Araym

Anxiety for the full BD Sarnus V is skyrocketing!!! ** SOON™ on your PC monitors ** ... I was playing with my "placeholder" Saturn V (mostly to test the BD LES system), so this ISN'T what Cobalt is making, but also with FASA launch tower, the Advanced Camera mod and Photoshop...

You see: I'm something useful, sometime LOL ... and yes: I'd like that Saturn-alike 1.5 stage. It has reference also to the initial Atlas development phase, that was thought to be a bigger 5x engine rocket (4x boosters to be jettisoned as "half stage" and then the 1x sustainer)

.+1 VOTE also for this (As I discovered how to direct convert from dds files to easy-to-be-modified anyelse, without any expensive software: my first take were my own suits for kerbalnauts, just today published on TextureReplacer thread :P)

Personally, I'd advocate stages without any "writings" on it, for various reasons (not a blame, but actually already it bother me the "Sarnus I" name on yours, as for "parallel name", in my rockets, the Mun shoot is done by the "Khronos" X°D, greek name of the same Saturn latin divinity): - tanks could then be used on personal project by players (any kind of rocket/spaceship/fuel depot). As example, for my (in-)famous placeholder, you can add space for the "flag" that anyone use in their own kerbal space program: As shown, this is still recognizable as a "Saturn V" without all the cold war propaganda decals that it had back in time, and the flag on the S-IC is the one used by me on my game (actually, no more, as I switched to the white one, but you got the idea ). Maybe a little bigger??? Regarding specific details. I'd like maybe to see: S-IC separation solids on the F-1 engine mount as shown here from my palceholder: ... and also from reality: ... they could also double if you could build the same fairing base as a 1 and half stage proposed evolution of the S-IC. (My placeholder is monolithic, aside from the winglets and engines, rather than yours that has the main tank separated from the engine monunts) Aside from the progression of development of the Saturn version (like the below depicted): some love also for the C3-B version (halfway from C3 and C4, with 3x F-1): **EDIT** Oh! I forgot: surelly, later in the development (after the fully Sarnus V release) maybe some different height for tanks at the same S-IC/S-II diameter (shorter ones to be stack alone or on top of the main ones)

As I posted, I was looking for something stock-alike, to add a little of variation for my Kerbal suits, but without move too much away from the stock look... ... so in a couple of hours I made my own pack: Araym's Stock-alike Specialization Suits It's not a particulary innovation: just some added finish touches, here and there, on orange suits and mostly a correction on IVA suits of the "mirrored logo" on the right shoulder. I split them in the 3 specialization branches (Red = pilots; blue = engineers; green = scientists), with added finishes to the "Fantastic Four" suits (plus a grey one for tourists, available ALSO for EVA use, even if they don't need one). Complete with normal maps, to add a bit o "different feeling" than a plain, stock, one... To have a complete preview of the pack, LOOK HERE To download, CLICK HERE For the "Licences", i made them as "use, modify, play with them freely: just mention me if you re-publish them as they are or in a modified form"

... uhm... cheese... like kerbals... mumble mumble mumble... <Araym looks next his laptop: no cheese, just chocolate. He scratches his bear then he smiles...> ... I guess, probably, what Kermulans could preferr... MUAH AH AH AH AH AH * Yes... I you could see me, visually I look more like a Kermulans, and I preferr anything with chocolate to any type of cheese... even if (or maybe "because") I had a brother that works selling it and I could eat almost any kind of "cheese". But it's not my fault if I live in Italy and was raised with "NUTELLA"!!!! *

<Araym returns from a Munar trip> Good general initial balancing, now, for the LM! Both "manual landing" (done by me) and the less mind consuming "automated landing" (done by MechJeb) were executed flawlessly. Also noticed a better behaviour of the MechJeb one: in the first batch of tests, sometime it had some difficulties to keep the direction (the infamous swinging around that some crafts had under MechJeb control). Now it esecutes the burn pretty precisely (MechJeb ended 3m away from a flag that I previously planted at the Armstrong Memorial site) and just because I pushed a bit the LM away, to not land "ON" the flag : (In the background, an STX descent stage left there from a previous test, when there was availabe only the Bluedog ascent one, which was used to plant the flag :P)

Confirmed: LM was initially planned to fuell cells (in the back of the cockpit, where then was placed the navigation computer with room to spare), but for weight issues (CSM fuel cells were tall almost 1,5 m) turned to all battery only (like I said, with 2/3 of the storage in the descent stage, and 1/3 in the ascent one), and kept full by CSM cells thru some connection when docked. By the way, even if strange (LM could have last better than it already did during the space emergency travel), speculations were made about if the "all fuel cell LM" was made, probably the electric connection from CSM to LM would not be existed, and then the Apollo 13 incident should ended with a command pod without any electricity to be used during reentry (when the left over electricity from LM was wired back to the command module) I always felt te STX MEM a bit... uhm... lacking on balancement (at least for latest KSP versions): the only thing about it I like is the little experiment it carries inside (and the cute little doors opening) back in time KIS/KAS does not allow to "build" things like the ALSEP parts... CSM is pretty powerfull but i feel it good: it has room for some "personal fantasies": direct descent as was initially envisioned... some "out of Kerbin SOI" mission, like the never done "Apollo Application Program"... maybe (with added fuel tanks/hardware) even as Duna mission (another eventuality envisioned by the latest, daring, Apollo Application program). I'll test again the latest changes for the LM balancement ("Alpha test 2"??? ): masses were changed, I need to let Kerbal Engineering do some math (I'm not in the best condition to guess now TWR and Dv by looking), even if I'll probably feel better (at lest for both engine thrust) the old value (it needed just a little more fuel in the descent tank)... See you later for some reports...

... dunno if interesting, but for "personal use" I (almost) kept all the STX parts (aside from wheels and some -by me- unneded parts) updated to roughly fit in 1.1.3 (balanced some costs, stock tech nodes and anything I felt out of position)... It could be a nice point to start if anyone wanna mantain this mod more "officially" (I just worked the cfg, as I'm not able to modify models) I probably removed (in my personal use) some parts, as I'm going with other mods, but 90% of the whole pack is present as it was in the latest release. PM me if anyone like to have a .zip (AS NOW I HAVE NO TIME to follow it as official publisher )

... aaaaaaand after celebrations for Cobalt's birthday, my "2 cents" about the W.I.P. LM's parts available. As it is, the "Ascent Pod & Ascent engine" work decently: it has enough "push" to go in a 15x15 km orbit from munar lift off (just with fumes left inside) so I could think of it as decently balanced (also as "electricity", maybe not so much used in a "stock" enviroment, but needed for a lot of life support mods) . BUT I had very trubles to land the whole stack form orbit... Testing Parameters: -Apollo like orbit scaled down to kerbalized size, 60x60km to start, with LM retroburn to Pe at 15/10km (tested various heights) and then landing- (like the from Apollo 11 to 14) As the descend engine power feel right (I had tweeked the STX MEM descend stage for other landers at 46 of thrust, feeling it good for various landing on the Mun) I think that descend stage tank failed to have enough juice, by a large margin: I'm not the best pilot, maybe (or surelly) but I had to "abort to orbit" almost always without fuel 3-4 km above terrain. I tried also the "scraping surface technique" (a very low pass altitude and then manage to slow down first using a pure retrograde burn to reduce horiz. velocity, then/together angling down to reduce vert. velocity too) but NOT enough juice... never... -Apollo like orbit 60x60km to start, with CSM retroburn to Pe at 15/10km and then ONLY landing with the LM- (like the "J mission" from Apollo 15 to 17, to reduce some Dv needed from the descent stage) TIGHT (VERY TIGHT) margin to land too, most closely to failure than success! The worst case was a "crash landing" with survived pod (but no ascend engine saved), the best was a "managed landing" using RCS to avoid flips, after the juice ended at 200m from surface, destroying the descend engine (not needed anymore in any case ) but saving the descend tank/legs as launching platform. "ALPHA TEST" conclusion: To not ask to players to be "exceptional Dv managers" (better players than me could do a landing as it is, with ~700/750 Dv), also thinking to the possibility to add additional equipment (so "more weight", from some KIS container for your ALSEP mod to -eventually- a basic munar rover), I suggest to put in the "Descent tank" a bit more of fuel. A good figure (as it is now), for me, should be around 900/1000 Dv for the descent stage, not only to have simply a "direct land" from higher orbits, but also a bit of "hovering ability" (like Apollo 11 did ) in case of a not perfect site found during the descent, or for some inclination adjustment needed during landing (major one should be done with the CSM, but if needed a pinpointing landing, some other correction could be needed by the LM) For reference, the above mentioned (and tweaked for my business by me) STX MEM descent tank/engine - it's a single part- (used by me before your parts) has 297/363 fuel/oxidizer, considering I used to haul your ALSEP, a basic rover (stored as parts in KIS containers and mounted in situ) and the 2x kerbals HGR "Pumpikin" pod (basically, a stock-alike 2 kerbal pod, in 1.875m dimension), with added parts to works (ladder, legs etc... so it was a bit heavier), staying in the range of the 1000 Dv (yours, as it is, is lighter, so maybe 216/225 fuel and 264/275 oxidizer should be good). The descent engine (50 thrust at vacuum) is surelly plenty capable to have the performance needed to manage the whole landing phase from orbit with the added weight (as said, I can land the aboved "multiparts croosbreed lander" with 46 @ thrust) ALSO, for a parallel to the real LM, consider that (I could find the reference, if you like it, but I'm pretty sure) has roughly double battery storage in the descent stage than the Ascent one (so, if your Pod has 200 unit of electricity, the descent tank should be around 400... or then, you should swap the value in 100 to ascent + 200 to descent stage). I suggest to not be too tight in electricity (keeping a 200+400 figure) as SAS could eat it a lot during orbital/landing/lift off phase, some could be lost for "transmitting science", but also your LM could be used for some "Apollo Application program" or from life support users without too much trouble... ... or 150/300, if you feel as "half way" from the actual state to my "generous" numbers . If needed, I could think about more precise values and tests (my suggestion were not tested actually, as I did just around 10/12 landings with your parts as they are NOW) Your "unofficial tester"

OH GOD! So lovely young.......... (yeah: I'm older... a lot... ç_ç sigh) Happy Birthday

Yeah: I have UKS (But also the "lite" one) installed (and KAS/KIS/Workshop), so I have the "full version" of life-support/production/repairs etc etc possible (probably too much resources all together :P) But returning to your explanation: basically (if enabled in the setting cfg at the line "ReplacementPartAmount = ") to "repair" a part I need MaterialKits!!! Now it make sense. But in other "recyclers" (not from USI-LS) it used also actively, as resource. I should comment it out from the cfg as recyclers does not need it??? How (and where) I should "add" replacement part if I wanna integrate it to "other parts" out of already supported mods? Basically, "ReplacementParts" are for crewed parts only??? What should be the "basic value" x kerbal (if it is crew based)??? But, also, as there are now 2 USI-LS setting files in my game (one with " "ReplacementPartAmount = 0" in USI-LS directory, and one in UKS with the amount set to "0.000001" in UKS): I could remove one of them???

Just added a lot of USI Life Support parts -MK (and from other mod that support it), so I'm working to understand them (but also to improve some other mod parts to: I get a basic grasp of the various "conversion", but a thing it is bothering me, and probably they are questions already done millions of time, but even I didn't find a clear answer on USI wiki: 1. I do not understand the "ReplacementParts" resource: somewhere it's stated that are needed by recyclers, they are displayed on the parts cfg as resource, but I do not get how check it in game (basic questions: if I put a recycler on a vessel, it can stop to function? How to replenish it???), but also, no USI-LS recycler use "ReplacementParts" on its cfg... but other recycler from other mods that support USI-LS are using it: how to balance them??? 2. "Wear" of parts: in the general USI-LS setting it seems disabled... but some parts show the value during game. Have I to do something to "repair" an old vessels?? Mostly thinking about "reusable modular interplanetary ships" I could create, to do multiple trips from and to Kerbin. I could like the idea of "refurbish" them before/after a trip, but I do not get how it works (and playing mostly in career, I do not like to send a big ship, considered still capable of fly, and then have a major mission failure during the trip...) 3. -RELATED TO 2- "Machinery" Resource: somewhere in the wiki is stated that it is needed to mantain "resource converters" at full potential, and the amount could be replenished by other "converter" from other resources. I almost get it (I need just to put some of those converters at work)... I'm confused about the statement that Machinery could be needed to repair also "old parts" with an hi value of "wear" (but it could be my misunderstandig, or referring to some old part of the wiki made before "Wear" was disabled.... Help!!! Thank you all

Probably it was already asked tons of time, but searching all the posts on the thread made me crazy: I was searching the stock IVA and EVA suits textures (and maybe heads) to start a new project of mine with some custom made suits, but I was capable just to find something alike from here, under the "standard" KSP pack: They almost fit as a start point, but also, in game, I noticed an helmet sometime for IVA with grey color (rather the red one used in EVA) and (aside Green Skull could confirm differently) IVA suits for "generic Kerbals" seem to me less colorful than Green Skull's ones. Could anyone guide me to the "most original and stock" series of assets to start with???? As a basic cfg settings fot Texture Replacer, I'd like to do: - 4, personalized, specific IVA and EVA for the "Fantastic Four" (Jeb, Bob, Bill and Vale) - 3, generic, IVA and EVA for any other Kerbal, split one for each qualification (Pilots, Engineers, Sciantists) - (as a plus) configure the IVA (without helmet) as EVA too, on planets with breathable air (Kerbin and Laithe), leaving the full suit only for space and any other situation........ I'm pretty solid on drawing (A lot of years on Photoshop) but totally new for Texture Replacer settings, so any help will be apreciated Thank you in advance

... DISCLAIMER! I'm NOT a developer of this mod (as I have no skill in 3d drawing)... ... that "saturn" of mine is NOT part of this mod but just a collection of random parts from other mods that i'm showing to Cobalt, Jso and Venomous as "reference" (as a personal "placeholder" in my game, waiting for something better)... ... I just, sometime, as heavy KSP player, look at their parts, advicing here and there: my "best" effort is some cfg editing or you could consider me a "an unofficial tester" but not related at all to THEIR AMAZING WORKS! ( @VenomousRequiem ... I'm embarassed)

... gggrrr... I hate my cellphone... do not consider my above, empty reply, as "a bug"... LOL... .... beside ... As soon I'll have my pc, I'll look to some KSP Kerbal Engineering screenshot to tell my numbers better ... or send to you, Jso, Cobalt and any one of the developers a private zip with the "whole" placeholder to initial "comparison tests"... I sense that my placeholder is then probably on the "safely overengineered" side of a tweaks, in cfg, but is "roleplaying" whise for me: i play with Dang-It (random failure could occurs :P) so the my placeholder has to perform under some failure test (... 1x F-1 engine failure in flight... up to 2x J-2 failure for second stage... bla bla bla... as some of them were planned and some also HAPPENED in real life and the rocket still flew in space )... for worse case scenario, there is always then the "Abort with LES" option... My placeholder could be a little heavier, also, because for model cfg tweaking reason, it is at a 5.68m scale (I'm not a 3d modder... i just play with KSP numbers in cfg, so I had to adapt myself from model found on internet...) to fit with its own 3rd stage at perfect 3.75m diameter to blend with stock-scaled parts (problem was the slanted decoupler from S-II to S-IV-B: I had to adjust it and I was forced to that first-second diameter, so I then used it in the part editing)... Like ANY "real-ish rocket", in a stock enviroment (stock aero and stock Kerbin dimension) it is OVERPERFORMING as it will be yours, anyway (orbit in just the first two stages... whole trip Kerbin to Mun or to Minmus, circularization -not neede but whole possible in stock enviroment- onto the S-IV-B for hybrid "direct approach-LEM extraction" on any of the two moons orbit) (But not strange: a basic Gemini-Titan II from your own mod is "cis-munar" capable on its own... real life is different from the game... I do not care: "overperforming" storical rockets means they will used for those "never developed" fine things I had in game: I'm willing to ) ... As I'm using it just for "eyecandy" play, it is not surelly perfect, but I do not care... KSP is fun mostly for it's ludicrous performances, sometime (i will play "Orbiter", if i wanna an earth-like simulator game :P): ... remember that, stock, kerbals could visit the whole kerbol solar system onto 3.75m diameter, if playing stock... ... with a 5.6~ meter diameter rocket, my kerbal will start "massive kerbol system colonization": i wanna 2 or 3 Werner-stations around planets! (Werner Von Braun dream: a series of saturnV-like tank interplanetary ships in a transport network to build "anything anywhere" in space *_*) Also, as I had already some interesting parts available from various mods, it should be balanced to be a "two stage launcer": before the rocket themself, it could be wise to model-develop-think about the Skylab parts for mass-weight balance. My overperforming placeholder rocket it become "right" stipped of the third stage. KSP problem in balance is mostly not in Dv needed to orbit, but then that moons and outer planets have very small orbits. Only when we are "already in space", we do not need so much Dv as real life...

... just to confirm also my maths were so similar in my "placeholder" 5.625m scale My F-1 "placeholder" tuned to: Isp s.l: 263 / Isp vacuum: 304 Sea level thrust: 2163 Vacuum thrust: 2500 5x F-1: ~1.1 TWR at launch for my placeholder At roughly 23km altitude (kerbin stock atmo and size) first stage is spent then dropped...

... I have not now any procedural tanks, so it could be just a random question: How is looking a "dreadful" (I hate the proportion of an ipotetical combination) 6.5m/3.75m combination?? (Mixing the actual "Sarnus I" size for the S-IV-B and eventually a first/second at the bigger sprectrum of diameter) Because... ... i'm not against the "bigger" first/second stage stage diameter: with a PROPORTIONED thirs stage (and also a little upscaled Sarnus I) at 4.25m (and CSM 2.5m diameter at natural, pretty exactly, proportion): I LIKE IT ! ... I advocated only the 5.625m/3.75m combo, just to mantain some sort of PROPORTION, in the rocket, if Sarnus I stay at 3.75m as Cobalt was not whilling to redo it, with a little bigger (in proportion) CSM at 2.5m diameter: it is less noticeable if just "the point" of the rocket it's sligthly bigger (kerbals have big heads than humans: space is needed LOL ...) I was for the "5.625m" to avoid "Sarnus V" to become a "stubby" first/second stage at 6.5m, paired for the skinny possible S-IV-B (3.75m)!!! It make me shiver!!! "Fat stubby big rocket" goes this way: ** DISCLAIMER: **... i'm heavily joking here... ... but still, I'll hate the 3.75/6.5m combo as it's the worst proportion combo of all... ( +1 for 3.75m/5.625m) (+0.5 for 4.25m/6.5m) (-111111111!!!!111!11!1!1 for 6.5/3.75m)

"Flying Buffalo": ... just bored to have already unlock, in my career, mostly of your Bufalo parts BUT none of the wheels (neither stock or from your mod), so... ... i made the "Buffal-kopter" (featuring KAX and Kerbal Rotor Expansion) and it's surprisly fun to ride

I know it (at least in the "performance")... Up to now, I personally praised BD mod for the pretty accurate "looks" of the parts... ... but aside the "hype" for a 6.25m tank never done before, and then putting as needed "more mods" to balance the pack, why do not go for "tweakscale" for those willing (personal opinion, questionable as always) such big tank, that is going (also, my opinion) to ruin the ROCKET proportion (it seems assumed that the third stage it will be at 3.75m) just for the sake of: - a 2.5m CSM?? (Then upscale the Sarnus I too... it needs just a couple of numbers in the cfg and keep the proportion) - to just put those NOT playing with Hangar Extension (a mod a lot of time not upgraded) in difficoulty??? - just a MORE overkilling big tank/engines for those that play at Stock proportion? ... after the death of OLDD Saturn V (and personally, the never used FASA one, as 5m tanks seemed too slim to be in proportion) I was hoping for a new "accurate looking" Saturn and I showed (above) how it is possible with 3.75/5.625m parts. I'll not be in a particulary trouble: as I pretty consistently edit the above "placeholder" parts for my game (and also, not being too bad in math) it will be easy to cfg edit here and there just to have the "right proportioned" parts from BD to fit those are not "looking good" in my placeholder (mostly just the bottom of the above placeholder first stage and the engines), as I had always trouble with Hangar Extension...

Tested when I was working on the scale of my placeholder, and back in time, when OLDD Saturn V (a pretty 0.23/0.25 KSP mod, sadly no more working) was in the 64% scale: it does not fit inside in the VAB, fully assembled. It needed some sort of "Hangar Extension" mod to work on it decently during assembly. Obviously, if proportioned both in height and diameter. Also, at 6.25m diameter, the disproportion is pretty consistent, then, with the third stage at 3.75m... ... and then EVEN worse on balance, as the very same J-2 engine, needed to be capable to move (in a 5x config) the S-II second stage (and at 6.25m, it is even more massive than mine, at 5.625m), achieves more than overkilling performance when single used on a 3.75m S-IV-B third stage.

So??? So??? Am I capable to convince you that 3.75-5.625 is "good" for a Sarnus V???????? Aside from dimension, also by a "performance" side and balancement: all that fuel needs pretty capable engines at initial thrust... BUT even with abismal low vacuum ISP for a J-2 engine (the opposite of the real life one), basically the third stage is unneeded to orbit (leaving a third stage capable probably of "interplanetary travels", rather than just a Kerbin to Mun/Minmus travel). My placeholder could send probably a whole station in Mun orbit, not only a CSM+LEM...

Additional images: How it fits in the VAB, under the gantry: And seen from above: Eyecandy:

I just copied the USI-LS in my game, just to check it. On paper (as I just read the cfg) it seems decent: - 3 days (6 hours) for Hermes (max Mercury space mission was 1-1.5 days in space) - 14 days on Leo (Gemini 7 was in space 2 weeks... so it's consistent) ... I have not reach in career to use Apollo hardware, so I should try it in a sandbox mode... In meanwhile, again advocating my thoughts about a Saturn/Sarnus V in the range of 3.75/5.625 meter, I did another craft with the "placeholder" parts I'm using actually: again, like before: - Bluedog's Kane as CSM assembly - Procedural Fairing for S-IV-B petal adapter and LES shielding + Tantares LES - all other parts from my placeholder Saturn V (a cfg edited to stock-ish values, dimension and resources from a Real Solar System mod rocket) - no more tweakscaled stock parts for S-II second stage and S-IV-B third stage, to have the proportioned rocked and only, slightly bigger CSM (2.5m instead of 2.216m, if it was kept in scale) As I said before, it still fits inside the VAB without any mod, and seems pretty decent in proportion. At least for my point of view... (questionable as always ) Comparison with real life Saturn V: