also regeneratively cooled where fuel ran through the tube channels and then went into the chamber (this would be for everything above the manifold thats halfway down the nozzle). It was the burnt turbopump exhaust that was used for film cooling, not unburnt propellants.

They're really cool. The signature visual feature of the engine for sure. They are heat exchangers.

I'll look at that as an interim solution. GEM 60 probably needs to be remade to match the newer motors though. In the meantime the update for today is BDB's first flourine engine. The Rocketdyne G-1 Flourine Engine-Hydrazine for the NOMAD upper stage. NOMAD itself may happen some time in the future perhaps. This incredible model was made by @Al2Me6 for RO-engines originally, for once we are importing a model from them rather than the other way around I made a few small adjustments to the TU based PBR textures to fit the other BDB engines but this is 95% Al's work as is with very minor tweaks to fit. Its a pressure fed engine with low thrust. But due to the Flourine, it still gets 357s and 368s with the nozzle extension. In game it will use LFO by default but maybe someone will do something for BDB extras. Little bonus update, some tweaks to the RD180 to make it a little less monotone. Still based on IRL pics, but some engines had less paint and more surface variation. Think it looks better.

So I've done a bit of testing and honestly I'm largely happy with the balance. Just quoting from the issue page: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/1456 "Due to various factors the performance of KSP rockets can vary a lot but I consider between 2/3 to 100% of IRL performance in 2.5x scale to be acceptable. The IRL figures here are from example missions from Ed Kyle so are indicative rather than max payload. From Atlas 2 onwards the figures are max payload from Lockheed/ULA users guides. Atlas II struggles to LEO but this is due to the difference in scaling between the world vs the atmo I believe. It suffers significant gravity losses and the core never gets close to 1:1 TWR. However most other builds fall in an acceptable range so I'm planning to leave the balance as is." Unless someone discovers a major issue I dont think I will make any major changes. Perhaps some small tweaks to the mass of structural parts etc if we spot anything. But fuel loads arent going to change.

Sigh.....

J1-U mount is now available as a general use 1.875m mount. This is in addition to the Atlas III rd180 derived one. Features 1 to 4 nodes and 3 shroud lengths ( style based on a model of the J1U). Pipe can be toggled off of course.

RS83 is something I've thought about before. I might be interested tbh after Atlas. Theres no orthographic but dimensions and a reasonably clear layout of the powerhead are available. RS84 was made by Nertea for the NFLV revamp btw.

We havent done a balance pass. My gut feeling is that fuel loads probably wont change but no promises.

This texture sheet is full and I'm moving on. Only 1x and 2x here.

Generic mount based on RD180 Atlas III shroud is now available. Has 1x and 2x nodes both with and without pipe.

The fairing and base were made to the correct dimensions and the Agena adapter by Cobalt (which forms the base for the base if you will) should also be correct. Everything below can be built accurately too now so Im not concerned about the overall dimensions.

I don't think they need to be, they are pretty new assets done for the Agena update.

Uploaded the new inline LR101. With that I believe all the old Atlas parts have been revamped.

Thats planned but not done yet. What? Which upper tank? The cylindrical extension tank? Atlas A and the other ICBMS and direct derivatives dont use a cylindrical extension, just the conical adapter. The rest use variants of the Bossart-BT3-1200 Balloon Fuel Tank

Nose cone switch for GEM63 and GEM63XL so you can get both versions on each. The decoupler also now has a length switch to better match the XL. This is probably better suited to generic use on other rockets as the decoupler will not match the points on the Atlas V. If you really wanted to use the XL on Atlas V, its better to use the short version of the decoupler even if the top sits a little below the nose cone and the corresponding mounting hardware on the SRB. Visually at least the GEM 63 with the conical nose should be a very good match for the CELV's Castor. Also, the AJ60 and regular GEM63 now have their nozzles canted outwards 3 degrees. Due to an oversight only the XL nozzle had this previously. This has been corrected in a commit yesterday.

Unfortunately due to the way the RS68 is constructed, the thrust structure is integral to the whole thing. You have various support struts and even the gimbal mechanism hanging off of it. Taking into account the baked AO from all the pieces that connect to or pass near each other, making an even more compact version than the "compact" version shown here would mean redoing the power-head entirely. Almost 70% of the effort of making the whole engine.

Updated CELV parts are up on github. The tanks have been remade and the extension tanks have been consolidated into b9ps switches in a cylindrical and conical part. The skirt has gotten a texture refresh while the aft sustainer mount tank only got a couple of minor tweaks. Its suggested to use Atlas II roll thrusters and the AJ60 motor for this build (the actual proposal called for a larger Castor of about that size). With this commit I believe the Atlas revamp has now reached parity with all the old stuff with the exception of the LR101 in line variant, which is modeled but not yet textured. Everything else remaining on the list would be all new.

This is about calculating a rough physical volume for inventory items using a bounding box, not tank volumes.