Pappystein

Actually that is nothing like what an Unpainted Saturn V would look like. All the Insulation on Saturn V is INTERNAL meaning it (the Saturn V) would look more like an un-painted Atlas.

Of-course this means I have to delete the Brexit half of the original CRE... Bye Bye Excelsior! The new Bluestreak is looking real good. I can't wait for the mod to come together. Been playing with the Stenator Rocket plane a bit. It is a enlarged Civilian adaption of the Blue Steel Nuclear Cruise missile

Eh, CMB IRL is 50" in diameter which is 1.27m. In KSP scale (x 0.64) would be SLIGHTLY smaller than 0.9375m (at 0.8128m.) So at the scales used in BDB, 0.9375 is about PERFECT size (maybe slightly small but closer to correct than 0.625 or 1.25m.) Now a lot of mods use 1.25 and that is fine... But, unless their parts use the same scale factor... the CMB/APAS/CADS/WhateverYouWantToCallIt ends up looking HUGE. Checking the web I found the Dimensions of the most modern iteration (the US designed IDA which updates the existing APAS-95 on the ISS to the new NDS or IDSS system. 1.6m to the outer skin of the extension which is actually BIGGER than the docking port by about a decimeter 1.6x0.64= 1.024m.... 1.5x.64 = 0.9375.... So for ISS type docking ports the physical part should be on the 0.9375m size (by math.) While CADS is part of the Eyes Turned Skyward Alt timeline it is basically an APAS-75 with minor changes. Now my opinion:

You ROCK good sir!

/sigh... Fair enough. I figured that was why Saturn was not on the list so I hadn't asked. And Sadly, It TOTALLY makes sense given the scope and breadth of a Saturn Revamp. But could we request one of these fairings on a 3.75 BDB plate (not a Saturn specific Fairing, but rather just re-use one of the existing fairings like say Titan IV?) EDITED.... Or since I just saw that you are planning on a 3.125-3.75m PLF for LDC, could that 3.75m Fairing be on a 3.75m plate as well?

First off thanks for reaching out about your concern! I know you have been playing KSP for a lot of time but the link below is still your best first step to get a solution. Other than that, I have a suggestion for you, one that some people won't agree with: QUIT using CKAN... Or alternatively if you feel compelled to use CKAN; EVERY TIME you have a new mod update. DELETE your KSP folder and start with a fresh install! My opinion and why:

Sure, And then it became the more commonly known Auto-Body pinstripe tape! Historian mode ON: Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s most cars did not have pin-stripes. Rather they had big honkin pieces of chrome plated accent pieces. A 57 Chevy could have as many as 500+ pieces of chrome plate on it! Then several custom shops started making high quality custom cars that had a clean, mostly chrome free look with a pinstripe on them instead of chrome. This reduced the "bright shin" of the chrome and replaced it with a more subtle, less gaudy look. It was hand painted pin stripes (usually 2 of different thickness) running down the length of the car. These were painted with no template, no tape and no straight edge. If you have seen the Nicholas Cage remake of "Gone in 60 Seconds" There is a Scene where Robert Duvall is hand painting a stripe. Surprisingly he seems to have done it OK (or was it Hollywood Magic? ) But in the mid 1960s Auto-Body pin-striping tape started to come out..... Gemini may have been it's first use (but I have no proof of that)

While it is too bad you were unable to work on Gemini as much as you thought you would this week, Two things; I am GLAD that you got the pinstriping done. I know you were not looking forward to that alternate texture. I am also glad you chose to dull it down, With the limited color pallet in KSP true black would have too high of a contrast and rather jarring I think the depth mask experiment looks pretty good. So this means you can drop parts in without having to use the offset tool to get them "under the skin" so to speak? Ok History time (and something I only learned in one of the last two BDB streams) The "Stripes" on the Service modules are actually Auto-body pinstripes! They are not painted on nor are they part of the skin. Cobalt has pictures of the SM under construction with this tape and you can see it is not always applied perfectly (bends) and my favorite is where there is a piece of tape hanging off the SM... So basically NASA, and their contractor (McDonald?) gave the dull white Service Module a visual style upgrade. I have seen nothing in any of the myriad of Gemini documents I have to indicate WHY but I am guessing it is for some Ground to Space or Space to Space Observations as it was only flown on the first few flights in this condition. For those that do not know what Auto-body Pinstripe tape is check the link below. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FL7CEZ0/ref=sspa_dk_detail_6?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01FL7CEZ0&pd_rd_w=0Rdhp&pf_rd_p=48d372c1-f7e1-4b8b-9d02-4bd86f5158c5&pd_rd_wg=dEDGb&pf_rd_r=V51AQA4MT69MZYXPKKCS&pd_rd_r=d9372080-6b19-4629-9ffc-22921f24e87e&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExTDZKWjNLN1NaUUZCJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwOTM5MTAzMVZaQlhXRVNBSVNWWCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwOTQzMzc1TkZNQjZXQTA4U0VOJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfZGV0YWlsJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ== I grew up in an auto body shop and by the age of 4 I was "helping" with the wet sanding (a miserable job, and I never got real good at it.) I never learned many of the skills but some of them still stick with me today. Sadly Pin-striping, Painting and Using bondo to fix everything are not in my skill wheelhouse (although the last is probably good given the amount of bondo caused wood rot I have had to excise from my house over the last few years!)

Ok, so another work week done... All 6 hours of it (on call for 40 so it counts, right?) Anway thought I would continue flying Saturns and such for you all. Today I bring you a proper Saturn II INT-19. A note, I have never flown the INT-19 before in game as, well there is no suitable M-55 / TU-122 Solid Rocket analog. The Algol is too short, and not enough thrust and most importantly doesn't have 4x vectoring nozzles like the Minuteman's First stage. BUT it is the closest we have in BDB currently ( I am about to embark on testing a MM patch to Lengthen and upthrust the Algol to be closer to Minuteman first stage standards. But anyway here is what I am flying today. The Basic Saturn II INT-19 shown last week, with my "Apollo Test Payload" The ATP is just a Blk II Lunar Apollo setup with 3/4ts fuel. IRL it would have been half fuel but I need to make up some missing d/v from the lackluster (for their roles in this flight) Algols. So there is my Launch of the less than stellar Saturn II INT-19. The M-55 SRM choices were driven by the fact they were in production for the USAF and were easily available. Everyone pretty much knew this option would end up being a pig. But Still to keep costs down and not develop something new, it was an alternative that looked good on paper $$$ wise. That being said, the INT-18 is where it is at on Saturn II due to the well used United Aircraft Chemical Systems Division's UA-1205, -1206 and -1207

It is built into BDB, and it is called CTT in the/bluedog_DB/Compatibility/CommunityTechTree folder chain...

Perfectly? None except stock.... That being said there is a CTT patch that works but I am not certain if it is up to date for either 1.6x or 1.7x dev

So, more a question for those of us who are not constantly downloading the Dev builds, IF someone downloads the DevBuild, should they automatically replace both SAF and B9PartSwitch every time they Download? Normally when I download the DEV build I only replace the Bluedog_DB folder which I cleanly delete FIRST before copying the new folder in. I ask because I haven't downloaded in 5 days and I popped about 100 B9PS messages all pertaining to SAF today.

Uh, no, Solid pass. Did that in FASA BITD and while it was fun for one or two flights..... I will wait for a Rogallo wing (not that it will likely ever happen. But hey!) BTW Interesting build. I assume that you went with some stock parts to make the nose cone and get the Canard far enough forward?

eh, I think those were slapped on to test a new texture?? The Castors seem to have a new nosecone with a black tip. But yes... All Titan IIIAs should have a minimum of 4 Castors (or GEM40 or GEM46s) =========================Unrelated======================== anyone know what constitutes the GSO kit for "Common Centaur"? Nevermind I found it:

Two answers Zorg, yes we are all guessing! Yes, the Thrust chamber is closed off, however the bell is not. The Bell is open (you can clearly see that in some of the launch shots.) Somewhere I have a picture of a thrust chamber closure device and if I had to guess based on other objects in the picture it is ~8"/203mm in diameter. I think it is in one of the documents on the development of the AJ-9 engines during the original Titan III deployment cycle, and their use as test mules for the future MOL AJ-11 engines. It is basically a tampion for the narrowest part of the engine's exhaust throat. A Snug fit but easy to "pop" out when Engine is ignited, just like a Cannon's tampion. Fun facts about the Aerojet Engines on Titan: All Titan IIIA, B and C rockets, except the Very first Titan III launch, flew on LR87-AJ-9 and LR91-AJ-9 Engines. They are slightly uprated from the -AJ-5 engines of Titan II. (and there is a patch for them in the Extras!) MOST of these engines (especially on the Titan IIIC launches) tested parts that would latter be used on the LR87 and LR91 AJ-11 families. <- hence why a lot of sources call all Titan III engines xxxx-AJ-11 variants. NONE of these rockets actually flew with an all up LR87-AJ-11 or LR-91-AJ11. Things that were tested were: Combustion chamber placement (moving the combustion chambers outward by a few inches to allow for bigger expansion ratio bells) Hydraulic actuators (bigger ones were needed for the future AJ-11s!) Changes to structural materials (the metal making up the engine mounting hardware) LR87-AJ-11 bell extension was flown once (or at-least proposed to fly) on LR87-AJ-9 Combustion chambers but overall the thrust would have been that of the AJ-5 with a slight improvement to vacuum ISP only. (yes the thrust would have gone down slightly)

Yep, Cause I just realized that is an SR-119 stage almost completely hidden by the MiG-25

Might be SRB Plume interaction but it looks like LR-87 is already lit Ok so yes there is smoke coming out of the LR87. But if you look at a Titan II or IIIA or IIIB Launch (or any derivative of the 3B) You cal clearly see LESS smoke, and much less Vigorous. Back in the Titan Dev cycle I broached this same question off thread. Some of the same documents above were shown to me. Being a bit of an aerodynamicist I looked at it like an airplane and realized that the "non energetic" smoke from the SRMs was in deed being pulled up into the bell, cooling, and then falling out of the engine bells. And while I think Zorg had a good idea about the ablator, that would require a fire IN the LR87 engine so I doubt that is a.... significant... cause of the smoke you see. On the subject of the LR87s sucking in the outside air into the bell during launch. I imagine the negative effect of this (aka DRAG) is impactful, than the extra mass to enclose the engine bells. PS I used the same two photos... Look at the Titan 23B that Zorg Posted... The difference between ON and OFF of the LR87 is pretty obvious at that point. HOWEVER, There HAVE been proposals for LEO launches that used both the UA1205/6/7s and Ground Lit LR87s. NONE of them have ever been ORDERED or FLEW however. Ahh yes, the old GE Knockoff of the Wasserfall Surface to Air Missile! Took me a long time to realize that this (Hermes,) was visually a near perfect knockoff of the Wasserfall and not actually related (other than how it looked) Hermes was started in 1944... Wasserfall flew in 1943 (I think) and GE basically used a reverse engineered V-2 engine (the Wasserfall is Hypergolic and does not run on Methanol/LOX) Oh and here is a Wasserfall today (NMUASF) And yes the twin engined behemoth with no tails on it to the back left is a MiG-25.... Likely the one that was buried in the Sand in Iraq back in 2003. Also hard to tell but the Solid Rocket motor Appears to be the SR-118 from a LGM-118 Peacekeeper (aka the MX,) which is in BDB as a variant of the Castor 120.

If we are lucky, Gemini Z will be as well Ok joking aside, Cobalt has mentioned plenty of times on dev streams as well as in channel (looks for Gemini checklist on Github) https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/864 Yep listed. BTW welcome to the forums (well 2 months ago but still!) For what it is worth you can find most projects in KSP have either a link to a Github, or another site (documents in Google Sheets, Pastebin and Dropbox being common methods) with a "Plan of updates" on the first post of the Forum thread. Hope that helps in the future. While I am not proficient at Github (looks at "Sandstone" Launch clamps in the BDB-Extras folders... Looks over at Jso and re-thanks yet again for fixing my mistakes in Github) It is a GREAT place to see the status of the project, and if you can you can contribute with information, Ideas or a great way to report problems with a mod. Oh it also helps that Like most great mod-developers, Cobalt actually communicates back and forth with us! PS I thought I would like the full "BDB 1.7 Milestone" Github entry list as well so you all can see what is Planned at the current time for the 1.7 release: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/milestone/12 Lastly, Please keep asking the questions! <--- NOT A JOKE! You can't learn if you don't ask! Eventually we will get to 42! Ok this line was a bad joke. Runs and hides with copy of Hitchhikers Guide Omnibus.

um... I didn't know BDB was part of the Kolektive! But then again... Borg makes more sense in the name than Bluedog So does this make Zorg, 4 of many?

@CobaltWolf I know this isn't planed in your current Dev cycle but I thought I would crank out the data as soon as I saw your post: Gets data: Talos booster is from the silver ring BEHIND the middle fins back: So it is short but: The booster works out to ~0.5mx2m at 0.64 KSP scale (well 0.454 x 1.965m) And has a quick burn (so high thrust over 5 second!) I think the thrust would end up being ~160kn (real is 516k) over those 5 seconds. Some fun history on the above: https://www.okieboat.com/Booster History.html The guy who made this page made a Museum detailed 1:96 scale boat and did it in CAD so there are a lot of 3d drawings of the USS Oklahoma City and the Talos on his pages. I think his 6" Turrets are amazing as they were the first time I actually saw the correct gun-house shape on a scale model! Probably more appropriately (and about 1/3rd the thrust) is the Nike booster used on both the Nike-Ajax and the Nike-Hercules. Again 0.5m in KSP but approximately 4meters long. Thrust is 217kn Real world or about 70-80kn in KSP. But the burn time is significantly longer And yes, on the Belgian Ajax you can see that it was hot staged and the Nike booster is actually BLUNT! If you combine 4 of these into a single square pack you get the Nike Hercules booster (which latter had different solid fuel assembly so even though it was the same basic motor, the Hercules ended up with more than 4x the thrust!. That would end up being a slightly larger than a square 0.9375m in KSP... so a viable alternative to the Algol being 0.9375? And of course well all know all Successful members of the Nike family... Flew on the Nike Ajax booster! No Nike-Spartans here! RIM-2 Terrier has an advantage because over it's life.. it's sucessor had the same dimensions with a much higher powered engine (RIM-67 Standard ER) However it is TINY in comparison to the other rockets on this post with: Display models of the early RIM-2A Terrier... Easy to see booster from the Missile!) Dimensions are 18x155 inches (or 0.3x2.5m at 0.64scale) So long and THIN. Thrust is 258kn IRL so like Talos above.. Fast burning and lots of power! Here is a close up of the more modern RIM-67B or C (can't tell which but credited as a B) with the latter Mk70 (Longer thrust version of the above solid rocket motor... About the same thrust but much higher isp.(and yes this is only the top foot of the booster, but any details that might be wanted on it are here) Beyond these two... All the early Solids that are "Small" that I can think of are already in BDB. (at least all the American ones that were used in space launches!) Well except for maybe a REAL Sergeant: In game Diameter is AGAIN 0.5m. And thrust is IRL again 200kn so about 70kn in game. The Length on this is 3.1m at the 0.64 scale again. Game mass with fuel should be about 900 to 1100kg (3135kg Real world) So if you want to slap one of these together, I think Nike Booster has the simplest engine (it is a fixed single cone with sharp edges) Talos has a bunch of "vent" holes that ring the edge of the thrust cone (on the bottom) so fidgety detail. And I am uncertain about the real Sergeant which I am guessing is almost identical to the "baby" Sergeants already in the DB. (arguably you could just scale and stretch one of those with a new CFG to "Hack" a new booster into the game.) Then all that would be needed is some sort of Nosecone for them. And now I am wondering if the Mk70 Booster, had it been available in the 1950s... Could it have put explorer 1 and the baby Sergeants up by itself?! Burn time is ~25 seconds and the Rocket would be in the upper atmosphere at burnout (much like Juno)

errr... Wheres the Solids! Now you need to cluster 4 of your Ajax Boosters to make a Nike-Hercules! Really cool what you did. It is too bad the Stock Tech tree has Jet engines SO FAR BACK... because with Tweakscale you could also make a Talos (and like the Ajax, it gave it's soild booster to many a Sounding rocket!)

Hey now, with one minor exception (I would kill for a toggle-able node so your first stage can be used in the Titan SRM separator) I happen to think this mod of yours is on a very firm ground for it's start and already has a high art quality. SO I have not launched these parts yet but I have built several rockets with no use, just to see how these parts came together. Stupid 3AM and me having to work at 8AM today! And while I actually know just a scooch about the PSLV, what I have looked at and what is currently in your mod seems to replicate real life parts pretty darn well. That being said, to me, some things on the real life rocket just look childish (very simple parts design... like the perfectly conical to perfectly square cylindrical TVC tanks.) Sure this "un-finished" design probably saved a lot of rupees in design and construction costs but it... well just looks a little simple to me. But again that is not a mark against the mod... Rather the rocket itself. *thinks for a moment* But if it wasn't for these "corner cuttings" this rocket would likely have been too expensive for India to develop on it's own... So Like everything in life... Trade-offs. So while your mod hasn't been added to my "Must be in EVERY build I make with KSP" I could see it getting there with your future endeavors! Please keep up the great work.. And Yes I still laugh at the VERY APPROPRIATE name for your mod!

Interesting thoughts biohazard15. Also, you are not wrong about the auto-eject of the Insulation panels (on the TANK of centaur and thus not 2x SAF modules) But I think Zorg has it right (mind you I am at best a poor psudo-coder so I am NOT a programmer!) But I think multiple of the ejection module is like multiple decouplers on one part (that are staged differently) and it is a KSP limitation that prevents it (but again that is 1000000000% a guess!)

Um, I see your jet engines there! Cheater! *Quickly burns all photos of X-20s floating just beyond KSC or broken up in the mountains just short of KSC!* That being said, what are you using for your upper docking node (or is that lower given the picture angle?) Is that a Tweakscaled MOL 5x node?

And I learned yet something else new about Rockets! It would appear, based on the engineering drawings I have seen, the Lock-Roll, and latter (and universal) Flex-Roll joint is a combination of the middle two in the top row. Lockheed Propulsion Company invented Lock-roll (or alternatively Lockroll) for the Poseidon C-3 Submarine launched Ballistic missile after less than ideal tests with the Polaris A-1 (TBC Polaris A-1 was perfectly safe... just not as accurate as they wanted.) I would have to dig into my military history books to see (it is amazing about all the SUBMARINE ballistic missiles I have info on but not Land based ones!) but I think the Polaris A-3 (which was built AFTER development of the Poseidon was started) actually have this method of TVC as well. Also, for those of you who wondered how the Titan UA120x SRMs TVCed... They are the "Side Injection" method in the bottom row. The Tank on the side of the SRM is full of combustible fluid that is added at one of 3 (I think) points around the upper third of the Nozzle to change the thrust profile of the Rocket as a whole. I didn't read that far. I just perused the Aircraft (and cried over my next Semi Truck... photo I had never seen) and went looking for details on the 156" SRM study. And I learned a-lot. Including that TRW was looking into a PRESSURE FED LRB for Space Shuttle that would be fully recoverable! The engine shown, Is a fixed Pintle injection engine about the same aspect ratio of the much latter Merlin engines. Actually they look like if you shrunk a Rocketdyne F-1 (excluding the extension skirt but including the huge aspirator) to fit the shape of the Merlin! I just quickly scanned that document (I did not see the final configuration of their LRB proposal.) But the drawing of their proposed engine was... rather eye catching. I ended up downloading close to 20 different PDFs from NASA NTRS server on the subject of 156" SRM and the TRW LRB (and staying up until 3AM doing so!) And while these documents are early documents/Studies for the Space Shuttle. The Saturn MLV had the same thrust requirements for a 4x booster system so fully retro-applicable! So I know we are talking a long way away. But are we going to get to see a fully-Retro Falcon 9, set 40 years before Falcon 9 flew? *I KID!*