Araym

Yeah... masses for engines is undoubtly a point to be looked at: Looking at my tweaks (dunno what CobaltWolf is going to implement as official, but sometime I feel to modify mod on my use, and probably I'll going to make a ModuleManager patch to myself, using my datas: sadly, not a mod fault, but only my urges to not have "uberperformances", I generally heavily nerf modded engines) I forgot indeed to "balance" their weights. I'll take a look... but surelly I feel that a 0.7 tons upper (like you pointed) is "too light". for a range of 120 thrust as you propose (and given that is a 1.875m form engine) should be in the range of 1tons/1.2 tons... probably the latter 1.2/1.3 with mine - that are a bit highr in thrust. (CobaltWolf parameter at 2 tons are a bit too much... under 1 tons are too light for a stock-ish weigth/performance ratio). Just probably the smalle 1.5m Titan I upper stage engine... but as designed by CobaltWolf, with the added verniers, some thought about weight performances (in my thrust/isp values) compared to stock, should still be in the 1 ton region If we do them too light, they will screw, overall, what is expected by "A Titan": my "Titan II GLV" equivalent, with a Gemini-ish capsule+service module, does NOT use any of the longer, silver "bluedog_Titan2_FuelTank2" at all, NEITHER for the first stage: using both a "bluedog_Titan2_FuelTank3" (the medium silver tank) as extension of the first stage, and as second stage itself. And I end ALWAYS with way too much fuel on the second stage, to be almost trans-munar (in my tweaks, with "original engines masses" by CobaltWolf) after a circularization (always ditched with more than 500ms dV... and original engines, with too much thrust are very similar...). Make them light and... brrrr... will they go to the mun in a "not SRB boosted" Titan II-Gemini configuration??????? NOPE NOPE! BALLAST and DEATH WEIGHT!!! ADD IT, not shave it from AND I'll be cautios to add weight to first stage engines. This is a gameplay issue: long rockets with small diameter (and "titan-alike", from Titan II onward, in a 1.875 diameter, are very thin and long) and a heavy engine on the bottom tends to "flip", as center of mass switch with fuel depletion, needeing then some additional gimbal tweaks. Stock bigger engines has 0.004 tons for every 1 point of thrust ("Mainsail" and "SSME"... "Skipper" engine is someway worse, with a 0.0046 tons for every 1 point of thrust) With MY tweaks of thrust/ISP, they could be (NOT TESTED IN GAME: just made figures on paper... and my ISP data are rounded number based on REAL Titan engines : 1 case on 1 millions they almost fit in the game :P) bluedog_LR87_mod1 (Titan I first stage engine -1.8 tons BD-original- ): Thrust 496, a.s.l. ISP 256, vacuum ISP 290, 2.3 tons (basically, the worst, initial, development, 0.0046370....etc etc tons x 1 point of thrust: skirt protections mass added, probably not optimized engineering costruction, value very similar to the first heavy duty stock 2.5m engine "Skipper") bluedog_LR87_mod2 (Titan II first stage engine -2 tons BD-original-): Thrust 565, a.s.l. ISP 258, vacuum ISP 296, weight 2.26 (perfect 0.004 tons x 1 point of thrust as "Mainsail" and "SSME") bluedog_LR87_mod4 (Titan IV first stage engine -2 tons BD-original- ): Thrust 630, a.s.l. ISP 256, vacuum ISP 302, weight 2.4 (better than stock 0.0038 tons x 1 point of thrust: basically some material/construction/engineering advance in performance, overall, with an added weight for the added skirt protections) Stock upper stage engines: stock LV-909 "Terrier" : Thrust 60, a.s.l. ISP 85, vacuum ISP 345, 0.5 tons (first, early career, 1.25m stock "pure vacuum" upper stage in game: 0.008333... tons x 1 point of thrust... vacuum engines have not so good weight/power ratio as it seems: double weigth every point of thrust in vacuum) stock RE-L10 "Poodle" : Thrust 250, a.s.l. ISP 90, vacuum ISP 350, 1.75 tons (better 2.5m "pure vacuum" upper stage: 0.007 tons x 1point of thrust) stock KR-2L+ "Rhino" : Thrust 2000, a.s.l. ISP 255, vacuum ISP 340, 9.0 tons (0.0045 tons x 1 point of thrust: advanced 3.75m single engine bell engine... an "atmospherical" engine with still good vacuum performance that could considered also an "upper stage" engine for 3.75m rockets: it pays its added mass, like a "pure first stage" engine, because its dimension ARE to be accounted aside its still useable a.s.l. ISP in atmosphere... overall probably one of the best engines, considered its weigth/power proportion both atmo and vacuum) My tweaked BD Titan's upper stage engines (my tweaks power levels, ISP made by REAL LIFE Titan's upper stages, masses parameter shown as "original" made by CobaltWolf and eventually my "tweaked mass" ideas): bluedog_LR91_mod1 (Titan I, 1.5m diameter engine: it's not a "pure vacuum" engine, with this "taken from real life" ISPs: it should have some better ratio than a 3.75m Rhino, that is still useable in atmosphere, but NOT going to be good like a 1.25m "Terrier" or a 2.5m "Poddle", made for vacuum): Thrust 120, a.s.l. ISP 150, vacuum ISP 308 for main engine Thrust 20, a.s.l. ISP 250, vacuum ISP 290 for verniers 2 tons like BD-original (0.016666...etc tons x 1 point of thrust = NO GOOD, indeed) is it too heavy, with my power level 1 tons could be good (0.00714...etc tons x 1 point of thrust: in a career-progression point of view, it has not a good upper stage overall, it is going to be an small early version of an engine that should be "bad" enough to be phased out for later versions...) bluedog_LR91_mod2 (Titan II, 1.875m upper engine): Thrust 180, a.s.l. ISP 160, vacuum ISP 316 (it needs some "power more" than you planned for a simple "Titan II GLV-Gemini launcher": consider that it was used in early "Titan III", when was added the big 3rd stage "Transtage", basically, to a Titan II) 2 tons like BD-original (0.011111... etc tons x 1 point of thrust) is TOO HEAVY too... 1.25 tons (0.0072222...etc tons x 1 point of thrust: it is bigger than "mod1", it has NOT the weight penality of a stock-vacuum engine, it has a penalty to be used ONLY like an "high atmosphere" engine - too low a.s.l., respect real-ish life ISP overall, and DO NOT NEED too much of a buffer, to not be capable without boosters to send a Gemini-like vehicle on Mun orbit, but still has a weight penalty rather the "very advanced" 3.75m Rhino: overall, with THIS weight, it is already BETTER THAN A STOCK UPPER STAGE ENGINE. In a scale with "Terrier" and "Poddle", should weight around 1.5 tons) bluedog_LR91_mod4 (Titan IV, 1.875m upper engine - 2 tons BD-original) Thrust 210, a.s.l. ISP 160, vacuum ISP 316, 1.3 tons (0.0061904...etc tons x 1 point of thrust: basically the very same weight/very same engine, only "pimped up" in performances engine... other consideration already done above) ... I do not wanna be the "prophet of KSP balance", but your engines are too heavy, considering the first stage one, and too light as upper one. Balancement should be done against stock performances of similar roles/power parts: overall, if you use my figures, globally you net similar weight advantages in full-rocket stack, but with weight placed strategically not only to keep each part balanced against other stock-engines, but also considerign that a too heavy bottom causes "rocket flipping" in KSP, during first stage late burning phase (in a stock game, we add fins....... in a Titan rocket i DO NOT wanna add fins ) Also, made my research, the Titan II GLV for Gemini launches has a TWR 1.2, and I balanced the engine "mod2", to reflect this, with already some buffer up, when I build a sort of Gemini replica with CobaltWolf's gemini-alike capsule plus some other mod parts to be consistent for the role expected by that craft (Actually I use the "Spica" parts from Tantares, for my gemini launches: I could make a "small Gemini" .cfg with a x0.75 Spica, to fit in BD Titans, using the full scale Spica only in the role of the "Big Gemini"... or directly tweakscale up to 2.5m the whole group of Titans... or both... ) ... you mailed me with your consideration here for the "lenght of parts"... NOW WITH A PICTURE (sorry to be italian, and sometime not keeping immediately the meaning of an idea wrote in english ) I agree with you. Indeed, as an early Thor as the flared upper part starting half way to his lenght, and as it was long at least like a Redstone-Mercury, we are missing a 1\3 of the rocket. BEFORE CobaltWolf kill himself in the thought to "rebuilt" new models, he could use the "scale" command in hte "model" module: MODULE { model = <...whatever your model folder path is> scale = <scaling value 1>, <scaling value2>, <scaling value 3> } to just lenght for the game the height of those two parts. They could also NOT BE a tweaks on those exactly two parts: making a JUST a couple of new .cfg files, with a little different part name, x1.5 in height (it should be the second value: I always forgot in the x,y,z directions in KSP which it is the "height" ), using the very same model of the actual parts, to ADD the right tanks to build a basic "Thor". It could depend on original scale model the exactly number, and maybe should needed the addition of some tweak on "rescaleFactor" and/or the addition of the "scale" command outside the MODULE "model", like this: MODULE { model = <...whatever your model folder path is> scale = <scaling value 1>, <scaling value2>, <scaling value 3> } scale = <A value, generally should be "1", using the parameter in "model" module to give the dimension of the part> rescaleFactor = <a tweaked value, but generally "1", as the dimension now are defined inside "model" module> to avoid strange resize sometime KSP do if you reload a save/quicksave/revert from a launch, if the part is the "root part"... Then, lenghtened those 2 parts, it's needed just to multiply x 1.5 the fuel values. (We were modifing just 1 dimension, the height, of the 3 about x1.5, so just that is needed to have a proportional part's fuel load) I'll try some experiment later in the day

My thoughts: If you prepare Procedural Fairing parts to this mod, release them in this mod main download. Maybe in a separate folder not directly needed for a standard, stock, playstyle install, but then easy to be found and installed for any using PF (I already enjoying your prev PF parts in my games :P)

UPDATE: Corrected the wrongs ID (Thanks to @UnCroissant ) in KerbFleet pack ATTENTION! You should revoke/assign back some ribbons, as they changed as ID number. Also corrected some typos in "Military Rank" too, and provided a new link.

Did another pass on test: TITAN ENGINES and REDSTONE ENGINE tweaked: Definitely, both "Redstone" and "Titan" engines are still in a pre-tank tweaks values. Download my "test engines" HERE (Dropbox) (plus the already publicized Thor's engines tweaked) I did my math, my researches, some comparison with payloads and weights. No craft files, this time, because I used other mod parts as fitting in the Gemini role, so it's difficoult to share them (mostly tweakscaled part)... but you could build your own. Titan ones were very easy to tweak: I started by the (real life) notion that a Titan II GLV launched a Gemini with a TWR = 1.2. Build/tweaked engines and rockets using that central parameter as comparison with perfomances, and some room for longer Titan rocket like the Titan 3(34) - the first series with first stage streched - that flew with an Agena D upper stage and some payload, but without SRBs... For example: A Titan IV, built with relative tanks, my tweaked engines, and 2x Prometheus-IV-3 "Selene" SRBs (the long, 3 segments, white SRBs) orbited more than 25 tons in 120x120 orbit, IF i started the liquid engine in the first stage when the SRBs were almost depleted (like the real Titan IV did) IN FLIGHT (not at the launch pad). Pretty good payload, if we consider that the Titan series launched some of the heavier payload, or those with the longer ranges (Voyager 1 and 2 tell something to you??? Cassini??? :P) ---------- EDIT ---------- For the Redstone I removed, we should open a different discussion: the provided tank is "stock-alike" if considered a "tank full of rocket fuel". The proposed engine I added in the above .zip reflect just a lowered thrust to be in line with stock-alike engines. The actual engine is not so much overpowered compared to stock ones: sure things it has a lot of thrust, for its "single long tank", but nobody moves us to use tweakable slider in the VAB to reduce it slightly. My tweaks for it were also not optimized (bad file added) so.. well... I removed the Redstone engine test i added. BUT if CobaltWolf is looking to make a replica of the redstone-based rocket, you should notice (clearly visible here: http://andegraf.com/rockets/us_early.htm) that the upper part of a Redstone-Mercury (I assume that we have a tank rappresenting it, having the chessboard-alike pattern on the top) was EMPTY by fuel, casing only the flight instruments... ... actual reproduction of a Redstone+Mercury, if paired with a similar lenght Thor-built rocket, weight almost the same in game, when (with a good portion of the actual Redstone left empty) should be a little more 1/2 weight than a Thor-based rocket of the same lenght. BUT that is not a real "bug": just a different consideration (we can left the actual tank values, considering it just a "longer stock-alike 1.25m tank") of what we wanna achieve in the pack. Rockets that looks alike real life, and having performance stock-alike, capable to achieve what they did in real life (no Titan's first stages directly orbiting the Mun, for example or Redstone making a Mercury orbital ) or exactly replicas, both in dimensions and weight: for the latter, I just could ask to try RSS mod... I'm good to balance stock-ish-look alike parts to performance near real life in stock game behaviour so I do not bother myself more than needed. My tweaks are focused to bring parts in a "stock-performance range", having them to build "real life-look-alike" rockets. Any further problem does not bother me I guess that, after this, last, zip, actually I overlooked all the major issues I found in the pack.

Cross-Overs!!!!!!! *_* Now You two bring me the idea to be in "the party" too X°D I have to resume my own comic (I was busy, in the latter period, to help CobaltWolf balance some parts on his mod package, as I'm doing pratically a Kerbin replicas of space travels from sputnik onwards, and I needed Atlas and Titan rockets... and Thor-Delta too)

@CobaltWolf will probably either love or hate me, before or after: Found another little bug, in the bluedog_DeltaK_LowerTank : I was puzzled by the fact in the in game description, it should have some monoprop, but it was not showing any... RESOURCE { name = Monopropellant amount = 20 maxAmount = 20 } should be: RESOURCE { name = MonoPropellant amount = 20 maxAmount = 20 } with the "P" in "Propellant" in capital letter

Little addition to my "testing phase": ... I took a look on the Atlas parts......... ... and "yes": they are suffering the same problem as Thor ones. Tanks were tweaked to stock-alike values, but now engines are way overpowered, left at values as pre-tank tweaks. At least for those Muo parts that are meant to be build as early 1 and half stage Atlas (I didn't look in deeply on Atlas V parts) --------- EDIT --------- Well... actually Atlas Booster ans Sustainer are not "overpowered", if looked at them in the longer Atlas II-alike point of view: with a big centaur with the longer Inon tank, plus a good 2.5/3 tons payload, they are good enough to lift 2 medium muo tanks + the base long tank and adapter tank to build the 1 and half stage. With added some SRBs booster, there is also room for a medium-heavy lift up to 5-6 tons. Smaller Atlas could be tweaked using VAB menu tweakable slider, to avoid overthrust in lighter version. Also, sadly, such payloads does not allow a more real life difference in thrust: the booster engine were in the range of 950/1000 kN or more (it depends on version), the sustainer were a mere 386 kN... if such difference was brought in the game, it'd be almost unuseful, in the 1 and half staging (aside maybe on a Mercury mission, even with a smalle Agena, the sustainer has never enough power to be able to "sustain" alone any weight left as payload before atlas fuel depletion) On my liking, there could be some more variations on ISP values from booster and sustainer: Boosters were in the range of 269 a.s.l./300 vacuum ISP, but the sustainer had (a lame) 220 a.s.l. and a (better) 316 vacuum ISP... But those are not major problem Actual values are fine. In meanwhile, I found that some Mercury part in the latest dev releases (2016-01-07, 2016-01-06 n°2, 2016-01-03) are broken: if loaded in a scene, they created some strange bug (engines sound roaring even with no engines active, not working MechJeb) and a pretty weird response on command (basically SAS not working, even manually used) but if I reverted on those of the dev release 2015-12-29, they are perfectly fine as always. It was probably something related to some model of them, as the cfg. files does not look particulary different in any part. I couldn't find what part caused the problem, but it is without any doubt in the "mercury" folder: as soon I found a stable release to backup, no problem were replicated.

Further tests and tweaks done. TL;TR summary: "Thor engine test 6" has still lower thrust than the "original", but a bit higher than "test 5" version. It pays that with an ISP lowered a lot overall (slightly reduced on verniers, a lot on main engine). Main tweak to avoid the "original" flipping behaviour was put the main engine bell gimbal at 6°, with vernier still at 10° like "original". This configuration leaves open a possibility for an "advanced engine" with better stats (basically those we have, actually, as the "original"??? ) keeping in mind that the turning point to have a flyable long rocket was the changed gimbal value. "Dioscuri SRB test 2" left at "placeholder" lower values both in thrust and solid fuel quantity, with a slightly different (better) ISP values than original, to have a central stack capable to be in a TWR > 1 after separation (the longer version i made, "Delta 2000" with 3x SRB, at separation, stay at TWR=1.2~). Better proportion could be done by @CobaltWolf knowing their real dimensions, but they should be around those values. For comparison, there are updated .craft files for both engines ("test 5" and "test 6", and when needed/suitable, the "Dioscuri test 2" SRBs). "g" versions are with the "test 5" engine, "f" versions with the new tweaked "test 6" engine (the latter are probably what we should use in the end of a balancing pass) Download test parts and test craft here: Thor tweaks 1.0.1 FULL REPORTS: Basically, the "enormous TWR and fuel consumption and lacking of gimbal" that the original parts had, building issues in flight like a flipping rocket, is gone... Short Thor version + small upper stages are plenty capable to put small payloads in a lot of high orbits around Kerbin without the use of any SRB. Longer version gained a better control during flight, and with a proper ascent profile are no more prone to "flipping issue", when the "magical 6° value" was found as balancement for main engine gimbal. To understand what I build and because I called the rockets in that way, you could look at sites like http://andegraf.com/rockets/ to make comparisons. They are not meant to be "exactly replicas", but just to let feel the hypotesis of "advanced in development" in a kerbalish-alike series. As soon the first stage is built with more tanks, it start to have a sense to add some SRBs: as I pointed before, in the real-life "Delta series", they were totally needed when the engine basically stayed the same from the earlier "PGM-17 Thor", but more fuel was loaded in the stretched tanks, to have enough TWR to lift-off. In stock KSP, and with tanks provided by CobaltWolf, the limit in lenght to be real-life-alike should be the rocked I called "Delta 1000", that has not (or just barelly, if flown in a very low orbit) an orbital capability on the first stage+SRBs alone. "Delta 2000" has a bit of over-performance than real life, capable to achieve a 120x120 orbit without using any fuel from Daleth/Delta-K upper stage, but stock-KSP is known to allow better performances in replicas, caused by the small planet dimension (I always ended a circularization at that 120 km altitude with a leftover of 80/60 fuel units + the relative amount of oxidizer: a total of around 100-120 m/s left unused). Performance of the "test 6 engine", overall, is in the range of stock LV-T30/LV-T45: basically could be considered an LV-T30 (stock not gimballing engine with little more thrust than the stock gimballing one) with the gimbal took from a LV-T45, and ISP values that fall shortly against them both. Considered as an "early engine for early rocket", the gain of gimbal and thrust, I felt that this low ISP could be fitting as fair trade. I still didn't any "max payload" test for the rockets in the final "f versions": the provided "basic probe" is a good example of what could achieve any sort of "orbital contract" in Kerbin's SoI, with a weight of 0.8 t. and 1000 m/s dV, NOT counting all the fuel left in all the upper stages I made. The "Delta 2000" could probably load a probe up to 2-3 tons without any problem (probably even a bit more) or pushed even further (if more SRB than 3 are used and tweaked to burn longer to have a TWR >= 1 after separation). Left with similar paylod than mine, it is fully interplanetary capable (almost 1800 m/s dV left in orbit + the previously noted 1000 m/s of the probe alone). A bit different approach was done with the rockets using an Agena D-like upper stage: as used in the spy satellite progam "Corona", the Agena-series were mostly considere both "upper stage" and ALSO "payload", having directly connected the spy cameras and such parts used with it. I build a similary setup using science parts, making an heavier stack in a similar, peaceful, scientific vessel. A low thrust/low ISP engine, also, leaves room (as CobaltWolf pointed) for a better engine and better SRBs to push further the series in future (if we consider the actual engine as an "MB-3/ Thor PGM 17" derived engine, we should have then the RS-27; if consider the actual "Dioscuri" SRB as a Castor 1 or 2, we should have the Castor 4/GEM) to have better payload/ranges. Left as they are in the "original dev release", any "better part" should risk to fall in the "a lot-lot-lot overpowered", as the already "original parts" are well out of balance. My "more than 2 cents" in the balancing of these parts is done, for the moment. I didn't look at any other parts in the pack as deep as those, for the moment, BUT for a first glance overall they could need similar tweaks, after all the tanks had their masses and fuel loads reduced.

My change are also to me surelly not "final": up to this moment, the ISP/Thrust changes are aimed to avoid too much fuel usage in the first part of an ascent (that brings the "flipping issue" as the thor engine from the last dev release) but also are a "work in progress" to balance then both for the final stage of the ascent, aiming to deplete the fuel, in the "longer Delta" I designed, arriving at apoapsis. Thor Tweaks 1.0.0.zip There a zip, with my latest Thor engine and Castor SRB tweaked (the latter, in the original dev release has TOO MUCH thrust and fuel mass for its size), and a serie of craft used as reference to balance it (craft comes already with the "tweaked engines": install the pack in the GameData like a mod: it add the changed engine to the BD folders, without overwriting any part but adding the new one with the labe "Test" in their names) Aiming of the pack (to recreate an useful series of "replicas" not too much powerful): Test 1"Thor-Ablestar 1", Test 2 "Thor-Able 1" and Test 3 "Thor-Able 2" should have enough TWR to be launched as they are... Test 5 "Thorad-Agena D" should not be capable to lift off without SRBs but capable to do so with a 3x SRBs; also it should be like that the Test 4 "Delta L", but in game the lighter upper stage allow a "core only" possible barelly: it could be good... Test craft from #6 to #9 NEVER should lift off without at least 3x SRBs. With those configuration and the "original" Thor engine, too much flipping was the problem. My tweaked engine is trying to aim a less center of mass displacement during first flight phase (up to 20-25 km, where thick atmosphere produce the flipping issue) but is still not optimal (too much low fuel usage) above that altitude... My ideas about: still trying new combination. I'm slowly trying to have a lower a.s.l. ISP, with a bit more higher global thrust, to balance (with a vacuum ISP still to be found) the turning point of balance: - longer rockets uncapable to lift off without SRBs, a not dangerous center of mass change during ascent, but still not enough vacuum isp to achieve orbit by the first stage itself (all the test were made aiming a 120x120 km circular orbit) ------------- EDIT 1 ---------------- ... i think that, aside thrust reduction, the major turning point was found: the gimbal! Main Thor engine in the "original" release had too low gimbal to manage the longer stack of fuel tank (in the download file above, "Test 9" craft). 6° gimbal in the main engine (leaving at 10° the vernier thrusters as they were original) is optimal to avoid "flipping issues". I'm now balancing ISP values (low vacuum ISP, higher thrust) to not let the same rocket be "orbital capable" without using upper stage...

Later, in tests, noticed that the verniers are just for roll: I better tweaked the main engine gimbal. CobaltWolf has already the full package about my changes, right now. As "Thor fuselage configurations" what do you mean? In real life or "possible" in game???

... ops... we crossed each other post... Definitely, a Thor (in the configuration almost likely the early balistic missile) could send an Agena D in space, leaving to it its circularization... ... but as parallel, a "Thor" should be done with just the "bluedog_thorLongTank" + "bluedog_thorLongAdapter"... SRB were added just to send maybe more later and heavier Agena D-based spy satellites. ANY longer Thor-based rocket (from Thorad-Agena D or Delta-L onward) HAD ALWAYS SRBs (at least 3), meaning the needs of them to have enough TWR at launchpad, because the MB-3 / RS-27 engine had NEVER enough thrust to move the rocket with any kind of upper stage, without SRBs..... ... I'm testing some example to send to you, with some "tweaked" parts' .cfg files

Still going under testing of the Thor-series rocket... - SSR-B "Dioscuri" Solid Rocket Booster (bluedog_castorSRB) definitely has TOO MUCH fuel inside -350 units (so its mass offset too much any rocket using it): in its diameter of about 0.5m (it's smaller tha a standard 0.625m tank), taking by eye its lenght, should be in the range of 180 units (made a paralle both with stock SRB tweakscaled down, and with RLA's solids that came in 0.625m diameters). I'm still looking to find a balanced amount of thrust... - About the Thor engine itself, the SSR-275 "Odin" Liquid Engine (bluedog_thorEngine) definitely has its thrust too high and has a too low ISP at sea level, leading in long tank configuration with the Delta-K to mass unbalances. I first lowered the thrust, then now I'm working with ISP: probably it will end in the range of 200kN-ISP 290 a.s.l./310 vacuum for the main engine, with a little change to the vernier only in the range of ISP at 270 a.s.l./290 vacuum, keeping them at 20kN: plenty capable to launch an earlier Thor-Agena D or a Thor-Ablestar in the need (like real life) of some boosters if used with any longer tank (like it was a Thorad-Agena D or the Delta-L, the first using an Ablestar upper mounted on top of a streched Thor) capable to launch a Delta-K, in the longer configuretion made with an XL tank+L tank, with 3x Castor booster and a payload in the range of 1 tons (a basic probe) with the upper stage just needed for the little kick to circularize the orbit after ascent (basically the Delta-K fully fueled plus another tons of the probe, means more than 1500m/s dV available for Delta-K PLUS any in the probe... it's an upper stage interplanetary capable ) Still tweaking, also, the amount of gimbal: the vernier are mostly a "cosmetic addon" than a really help for the rocket: tweaked up to 15° of gimbal, they did almost nothing to help steering the rocket and avoid any remaining risk of flipping. With a main engine moved from 3° to 5°, the rocked magically stopped to flip EVEN flown by MechJeb (if the stupid autopilot can fly it, it's perfect balanced ... still looking now to round the numbers...)

More testing: I tried to duplicate the launch configuration shown in that serie of pictures (pretty easy to do: Thor XL and L tank, 3x Castor, Delta-K upper stage, probe), just to analize Delta-K upper stage performances after the balancing pass on part (latest dev release I already had) I find someway now the rocket too much "light" and very prone to flipping, in any configuration with the castor SRBs added: the more mass in the lower portion of the rocket itself made very difficoult to control up to the booster separation. Then when it become lighter, left the booster away, it regain a better flight qualities... Not to mention that a 9x SRB configuration (... i can do more than the standard max 8x simmetry using "Editor Extension" mod, to be like a Delta 2000/Delta 3000 rocket) is even more deadly to pilot. Tried then without any booster, and the rocket flies perfectly. My 2 cents about: - I generally use a very early gravity turn with all my rockets, from when KSP left the "soup-alike" atmosphere we had in the past, with more standard-stockalike dimension (1.25 or 2.5 meters diameter): the "in between" thor's diameter, rockets seem to not like it. I had to return in a more vertical first phase, to left behind the thicker part of atmosphere, and then do an aggressive gravity turn later, in the thinner one. It's not an issue to make orbit, but I learned to do so to maximize dV using as soon as possible the gravity kick: in such a way, the longer-streched thor-alike rockets with boosters are loosing performance against shorter, but larger in diameter (2.5m), rockets... - should Castor boosters be lighter in mass (less fuel?), to avoid to shift mass too much in the back of the rocket and making it difficoult to use? - if you are going to prepare something like the bigger GEM boosters (to recreate something like the Delta-7000 and any after that) i predict that the resulting instability could be even worse, with added mass on the back... - is it better to use such of a rocket, with boosters, only with heavy payload? I tried it just to put a satellite on an high Kerbin equatorial orbit (in career mode I had a perfect contract in a orbit past Mun's one) using a light one to boost dV, and it become a BAD decision: marginal gain with the Castor SRB added, mostly lost to control the flipping issue, as such a light payload could be put in the needed orbit, actually, without any use of SRBs - Probably, the Thor engine itself has TOO MUCH thrust (so too much fuel is used in the early phase of the launch): with such tiny payload, the thor engine alone (without any booster) should have a TWR just capable to be used only to launch a rocket made like an early Thor-Ablestar (basically: your engine, your grey L tank -not the blue-ish XL - and the long adapter-tank, plus the ablestar tank-engine as upper stage: in that configuration, without booster, it should have a max TWR at launch about at 1.1, barelly capable to start from the launchpad, using as first stage a configuration very likely the early Thor PGM balistic rocket). From my research, longer Thor were probably never launched without SRBs: - Thorad-Agena D (the first streched Thor), was always launched with 3x Castor-2 SRBs, and with the much lighter AGENA D, rather a Delta-K... - Delta-L (same first stage as Thorad Agena, with the difference of an AbleStar upper instead of an Agena): 3x Castor-2 by default also... - Longer and later Delta: never launched without (various types of) SRBs, from x3 to x9, as the core only wasn't capable to leave a launchpad without... ... so it should be almost doable the thing about having a good ISP but lower thrust main Thor engine needing booster not to have more dV (that is the main first stage engine with more fuel to achieve) but just enough TWR to leave the launchpad, consuming enough fuel to have a TWR barelly higher than 1 after booster separation... Basically, any sort of replica of a later Delta (aside the Delta 3, that we not have at the moment, without the proper upper stage) shown like yours in the picture above should have a VERY LOWER thrust than it still have... I'm going to try some more test and propose to you some configuration of thrust/isp, if you like... ---- Beside all this mumbling, I found another bug: bluedog_ablestarTank has: RESOURCE { name = Oxidizer amount = 110 maxAmount = 1110 } ... there is an "1" not needed in "maxAmount" (it should be 110/110... not 1110 )

"KERBFLEET PACK" UPDATE v1.1.1 "MILITARY PACK" UPDATE v1.0.1 Minor tweak to both packs .cfg files, mostly concerning "prestige" values.

My K-14 "TomKat" could fit the request. Stock + Infernal robotic for wing movement.

As always, I'm maybe a little pushy, asking for some dev release, even with a tired Cobalt on stream for hours (and I'm not telling anyone about the drink record he set), but just because I like to test things and maybe found bugs...... ... and I found something: Prometheus-III-2 "Los" Solid Rocket Booster (bluedog_Titan_SRB2seg, the "baby strap-on" SRB) and ALL the Delta-K parts have the career tech node definition as TechRequired = advancedRocketry BUT it should be TechRequired = advRocketry to work properly and be found in the techtree (with a bad node definition, they could be found only in a "sandbox" mode). It's a common mistake I also did when I managed to adapt/change some other parts I'm playing from ages (as it called, in the game menu, with the extended name "Advanced" but requires the shorter one in the .cfg files)

"KERBFLEET PACK" UPDATE v1.1.0: Added to the pack the enlisted rank for all the three branches. Upgraded all the ribbons with the KerbFleet emblem (basically a gold rocket took from KSP logo :P) Changed the "Kaptain" ribbon to better reflect similar rank visual I made for "Military Rank" Changed the "Kadet" ribbons from grey pin to grey stripe (it was very dull, and almost a placeholder)

MORE RIBBONS ARE HERE!!! - Updated/changed the "KerbFleet pack" to version 1.0.1: I advice to delete the older version and install the new one (it should do not change, in game, already assigned ribbons). It's a technical change to better act with some Advanced Texture Manager's .cfg files already inside Final Frontier. -ADDED the NEW "Military Forces pack"!!!

In meantime, to let guess WHAT I was really looking for, some albums about my WIP package upcoming (they will be released all together, as a single pack, to have a full suite of ribbons :P): Kerbal Ground Force (K.G.N.): (Even if military ispired, I do not feel to call it an "Army"... even if there are a lot of military mods or militarized replica, I feel Kerbals are past any wartime era... and also to avoid confusion to another "group" I'm preparing) Kerbal Navy (K.N.) ... but those are only 2/5 of the work I'm doing: there will be also the K.A.F. (Kerbal Air Force), the K.K.G. (Kerbal Koast Guard) and the K.S.M.K (Kerbal Special Marine Korp)

Yeah: A Star Trek Captain has 4 gold pins... so here (for parallel) should be a "4 stripes"... ... but it is "ispired by", not exactly the same: the "pin" is the mark that make "a Kommander" (from ANY specialization) become a "Kaptain", the first rank on the "High ranking officers" in charge of a whole ship... (actually I was bored of playing only with stripes, so I tried something different ) Also, different from Star Trek, are the Kommander ranks themselves: there are not any "Commander", in StarFleet, beside the "red ones". In KerbFleet, they felt to give equally possibility to a Scientist or an Engineer to be an higher rank, before eventually be appointed to be a Kaptain of a Ship (Bill or Bob wanna be "Kaptain" too... not fair to let it be only Jeb or Val )

*reserved*

FINAL FRONTIER CUSTOM RIBBONS PACKS As Nereid updated "Final Frontier" with release 0.9.1, it is possible to add custom ribbons to tose already bundled in the mod itself. As a big fan of Nereid's mod, and already having some ribbons I made for myself, now it is possible to share them in a manner tha ANYONE could eventually use them. ALL THIS PACKAGES NEED Final Frontier TO WORK! FOLLOW THE LINK AND DOWNLOAD/INSTALL IT FIRST!! THOSE PACKAGES COULD ENTER IN CONFLICTS WITH OTHER USER-CREATED CUSTOM RIBBON PACKAGES: ASK HERE FOR SUPPORT FOR MY ONES, BUT I DON'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING ABOUT!!! (Basically I'm not a modder, just a graphic entusiast, and I had to follow Nereid's rules about how to implement them: if anyone is using my very same ribbon ID's definitions, they could collide I'm not telling you to NOT use other custom packages than mine, but... ) I release different packages, with different ispiration about them: KERBFLEET RANKS CUSTOM RIBBON PACK v.1.2.0 - 13-01-2016 (Custom BASE ID: 1000) The first package is heavily ispired by Star Trek's Starfleet from "The Next Generation" onward: the three kerbal specializations came already in that sort of classification, so it was an easy way to add some sort of ranks to your kerbonauts. Ranks from "Kadet" to "Kommander" are common for the three branches (Operation/pilot, Engineering, Scientific), then higher commanding ranks (from "Kaptain" to "Fleet Admiral") are only "red" (But nobody will stop you to let a scientist or engineer kerbal become a "Kaptain" or an "Admiral"... :P) UPDATE v1.1.0: Added to the pack the enlisted rank for all the three branches. Upgraded all the ribbons with the KerbFleet emblem (basically a gold rocket took from KSP logo :P) Changed the "Kadet" ribbons from "grey pin" to "grey stripe" Changed the "Kaptain" ribbon to better reflect similar rank visual I made for "Military Rank" http://imgur.com/a/JX0H2 DOWNLOAD: DropBox: KerbFleet Custom Ribbons 1.2.0 (update 13-01-2016) INSTALLATION: 1- DELETE ANY OLDER VERSION OF THIS PACK BEFORE INSTALLING!!! Not doing so and you will probably have duplicated (and maybe conflicting) ribbons!!! YOU ARE WARNED!!! 2- Open the .zip file, copy-paste "GameData" folder with your KSP "GameData" Folder. DO NOT CHANGE DIRECTORIES TREE, AS IT WILL BE USED WITH .CFG FILE INSIDE "FINAL FRONTIER" MAIN PACK MOD!!! Changelog: 1.0.0 - Initial release 1.0.1 - Changed the Directories tree to better use the already Advanced Texture Manager .cfg bundled with Final Frontier, to avoid scaling of the ribbons (Thanks to Nereid pointing the thing :P)- DELETE THE OLDER VERSION BEFORE UPDATING!!! 1.1.0 - Added Enlisted ranks. - Changed "Kadet" ribbon from "grey pin" to "grey stripe" - Changed "Kaptain" ribbon to better reflect the similar Navy and Koast Guard from "Military Pack" - Added "Kerbfleet" emblem to all the ribbons 1.1.1 - Minor tweaks to "prestige" values 1.2.0 - Changes in ID values to better manage the pack and correct some typos. ATTENTION!!!! You should revoke and/or assign back the right ribbons, as IDs are different from previous releases. MILITARY RANKS CUSTOM RIBBONS PACK v.1.0.2 - 13-01-2016 (Custom BASE ID: 2000) The main ideas I had back in the time, when I had the idea to buil a full series of ribbons for the major army forces ranks. Visually ispired by USA ones, mixed here and there with name also ispired by British ones (I liked the parallel of a "Kerba Air Force" as KAF with the "Royal Air Force" RAF), turned in with a Kerbal-ish style of names (expect a lot of "K" instead of "C" ) and any ideas coming from my crazy mind. *DISCLAIMER* Do not feel upset if ranks' names are "twisted or different" from real life, not reflecting it: I'm not wanna offend anyone (and, sure thing, not maybe any "veteran" that could fell angry by it ). I didn't make this pack to reflect EXACTLY real life, but to play it in a kerbalish style. I added things here and there, changed things here and there. If any of my ideas are not fitting yours, you can always change names and definition in the added .cfg file in the pack, or directly inside the game from Final Frontier Menus (in the latter case, REMEMBER TO CHANGE SCENE TO MAKE FINAL FRONTIER CATCH THE CHANGES) FEATURED: - Kerbal Ground Force (Ground operations) - Kerbal Air Force (Air operations) - Kerbal Navy (Sea operations) - Kerbal Koast Guard (Search and Rescue operations) - Kerbal Special Marine Korp (Any special operation where "stronger" kerbal are needed to pave the way for the other ones ) http://imgur.com/a/ELdBQ DOWNLOAD: DropBox: Military Ranks Custom Ribbons 1.0.2 (update 13-01-2016) INSTALLATION: DELETE ANY OLDER VERSION OF THIS PACK BEFORE INSTALLING!!! Not doing so and you will eventually have duplicated (and maybe conflicting) ribbons!!! YOU ARE WARNED!!! Open the .zip file, copy-paste "GameData" folder with your KSP "GameData" Folder. DO NOT CHANGE DIRECTORIES TREE, AS IT WILL BE USED WITH .CFG FILE INSIDE "FINAL FRONTIER" MAIN PACK MOD!!! CHANGELOG: 1.0.0 - Initial Release with already updated Directories tree after Nereid advice. 1.0.1 - Minor tweaks to "prestige" values 1.0.2 - Little correction to some missing "prestige" values *** ALL THESE PACKAGE COME WITH A CC NC-BY-SA LICENSE ***

"Kerbfleet: A Jool Odyssey" spin-off??? "Araym: Searching a new home"!!! (Laughing as a mad man, probably infected by Space Madness too, I'm going to pay a visit to Parkaboy's dog...)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! ( Remember this, Kuzzter: I woke up the entire building I'm living in, laughing so HARD to the last page... it's 6.30 AM here... if they evict me from my appartment, you'll find me on the door of your home looking for a bed ) (... and mostly only for Gene and Wernher speechless in the last panel )

Awesome chapters as always, Kuzz... ... and by the way, to take screenshots while playing: ever tried Automated Screenshots? It's a GREAT tool that allow you to time screenshots in series, to take them during flight (it has an automated "no HUD" ability), with additional option for more screenshots during a crash-landing and save them in any directory you'll like in your pc (no more only "screenshot" one inside KSP) with tons of additional infos in the name file (I save them with real date and hour, the KSP date and hour, infos on biomes, altitude and status of vehicle, and other tons of infos that help me to build later the continuity of the time in my story, days after the actual image collecting)... ... with the bonus to take automatic "quicksaves", if you also like to play safe again game crashes, if you activate the other option (only downside is that them will take to the KSC, and not to the ship you were flying - WARNING for atmospherical ones: GO FAST on tracking station to resume them)