Pappystein

I think you are reading it wrong. But more importantly adding 50% more of zero is still zero. Most of the "proposed" setups in this case being entirely new stages that have not been built into BDB. Only Gamma re-uses a non uniquely Hydrolox stage and coverts it with parts (internal ones that we can't see) from another Hydrolox stage. That being said, I Think, EXCEPTING VEGA, things look OK. To your comment about Titan, in every case that I have data for, the Titan Hydrolox stage would have been 2.5m or larger KSP scale, not 1.875m so... new stage new parts not re-using any of the non hydrolox parts. Remember, the Hydrolox LR87 was developed for SATURN not TITAN. And I am Hoping that we get a 4x S-IVB engine plate for 4 LR87 Hydrolox engines... or a 10x S-II plate for the same reason or alternatively we get the DUAL LR87 Hydrolox that the production model would have likely been I know an argument could be made that LDC /Hercules parts need the boiloff function somewhat similar to Centaur as it is a kitbash of several different proposals including one Hydrolox one. And I haven't checked to see if they have any such Boiloff setting in the cfgs. Here are the two NON LDC Hydrolox Titan proposals over the years I have any sort of hard data on (thanks to Ed Kyle for making nice graphics showing size and dimensions) as you can see 2x of the 4 Hydrolox Titans actually subsitute CENTAUR for the 2nd stage and that is what makes them Hydrolox. The other two, both cases have over large diameters meaning not standard Titan I through IV hardware http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/titannot.html

So I have literally JUST gotten up but the last half hour in bed I was thinking on this and I think (I haven't looked into it yet) the Boiloff module IS the insulation. Meaning all that needs to happen is the Centaur Boiloff module needs to be copied to Vega tanks At this point this is just a semi-conscious guess. will edit when I look into it in a few minutes EDITED AS PROMISED: The B9 Fuel switch boil-off add-on is not adding internal insulation. THIS is where we are seeing no insulation from. And this is PROBABLY RIGHT. You are dumping Hydrolox into what is basically a Kerolox tank setup. BDB is just forcing you to actually use Hydrolox Tanks. The issue is, certain tanks (I am thinking Specifically of Vega.) would need more than what the B9 Patch offers . Given Gamma (the Hydrolox Vega) was made up with Centaur D insulation I feel it should have the same or better boiloff parameters as Centaur D tanks. I say better because smaller = more controllable thermodynamics. But actually since some of the documents on Gamma state that it would actually have a lower boil off than Centaur.... But that is a function of the pressure vs Volume dynamics not better insulation.

So re-quoting this to ask: BDB Team. How do we get the Vega Tanks to have Insulation for Hydrolox. It is clear from the Gamma drawings that it is using Centaur D level Insulation on the Gamma Kick stage? Dose the Boiloff modules on the Centaur D tanks just need to be copied into the Vega (so when you switch to Hydrolox it is already there) or does something more substantive need to be done on you, the Developer's end?

While Starhelperdude has it about 95% right. Kick stages are also meant for HIGH ACCELERATION burns where upper stages typically have low acceleration through most of their flight... rarely getting to or near a Thrust to mass ratio of 1:1. And Starhelperdude, don't worry about it you explained it fine I think a lot of us who's native language is one form of English or another have issues with the language....

Interesting use of the Gamma Kick stage as a full up upper stage

So while I am sick today I am doing some research on the various "Big Apollo" Proposals (similar to the Big Gemini proposals from McD) 12 crew, larger sized capsules. Trying to track down why I have the name "Eros" stuck in my head for such a contraption and what not. In doing so, I found a youtube video of a test of the Nike Zeus B's ZERO stage booster Rocket as well as First stage control. Right Era but decidedly the wrong type of rocket for BDB. But I thought I would share it none the less due to the "unique" vector control system employed: For those who do not know Nike Zeus B was the United States' first long range anti ballistic missile system. Used in conjunction with the short range "Sprint" interceptor missile, which is still the fastest accelerating man made object in free flight (as apposed to something in a barrel or on a mag rail)... the Nike Zeus B was armed with a small nuclear warhead and intended to destroy formations/waves of incoming ICBMs. It was hoped (I would say estimated but the concept was too sketchy to say that...) that ICBMs would arrive in distinct waves and that a few nuclear explosions in space would destroy all the incoming missiles before MIRV separation. This is one of the biggest reasons that the Nike Zeus B did not enter widespread service for more than... LITERALLY ONE DAY!!! as part of the SafeGuard system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html https://www.nuclearabms.info/NikeZeus.html of the three sources, Designation-systems.net has proven the most accurate over the years.... so I would trust it's data highest (I am unsure of the bottom link... just found it with Google-fu and realized it had pertinant data.) EDIT and yes I realized after I posted that the production version of Zeus B was Nike Spartan. I don't think the weird vector control was used on Spartan (most documents list the aft fins as FIXED which they decidedly were not on Zeus B

Sadly until that is resolved I don't think BDB is 100% compatible with 1.11.. Guess I am staying on 1.10.1.

RD-33 is the Jet engine that powers the MiG-29. NK-33 is the Rocket engine.

Does 1.11 hate Thrust curves? Just curious... because it sounds like that is what is happening (it is going with the Inital TWR and sticking with it.) I am not currently switching so just throwing Ideas like I am want to do.

Welcome to why Vanguard wasn't really successful ( completely joking) Seriously, the last time I flew it (with the new parts) I had issues in JNSQ... but I thought it was because I was using AZ50/NTO in the "Future" Able stage. Suggest reverting to old guidance method and choose an altitude of say 100km with max turn altitude (the point the rocket is 100% perfectly horizontal) stopping at 70-80km. IDK if it will work but if you are using MechJeb Ascent guidance.... well PVG and I have not gotten along with each other so... I still do it the old, ugly, "less efficient" way. Might not help but maybe it works. again IDK use at your own risk yada yada yada... And yes I know that the early Ables were UDMH + WFNA But you try to keep 6 different Hypergolic fuels at once and remember each use will need a new CFG... AZ50/NTO is more efficient than some, and less efficient than others. it is a good middle ground in the Hypergolic Fuels and has the "easiest" math of all of them (Literally it is the same ratio as LF/O!... just 5x more due to how non built in fuel units are handled vs built in fuel units.) Um... you are insane busy at work right... So it is OK to cut and paste your quote

True, I did. But, the reason was I was showing sources I go to to find out info on rockets I don't know about, rather than how to build a BDB rocket oh, and PS. Don't bring my Great Grandma Ish into these discussions BESIDES, Isn't it about time you removed the "Un" from the BDB Wiki's name?

I don't know why I started monologing about how I come up with that data. Fact of the matter is it wasn't germane to the discussion (and is thus deleted.) However, there are a few websites you can use to look a lot of this stuff up. Ed Kyle hosts the SpaceLaunchReport website and has a large selection of rocket data... Not exhaustive, not complete and heavily cherry-picked for data but still arguably one of the most accurate Rocket data websites we can find on common-ish rockets: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/library.html Obviously Wikipedia isn't that trust worthy (check the sources after reading ANY article on rocketry folks! lots of errors creep in.) http://en.wikipedia.org And the most pervasive.... and arguably least accurate Encyclopedia Astronautica: http://astronautix.com/ Each and all of these sites attempt to distill down raw data... And I have listed them in my opinon of order of quality and accuracy. Conversely it is a REVERSE order for qty of DATA available. These are the sites I look at first when a question like yours is posted OrbitalManeuvers... I then look for more "accurate" or hard core data documents to support their info... There are many other such websites.... and there are also sites that have original documentation (NASA's now much harder to use NRTS server.... the Big Book of Warfare etc...) But the OG docs can be hard to read... esp if they are a bad copy (and there are a lot of those!) And lets not forget Google can be your friend when searching for obscure Rockets... (eg my search for the Poodle Rocket stage -dog -KSP -Kerbal -Kerbalspaceprogram -KerbalAcadamy ) And a special mention for Designation-Systems.net which has been my number 1 source on US missiles for close to 20 years: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/index.html Just please please ignore the very bad reference that cites me on the AIM-152 as calling it an AIM-155 Oh wait it looks like Dr Gustin finally pulled down his old site! NEVER-MIND nothing to see here!

the floor is open for you? Herakles as in Titan LDC. As in the single sized kitbash by Cobaltwolf of like 8 different Titan Proposals over the years? Given there are so many DIFFERENT "Titan LDC" proposals... it is hard to drill down and just talk about the components in the mod. To be clear when Ed Kyle talks about "4x LR87-AJ11" engines he is talking about 2x 2 bell engines... so only 2 of what we have in KSP. Also these (which are about the right size for our 3.125m KSP LDC Titan.....) are actually one of the SMALLER LDC core designs! The Barbarian would have been slightly larger than the other LDC proposals I can easily present here. In KSP scale it would have been slightly larger than 3.25m. The other LDCs are slightly smaller at 2.93m. As I remember @CobaltWolf chose to average the two to go with a "standard" 3.125m size. Note that the LDC engine mount in 4x and above sizes is a little tight for the LR87s because of this shrinkage. And while Ed Kyle didn't cover it, and BDB didn't build it, there was a ~13ft diameter proposal as well it BARELY fit 2x LR87-AJ-11s under it. That would have been a 2.5m Titan core stage. In this case it was designed to be Air Transportable in "a standard" USAF Cargo Aircraft.... Looking at the size of the mockup on it's trailer the only Aircraft in USAF inventory that Could have flown it was the C-5 Galaxy. I don't even think the Mighty Mouse (C-17) could fly that stage. That is all I have got on short notice *EDIT* Maybe at some point we will get the Agena like interstage for Centaur D1T for the LDCs..... wish wish wish

Know how that feels. Hopefully things wrap up for you soon so you can take a break before getting into Saturn further

Yeah that is what I said! Then I did a google Search for "Poodle rocket stage" - Kerbal -KerbalAcademy -Kerbalspaceprogram -dog and then just found THIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_rocket Poodle is a TRW upper-stage using a RTG to heat a gas (assuming Hydrogen) and even today, RTG powered thrusters are called "Poodle thrusters" An RTG big enough to produce 7000lbs of thurst however would be pretty huge... I don't know how effective the 19x10ft poodle stage would actually be as a kick stages as it is being described (IE high thrust to weight ratio and designed for shorter intense burns not long slow ones like Centaur) Also, using the basic concept of the Vega there are apparently a series of 4 "Kick stages" proposed by Convair/GD... Gamma being the Hydrolox version with an RL10 engine. One has a FLOX engine... ewe... one has a LMDE engine and could be a good stage to add as part of the Saturn update... And the last is a KEROLOX stage with a new engine (AKA a Vega reboot) I found most of these while researching Gamma today and still digging in pretty hard core. Once I colate and verify my info I will share it. For what it is worth, the first link in my "Solar probe" post just above has a side view of what Poodle would look like.

Can of worms time: Since I have been discussing the Gamma, one of the proposals that "SEEMS" to use Gamma was a Saturn IB launch vehicle with the following stages S-IB, S-IVB, S-V (Centaur C/E) and S-VI (Gamma? small 7000lb thrust Hydrolox upper stage) The Solar Probe (large) un-named. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22633.0;attach=244588;sess=0 a Smaller version that may not need the Gamma but a different upper stage called Poodle... that seems to be a generic "substitute" stage... called Icarus looks like a Fedora Hat (where the brim is out flat and not folded) and has a single boom that is flown extended (does not retract) with a Magnometer, RWR, and Communications all in one part. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22633.0;attach=306570;sess=0 To be effective both of these needed higher than normal velocities. As you can see by looking at the "actual hardware" Icarus it uses a STAR 37 THEN a F4W Solid on top of the Atlas Centaur or Saturn Centaur stage! Icarus would be a neat "easy" probe... How hard is it to make a circular cake like probe body with a fringe Solar array that grants 360 degree solar coverage eh? asks someone who isn't going to make it The bigger Solar probe might be something useful to hold back until new Saturn parts are ready to launch it.... It looks like it will need an inter-stage similar to that of the Titan Agena inter-stage... with it's antenna folded into the inter-stage opening. Please note that the reasons these probes were never launched was due to cost. The Bigger probe would have a science experiment called "Solar Flare diagnostic" only works in orbit of a sun... High and low orbit options. little science for high orbit but low orbit gets big science. *from my admittedly limited research Poodle was a generic stage description for a needed but never developed or contracted 7000lb thrust Hydrolox stage... something Gamma and Centaur JR both fit into. Poodle had a set envelope of 3.05x5.78m aka 10ft by 19ft which both Centaur JR and Gamma fit within.) **It dawned on me that Icarus could be kitbashed with what we already have... The Agena GCU + Agena Target Battery + the Solar Shield/array.... ***CRAP EDIT... sorry @Invaderchaos I wasn't wearing my glasses when I first wrote this up... not mariner stuff so ignore if you want. But cool never flown Saturn Era probes I have given you...

It is too bad Ed didn't cover the re-use of the Vega design to make Gamma . I realize the improved version of the GE 405H2 engine in BDB is a you hypothetical and not a real world proposed engine Cobalt, but still it is neat to have a viable "upgrade path" for Vega. Please note that this isn't the Centaur Jr that was proposed as part of the USAF/General Dynamics (AKA Convair) Atlas F stretch+ Centaur Jr proposal as listed on Ed Kyle's site. This is a latter proposal to re-use existing parts instead of making all new ones for Centaur JR. This version was basically slapped together by Convair so they could re-use the design work they had put into Vega to allow for an improved Centaur launcher (by making Centaur dual staged.)

But Vega has growth potential so there is a reason there are several versions of it's engines in the game. Also the Centaur Gamma is basically a HYDROLOX / RL-10 version of the Vega tankage.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. While I know Douglas, then McDonald Douglas and then Boeing each changed the naming nomenclature... it would have been EASY and relatively painless for NASA to use a forced designation system like the DOD uses. Instead, by letting the manufacture name crap whatever they wanted... things get confusing. I give you Delta P (rocket proposed but never flown) and Delta P Upper stage. Or Delta K (again rocket Proposed, designed but then never ordered/flown) and the Delta K upper stage. Delta D Rocket, and Delta D upper stage? How about we jump to NASA's own rockets? The Entire Saturn line is fraught with "unique" and non standardized designations starting with the stages and quickly progressing forward into entire rocket proposals. From a Nomenclature standpoint Calling a modified Saturn I first stage the S-IB makes sense... But when you call the Saturn V's first stage which is NOT a modification of the S-I or S-IB the S-IC..... yeah... an obviously not planned out nomenclature system. Which leads to confusion, which leads to duplication of work, which leads to potentially bad things. More modern. NASA has stood by the Space Shuttle main engine is the SSME for close to 40 years... now it is the RS-25 which was the manufacture's designation from the start. Just two examples of poor nomenclature at NASA for projects originated at NASA and created by NASA. heck the Pre 1962 US Navy aircraft designation conventions are easier to decipher than NASA's stuff. Thanks for posting that. What I am working on is pretty deep down into BDB and requires engine by engine editing. For example once I am done, the LR87AJ5 will be hypergolic but the LR87AJ5K will be KEROLOX using the same part and the same config. And this is all done by MM patches

The HOSS Avoionics is a 1.5m to something smaller truncated cone. But maybe I am dumb, I will try again after I finish editing my Hypergolic fuel files so they work again

Feedback on V 1.7.1 (I am using the current dev build as of 2 days ago) 1) the new parts are freekin awesome! 2) new Boiloff is even MOAR Awesome! 3) Alt Delta parts (like the Double barrel adaptor) are a great add in. HOWEVER 3a) Delta parts are cluttered and I spent over 5 minutes finding the engine cover for the main engine (had to look up Thor parts to find it and there were much fewer parts there.) Some MOST of this is NASA's fault for naming every Thor Rocket with a NASA purchases Able/Ablestar stages for, DELTA. But some of it could be eliminated by improved tagging I think (but hey I don't know!) 3aa) WHY CAN'T NASA STICK TO ONE NOMENCLATURE THAT MAKES SENSE!? Maybe change the tagging for the 1st Stage of all rockets in the Delta Line to not have the name delta but just say THOR for tagging? All the Upper stages have DELTA as a tag? IDK just an idea 4) Delta IV (no just luck I got to this point when I wanted to talk about it, it's position wasn't planned... honest! ) The parts look Amazing but as I said in the post above, the two craft files I used (Delta IVM 5,4 and Delta IVH+ I think) had staging all messed up and I had to build the rocket over again (without pulling new parts just disconnect and reconnect.) 5) Delta IV 5m fairing has 2 of it's 3 options without segments (SAF style fairing,) If this is intended cool but took me a minute to find the right faring to fit my payload as shown above. 6) Delta HOSS upper stage. Could really use a 1.5m SAF fairing that can FIT The HOSS's GCU inside it (or an update the HOSS GCU to add the 1.5m+ Fairing size. The HOSS' GCU limits you to 0.9375m (or is it 1.25m... I don't remember now) 6a) HOSS had minor issues separating from the Delta 1.5m Inter-stage. Might need some sort of Ullage to cleanly seperate. 6b) Maybe a version of the Multi-Barrel parts that could act as an inter-stage so I don't have to stack an inter-stage on top of it (or does it already and I did a dumb?)???

So I finally got KSP up and running with all my preferred mods (was having speed issues on a 64GB i9-9900X) Turns out you should pay close attention to those modes you decided to download in "beta" testing status...... Anyway. First I wanted to fly the HOSS. I have stayed away from Cryogenic BDB tanks since the Titan Update because the old Boiloff system and I didn't get along..... and I am trying to make things "more realistic" (yeah it is a game and it isn't realistic so sue me for making it harder!) First launch of this sandbox career is a long range communication satellite in a 90 degree orbit at 15Mm After my above comments, you KNOW I checked how the new Boiloff worked: I used the HOSS tank on the left and the Delta III upper fuel tank on right side of the stage, but set to Hydrolox fuel. Yes I had enough Delta V to get to the Mun and back ignoring boil-off. But this showcases the HUGE improvements to Boiloff. Notices that the Delta III tank is boiling off Hydrogen at a much higher rate. Great job BDB Team! ESP Jso! Then, I flew @Well's X-20. Just to make certain I could still fly a plane in KSP (it has been a hot minute given all the issues with 1.9x and 1.10x with my mods!) And in doing so I realized I deleted all my custom Hypergolic fuel configs! That LR91 is in a blasphemous burn with Kerolox! Then Cobalt and I had a very brief discussion about Saturn.... Which made me do this (Don't hate me @CobaltWolf !) Notes: Delta IV. I flew a Delta IVM5.4 (BDB craft file) and a Delta IV Heavy (again BDB Craft file) While all the parts for the Delta IV were there, neither had staging set well or correctly. Just a FYI *WHY OH WHY* did I delete all my work on my custom Fuel setups for BDB..... I don't think I have a complete backup either! Fun to fly again now that KSP is a little more stable. (Believe the issue was Bleeding edge Kopernicus + EVE and a communication mod that gave a lot of antennas that you had to BUILD.)

SLS is not nor ever has been on the roadmap for BDB (unless the devs decided to make it...) IE it is not an announced plan. And given the revamp and Gigantification of Saturn is the next step on the roadmap. And there are literally THOUSANDS of parts (well maybe hundreds) needed for everything Apollo and Saturn..... While Atlas V and Delta IV both exist in BDB they were, as I understand it, added because they "Finished the line" from the old 1960s Atlas and Delta rockets. It was the original stated intent for Cobaltwolf that nothing as new as the Space Shuttle would be built (meaning stopping BEFORE the Space Shuttle.) There are several mods that make a good SLS (I suggest reDIRECT which also covers the Jupiter proposals.) BDB is likely not going to be making one.

1) Point on lego-ability. I totally understand and I will drop my suggestion given, legoability + what you had to do to make strawman work... makes sense not to make another unique use Agena panel, at-least at this time. I will ask again next week (I AM JOKEING!!!!!!) 1A) I only suggested the wrap around folding Solar panel because upon looking at it. from any direction except edge on it will gather Electricity (so tracking isn't required to be MOSTLY useful Maybe such a panel could be made for a "generic solar panel" down the line for BDB. *This line edited in* 2) your new project. If that is what I surmise it is, it is both infinitely usable but also not really lego-able But looks like the best KSP level sculpt of those parts yet.

First off, Oscar 1? Are we bringing Urbanmechs to KSP now? (whoops that is probably too meta for a lot of you) Seriously cool looking part! Re the suggestion about a TRACKING wrap arround deployable solar pannel. I thought that concept of a solor panel would be interesting if it was in BDB. Making it tracking makes it more useful. So while the concept art isn't mine, I like the idea enough that I suggest it. Cool if you are not interested, as I have always said you all make what ***YOU*** want to make. I am just flinging ideas and hoping one sticks (unlike the dung flung by monkeys at the zoo! I hope none of that crap sticks! )