GoldForest

I'm sure you could make the other RVs into science only variants if you tried. But yeah, I can understand your reason.

And just for fun and because I didn't want to waste the Delta III, decided to see what a Delta III in orbit could do. It got to below 1 billion meters around the sun at Periapsis, so quite a bit. Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Silly "little" launch. Delta III styled Saturn craft launching a Delta III into orbit. Yes, the Delta III is fully fueled. No, the Delta III in itself does not have a payload. 101.534 km x 96.536 km at 0 degrees. 273 m/s left in the tank. Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

IIRC, it was purposely left out. Cobalt or Zorg gave a reason, but I have forgotten, and I don't want to go searching through 1300 pages to find it lol.

January 3rd, 2030 KOSS Krussian Module 1 (Aka KM-1) Flown by Angara 7B The Krussians send up their first module using the new Angara 7B. (Because I over engineered it for another launch, but it couldn't do it from 20 degree Kerbin inclination and thus you get it from a direct to Mun launch equatorial orbit.) January 6th, 2030 Crew Return Expedition 1I Returns (I standing for International) Flown by Orion The crew that delivered HALO finally returns to Earth after having spent over a month on the station. Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet KOSS Launch: Orion Return:

There's not any real reason for reentry vehicles. Well, maybe for some science, but you could get the same science using a satellite during launch or crewed vehicle during reentry.

Reminds me of my Ares I styled Saturn, which was basically the same thing, except used the giant SRB. And it didn't have side boosters.

Oh! Okay.

IRL? Rigidity. Able to handle heavier payloads without crushing under the weight. In Atlas V, at least the 5-meter fairing version, the weight of the payload is supported by the fairings iirc. So, they're able to put heavier loads on top of Centaur because Centaur isn't taking the full brunt of the weight. At least until fairing jettison, but at that point, they are near weightless. In KSP, it would just be for realism. Because Centaur S-V would be heavier.

3 times the wall thickness, 3 times the weight, roughly. So, yeah, big hit to delta-V. (That's just the tank though, so overall weight won't change very much. A few hundred KG at min I would think) Centaur is so efficient because it's so light weight. Each KG added is less delta-V. It's why Centaur kind of outperforms DCSS, IMO. Delta DCSS is kind of heavy compared to Centaur. Yes, it's bigger, but still. If we size of Centaur, it would probably still outperform DCSS. There's a whole argument that Delta isn't the Rocket, it's the upper stage, so yes by the argument, SLS would be Delta V.

What you said about Centaur V can be said about Centaur G/G'/T. Heck, Centaur II and III can be said the same of as well. It's like Delta. Is the Delta IV really a Delta? There's two ways to look at this: Opinion based or "Go with what they say" Based. I'm more the latter group. If the people who make Delta IV call it a Delta, It's a Delta. They say that Centaur V IS a Centaur, then it's a Centaur. Now, I understand that fundamentally it's a changed rocket or rocket stage, but you're kind of arguing semantics at that point, aren't you? In the end, it doesn't really matter. It's their stage/rocket. They can reuse the name if they want. Also, is it actually Centaur V? Or is it Centaur F or Centaur H internally?

It would have to be modeled. Cobalt or Zorg would have to do it. I don't see it happening unless an actual Titan Update is done. Rodger is just cleaning up the part list really. Combining many parts into one part then giving that one-part part-switching capabilities to bring the parts in line with the current standard of practice.

Oh, @Rodger, are you aware of this error? The SRB still works, but I thought I'd still point it out.

I don't see the part. Are you sure that's the right mod?

Thanks!

What mod creates that aero effect?

So, is IUS too big or the fairing too small?

B-29 is like 1.875 scale in KSP, but the parts are 2.5 so, had to compromise. Pretty sure my last landing or the one before it was a good landing. Too wide, yes. If they folded, it would fit, but too wide. Wonder if we could get benjee to add the humpback payload bay just for X-15. I joke, ofc. Although... it would fit inside the conceptual ET payload fairing, which is in Oranges.

Oh? I always assumed it couldn't fly Mach with payload, like the B-1. I always assumed the speed was to get it away from the enemy territory quickly. My bad.

Cursed X-15 launch. Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet Too fast, overshot. Good think still had fuel in the tanks. "'Nother happy landing."

Things did not go well...

At least variable-sweep wings (All wings are swept ) allow for lower speed flying and higher maneuverability. Delta wings perform extremely poorly at low-speed regime. And F-14, enough said. Best damn fighter we ever made... naval fighter. (Imo ofc) And in terms of most beautiful bomber to quote an old master, "There is another."

I'd like to note that the B-58 has the same Problem as the B-1 when it comes to Mach 1. It can do it, without payload. With payload the B-1 can barely go mach at all. IDK what the pay load speed of the Hustler is, but I'm willing to bet it's not the full Mach 1, let alone mach 2.

That happens with anything air launched. You're supposed to pitch up the mothership before release, so you have time to compensate for the nosedive.