Zorg

Scansat should be fixed now. It was a missing bracket not indents (Indents really are stylistic and shouldn't cause errors, I went looking for them anyway as I didnt see any other issue but as usual its the old enemy, a single curly bracket gone rogue).

idk if JSO is keen to code a destruction module, and in any case they seem to have been busy of late. Re Deploy limit I can take a look and see if it works with the current animation and if so I can chuck a patch into extras.

The interstage was damaged by debris from the MM shield being torn off and was retained all the way to orbit. This failure is often forgotten about as the attention is on the MM shield and the solar panels (I admit I usually forget myself on Skylab recreation screenshots but this nearly led to complete mission failure too).

Incredible! Looking forward to the full video. Did you patch in a deploy limit for the partially deployed solar?

If anyone has any bright ideas we're all ears but we dont know how to fix this at present. We've never needed much aero expertise for the stuff we do. Also what issue with the Delta rockets?

I removed the indents that were preceding the equals sign in somelines, if thats the issue? Idk how it got there. Someone's text editor trying to be too clever I guess. Didnt get a chance to test the updated cfg with SCANsat though so if someone could check that for me, I will be able to take a closer look tomorrow.

plenty of people have asked for this but its just too much time, effort and texture space for essentially a meme. Which errors? I couldnt spot any module manager errors (I might just be missing it) or do you mean in the SCANsat module? If there are any issues would appreciate the specifics (or a pull request )

Configs are still there. I dont know of any reason why they would not be working.

Its in the works

Looks like the updated mu wasnt commited to github. I can fix that.

I've made some adjustments to the Skylab masses. For JNSQ 180km x180km at 50 degrees with the S1C defueled to 80% (as recommended by JSO for historical Lunar Mission) it gets into orbit with about 300m/s left. Lift off TWR is around 1.6. I think this is a good place to leave it as it leaves plenty of margin for life support mods etc.

There have been multiple proposals for "Large Diameter Core" titan rockets as well as the Barbarian. Barbarian was a one off launcher to lift the Zenith Star space borne laser for the SDI program and there was an even madder competing proposal from McDonnel Douglas (a Delta II core with 6 Delta II boosters, and 3 shuttle boosters outside that). Anyway here's a good place to start: https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/titannot.html Check Barbarian, 3L2, 3L4 And LDC Barbarian used 5 engines while the LDCs uses 4 engines. Some online sources will show a picture of a 4 engine test article to illustrate articles about Barbarian but thats incorrect.

Just updated MOL solar panel cell textures to match the look we've been using ever since. Everything should broadly match now though there might be small differences in cell size.

A part that uses the BDB jettison module like the Skylab workshop or Centaur D cannot be the root part. A note to this effect is in the part description. For Skylab the logical root should be the S4B Instrument Unit. It’s easy to overlook I know and we would rather it not behave like that but according to JSO who does our coding root related bugs are very hard to solve and we don’t have a fix right now.

Yup that is what I meant. The texture for the cells we used in that update and that we’ve used for all panels since then is different. Tbh it’s probably not a huge amount of work to match them to the new look but need to look into it.

We’ll probably do an SII wetlab. (There was a sketch for one) re solar panels I dunno. It’s probably worth updating the solar cells to match everything else. Not sure if or when though. Something to think about perhaps.

I have t actually finished balancing the Skylab parts yet. But it is worth considering that the Saturn V is somewhat overpowered. Due to the dry mass fraction of KSP tanks being much higher than IRL, we have a situation where very small rockets underperform and sometimes need to be buffed (scout, red stone etc) while most rockets in the 1.5m to 3.125/3.75m range perform very accurately. And on the flip side very large rockets actually over perform. I plan to go over the Skylab masses again but also JSO had recommended defueling the S1C for Apollo missions. This might give more realistic performance? I’ve only done one flight test recently and had 600m/s left over at 180km 50 degrees in JNSQ. there is little margin to play with the mass of most components as they will affect the wet labs negatively as they are quite marginal but I might make the dry OWS a bit heavier

Yeah our boiloff system was designed around simulating the old cryogenic tanks for our historical rockets. Boiloff can be mitigated to an extent by using dedicated cryogenic tanks such as Centaur or SII which have insulation and they will boil off less inside a cargo bay or fairing. these methods probably extend the life of the mission by a few hours not days. You can turn down the boiloff rate in the BDB panel in the in game difficulty settings or turn it off entirely. Alternatively there is a patch in BDB extras that will substitute the BDB boiloff module for CryoTanks’ one. personally I have always used CryoTanks for depots as I think the gold foil tanks in that mod look great and represent zero boiloff tanks nicely. having said that we might have some sort of cryo cooling solution like you suggest in the future. In the next major update after upcoming Saturn/Apollo one we will be looking at things like nuclear tugs and so on so maybe it’s time to figure out what we want for BDB cryo cooling.

Here you go. I used FINAL here assuming this is a personal patch for anyone who wants it. Can go anywhere in Gamedata as a cfg file, suggest in a personal patch folder. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleWaterfallFX]]:FINAL { @description ^= :$: Plume configured by Waterfall.: }

I've also made some wetlab balance adjustments, be interested to know what people think. Should be possible to get a stripped down skylab into a 120x120, 90 deg orbit in JNSQ now . Also the standard wetlab is now the lightweight version and the VFB one with the wider shield is now a bit heavier. Its worth noting that the punishing mass budget was a big part of what led to this whole thing being dropped and going for Saturn V dry lab . Upgrades to the J2 and using E1s on the first stage would also yield gains.

Just added this in. All the options are available on the Skylab parts as well, including the widebody fairing now for you weirdos.

Ironically I got a PR to remove this from RealPlume because some people find it jarring especially those on other languages. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah we dont have a 3.75m fairing. I've been meaning to look into scaling up the 3.125m ones.

Everything after 4 isnt QoL, its just content additional LM stuff is coming next update and a dedicated LM ATM model too.

I was wondering what the extra subtypes were while testing the Saturn I today