Pappystein

If they load in sandbox but not career then you have a non BDB mod interfering ... Search for LEO if you are in the vab

My current Science play-through has been with the Gradual Progression Tech tree which is kinda the same as Probes before crew but with the whole tree re-organized. I mostly like it (a few quibbles on the BDB part location side of things but that is opinion etc etc etc) The biggest suggestion I have for you. If you are doing a mostly BDB play-through is experiment experiment experiment. If you have unlocked Titan parts the Titan II/III/IV 2nd stage makes a great starting point for a larger space tug. The LR91 engine has plenty of ISP in roll and it is smaller than 2.5m diameter which allows you to fit it under more Aeroshells. There are ways to do some CRAZY fun things with BDB... just have to put your mind to it and "think outside of the box"

I don't use "classical" LDC builds. Instead I use Rocket Motor Menageries LCH4 STME engine for the first stage and LH2 with 2 or 4 LR87 LH2 Vacuum engines for the 2nd stage and only need SRB/SRMs of 120+" diameter to Build a ISS equivalent in typical orbit on JNSQ. Note with JNSQ I am launching from near Equator so I am not needing "AS MUCH" as people using KSSRSS2.5 or 2.7. My 3rd "tug" stage for some of the more insane parts like the Solar beams for ISS I utilize an Aardvark derived (with twin TR201 engines) tug + a RCS+Probe core and tanks end cap on the other end (the RCS/TANK/Core is utilized to reduce the mass movement arm of the Solar wing arm and is separated right before docking (which is tricky to do but safer than NOT having it.) Both Tug and the RCS "endcap" then dock together and de-orbit. NOTE for space tug builds you want to AVOID LCH4 or LH2 as a fuel source unless you are doing something with insane electrical power like a Nuclear powered rocket. The cost to keep them from boiling off is too great. You want an AZ50/NTO or failing that LF/O tug for your station building In the Classical LDC Builds Barbarian is kinda out of the realm of possibility... But the 4 engine 8 bell LDCs are perfectly possible (and is what is intended for you to fly. I am using my hypergolic fuel patch in the extras folder so I have to use shorter stages (because fuel mass is higher than LF/O) But I can do an OK job with it. I have just been enjoying the less SRM performance of the STME CH4 booster engine with my launches (also I argue it is better for the environment) The only way to do Barbarian requires you to use 3.75m or greater Dia tankage and kitbashing an engine mount together. I went looking through my Imgur archive to see if I had any photos saved of a Push Pull tug arrangement as I described above... didn't find any (I have two archives of photos on my PC I will look through when I get home latter tonight but I DID Find this: Lets see how bad Cobalt Cringes with this image: My Original Flyback booster with the ORIGINAL Atlas V "Muo V" fuel tanks and engine! This was used as an LRB for a Saturn V Heavy build From the same time frame the original LDC engine mount setup with 4 LR87-AJ-11s (before the new art redo on the engines, the engines were about 1/10th smaller and the nodes for them were in less than perfect place hence the move node visible:

I haven't built a Delta IV in a few months. From memory; Build the Central stage completely. Then Grab the decoupler, Set 2x or 4x Symmetry and slide onto the rocket., As shown it should end right at the top of the upper LFT From there just attach the new "booster" Lower Liquid Fuel tanks to the decoupler and build up and down from there. Make certain you are using the NODES on the side of the Lower Fuel Tank to align with the Decoupler! Failure to use nodes ***WILL*** cause issues. I have never found the Delta IV to be that hard to build. But I also tend to need something with more LIFT in that size than Delta IV gives (do not ask how many SRMs I attach to a Delta IV Heavy!) That is in part why I tend to fly LDC Titan (Titan V in my parlance) over Delta IV. Delta IV is a neat Rocket and Zorg did an amazing job on it but the all LH2/O rocket leaves a lot to be desired in the lack of dense Fuel.... And yes Dense Fuel allows smaller rocket which is more efficient in Atmosphere (LH2 really shines in deep space not from the ground except on the pollution front...) Even Methalox is more efficient in Atmosphere and almost as low of pollution creating. Which is why lots of companies are using it now for their first stage!.

Skip the knockoff go to the Real deal! Minotaur! CASTOR-120 is just lower impulse MX SR-118 motor with a different length to "differentiate" it after all!

Can't use Discord to post here anymore... Discord auto-deletes links after a few hours now (they remain valid only IN discord) Have to use a 3rd party image sharing site like imgur.com

Sorry I forgot to mention a key fact in the X-15... The Landing gear is designed to basically PREVENT it from going nose high on the ground. The rear legs are soo far behind the COM that it is impossible (IRL) to rotate the air-frame to get a positive AOA on the wings too fly up from the ground (that is a safety feature.) add their short length and you have a plane designed to stick to the ground once you have it there. But yes, the Wings are too small. The Delta wings have a COL too far back and the controls are frigidity meaning it is too easy to get roll reversals etc. I set up a ZeLL launcher for the X-15 when it first became available to test... And it worked... ONLY if it, the ZeLL booster had fins on it aligned with intended direction of flight. Looked weird having a giant SRM aligned through the COM with fins pointed in X-15s direction of flight... but it got the X-15 up to about 100m before jettisoning and the X-15 flew fine from there. ZeLL = Zero Length Launcher: Yes, the aircraft in both of those pictures are piloted and in both cases they have a takeoff run length in less than 15 feet (the distance the rocket travels in its cradle)

You have several problems with these statements beyond the potential of another mod interfering with your X-15 parts. While it doesn't fly great in KSP Stock aero, it does fly. I haven't put time into harmonizing the controls yet to fine tune it. But also, the X-15 is TOO HEAVY to take off from the runway un-assisted for how Little the wings are. (Those wings are meant to keep it aloft at Mach 5, not provide enough lift at 300m/s to fly up and away in the soup that is air density at the runway. An Empty X-15 has a glide ratio of something like 4:1 meaning with no fuel for every meter you fall, you are 4 meters forward... That is lower than just about any other high performance aircraft. The BEST Glide ratios for some high performance aircraft: F-104 is quoted as having a Glide ratio of 10:1 at high speed and "much lower" at low speeds F-16 is 7.8:1 ideal speed My next Automobile (The F-14 Tomcat) has a Glide ratio of 12.2:1 at ideal speed (which is much closer to landing speed than either the F-16 or F-104) Remember, X-15 was meant to be dropped from the bomb Bay of the B-36 Bomber and then updated to drop from the Wing of a B-52 Bomber. It is a Parasite aircraft, meaning it needs another craft to fly it off the ground. If you want to launch it on a rocket, you need BIG wings on the Rocket or the rocket will "Spin out" In other words, what you are experiencing is actually correct. THIS is how the X-15 gets off the runway (looks like 003 is the carrier bird in this picture) ****EDIT**** I forgot to mention the X-15's rear landing gear is WAY WAY too far behind the COM (and too short) to rotate the X-15 properly off the runway!

Yes, they predate SAF Fairing and allow you to build a stage that is on the rocket that has a nosecone without playing with KSP's not realistic nose cone parts (where the part is significant size etc.) AS I UNDERSTAND IT. Yes they can be annoying, but it is less annoying than trying to make an exposed skin module with a nosecone on top that is easy to remove.

Flies fine 2 on 2 off, However I should have probably made certain ALL my tanks were on AZ50 NTO... this bird topped out at 10KM as it was (payload is an Aardvark turned into a space probe instead of station resupply craft) Engines sticking out of the fairing are from the Aardvark's cradle... I thought there was a version of this without retros? First stage tanks are 100% AZ50/NTO (over massed) and the 2nd stage is Tank 1 100% 5050 tank 2 80%AZ50/NTO (at mass) (Aerozine is a trade name many scientists just call it 5050) In orbit, I will tell you that this was not a pretty Flight, There wasn't enough TWR after the SRMs ejected to keep attitude with MechJeb (I had to manually add pitch to fly UP instead of OUT) But it made orbit mostly thanks to the way over powered 2nd stage... which is also part of why It was tough to get into orbit. This rocket was overbuilt for a 2+2 Launch with +2 LR87s at 10% srm fuel left.... Needed all 4 LR87s at launch to get a good TWR after SRM separation (TWR was 1.15 at separation which is too low for 10km with a rocket that is trying to go horizontal) ALTERNATIVELY flying with 4 UA1205s would have probably done the trick as well since the rocket would be above 15-20km at burnout instead of at 11km

Ok @dave1904 Full AZ50/NTO fueled (from bottom to top 80% 100%, 90% 100%) with maximal tank length but no payload. LR87-AJ-11-1 Engine bell model has changed slightly since it was original built and I had to cant the engines out one degree click but these are the twin bell engines. And this is the right Engine mount/shroud. Note the reason for the cant is because the LR87s bells were updated to more accurate shapes in the art pass on Titan with in the last year or so... Without the cant the bells are JUST touching at their widest part where two engines interface. 0.99 TWR for a payload-less rocket seems GOOD when it is intended to fly with 2 or 4 UA120x or SMRUs. If you are having any issues with this build I would suggest it is Skyhawk that is the issue.

Yes, Cobalt designed the LDC parts in BDB to run in this configuration using AZ50/NTO or LFO. He chose one of the larger LDC proposals as his build level but wanted the actual rocket to be between Saturn IB (3.75 at the time) and 2.5m. Honestly the LDC you are trying to make with 4 singles should be on a 2.5m Diameter Rocket. This was something discussed both behind the scenes via DM and on the TwitchStreams that CobaltWolf ran for building these parts. The Pie shape of the 4x opening is exactly for the twin LR87 engine and that is why there is a shroud-less LR87 variant. If you look there is nearly no clipping on the pie-plate opening and the engine from any angle once the engines are rotated 45 degrees. As I recall, the KSP Diameters for the LDC Rockets run from 2.125 all the way up to 3.75m 3.125 is a happy median point given 2.125 was never going to happen (there is literally no other rocket that scales to that level thus zero lego-ablity) Also the 3.125 parts are actually longer than would have been IRL to allow you to simulate the 3.75m one (Delta V... 3.125 is probably less drag given the higher fineness ratio) But for my Titan V (LDC) I went XLR129 x5 OR RL20P3 x5 or STME x1 for the first stage, 2nd stage LARGE was 4x LR87-LH2-VAC and 2nd Stage Small was 2x LR87-LH2-VAC. Note the RL20P3 was the most controllable in flight, the STME is the most efficient but least controllable... STME did not like flying with hammerhead configurations (larger diameter PLF) in stock Aero. Given how Blowfish set up B9PartSwitch to allow model switching, at some point going back and making a scaled or even new LESS LDC LDC (aka 2.5m LDC) part set might not be the worst idea ever. And yes I realize that is a damn lot of work to have to do for the result. ALSO just re-read the post. There WAS a 4x Shroud variant that had bumps to prevent the LR87 Twin frame from showing. Is it not available anymore? (I haven't built an LDC with LR87s in a few updates now!)

More correctly BREXIT Mk3 <--- Still have the BREXIT(og) Bluestreak in my career! CRE MK2 <-- ALSO have this Bluestreak from CRE (OG) (but I disabled it to avoid confusion with it's father from above) + New things from such wonderful mods as Knes CobaltWolf, Beale, Well, etc would have to tell you the exact order of the who/what but I think that is a fair rundown of the history of what has become ELBOW. I was on most of the early Brexit streams with Cobalt Building BlueStreak.

The Skyhawk patch is loosely based on the Patch that JSO and I developed for BDB, it should use the same math. But yes all LDC Titans flew were to fly with standard LR87 twin bell affairs. So you get the 4 port base, and you have to place then rotate the engines 45 degrees and they fit in the pie-shaped cutouts. 4 single LR87s don't have the power to lift just the lower LDC tank, full, with no payload as I recall.

First, if we are going to use a websource best to use one that is somewhat accurate even if you have to use Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220321062228/https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/Titan-3L24.jpg Sourced From: https://web.archive.org/web/20180405050445/http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/library.html Mark Wade (Astronautix) was a one man Wiki for most of Astronautix and has quite a few errors across much of the work. Great place to find a name for something... Not so much with actual history/operation of hypothetical units. Conversely, While Ed Kyle (owner of now defunct Space Launch Reports) is also a one man crew, he uses forms like NASASpaceFlight to verify data before publishing it, and more to the point, ACTUALLY posts(ed) corrections you are using the TWIN BELL LR87s for AZ/50 then correct? Not the Single Bell engines? LR87-AJ-9/11 SHOULD lift a 3L2 with a moderate payload. Also just like regular Titan, if you are flying with full tanks you are "fooling yourself" reduce tank capacity to 90% all tanks for AZ50/NTO from my notes, the LDC tanks should be at 87.5% full All but one tank at 90% full and the larger of the upper stage tanks at 80% full should get you the valid numbers roughly

Mass is scaled in BDB by fuel capacity (it is a direct result of the fuel capacity.) The mass you see listed is for the NON-TANK (structural rings between the tanks etc) Those are a very SMALL part of the tank mass. depends on what you are building. LDC covers SOO MANY DIFFERENT ROCKETS! My favorite is using the Herkales parts, I run XLR129s or RL20s in a 4x arrangement and 2 or 4 UA-1207s depending on payload. All engines ignite on the ground in my builds. I have also used the RMM CH4 STME engine as seen: That particular rocket built many of my International Space stations (since I don't like how robot arm works in KSP either via expansion or mods) Second stage is big tank with LR87-LH2 VAC engines (2 or 4) While this is not a "Historical" Build, most of the 1980s and 1970s and 1960s LDCs were all Aerozine 50 / NTO, There was documentation (shop talk, not an actual design) for a proposed LCH4 variant right as Lockheed took over Martin Marietta.

Has to be a conflicting mod issues, I have never seen this in my Build. Over the years several mods have caused issues with BDB combined parts EG Gemini Dockingport/decoupler failing to un-dock due to Tweakable Everything. RCS not turning on or off (again Tweakable Everything) and not having the correct/curent Deployable engines (extending bell engines) are the ones I can most commonly think of. Might want to verify your dependencies for BDB are up to date, as well as what mods you both have and see if any are common that could cause issues. ***EDIT*** given this seems to be an ongoing issue... Photos including the exact engine versions would be beneficial.

eh, in every picture you got the SERIAL NUMBERS correct for the Saturn I/IB stage!

NICE WORK! Of course part of the fun in this is the rocket serial numbers were SA-x, or SA-XXX (SA-1 to SA-5 were the "pre production" Blk I Saturns... SA-5 was upgraded to near Blk II standards during construction and ended up being the pathfinder for the Saturn I Blk 2 production batch (so depending on source SA-5 is listed as Blk I or Blk II because it was both!) SA-1xx were the Saturn I Blk II as ordered craft. SA-2xx were the Saturn IB variants. And of course the missions were coded... AS-xxx and almost BUT NOT ALWAYS matched the First Stage serial number (EG SA-201 would fly as AS-201) Only the first 5 test launches kept their serial number as the mission number (SA-1 to SA-5 were both first stage serial numbers and mission numbers said stages launched on)

It has already been mentioned but I have been playing with this, and other than some niggling issues I really like it for BDB. The issues are how the Corona parts get separated etc...

Kassler, since you have had problems multiple times now. ***HOW*** are you installing the mods. Are you just downloading them from Spacedock/github and doing it the old fashion, more precise but much more fiddly manual copy to your GameData, or are you using CKAN? If you are using CKAN note that adding and removing mods can result in "ghost" files in your GameData directory. Files that you and CKAN THINK are gone but are still there. IMHO 99% of the time the remnants are of no issues but 1% of the times this will bite you in the butt! I personally only started using CKAN continuously earlier this year, after having played this game since BEFORE CKAN was a thing. Each time I remove a mod via CKAN I go and manually delete everything not SQUAD from my GameData and re-install everything again. This reduces "Ghost files" and lowers the chance of something hidden being problematic for your play-through.

Aero Physics, while not perfect was fixed in V 1.0 something or other. I am talking about the really bad aero physics from like V0.36 where if you put 30 canards at the front and 30 canards at the rear of a structure you could infinite glide it just by deflecting the surfaces up and down slowly. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Infinite_glider Besides EVEN FAR is far far far from close to perfect.

Yeah sorry that is what I would have recommended (no wings on Pegasus) I forget not everyone has my experience with blowing the game up due to too many wings up top and a rocket literally Krackening the game to a Hard computer lock and KSP being corrupted on reboot That was like 10 years ago now

Sorry yes I was. Mount it on top? Set the Aircraft into either level flight or a slight descent. Decouple, Pitch up, Kick the motor and go? I have thought about launching the Pegasus on a Finned Titan I or Titan II as well (not certain how that would work but it can't be worse than Minotaur/Pegasus Minotaur C, right?

Doesn't Kerbal Foundries have a much bigger landing gear set you can use (I am asking because I don't remember, I haven't used KF since Shadowmage was active in the forums)