Pappystein

you have a lot of nerve trying to alter the orbit of Kerbin that way Impacting soon. Asteroids that should have missed Kerbin. Thanks for making the cake! Happy Birthday BDB!

I am not a BDB team member, but I think I can answer some of what you are talking about. 1) ETS parts are really super LOW hanging fruit. Almost every part in the game from ETS is stuff actually derived/proposed from existing Saturn and Peacekeeper/Athena rockets. The Clipper would be a whole new part and texture set. The X-15 has taken 9 months to perfect... Clipper could be multiple years plus. About the only part that wasn't planned (but was, I will get back to it in a few lines) for real that is ETS derived is the ETS-IVC Twin engine mount. There is an IRL S-IVC (which is why I call the ETS one the ETS-IVC) The ETS one utilizes 2 J-2 engines.... JUST LIKE the S-III stage from real Saturn History. So again, pretty low hanging fruit (turning the S-IVB engine mount into an ETS-IVC/S-III engine mount took a few hours to do as I remember.) 2) NOVA is a problem. First off, there were 3 different Programs all named NOVA. Worse, at various times NOVA was the program to get to the Moon, then Mars, then the program to drive technology development. The First being the NACA as it was being made into NASA program. The Second, Latter evolving into a post Apollo program study... that was later cut down / evolved into the Saturn MLV studies. And the Third being the "what technology can we improve" study. And you can sort-of group NOVA(2) with NOVA(3). Oh NOVA(1) was superseded by the further advanced Juno V (Saturn) program almost immediately. Apollo, Saturn and NOVA are so intertwined that there is an awful lot of false information out there. I have been writing an article on the supposed Saturn C-8 rocket (also something BDB isn't going to do.) And it is a royal *bad word* to keep the story straight because the left upper hand didn't know what the left lower hand, let alone either right hand was doing at Marshal Space Flight center (let alone across the rest of NASA.) This lead to people calling the Direct ascent single rocket stand in from the Saturn C-2 program a "Saturn C-8." That Stand in was meant to show how much worse a single launcher was vs 36 launches by Saturn C-1 and Saturn C-2 rockets in both time and cost, both important factors in if a rocket is even built. Suffice to say. Once economy of scale + ACTUAL rocket performance, and mass per mass unit delivered were all tabulated NOVA evolved into a technology demonstration program for the Saturn MLV program. Concurrently with the Saturn MLV program, a subset of the program was meant for LEO orbit work only (that is the Saturn INT family.) To the question about large Aerospikes. First, there are THREE different aerospike types we are discussing here. 1) PLUG Aerospike (what all the NOVA proposals had) 2) ANNULAR Aerospike 3) Linear Aerospike It was QUICKLY proven that the plug aerospikes did not confer a benefit over clustered F-1 engines early on in NOVA(2) and they were dropped BEFORE the launch of the Saturn MLV program. Plug Aerospikes are made by having multiple smaller engines pointing at a central spike to deflect thrust. This over-complication is hard to design around reliably. I give you SpaceX Starship and N-1 as examples of why this is not a good idea. Yes, with modern computer engineering SpaceX seems to have solved most of their problems... after re-designing the Boosters engine bay 3 times! But in the 1960s that was IMPOSSIBLE. The problem here, is people look at the drawings from the old NOVA documents and say "Ooh Aerospike" But, When you compare a plug, and an annular aerospike in small scale drawings, they look the same. They are anything but. When Rocketdyne latter made their Aerospikes as J-2S derived engines, it was to prove/disprove that Aerospikes were viable for Space Shuttle. The Initial effort the Annular Aerospike (we now know it as the J-2T engine) is in BDB and has been given probably better than real stats (there is not a lot of FIRM information on these engines available as they were never engineered into fully flight capable.) Latter, a new way of vectoring the thrust of the rocket engine utilizing the Linear Aerospike concept was derived. THIS has uses but it was too late for Space Shuttle. This is the J-2L or Rocketdyne LTBE. At one point @EStreetRockets had planned to make the LBTE as one of their engines for Rocket Motor Menagerie. I am pretty certain that is no longer on Estreet's radar given RMMs mostly RS-25 focus. J-2L/LBTE was updated into the XRS-2200 test bed engine for the X-30 Aerospace plane. This is an altered form of the plug aerospike where a single fuel system feeds multiple combustion chambers. XRS-2200 is literally a refurbished J-2L design to take into account modern materials and construction techniques (and is how Rocketdyne knew how much it would take to put back into production the J-2S and the F-1 back when asked in the late 90s early 2000s.) An interesting aspect of the annular aerospike (J-2T) is that you can to a point scale thrust just by increasing operating pressures in it's single combustion chamber, which is why there are three different J-2Ts in BDB (if you include the one in BDB Extras.) You can not do that with Linear Aerospikes or plug aerospikes. To get back to your question, Linear Aerospikes were not part of NOVA, annular aerospikes hadn't even been conceived, and the Plug type Aerospikes actually provided no benefit and a lot of negative aspects. So neat idea, not viable.

With large mods, that is a somewhat common issue with Github. Esp if you are not in Western Europe, North America, and especially if you are in a location that is either connected through or in a country that regulates their internet.

It is best to use a dedicated image hosting site like Imgur for your images. Discord is getting pretty nasty about stopping outside links into discord images if too many hits happen to them (Assumption on my part) I have had whole posts in various discords I use SAVAGED because the images I had embedded there were linked outside of Discord (not necessarily by me!)

Love the wrong size on the UA1205... they are 3.05m (10ft) diameter. lol The Lack of a TVC tankage has been mentioned. But it should be noted that the Lock-Roll/Flex-Roll tech was shared with everyone circa 1968ish. United Aircraft/United Technologies Chemical division would have had access to that system. Likely the CT-156x would have utilized this system instead of the injection TVC. The 156" study was put on hold while Lockheed/Thiokol each tested the Lockheed design for TVC. Note most of the publicly available source material for the CT-156x SRMs still show the TVC injection tank. But those same documents predate the hold and the eventual switch to LOCK-ROLL TVC (later renamed Flex-Roll after US Govt purchased the patent.) But honestly, CT-1562s are the same height as the UA1205 and the same basic overall TWR/DeltaV as 2 UA1205s together. It would have been the better choice. I THINK there is a 3 Segment SRB booster in Photon Corp... it is a good stand in for the CT-1563 (a UA-1208/3segment SMRU length stage.) Sure it could have handed bell placement (instead of the Shuttle-only Conic nozzle.)

Mmm... CRAP Why did no one tell me TODAY with MickNuggets day at the local BBQ (MickNuggests are double smoked Corn beef with lots of crispy edges... which is a big no no to most "true BBQ masters.") While I haven't looked inside a Gemini capsule in YEARS (honestly before the last update to the capsule.) Does it have it? (still) I don't like IVA in KSP because I tend to get sick with them (literally physically sick) Years ago, I know MoarDV made a RPM IVA config for FASA with it. I THINK that was transferable/transferred to the Trails Gemini capsule. But I gotta say I am not certain because I don't IVA.

Personally that is just a prettied up 2.5m Ore tank....

Really the only thing that would make sense is just a simple aerodynamic cone above the S-IVC stage. IIRC, there is the 4.25m Liquid Rocket Booster nose cone available.

Sorry didn't realize that Gupyzer0 was actively talking about updates to SSS. Original post removed (hopefully before most of you read it and respond that I am an 1D10T!)

***BEWARE*** doing as Rodger suggests is perfectly valid.... But it is a gateway. A Gateway to 'Volunteering' to do work you would have never thought about... *JOKING*... well sorta joking? Maybe I am joking? Kinda more common back then that we like to admit today. Example. The Titan II. It is not a pure hot stage; Martin learned their lesson with Titan I The second stage main engine *IS* hot staged but it isn't the only engine firing at the time of separation... just like S-IV. **EDITED** sorry re-read what I wrote and realized it was less than perfect. Neither Titan I nor Titan II were true hot-stage staging; they were the same hybrid as Saturn S-IV. When I said Martin learned their lesson with Titan I, it was that Hotstaging into a solid structure was NOT a good idea (fully half the test failures at stage separation on the Titan I was traced back to the interstage collapsing around the LR91's main engine bell before the stages were far enough apart. Basically, the interstage turned into a giant bear trap for the 2nd stage main engine.

Also make certain you change the "auto-pilot" mode (sorry I am not in game at the moment to look it up but it is under Utilities IIRc) The default mode operates the Rocket motors in a "Bang Bang" operation 100%Right 100% left Never a partial percentage which leads to wobble and loss of control. Found the post where I learned about it... you need to switch the PID loop in the Attitude Adjustment Menu hybridController is I Think the one that works better At least my Saturns launches stopped trying to Sabre dance with hyubridController

Hey, I have seen several drawings showing the entire stack with CM set for deorbit with the Transtage on the back end. Probably drawings for the "battleship" flight now that I think about it.

Doh! I forgot SCALE FACTOR! I feel Sheepish... (insert Genie Sheepish Gif from animated Aladdin movie.)

I really need to figure out what I need to do to change the Centaur Tank into the S-V tank.....(they ARE different) Big 1960 Atlas F for inclusion

Correct, as conceived, the KH-10 Dorian (Manned Orbital Laboratory,) would be de-orbited just before crew return. This means the Transtage is a controlling Attitude.

IIRC those were really old from the original TRAILS Gemini and were supposed to be gone for a while with the updated "SM" for Gemini that has them built in.

I was blessed with the opprotunity to test this feature. I will say the part mods that did not support VABO really fell by the wayside quickly in my use. But then again, most of that time was me testing the Fluorine patch. That was basically the conclusion IRL as well. Neat cycle, Not really viable today.

yay I won't have to constantly REVERT to save Val and Jeb! I have already shared my opinion with you on these, But publicly now SWEET TWO THUMBS UP! So, As I see it, and this is inline with what the 2nd study said, You pretty much need a nuclear reactor to keep the Lithium in liquid form. If you have a Nuke Reactor why not just go LH2 only with the Nuke and have safer exhaust? I will try to dig into the actual numbers today (I am going to have to read all the Rocketdyne reports etc to get anything useful to you. Just remember in KSP it is VOLUME not MASS that is spent in the engine.(other the otherway Whatever way is NOT used in Real life)

Followup, I haven't gotten all of the info yet on this but below is pretty good start for you: above is about the real world test of the only (well in the US Tri-Propellant) 19700022573 19700018655 19680007319 NTRS NASA study on the above Just remember the Lithium is SOLID in the tank. You need something to melt it, and that alone should make the tank mass 100x+ vs regular tanks

Um BTW Saturn INT 05, and INT-05A are exactly what you flew (well with a S-IVB) AJ-260 either long or short respectively with an S-IVB and Apollo CSM.

Picks up book.... (I happen to use this book to "relax" before Video interviews while I am searching for a new career)

I have no data on Lithium with Fluorine. But FLOX+ LH2 is a valid fuel mix that was actually tested. The ratio is 6:1 LH2 to FLOX. Flox + RP1 was also tested, 5-8% ISP bump depending on the ratio of Fluorine to Oxygen with Atlas MA-3s No I do not plan on extending the Fluorine patch I made to LF/O engines as a rule. Just stating that FLOX was tested with atlas engines. I am considering, doing the FLOX/LH2 mixture for the RL10 engines (and maybe MAYBE an LR87 or J-2.) MAYBE even a Fl2/LH2 mix... not certain yet...

So Cautionary suggestion until we get more data Avalanche Sold Rocket effects just released an update. It appears to be compatible with the Dev builds of BDB. This might not be compatible with the RELEASED builds of BDB. If you are on the Release build of BDB (or you acquired BDB via CKAN) I suggest NOT updating Avalanche until we get verification from that mod. I have already posted this as a question in their forum

Just saw that Avalanche was updated for the Titan patches that are still in Development for BDB. Will this break for people who are on the released version of BDB or does this work for both the Released version and the Development version of BDB? Also thanks! This mod is awesome! This might be what I am afraid of

Before opening the spoiler below, make certain you understand, you break it, you bought it. I have been using dev builds for years and I still break a download atleast once every month or two! If you still want to know: