mozartbeatle

There seems to be a typo in regard to the 4.25 Saturn fairings. The base 4.25m fairing, at 4.396 tons, is much heavier than the 1.693 tons of the 6.25m SAF fairing. Looking into the 4.25m .cfg file in 'Bluedog_DB\Parts\SAF_Fairings' the CONE module of the 4.25m fairing has a mass = 0.940, as opposed to the 'wall base' mass of 0.062t, or the 'wall height' mass of 0.063t. 15 times the weight for something not that much larger. I assume the value of the cone should be 0.094, and the zero was misplaced. This issue also affects the 3.75m SAF fairing, as it has a weight just a smidge lower than the 4.25m. Compared to the mass other fairings in their size class, these two are large outliers in terms of weight.

In the vein of the S-II diameter to 5m adapter, would it be possible to get an S-II diameter to 7.5m adapter? I've been missing an easy option to integrate stages when playing with Near Future launch vehicles in the late game.

Oh, I didn't mean just copy-paste the skylab mesh. I was just wondering about how likely it would be to get an option like that fresh-made for the engine mount, to better reflect how they looked in action in real life. Sorta like the insulated F-1 option. Is something like that a possibility?

Ok cool I understand. But just to make sure/clear, I wasn't talking about it in terms of a meaningless greebil, the SIV-b in general had that grey insulation. e.g: But I understand it's not easy or necessary. Thanks for the answer.

Looks amazing, and assuming that 3.75m mount is separate, it's gonna enable some fun options to the S-IV I’m looking forward to figuring out. If you’re willing to look at more engine plate switches, I was wondering if you could add an option to the SIV-b engine plate to include the grey fabric from the Skylab radiator unit for a more historical look.

@ballisticfox0 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Apollo museum pieces only look that way because the outer layers on the top half were removed after recovery. If you look at pictures of Apollo capsules in the ocean you can still see extensive areas of silver tape, and the non-silver areas seem to be a darker shade than the pale orangish (of the unburnt heat shield resin?) that they look like today. You can really see the difference comparing the Apollo capsules with the Skylab capsules, which seem to have been left mostly alone.

It seems to exist solely for the Jettisonable panel version. I think I found a somewhat good illustration for this. Methodology: I tried 4 different launches, with upgraded S1b's (1973 H-1's and J2-s's) to try to ensure orbit. Launches used non-pvg mechjeb, attempting a 130km orbit at 32 degree inclination. (Because that's what I'm comfortable with, and something I know can work, and I've found pvg to be finicky and I wanted repeatable results.). 2 with the edit, 2 without, 2 with the petals, 2 with jettison-able, you get the picture. Both edited S1b's got into orbit with 560m/s for the petal and 579m/s for the jettison-able (the petal adapter being 0.194t heavier) The unedited Petal S1b got into orbit with 535m/s. The unedited jettison-able, even with 1973 engines and J2-s's, still failed to get into orbit. Here are pics of the last 2 flight profiles, but with mechjeb flight recorder active and showing Drag Loss. I took screenshots at 2 min into each flight to compare. Try to guess which is which.

@TaintedLion I can confirm the LM IVA is reversed, it only seems to happen when the LM is docked to something. Further I can confirm it's not specific to the Apollo Capsule, or the Apollo docking ports, or specifically modded parts. (I didn't think it would be, just took the chance to check out some parts I don't usually ever use) Also, super minor note, but I just noticed that the Apollo service module navigation lights are reversed, red for starboard in stead of green, etc. (Also I know I bring up a lot of super minor nitpicks, just say the word and I'll stop.)

@OrbitalManeuvers Alright, using your inputs as a starting point, I was able to contrive an inclined orbit at 115km. Though even that took some amount of monopropellent to finish it off. I will concede that it is possible to get a CSM/S4b into very low orbit mostly intact. Thanks for your help with mechjeb. I hate it even more now. I still hold to my earlier paragraph about the SLA nose being wiggy, with it seeming to effect non-capped SLA's. And having thought the S1b was at a sweet spot of underpowered before, I hope it doesn't end up this marginal. But, if this turns out to be the new normal at least I can get into orbit. Thanks again!

@Adam-Kerman I'm not saying it's impossible to get into orbit with the Saturn 1b in general, rather it's impossible with a historical Apollo CSM, even cutting weight. I suspect that the issue is with the SLA panels, in which case using a different fairing is an imperfect simulation. @Pappystein The reason I mentioned using Mechjeb was more to establish that I had followed the instructions most previous "S1b is underpowered" posters have been given. I have previous to now never had an issue with getting a CSM/empty S4b into a low (120km) orbit. I ran a few launches of a standard, unupgraded CSM/S1b with your instructions, and your mechjeb settings. It is technically possible to get into orbit when you use the SPS. However, it was my impression that the Saturn 1b was, and should be able to get an orbital configured CSM into low orbit without having to use the SPS. Doing a cursory search it seems every real life CSM/S1b launch did so, at higher inclinations than you launched into. Up to 2 weeks ago when the SLA nose cone switch was added, that is how the BDB S1b operated. The core of what I'm saying is that the performance of the S1b is fine, I just think that there was an (unintended?) issue that popped up when the nose cone was added. I'm no expert at github, but it appears to me the only change made in that commit was to add a b9 switch for the SLA nose cone, so I rule out balancing nerfs. The day it dropped, I noticed an immediate change to the flight characteristics of the CSM/S1b. I ran through several hypothesis before settling, rightly or wrongly, on it being a drag issue. I made sure to check the entire config file of both the hinged and discarding SLA's, and the only change to drag I could see was the single line I mentioned earlier. That line of code should, to my limited knowledge, only kick in when the nose cone of the SLA is active. However, when I changed it to "False" it improved the flight performance of the open topped SLA used with the CSM and allowed me to again achieve a 130km circular orbit at 32 degrees of inclination, with about 25m/s to spare in the S4b. @OrbitalManeuvers (I'm sad you stopped posting videos btw, glad I could be partly cause for a new one) Following your mechjeb inputs I was closest to achieving an orbit without using the SPS. I have a lower TWR than you however, even removing the IU. Are you removing any other weight? When I stage I'm at ~25km altitude with a ~38km Ap compared to you at ~28km altitude with a ~52km Ap. However, though you get me closer to orbit, both you and Pappy are launching into very low inclinations. I would be interested to see how you both fare when going for more historical ones.

I have the same, or similar enough problem to @TaintedLion. I was previously able to get many un-upgraded (no J2s, no 1973 H1's) Saturn 1b's into low orbit on JNSQ. However, since the SLA nose cones were added it has been impossible even with the strictest adherence to the wiki guide. Just to confirm, I spent the last hour or two testing it in a fresh install with just BDB, JNSQ, and Mechjeb. My guess (acknowledging I know very little about how a lot of this works in the back end) is that the nose cone is affecting the drag characteristics whether or not it is activated. I was able to restore previous functionality by changing a word in the SLA config files part switch module, switching "affectDragCubes=True" to "False". Since I dont make much use of the nose cone so I've just been using that as a fix. I don't know anything though, so I might be super wrong about the source of the issue. Something else I also was able to confirm from my previous comment in the fresh install, is that the heatshield currently doesn't do much to prevent the Apollo crew cabin from heating. It can be difficult to prevent it from exploding at Mun return velocity. Also unrelated and sorta random but the Kh-7 service module doesn't have a waterfall plume.

Was there an intentional change to the drag characteristics of the SLA panels in the nosecone update? Using a Saturn 1b prior to them being added I was able to just squeak into a 130km orbit without firing the engine of the CSM, but even making sure the nose is disabled I fall quite a bit short now even trying with mechjeb and the guide. This is in JNSQ, no Ferram or anything. Also, minor issue, but the apollo capsule gets dangerously hot very easily despite a full heatshield recently. And very, very minor issue. Apollo is quite bouncy in water when ablator is low.

I’m so glad Saturn 1 is mostly complete, and it looks gorgeous. Absolutely incredible. Just wanted to ask, I noticed a little texture 'glitch' on an Apollo part some weeks ago. It disappeared for a time, but it just reappeared in the update today. Is it a permanent addition? Or is it just hanging around for development?

Sorry to post what amounts to a bug report here, but after an hour of trying to open a github account, I cannot take that captcha anymore. I apologize if these are known already. But I've noticed them for quite awhile and I haven't seen any post or mention of them, and they have remained unfixed. I loaded a new "clean" 1.11.2 Kerbal install to confirm these and get pics, and used the latest mod download. However, these issues were present on other Kerbal versions, and other mod versions. Please forgive any misused technical terms. The Leo-M-8DC Drogue Parachute appears like it has an exterior mesh(?) but the texture has only been applied on the interior of that mesh. So you only see it when looking through the outside onto the interior geometry. Example: Second, the Leo Capsule itself is too... buoyant? It only barely goes into the water, and when using SAS you can remain 'stable' at very unrealistic angles. Examples: Also, very minor and completely separate, the waterfall gfx for the Gemini lander engine has a white cone at all altitudes and pressures. Sorry again if these were already known issues. Love your work!

I have a question about the legoability for the new Saturn parts. I really appreciate the utility of the Herakles engine plate. Have you considered going a similar route with the Saturn V engine plate? i.e. A variable amount of bottom attach points, along with having the engine fairing/base be a separate part that could attach to a variable amount of side attach points? I have no idea what would be involved to do that, but I think it would be a great way to increase the utility and flexibility of the Saturn V parts.

Thanks so much for getting this contract pack going again and expanding it! This sort of contract pack has always been a necessity for me, and it's fantastic not to have to rely on the franken-version I'd cobbled together to use a few months ago. If I could a tiny bit of feedback though, the new eccentricity requirements make a lot of missions... tedious. Might just be me though. Anyway, thanks again!

Just to cover my bases I emptied out my other mods and did fresh downloads of both release and dev versions of BDB and BDBNIC, and did 4 different tests. In each instance the bug was present. I would abort off the launch pad, open the Apollo parachutes via staging. The parachutes will visually open, but will not slow the capsule down.

It appears the Kane parachutes have been messed up in a new way. They're available in game, they can be placed, they appear to open when staged, but they don't slow the craft down. Deleting the Apollo patch file in this mod's folder fixed the issue, but obviously made unavailable all the nice Apollo retextures.