Pappystein

Did you Autostrut to HEAVIEST (not root)? Alternatively , are you using a non standard docking port? Anything NOT the BDB Drogue port is non standard and issues CAN happen with them (I sometimes have issues with the APAS and the LES for example.) In my case I find the issues involved I am clipping something that the LES shield is touching.... OR I somehow have it attached at the wrong place. *GOES TO DEV THREAD* Hmm No new Apollo CSM... Nope, no launching rockets here then decides to fly a Titan V-CH4 to the ISS to place another solar wing on board.

It has already been mentioned Auto-strut is your friend with the LES especially but 100% of a Saturn V needs Auto-strut. If you don't normally use Auto Strut, I have had the best luck by alternating (Heaviest, and Root) working from the Bottom of the rocket. LES always gets strutted to Heaviest!

I know a lot of people have had success using PVG in JNSQ and stock KSP with the Titan Rockets. I have not. So I just straight up don't use it. I am posting this to say, A) yes it can be used in various types of KSP playthroughs, not limited to RSS/RO, But also to say that it CAN be problematic and not everyone will get it working. IF you are one of the lucky people to get it working reliably... Congrats! If you are like me, it is worth it to try it at least to see if you can get it working......

awe, I missed the stream! Work is looking good (watchin the replay.)

So the "SPP" analog looks like it is a kitbash of Tantares and SSTU parts. SSTU follows 1.25m sizing unfortunately or the SSTU DOS series of parts would make the Russian segment SIMPLE to make vs Tantares. The Solar wing on the end decidedly looks like SSTU's power module solar array. The rest of the "stand out" parts all look like they are from the Kissler mod (which I have not downloaded or played with.)

Thanks for the reply. I have recently upgraded my internet speed and didn't notice that it had downgraded... so fast since I didn't want to blow my "Full spec proposed ISS + extras" build I am working on.... I didn't load KSP to even check. Again Appreciate it!

That is just Lazy Talk! You HAVE to make it like they did in the oldendays. GUESSWORK And yes, your Wiki is awesome. And yes, I can get too lazy to look at it sometimes... And yes I have been using it for my "Full Proposed" ISS. Oh And yes, Suggestion coming in on your wiki before you probably read this!

Trying to roll back to 1.11.2 as many of the mods I use are not 1.12 compliant yet.... get this message on steam: I had forgotten to "un-live" my updates again by switching to 1.11.2 in this tab while 1.11.2 was still the "main" version. I reached out to steam before posting here and they said that ; "The issue you are describing seems to be an issue with the game itself and its available beta builds." Basically throwing me to Steamsupport. But I know the forums are generally the best way to crowdsource solutions so here I am. Any Help would be appreciated

I knew the Thor Delta NASA/USAF relationship was clear as mud. But I thought it was clearer than this And I learned something new (yay!) I have read pretty much all of Ed Kyle's posts in SLV Library as well as NASASpaceflight, but I have never cottoned on to the Thor Advanced name. I don't know why, I always thought it meant Thor Agena A to D. Guess that explains why some of my "Thorad" Agena D launches didn't make orbit in JNSQ.... the payload was too heavy and the setup was to lacking in fuel and thrust, because I built the wrong rocket.

eh, 2 things there. 1) Put the LR-101 on the OTHER node (you are putting it on the left I think and it needs to be attached at the right side... Course if your on the backside of the rocket that is opposite. If it goes on wrong, just re attach with the other node. Problem fixed unless you try to rotate them manually. 2) Um the engine fairing is the same color as the rocket... until the blue deltas. Under the rather poor photo quality of that (White balance, Color Saturation and stupid museum "dramatic lighting" all playing a part in that,) it is almost impossible to tell what the color is. But no matter what color you think it is, I can tell you it isn't one that actually flew on a real rocket... it is a preservative infused coating designed to preserve the rocket, it is not the original type of paint which would oxidize and deteriorate quickly as on the as flown Thor rockets. oh and 3) while the Museum has a placard for the Agena Upper stage in front of it, that is defiantly a Thor rocket... one of the launchers of Agena (as the combination being sometimes called Thorad.)

One word describes this.... Mommy! Ok several more. AWESOME. I can not wait. Pioneer Orbiter tanks and engine, reminds me of the same generation's Titan Satellite Launch Dispenser..... Abet scaled down with the flat plate on the wrong side. And the relatively obvious questions, The aux pack (the lopsided lobe,) is it going to be B9PartSwitch-able, a Separate part or is the whole core a single part? Cause I think that would be a new great general purpose 6 sided Probe core. The RCS on the Dish, will that be part of the dish, or a separate part? I would say I know the feeling.... But after a while you almost get used to it. You have no energy... and all you want to do is play stupid games to occupy your mind with the mindless.... Then even that is too much effort. wait, what do you mean I was building an "Full proposed" ISS???!!! I don't remember that! Anyway, Here is hoping there is a light at the end of the tunnel. That your brain isn't fed to the illithids... and that you have some time to decompress.

you mean the USAF Roundel on the Left wing? and aft fuselage? There are several mods that have had them from time to time, Don't know if any of the current "Sticker" mods have em however. But the correct term is Roundel. Not flag. (the USAF Flag is a Eagle on a Shield with a bunch of stars on a field of blue)

1) Are you talking MODERN USAF logos (like seen on TV,) or the Real USAF flag? 2) I recognize the X-20 for the nose. What other parts did you use. Also Did you break mach 10 (3410m/s)? 80km?

You know, the Funny thing about Solid rockets... If the Rocket is Unitary.... Pogo isn't much/any more of an issue than it is on LF/O rockets of any fuel type.... Assuming they are not Hypergolic.... Lookin at you LR87! It is the Segment "flaps" that are used to keep the propellant in the segment and SLOW the burn rate down that create most of the vertical acceleration oscillations. Oh, and without those flaps... gaps form in the grain between segments leading to a faster burnout and higher temperature and pressure.... SO AJ-260 or BUST for Apollo! AKA SATURN INT-05A

14 months ago according to Github and he hasn't been on for only 2 months

But.... But.... But..... I wanna! I am half way through editing a "real history" of the early Centaur Flights. This is the pre-production centaurs and what plans they had... Kinda to set the record, a little straighter, kinda cause it was something to do

Given what Friznit says above, I would suggest using the BDB Extras Saturn MLV tank stretches that I developed several years ago. Then It is 4 UA1207s on the 1st stage. Most MLV document used a Payload fairing that included the Centaur stage inside the Payload fairing (so no procedural fairings needed, just use the Saturn 3.75m Fairing.) Friznit would have to answer but it looks like their Centaur in that picture is Increased diameter (one of the so called "Big Centaurs".) None of those, except the original PRE Lewis stretched proposals ever saw the light of day... in any form. The Centaur Stretch would latter happen with Centaur D.2 (AKA Centaur II)

I am actually starting to pull my docs together for a "History Wiki" much like how Friznit does the "Unofficially Official user manuals." Sadly, there are two reasons why I don't create my own thread. 1) I can't control who posts, making my documents no easier to find than they are here in BDB. 2) I am very BDB focused and I actually know less than most about say, the Russian/fSoviet space programs. I have some Hurdles to overcome yet, but soon(tm).... yes soon(tm)

You were fine. You completed your job of communicating your point/thoughts. Heck, I am a native speaker of the Statesman (American) dialect of English and I have problems with it! .... Without Beer!

GLAD to be of Help! the Intermediary Saturn Rockets (the ones described above,) can be some of the hardest to find good data on. So I wanted to try and do it some justice.

Stages of Centaur is a good short PRIMER book on the history of the Centaur program. However, if you used just that book, you would still be making the Wiki pages a mockery of the real history. Those pages would be 100 fold more accurate than they are now but still very wrong. The authors of Stages, in my mind, seem to have ignored facts/sources or just contradicted them for the sake of their already planned-out narrative. Also, prior to the Lewis Research Center's involvement, Centaur C was the stage for Saturn launches, Centaur D was to be Atlas launched, and Centaur A and B were test series (as in more than one launch) of ever-increasing complexity. The failure of the first Centaur lead to an almost immediate re-assignment to Lewis, and THEY, that is Lewis, changed the nomenclature. Many MSFC/Redstone Arsenal papers and Convar(GD) papers on the Saturn Centaur predate the first Centaur failure that confirms this. There are others that frequent these forums that actually have more data on this than I do. Wow, I am triggered on Centaur these past two days, huh?!

Thanks! Yes I typed it, mostly from memory. (I am blessed & cursed with an above average memory) I did piece together data from various sources (both on and off the NASA NTRS servers, 3rd parties like AIAA and mounds of data from NASASpaceFlight's L2 and Open forums. I also utilized Astronautix for tables because it is easier to find them there than in the source materials while on the "fly" as it were. The place I spent the LEAST amount of time on (only because too many people make it too confusing and get things messed up there.) any of the Wikis including Wikipedia. A perfect example of why NOT to go to Wikipeida is the Centaur Rocket stage VERY poorly done, few facts and many MANY issues. Just scroll up a few posts on this page for proof of that!

Given the headache that has been Agena, I thought I would snap out a simple and quick article on the history of the Post Apollo Saturn to LEO portion of the "Modified Launch Vehicle" program from 1964-68. The MLV program was designed as a way to "modularize" the Saturn rocket so that the best compnents could contine to develop and thrive. Basically it was a "we already know how to manufacture this stuff, how can we make better use of it" program. Saturn I MLV proposals, The LEO INTs: So this is as comprehensive of a list of all the various Saturn IB proposals under the MLV study as can be easily surmised. Early on, those rockets based on Saturn I flight profile (LEO only) received INT-x designations. Those designed for beyond LEO received MLV-x designations and are almost exclusively Saturn V derivatives. Knowing this, we can quickly break the INT series into three basic Rocket types. They are the direct Saturn I replacement, the Saturn II based on the S-II stage from Saturn V, and the Saturn V S-IC derived LEO Rockets. For clarity's sake, Rockets are denoted with the old C series designations (C-1, C-5, etc.) The reason becomes important when you add the un-built C-2, C-3, C-4, etc., to the mix as they all had stages of the same name even though they were rocket specific. Unless specifically denoted in the variant, any reference to a MLV stage eg MS-IVB, is for the standard tank but strength optimized stage. No stretches should be assumed here. The EXCEPTION: There are calls for a S-IVC on some of these proposals. To be clear this is the ACTUAL ORIGIONAL S-IVC not the awesome twin engine Earth to the Sky S-IVC (for clarities sake lets call that an ES-IVC.) Stage 1: Cluster's last stand (for real this time?) Stage 2, Saturn gets FAT: Stage 3, Big, Dumb and Uglyish: Here ends the role-call for all the Saturn Derived Saturn I replacements at the end of the 1960s. A further major series of studies were done for NASA in the 1970s but most of that was focused on technology growth for STS rather than actual all up rockets for Saturn Replacement.

WHICH Centaur D? There are 3 of them in BDB! Centaur D.1, Centaur D.2 and Centaur D.3 Oh I am so sorry. ULA renamed the latter two when they took over Centaur management from NASA And yes Centaur II = Centaur D.2A, and Centaur III = Centaur D.3A.

Given the percentages of sr management at Boeing that are former McDonnell Douglas execs vs pre transition Boeing Execs...* You could almost call this the McD Spaceliner. Or Gemini's great Grandson Factual but tongue in cheek comments aside, Nice Capsule! The McD err SORRY Boeing Space capsule built family tree: Mercury-Gemini-BigGemini-DCx-Starliner and Off in left field a shirttail cousin NAA/Rockwell STS SpaceShuttle