Pappystein

That isn't a LM, that is LM Shelter which is meant as a roomier Auto-piloted version of the LM that is auto landed from a different launch giving the astronauts on the ground more supplies to be on the moon longer (way over simplified) There are a whole series of LM derived "Moon Base" vehicles like the above mentioned LM Truck and many others. This was a cheap way to make a long (well longer than maybe a week) stay on the moon for astronauts.

Welp, For whatever reason it looks like Squad has just altered their Physics.cfg for 1.11.1 with out deleting the minimum mass requirement, and we will still have the same issues with drastically over massed craft.... For those interested here is the bug report... and, the devs can correct me if I am wrong, this is the main reason there is no 1.11 compatible BDB? https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/26898 I will still be staying with 1.10.1 based on the current bug report. Short Synopsis why this issue exists. I am GUESSING that the new Assembly in EVA add on code requires all parts to not have a mass of 0 and not have a negative mass. So instead of an error check that would be pretty exhaustive in the code, they made all parts have a minimum mass. However I think they number type (integer, Short, etc) they used did not allow them to go below 1kg in mass. 1kg or 2.205lbs for those of you in the US like me, is a pretty small mass/weight. However, imagine a screwdriver that had that kind of mass... it would be huge and it would be heavy. There are many parts in game that are smaller than a Screwdriver now a days. Lets hope the Devs are able to fix this without a total re-write of the code. I linked this Video from Scott because simply put the * in the title covers the LIGHTEST and quantitatively the largest employment of satellites. Each of them (the satellites) massed in at a few angstroms... IE less than a milligram Not that we would want to replicate that launch due to game lag and the like but still.... If you don't want to watch the whole video, jump to 9:36.

Almost kinda looks like my memory of looking in the Skylab II almost 15 years ago at the Smithsonian?!

So I don't know how workable this idea is. But could the same "module" be made an Activatable Module for Skylab and Agena (and many other "body tracking" Sats?) IE you set it so the "Bottom" side of the Agena GCU is always pointed at the ground, and the entire spaceship uses it's fake "super gyros" SAS to align the spacecraft to the angle (obviously using electricity to do so but that isn't important for the tracking module) In the case of Skylab you would use the upper surface and have it track the Kerbol instead of Kerbin... Just a weird thought that popped into my head while doing some research today

So you want the crappy competitor to BigG designed by the designer of BigG???? Or do you want the Eros Flyby capsule Or do you want the never seriously studied or really designed, NAA larger Apollo follow on Any of the 3 could be called Big Apollo... And the best engineered one (as in Engineering work was done on it) is not by NAA!

You realize that isn't orange Paint right? It is a clear-coat preservative to keep the capsule from corroding while moving from place to place. But I agree. I do like the Tint-coat of Orange on the Apollo capsule

So this is kind of a necro post but it has to do with research I am doing today to help support BDB (I search through documents full of text and try to distill down the pertinent info for the BDB team to be able to use...) While I am currently looking for hard (From USAF, Martin, Aerojet or NASA) Data on the LR87 and LR91 AJ-11A variants for BDB... well I come across a lot of other data that isn't what I want NOW but IS needed at some point. Today's example. The Big Apollo discussion circa page 620 of the BDB forums from last May... (and no I was looking for other data at the same point!) @GoldForest In May 2020 you had wondered doubted as to how this supposedly "Big Apollo" capsule would work http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=30294 Well first off that isn't Big Apollo, rather that is the Eros Asteroid Mission CM or it is the McDonnell fake "you don't want to by this ugly duck" "Big Apollo." I will give details of both in following text. Eros would be launched on a Standard Saturn V but the Payload area would be slab sided and not conical as was mentioned at the time in forum. Meaning in KSP scale it would be 4.25m diameter (just what we are getting with the new Saturn Update for S-IVB.) Also you can tell that the drawing was not done by engineers but rather just artists... just about everything is wrong in shape or setup and it is way out of proportions. Now there IS a Big Apollo out there. It was designed by..... McDonnell or McDonnell Douglas (unsure of the year and the merger is in this time-frame.) It was designed to showcase to NASA if they tried to make Apollo bigger using the same "idea" as the Big-G it would be significantly more expensive. A Eros Flyby would have been done with a crew of 6 or 7 depending on experiments and time of launch. 3 Primary Flight Crew (Crew Commander, First officer and Pilot Engineer I am guessing) And 3 Scientist would would run simultaneous experiments while on the flyby of Eros. Due to orbital dynamics, the Eros capsule would be in the near vicinity of Eros for only a few hours (depending on how far away the science experiment could be done) This was a 12 to 24 month mission. The Eros would as I said fly on a suitably modified Saturn V. Other than improved engines, the only changes to the Saturn V would be to increase strenght and a completely re-designed "wet lab + Flyby module" in lieu of the standard S-IVB. Engines for the Saturn V would be the F-1A, and the J-2S or J-2T-250K. I do believe that the S-IVB would actually have a stretch with an isolated set of tanks for a mid-course correction. So in KSP we would need to build it with two tanks. But even with it's improvements the current Boiloff mod in BDB would likely kill any LH2 before said maneuver would be performed, so the tank would have to be "special," with maybe active cooling... IDK. One or two months ago, when I was actually looking for data on the Eros flybys, a web page I found, sort of a "Second Eros flyby" proposal suggested instead of a S-IVB derived Wetlab, it would have a Larger Flyby shelter, and the S-IVB would be replaced by the S-N stage with appropriate shielding at the top. In the Payload fairing, attached to the Docking tunnel would be 2 storable fueled Probes to collect samples of the Eros Asteroid as well as debris near Eros for return and investigation on Earth. These sound like they would be significantly smaller than Agena. I did not keep this document as it had no standing, no sources and seems to be someones "What IF" Alt History outline rather than an actual proposal. But it is an interesting What IF. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19660027851 The above link talks about small un-manned missions but it gives you a good idea of what the profile of a manned eros mission would be. BTW the NASA NTRS servers are very hard to search for Eros documents on... why? Because almost every NASA astronomer has wanted to send someone or some probe to Eros. Also there is an Eros cartography project which supposedly was terestrial satellites looking at earth for urban planning?! All told I found over 300 documents on NTRS today alone with Eros in the title. But like many of you have noticed, the new NTRS search engine and the new deliniation between NTRS and NTRS-R make it nearly impossible to find good documents because they (the good ones) all seem to be locked behind the NTRS-R servers which you have to have a NASA id to even look at! Sorry this turned into a small wall of text! https://www.wired.com/2012/05/manned-asteroid-flyby-mission-1966/

I have never had issues with De-orbiting Big G.... So long as I don't land on land. For some reason (probably how shallow my landing curves are maybe) I tend to break things if I land on land. But I have a couple of tricks I use for Big G. Since the 3.125m SM that I would prefer to fly with it is not in BDB (or wasn't last time I flew a BigG) I build my own using tweak-scale of a good 2.5m Mono tank even if it is stupid stock, + the Titan MOL/KH-10 Parts (mostly the Ferry RCS as it is identical to the BigG RCS blocks) the hard part is finding a short enough 2.5-3.125 conic adapter for both ends! If you are having other issues, pray tell what they are, maybe someone can help.

The descent stage's RCS provides the Aft thrust (Forward thrust would come from the 2 RCS ports in the bottom of the service module. Only the Left and right RCS modules provide this thrust. now as for how you would fly a capsule backwards. That is covered in many programs. The target docking port would have an offset photo calibration mark. On the back of the Gemini, in the "standard" or likely Vertical position above the SM side docking port... you would have your camera, that has the same offset as the target docking port's photo calibration mark. Keep the Photo calibration crosshair under the camera's crosshair... viola docking made "simple?" Now if either of you are talking about the 1.875m Ring and clamp docking port on the back of Gemini... then you have to remember, you are flying a different Gemini and you are A) a 3 Crew Gemini, and B) flying with the MOL SM which is a 1.875m cylinder in KSP and you are going to attach 4x of the 4 way Giant RCS pods that were made for MOL/Gemini. This SM is often called the "Ferry" tank. Everything else about docking in reverse is the same. Now Big G had the aft facing pilot to do the same but BigG had the giant SM and had room to spare to "simplify" the docking process.

A brief followup on the Titan III family I posted an hour ago: I was looking for some data that Zorg asked for last week when I came across a "history" of USAF space flight document. In the Titan III article I talk about Nixon and his want to get rid of disposable launchers... and replace them all with Space Shuttle. Well this declassified document called "The Air Force and the National Security Space Program 1946-1988" by one R. Cargill Hall, has some doozies that I did not remember reading. It turns out that After Nixon, President Ford wrote a document re-affirming that the USAF would launch NRO launches on Space Shuttle. Then comes Carter. He *ALSO* re-affermed the Space Shuttle with a document that would curtail some of the excess spending on Space Shuttle. This reduced the Space Shuttle from 10 to 4 with options for more flying Orbiters and from 2 launch sites to "one with the possibility of a second." Then, Ronnie Ray Gun... err Ronald Reagan became president and not only did they order the 2nd USAF launch site... they started ordering long lead items for an additional Shuttle (Endeavor.) While this isn't a Space Shuttle forum. You can see why in my last paragraphs talking about the Titan IIIE and 34D I mention the lackadaisical attitude of Martin Marietta, the USAF, NASA and many others toward the quality and or improvement of the Titan SLV. Also a minor correction. Several early "classified" (since released to public domain) documents talked about Hydraulic fluid being used in the UA120x SRMs. All of these documents are from the time of Project Phoenix or early on in the Titan III program. I have read in the past several "non technical" documents cite NTO, N2O2 or Di-nitrogen Tetra oxide (we tend to just call it Nitrogen TetraOxide or NTO.) Well I have MOL released document that clearly cites NTO several times. And the 2nd Generation UA1207 would have flown with 24 injector points not the 32 I mentioned in the UA120x article above. TBC that does not mean the Titan IV did not fly with 32 NTO injection points. Just that as designed for MOL it was 24. Lastly now in 4 USAF official documents the Titan 34D is quoted as 5.5 segments not 6.5 segments. This includes a history document on USAF/NRO launches from the article mentioned at the top of this post. I have looked several times and through out the communication between a bunch of us in this forum I see the 1206 called a 6.5 segment SRM repeatedly. the BDB realnames data clearly calls out 5.5 segments and I will be fixing this in my UA120x document as well as the Titan III document within the next hour. *Sheepish shrug* Whoops Errors found and will be corrected.

Cheesecake gave you the simple answer above. But I will cover a few things that could cause problems. 1) do not use KSP 1.11 It is broken, just... dont 2) Mods that alter physics (be it changing the planets size, or altering the "soup" known as aero) any of those have potential to break things. 3) Mods to make parts stronger... while one of the better things out there (because you don't need to go through your rocket's parts and enable auto-struts nor do you need many/any external struts...) can, in-conjunction with other physics altering mods cause this. 4) Stock Timewarp can cause this! If you are running above 2x in atmosphere false heat propagation is going to happen. While I have it installed I have not verified if this is the case with Better Time Warp. 5) Mods that alter how other mods work... so "part breakage" "Part nerfing" and "part boosting" and any combination there within can cause weirdness like you are experiencing. 6) Your Re-entry heating settings in KSP itself could cause this (if you set it higher than stock!) / Re-entry heating mods could also cause this. 7) major conversions (eg RO but I am not pointing the finger at them!) could cause this. Now if you want to follow the steps in my Signature below to provide logs, someone here (probably not me) might be able to help you narrow it down.

Ok Titan III is a huge subject so two posts to cover the Titan III and the hypothetical Titan IIIs... The Titan III family really starts with the first launch of Titan Agena… aka Titan IIIB. Err WAIT! What about Titan IIIA? Well, if you had read my previous article on the Titan II, you would know about Titan IIIA. The Titan II article: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/122020-181-1101-bluedog-design-bureau-stockalike-saturn-apollo-and-more-v171-%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-18oct2020/&do=findComment&comment=3913376 Here is a link to the in-between chapter on the United Aircraft SRMs flown on the Titan III and IV: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/122020-181-1101-bluedog-design-bureau-stockalike-saturn-apollo-and-more-v171-%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-18oct2020/&do=findComment&comment=3914330 The actual Titan III family list will be in the next installment as there is a lot to write yet on proposed Titan III variants you can build! That post will also cover the inline SRM core options I mentioned in my previous post on the United Tech SRMs that actually flew on many Titan III launches! Hope you are all having a good day!

I am working on and looking into some options to make it easier to locate my works. But I am also dealing with some of the "after effects" of COVID... So it might be a hot minute or a couple weeks before I can get a more concrete solution. I am going to try to limit my posts a bit as I finish up Titan. Somewhere about a year ago I did posts on most of the early Saturn history.... for all I know it might have been early in the lock-down in mid March/April... I don't have a copy of it to re-post so I will possibly make that entire arc over. In the short term I may post a link in the most current article itself to the previous article. It would be a bunch of clicks but it would eventually take you back to "On the Subject of Agena" which is my first Historical post in resent history. PS thank you for asking. So I of course didn't get to watch Sunday stream due to my Paid Professional Hobby.... Some might call it work Anyway I did speed watch through the twitch stream.... But I saw a picture of one of the Apollo capsules on the water. It was sort of zoomed in on the top 3 balloons to help prevent roll over. No comments were made about it in stream when I saw it but does that mean the balloons and such are being made for this?

I had to jump to the United Aircraft corporation' UA-120x family of SRMs before diving into Titan III Hope you enjoy..... And sorry about the rabbit hole at the top. If you don't understand how designations work, you are going to flail around when trying to research these subjects in obscure documents... With all the changes to now Raytheon Technologies, through out the production I thought it was important to talk about how the SRMs for Titan III were designated. Spoilered for those not wanting to read a wall of text And a Link to the previous article:

Very productive time today. Thanks for streaming!

Thanks Jso. I have tried to read an E-book version of this but found it kind of hard to read that way. The portions I could track on the E-reader were HILARIOUS and even if you are not a Aerospace nerd the book can be down right funny. BUT I never finished it because I like to re-refrence older pages while reading. Something just not easy to do in an E-Reader. So, clicking on the link above, I just HAD to order a physical copy today. But, as far as the article is concerned I will stick with my "DON'T KNOW" as the simple answer to not create a text wall within a text wall. Also altered the latest Titan II into a intro + Spoiler. Please, @alberro+ and Jso, let me know if that works out better. I will have to alter the next article slightly as there really isn't a good "intro" to it...

You asked for it. You even provided new, forgotten sources to me.... For which I am eternally grateful. I want these works to be as accurate as possible! So First I give you the updated Titan I article: The Still Mighty Titan II, Titan GLV and Titan 23G and other Titan II variants. I am writing this on the assumption you have already read the Titan I article. This article could be slightly confusing if you have not read that article first. Early in the development of both the Atlas and Titan Missiles, the Remo-Wooldridge corporation, the soon to be TRW, pointed out to the USAF that a better fuel source than cryogenic Liquid Oxygen should be found. Liquid Oxygen boils off at a prodigious rate when exposed to normal terrestrial temperatures. The USAF approached both General Dynamics (Convair Division) and the Martin Company about converting to some form of storable liquid fuel. Convair pointed out that a storable fuel would destroy the balloon tanks in short order… and the extra weight would inviolate their entire launch principal. This quickly excluded Atlas from being “up fueled” to a new storable propellant. You see, even today with all our advances in chemistry and metallurgy, storable fuels tend to be very caustic, very cancerous, and generally unbelievably BAD to be around. Back in the 1950s we are talking about nitric acid and any of various fuel types that nitric acid self-combusts or goes hypergolic with. Why is self-combustion an important factor for room temperature stored fuels? The short answer is I do not know. The longer answer involves a lot of chemical and engineering equations that deal with ISP. I will stick with I DON’T KNOW because it is easier to say and takes up less space in this article… by tens of paragraphs!

Since no one did it or said it.... He's alive? HE IS ALIVE!!!! RUN! Sorry I had to just re-watched the first 20 minutes of the best Frankenstein movie... on accident... (and it is still playing in the background.) Seriously I thought I was putting in Blazing Saddles! Young Frankenstein. Now where is my Blazing Saddles Blu-Ray... *Self edited and deleted Opinionated Jerk comments about picture quality streaming vs Blu-Ray* Seriously, I hope I can at least catch the stream on Saturday. Sunday is a work day for me so But hey At-least I get three contiguous days off in a row right? Titan II post latter today for certain. Titan I edits HOPEFULLY latter today. And I am experimenting with playing around with an alternative place to post them so you can find them all easy-ish (and I don't mean my long departed Great Grandma Ish!) And I want to apologize for my *Opinionated Jerk* comments above about Blu-ray vs Streaming. As a Picture Quality Professional I take pride in my work and to watch so many people stream low quality crap and say it is "the best picture quality" just because company X or Y paid a lot of money to put the latest means nearly nothing buzzwords on the work or say their streaming services fully meets the standards of said buzzwords.... grinds my gears

Ok so I have not begun to edit my Titan I post on the previous page yet. But I wanted to give you a build guide using SmartParts mod and BDB to automate and give you a CORRECT Stage 1 and Stage 2 separation. And with the same concept you can fully automate your launch (with Mechjeb) all the way to orbit.... with more accurate and realistic staging than MechJeb alone can provide. 1st) as I said I am using the Smart Parts mod: https://spacedock.info/mod/614/SmartParts On the 0 stage (if you are running SRMs) Put Two un-related Fuel sensors. Set one to 4 Percent.... have it either stage or activate the 1st Stage LR87-AJ-3 engine. The second fuel sensor, have it set to 0 and set it to either stage or eject your SRMs. I tend to run Aerojet AJ100 SRMs on Titan I (called SOLTAN in BDB.) Add a single fuel drain sensor on Stage 1. Set this to 7%. Set it to Activate an Action Group. In whatever action group you choose you will need the following. The "Activate Engine" that is at the BOTTOM of the LR91-AJ-3 (there are 2 activate engine buttons on the LR91!) and start a 7 second timer (from Smart Parts.) The timer MUST BE on the 2nd stage! The 7 second timer will activate another Action group. In this 2nd (or more depending on how YOU build your Titan I) you will put another timer (set to 4 seconds this time!) and you will Stage the Stage 1 to stage 2 interstage. Please note the First stage engine will be running out of fuel AFTER this action if you set it to 7% above. So I also shut down the 1st stage main engine at this time. Next you will add a 2nd Timer to the 2nd stage set to 4 seconds. This timer must be activated by the first, 7 second timer you installed above! The 4 second timer will activate The UPPER LR91-AJ-3 "Activate engine" as it's only action. Again this is an Action Group. After the 2nd timer has expired and performed it's actions you will have a properly staged Titan I. Pics or it didn't happen:

I actually use NRAP to test ALL my rockets when I am building custom payloads. It comes in various sizes and you can adjust the masses. NRAP is what gave me the idea to convert the old Titan I Mk4 reentry vehicle into a DMAGIC impact science experiment (it didn't work out too well however and now the MK4 RV is gone...!)

Interesting question. I personally perfer using a part like the old NRAP or the new "adjustable ballast" that I have seen on spacedock. Let me see if I can point you to the mods. NRAP is unlock-able at the start of the tree so you can use it right from the word go. I strongly STRONGLY do not suggest modifying core BDB parts to "add a mass simulator" This can go wrong in so many ways.... Creating a duplicate part that has a mass simulator is the better choice (using a MM patch with the +PART option!) https://spacedock.info/mod/386/Kerbal NRAP - Procedural Test Weights https://spacedock.info/mod/2265/Utility Weight

HA I had totally forgotten about that data! I even have a book mark in my browser for it! It was in my "KSP mods" folder instead of "KSP data" DOH! Thanks for the reminder Blowfish! So per Heroicrelics, the main "Sustainer" engine is activated 4 seconds after separation. Given 1st stage is till spooling down and providing thrust of various levels that would mean we are still dealing with a "Fire in the hole" ignition but the stages are actually separate. That actually makes the comments about "jet-wash creating force differentials on the interstage structure causing it to deform," still make sense. That is the Coanda effect I was talking about in the post (sorry if I am spelling that wrong.) I guess that means my Titan I launches are going to have a fuel sensor on Stage 1 and a pair of timers on stage 2. Set the fuel sensor to 2-3% (unsure will take some experimentation,) and then the action group it activates starts a 7 second timer on the 2nd stage and activates the vernier engines on the LR91..... Then the first timer will trigger stage separation and for good measure First stage main engine shutdown, and a 2nd timer for 4 seconds. The second timer then activates the main LR91 thrust chamber after those four seconds. I will edit my post to bring these details in and make it clearer. To sum up the LR91 DOES use fire in the hole on the Titan I. But it does so just after stage separation and not while the two stages are attached. It is too bad there isn't a better way to do this. The Smart Parts mod is already in my mod circulation but each of those parts will cause issues with 1.11 (no I am not going to hack my physics.cfg to "fix" the problem!) This is me staying on 1.10.1 Thanks again for helping me make the document a little better @blowfish! I really appreciate it. Also thanks for pointing out that I should point settings/other mods out for the various rockets to make the builds more realistic in KSP. I use the SmartParts fuel drain detector on many Titan rockets (any that has a SRM/SRMU on it for certain!) You didn't say it in words, but your posts lead me to that decision/conclusion. Now how to word this in the document......... I will edit the Titan I document tomorrow after work or maybe on Thursday (the start of my normal weekend.) This is my first week back to work after Covid and I am having issues getting to sleep at a "good" time.

KSP 1.11 has a mass bug. There are many posts about this. Items that should mass below a certain number (I am unsure what off the top of my head) instead act (not be measured but JUST ACT) like they have a mass several times more. I think the number is .25 or 250kg Known issues and not a BDB bug.... Rather a KSP bug. Suggest rolling back to 1.10.1 until 1.11.1 comes out.

Thanks Blowfish, I sort of knew I had forgotten something but couldn't figure out what it was. I only edited that section 7 days in a row! doh! However I do have a problem and I feel I know why I "forgot" that segment. Every document I have on Titan I and the launch failures talk about how the failure was due to impact or what is loosely described as the Coanda effect without calling it such. In every case the document talks about the main bell igniting at separation "fire in the hole" style. And 2 of my documents actually say "fire in the hole." This still leads me to believe the LR91 was fully burning at stage separation. Now most of my documents predate IOC of the Titan I so it is fully possible Aerojet/Martin/USAF changed how the LR91 was staged. I just don't have any document that says specifically the main bell wasn't ignited until AFTER separation (but would gladly appreciate it if you can post one that says so.) Also the 4 Verniers were used to A) position the payload at the correct angle after 2nd stage MECO, as well as to insure clean separation of the payload from the 2nd stage (the verniers could generate enough torque to break the restraining bolts when the torque is combined with the mass of the expected payload (the MK-IV RV) Titan II I have a lot more... shall we say consistent information on. There are for example 4x "Thrust Canceling" motors on the top of the first stage that are ignited when second stage engine starts up. There are 3 +1 on top of the 2nd stage. They used the 3+1 because they would fire 3 at warhead separation, creating a torque or yaw motion to the 2nd stage. Then the 4th would cancel the rotation caused by only 3 motors initially firing. This was to turn the 2nd stage broadside to the flight path to "conceal" the much smaller warhead, insure a clean seperation between the warhead and the 2nd stage, as well as to force the 2nd stage to slow down faster in atmosphere (so it would break up and not be in the way of other warheads. Really an interesting maneuver that is VERY HARD to do in KSP using just BDB and Smart Parts.. READ that as impossible FWIW. I think I got had that maneuver work once in an automated fashion. I attempted said maneuver at-least 100 times it seemed like!

Thanks for the positive vote! I have, but these articles are meant for a KSP audience and not a strictly historical audience. You can sometimes see this "clash" between "for a game" and "For a historical perspective" in Scott Manley's older YouTube videos. While Scott does an amazing job trying to keep them separate.... It is something I wish to avoid. YES there is a lot of history gathered in these posts, but they would need to be completely re-written with better fact citing as well if I were to post separate from KSP. I freely admit I write these from memory. I HAVE read hundreds potentially several thousands actually of NASA curated documents, many documents curated by the NMUSAF, and the Smithsonian in its various forms, as well as hundreds of books on these subjects, and lets not forget websites! I have limited access to most of these sources all the time. It kind of easy to pull up the pertinent NTRS documents because I do my best to download and save my own copy of every article I find interesting or informative. But I can not access ALL of those at once.... simply because I would not have enough room to work! Another way to think about it is if I had all my sources in front of me I wouldn't be able to see my 38" ultra-wide monitor that is 18 inches above the level of my keyboard! What I might do is copy them out of BDB and make my own thread on KSP for them... It is a thought. Most of my larger articles are written in a document editor, so I have copies saved. In the end though, since the end goal is to give back to BDB, they will always be posted HERE first ... well until someone on the BDB team tells me to stop (or a Forum Moderator does the same!) EDITED A funny fact I thought I should mention. I sometimes find hard data in the strangest places. For my LR79 article I actually got more data on the LR79 history from a book on potential Battleship conversions than any other book including a book I have on Delta. That is Battleships as in Naval Dreadnoughts, not test articles for space flight! I consider my ability to find, and capture these kind of data points a key for how I build my articles. I doubt any serious "rocket historian" would go looking for data on a rocket... in a book about upgrading World War II built battleships! I did .