Pappystein

Dragon, while that is true, HOSS was to have a lot less than Centaur. I was trying to highlight the differences by using Hyperbole. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. as a member of PEToT... I shake my fist at you! As a person who has had a Type A caught in a highly eliptical Oribit in a 2.7x playthrough (your C far out masses my capture...) I have to ask, how did you find it prior to unlocking lvl 3 of Space tracking station? Sadly there is no separate Transtage tank in BDB anymore... and since I will not stack non Hypergolic Tanks on Hypergolic tanks so that leaves me either using an Agena Tank as a booster tank or putting the too large and too heavy Titan tanks on Transtage.... However when Cobalt gets to making SOT tanks (Drop tanks) for Agena, I will have another way to enhance the range of Transtage... and a Use for that big Titan IV fairing! I figure 8 or 10 SOTs (1.5 x2 tanks being about equal to an Agena B/D Fuel Load.... well 8 it slightly LESS than adding 3 Agena D Fuel tanks to my Transtage... and 10 is adding slightly MORE fuel than 3 Agena Ds to Transtage!) *MATHS done in my head after just waking up from a much needed nap A pair of SOT tanks carries about 70% the fuel and Oxidizer that an Agena B/D Tank carries.* What I find myself wishing for more and more is an Agena Nosecone shaped KLAW at 0.9375.... Yep so I can put it on Agena. Think about it. It is far cheaper and far more delta V to launch 2 or 3 Agena Stages to a large Asteroid than it is the Transtage solution you are attempting Biohazzard. And now that we have some of the hardware from Ascent Agena on file... (LR81-BA-8096 engines!) We gain the ability to further separate the Agena as a premier Asteroid... Junked out space craft, Jeb, whatever retriever! And in the future (if they still exist on the roadmap for this update) SOT tanks! TBC I am actually Running Aerozine 50 in my Titans and Transtage and I once I get time to fly the latest versions I will be doing the new Agena parts as well (proper fuel). An All up Titan II with Gemini capsule is about 2.5x the cost of the stock BDB one due to the different cost for AZ-50 and NTO... and it looses slightly in the performance figures. Lets just say there have been a few launches where I really did want to answer YES! when Leia asks if she should get out and push!

I never want to be one to put words in your mouth Cobalt. So IF you do a Centaur JR Cool. I was just re-iterating your previous statements on the Subject. I love the H2 mockup. I doubt the actual engine would have the Difuser on the turbo-pump exhaust as the engine was Air Froce and not NASA.... My concern being the Atlas Booster skirt... the Rotation would have be me such that none of those parts (the Turbopump or it's exhaust) penetrates the Atlas Booster skirt. the Rescale H-1 engine in the extras folder has to be rotated 17 points I think to hide both the Turbopumps and their exhaust IIRC. ) I don't think I can get that thrust ring to disappear at all at my rescaled size... You would have to check yourself to see what I am talking about. I have thought about rescaling the newer LR89 instead of the H-1 engine (basically using the Grandparent engine instead of the Parent engine) to avoid this issue. But anyway... I didn't think that would ever make a list... so Dayum! NICE!

Unless he changes his mind, Cobalt said it was HOSS for Delta or Centaur Jr as they almost fill the exact same role. He built HOSS a month or so ago.... I THINK... Checks game directory.. Yep HOSS Engine mount, HOSS Avionics and HOSS tank are in the game (* at-least in the DEV version.) HOSS and Centaur have similar rolls but HOSS dispenses with expensive things like.... INSULATION....THICK WALLs,.... SPACES between the Tanks..... etc To make a cheap High Energy Upper stage. ALSO please note that those Atlas Fs were never built. Those are the Super Stretched Atlas F ICBM that was designed to take a Thermonuclear Warhead.... With H-2 engines! I think you end up using 2 of the Long tanks and one of the Short tanks to make that tank structure.. AKA it is slightly longer than Atlas III (going from memory and suffering from a LOSS induced migraine as I type this so if the part count or length are wrong sorry!) I did put a Patch for the H-1 engine (upscaling the model a bit) to make the H-2 in the Pafftek folder under BDB Extras for this rocket. However this Rocket can ALMOST fly equally well with the final RS-56 engines and 4 Castor IVAs just like the Atlas IIAS/Atlas III.

I don't think @Orbital_phoenix Is doing as much playing as he was last year. He seems to be on forums less and less (Real Life plus new software.) He was last on 10 days before your post. So time will tell I guess. I am using the parts in my current play-through so there is nothing BREAKING in the files with the newer KSP versions however.

1) I see where the confusion can come from RE Castor I and II. ... First Ed Kyle says castor II is a slower burning Castor I and all his documents site the exact same length for the two rockets. and Second most of the sources for the Castor Rocket dimensions site the original SCOUT dimensions for Castor I and II. By adding a 11 degree cant and longer engine nozzle to the Castor I you end up the length of the INLINE Castor II. I will work at piecing together some info but here are some models to consider. I have not found my Thiokol document I thought I had.... I only have the newer Orbital ATK and NGIS versions of the catelog. They stop at Castor IV. TX-33 is the Castor I in inline form. TX-33-? is strapon version having issues tying down the exact sub-variant (there may not be one?) TX-354 is the Castor II in inline form. TX-354-5 is the Castor II for Delta II (and it is longer than the 354 as described above) TX-354-4 is also listed as a CASTOR II for Delta II (THEORY! the -5 is the airlit and the -4 is the groundlit versions.) TX-526 is Castor IV (unknown sub variant) TX-526-2 is the Delta II strap on variant of Castor IV TX-780 is the Castor IVA with it's HTBP fuel (MOAR thrust MOAR ISP for MOAR mass) TX-780-1 is the Castor IVA for the Delta II The TX numbers do not always have a hyphen between the TX and the model number... it is document dependent (so you need to search for TX33 AND TX-33 to find relevant data completely) Sources for the model numbers... Designation-Systems.net (an oldie but goodie) and BBOW. BBOW lists TX33 as for Polaris and a "High Performance TX-33" for Scout, Blue Scout etc. ================================================= Whoops forgot the rest of the post! Love the new art guys. I can't wait to put a Copperpot in space... Too bad it doesn't have a Penguin graphic on it! Sorry I have Batman Returns playing in the background. one Movie away from the most quotable Batman in the entire film catalog of Batman movies! Cobalt, thanks for the copper texture. and thanks for the black band behind it. But let me guess, you own stock in Duracell? All jokeing aside, I think the Copper texture is both unique and interesting. I can't wait until I have time to play with it...

I would add that it is TOTALLY possible to add more fuel to a Solid Rocket Motor without changing dimensions... However the Rocket will not behave at all the Same... Right up to 100% utilized Fuel volume = to no flight at all. Just a big bomb. Assuming we are talking a Plastic fuel like PBAN or HTBP. Black Powder is a different animal entirely and not germain to this discussion... except it is the only solid fuel that you would HAVE to add dimensions to a rocket for more fuel. Most solid rockets motors of the PBAN and HTPB vary significantly in percentage of fuel area volume utilization but most max out at 60 and 70% their maximal fuel volume. The rest of the space are voids to allow for even burning. The large Segment SRMs like UA1205 and Shuttle SRBs get a slightly higher percentage but they carry mixed fuels. IE not a single fuel type inside them. Sure some of the fuel is actually listed as a "restrictor" because it burns at a lower speed than the rest of the fuel... Thus reducing maximal thrust but enhancing burn time and reducing pressure inside the SRM. RE Castor I and II IIRC the Castor II is fatter for fuel containment but not in overall maximal diameter (IE the form is more filled out but it did not grow in diameter.) But it is longer in length too as Dragon01 has pointed out. *Diggs through Rocket docs... to find they are not on this PC* SOMEWHERE I have an old manufacture catalog (prior to the ever popular Northrop Grumman one) that lists ALL the Castors back to Castor I.

Nice Shapes. Look real REAL good. Are we going to see a Castor IVB with the shrouded bell? Also are those Castor I and II (the left two?)

Sorry folks, I am so tired that I don't know if I am coming and going.... (Checks the words written. Yeap that sounds right) I don't think I have gotten 5 hours of sleep in 24 in the last 3 weeks. But the Busy season will slow a bit at work after the Holidays and maybe I won't be working so many 16hr days! You know you are badly off when you Say Good night to yourself as you are walking out the door to go to work. BUT the Weekend beings now for me so... Night all OK seriously (well I was serious about working 16hr days) I was looking at several science defs recently to see if I could help in that way... I thought some of the stock Science defs did not work everywhere... So you could mask it with the 0 Science "does not work here" type message? Too tired/fatigued to dig into my notes tonight to check what I was even looking at. So IDK. Sorry if I was wrong but maybe there is a workarround that people have ignored for these last .... 6 years? Lord knows I have found enough workarounds for "impossible" things in other games. Further, re the new art pictures put up today. LOVE the Spy sats being built. Love the Science return bucket. I can't wait to play with them... But that is probably at-least 3 weeks away for me.... RE Photo bucket color, yes the Spy sat program did try a myriad of colors on these guys because... they were SNATCHED out of the AIR by a C-130 or in one or two cases, CH-53B Sea Stallion. Both Craft used a modified "retrieval" part from the B-17/C-130 Fulton Gear to snatch and retract the photo bucket's parachute. And yes, one of the older James Bond movies (Thunderball) uses a B-17 with Fulton gear to retrieve an agent... And The Dark Knight did as well.

I think you would end up with 2 or 3 experiments... A "Low Resolution film return experiment" for each Biome on Kerbin and Each Biome on the Mun and Minimus but no data for other planets. A "High Resolution film return experiment" Has the same experiment as the Low Resolution but gives you more science (but less than the original experiment) And lastly a "Digital Medium Resolution Broadcast Return Experiment" This could have Biomes called out for each and every planet (cause it is radio and not film return.) I don't know if there is a way to integrate a Been-There-Done-That type experiment into an, in orbit device but it would be a neat way to find the hidden Artifacts.

To my knowledge the Agena Supplemental Propulsion unit was not used on any FLOW Air Force/NSA/NRO projects. NASA developed the pods as a way to fine tune the orbit of GATV because smaller engines spool up and down quicker. Now that is not to say some NRO project didn't try to repurposed this Civilian Development. But at the point we are talking about Lockheed was already trying to strip mass off the Agena to improve performance (and allow for a Bigger engine bell!) By the time they got down to using a severely lightened restart system for the XLR81 engine, a new light weight solid state GCU, and rebalanced the entire structure... Well Ascent Agena doesn't have the ability to use these pods... without a major loss of performance. But then again... *engage huge dripping pile of sarcasm* Ascent Agena didn't launch *WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE* Nope, they were not ordered in a disguised fashion at all. They were not ordered as "Agena" when every previous Agena Launch was ordered as "Agena A", "Agena B" or "Agena D." Nope not at all! *sarcasm disengaged* Based on several documents in circulation all the Big Fairing Titan B launches flew with Ascent Agena. That is to say the Titan 33B and 34Bs. Here is a pretty complete (I think) list of changes to the Agena D to make Ascent Agena. I have tried to highlight the things I am unsure of by asking questions. And here is a list of what Cobaltwolf *NEEDS* to make for Ascent Agena: biohazard15, Most everything in BDB (and stock) are balanced for 2.5x. You can generally play BDB in 2.7x as well...

That is one of those "Depends on the Day of the week" type questions. MOS/MOL/whatever has soo many variants and permutations that it is hard. Further the Gemini SM's are not really setup REAL like. (Please peeps, don't spam wanting a new SM! I beg you) Currently the best way to do Gemini with MOL or MOS is to use the Short SM, with a 1.875m docking port to join the actual Station Stack. I do not put a decoupler between the SM and the Docking port and use the RCS from the MOS/MOL Ferry version.... OR alternatively I put the Rumble-seat on the Gemini Capsule (making it 1.875tm, and then use the MOS/MOL Ferry tank + it's 4 way RCS and a Docking port with no need to change "real" crafts.... I prefer the Rumble seat option because it is a Mid-G capsule (in between a Standard Gemini or S-G and the Big G that holds 6 extra Kerbals... or should.) The MOS/MOL Ferry tank has a decoupler between it and the heatshield of the Rumble Seat.

Wish I was going to be on tonight for the Dev stream.. But friends and Building a new Computer so....

Ok, so having just re-watched Galaxy Quest..... Did I: "You broke the thread! You broke the bloody thread!" *EDITED* Then I realized I hadn't hit REFRESH! *EDITED* In all seriousness, What kind of parts can we expect from Redstone? I am not talking the standard ones (Juno-C, scale Sergeants etc) Are there some unique and new things you are planning? I DO love that you have built the engine / engine nacelle, as two separate parts. I have some unique ideas for that Nacelle.... (Jet engine inside? IDK, will find out when I start playing with those parts.)

Cobalt... Love the Airfoil for the Redstone! That style of Airfoil was also used on Some of the "advanced" A-4 Variants. I THINK the Wasserfall SAM, and the latter A-x variants that were A-4 size... Since Redstone is the DIRECT US "improved" A-4 it is not surprising that it would use the same Airfoil. Also love the SHAMELESS plug! Rocket BD....

I am pretty sure you know me well enough to know I am going to say this: Hmmm, that sounds interesting? What Weird Agena stuff are you thinking about making?????? If you are open to suggestions: an Agena sized KLAW so I can de-orbit junk from space on the cheap.

And I don't think any of those use F-1s in Stage 2... Many Novas did!

While Astronautix is not reliable and can nicely contradict itself... IT does have a lot of data on Nova. But almost all of that data comes from Nova (2) Which is the re-purposing of the Nova program after Saturn C-5 was chosen for the ORIGINAL Nova role (Moon landing!) Marshal Flight center DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to Nova (2) Nova (1) was what became the Saturn Program.... The day of the Big change? President Kennedy's Moon landing speech (or slightly thereafter.) Marshal (ABMA) was the furthest along with plans for big rockets... they got to go to the Moon. Everyone EXCEPT Marshal, was told to re-prioritize their Engineers to first support Marshal and the Saturn program and secondly to work on plans for things AFTER the moon. That is the start of Nova (2). Most of the companies working on Nova (1) projects ended up as Subcontractors to Marshal Space Flight Center... And each company was responsible for the detail design of their segment/stage whatever. Marshal was responsible for Preliminary design, Testing, and actual Space flight SUPPORT. Now NASA does not call them Nova (1) or Nova (2) I am designating them as such to keep things clearer....ish... maybe.. There are 3 big things that make this timeline MUDDY beyond belief. The Fact that NASA re-used a program name for two distinctly different missions... with less than a 6 month gap between them. The fact that every Congress-critter in the world that was pro Marshal wanted a bigger Saturn.... And the Fact that the Saturn C-8 was already basically designed (prelim not complete design) And the fact that reporters by the average are DUMB on the subjects they cover. Even though an RFI (Request for Information... the first step of any Government design/building project) was never sent to Marshal Space Flight Center, they did re-regurgitate the Saturn C-8 and call it a Nova C-8 with the new M-1 engines for S-II-8. The key is it was an un-solicited proposal and no NASA money was directly budgeted to MSFC for the development of such a Rocket. NASA Funds were directly Budgeted to every other contender in Nova (2) Sources: Astronautix itself, Wikipedia (Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Marshal Space Flight Center, and supporting documents, Saturn and supporting Documents and Nova Rocket and supporting documents.) NASA NTRS servers, Stages to Saturn, The Big Book of Warfare, Taming Centaur, and many others. CONCLUSION: THERE ARE TWO NOVA ROCKETS ALREADY IN BDB WITH ENOUGH EXTRA PARTS TO MAKE MANY MORE! That being said.... and as I stated previously.... I would love to see a Saturn VIII part set that follows the BDB art style with a Command-Lander Like originally proposed to use in the Moon program.

Before we derail this whole thing. A) GoldForest and I both know what transpired to kill Nova... Namely Saturn C-5 and 1970 to Moon Deadline. Then when Nova was repurposed for Mars.... well Nixon. B) I was providing a way for someone to write an Alt History with a small set of PODs to allow Nova to be built after 1970. I was also saying why I didn't comment on GoldForrest's build earlier this week (Wednesday?) No point in getting way off topic and delving into the politics or ramifications., At last time, I recall him commenting on Nova, CobaltWolf said he isn't a fan of it nor was he *THEN* considering making it (I am not speaking for him just relaying what he has said in the past on this very forum.) as I said I DO hope someone makes some Nova Parts and makes them artistically line up with BDB. Because then A) they wouldn't have to make the whole thing (just a few tanks, interstages and engine mounts) and B) because then that person can focus on Payloads instead of a Full up rocket! I also offered an Alternative to Nova that is 100% BDB parts that CAN perform the same mission. If the MEM payload can actually interface with the BDB rocket (I haven't downloaded it but it is an interesting lander.) with it's drop tanks and such!

In the end it is too early to speculate/postulate on what KSP2 will look like yet. Suffice to say there are many reasons that KSP1 SHOULD be abandoned currently... And those SAME reasons can be used to argue why migrating to KSP2 is a bad thing. SO here is my hope. The Needed Mods for BDB (Modulemanager, B9PS and DMagicScienceAnimate) are maintained for KSP1. The parts and CFGs are Cross Platform (KSP1 and KSP2) compatible (excepting any changes to the actual Tech Tree Structure) B9PS maintains and works the same across both (separate from saying it is Maintained for KSP1) This would allow KSP1 to be supported while KSP2 is the core component with minimal fuss/changes to cfgs.

I thought I replied to this. Stupid computer problems... If C-8 was a BDR and not a BER, I would like it. Sadly Like SLS (my opinion) C-8 is just a big fat waste of money. There are easier ways to get a similar payload into Orbit and one of them was built and ground tested (AJ-260s for Saturn V/MLV) BDR = Big Dumb Rocket BER = Big super expensive Rocket However, I have a BDR way C-8 or bigger could have been made in the 1960s..... This alternate History POD is free for anyone to take up....

I installed RealFuels several years ago so my info is out of date. I found it to be too limiting because it was too... REAL. Now, that is not saying I am not running some fun fuel mods of my own on-top of BDB's already massive fuel overhaul (Hypergolic x5, LFO Boiloff [Days not hours like LH2] etc....) But in my book, things like Engine Igniter dump us back in the too complex category... But TETO Besides, how would I keep my PotassiumPermagnate HTP or CalciumPermagnate HTP engines running. The by-products are solid and clog the engine nozzle! FWIW I think RealFuels uses kg mass at Standard Atmospheric conditions for burn ratios instead of liters/units like stock KSP. [eh I might have that backwards... I know KSP does!] *PS JOKE ON The T-Stoff/Z-Stoff references... Just finished re-reading about the Ju-248/Me-163D/Me-263 Komit!

Thanks for the Help File!

Again with Help Files enabled please? *This one flew right over the Coo-Koo's nest!* This is a VERY real to life issue. It is why most satellites are NOT in a circular orbit. They are NEAR Circular. Here is what I do... I don't worry about it and go on to the next launch, the next stage, the next flight, whatever.... It only gets bad when you are trying to do a Orbital intercept. You HAVE to have good RCS or trim engines to get the best orbital intercepts. I routeinly do Orbital Intercepts with Titan III/IV upper stages (LR91s) since I use that stage as an Orbital Tug. The Titan II-23G ACS module is enough for most corrections.

A couple of points. Since WHATEVER space program has literally thousands of Engineers to plan a flight, and we, if we are lucky have a few mods + us.... Whole orbit makes sense. The Patch would only be useful to those select few of us who can A) Do calculus in their head and on the fly, and more importantly B) actually know what they are doing. If you are looking for the Formula for Radio range vs Signal Strength... Look at RADAR Formulas. I know they are Log10 but that is how radio waves propagate. THEN once you have the formula you can apply it to Radios in game... Oh, no it won't work because Radios are more boolean than Logarithmic in KSP.... Does someone want to make a Realistic Radio Mod that completely replaces how Radios work???? *I KID* RemoteTech seems to make huge inroads but even it does not seem to follow the Log10 formulas for Radio propagation. (I say this not ever having played with RT) ************************* Every game I have ever played/modded that has Radios seems to think they work or they don't work 100% with no in between. Have played many games where Radar, SONAR and IR and Visual are all well approximated... but Radio... NOOO it is the voice of god and not Radio at all. No Radio Horizion, No Frequency propagation, no certain frequencies ducting along an ocean, etc etc etc. Also DeltaDizzy, thanks for posting the link to how to post images Jebihean, I see several problems still with that screen shot. Primarily is Module manager... There should be no folder without the .dll in the base GameData\ folder Follow the guides that Aelfhe1m has already posted.

1) B9PS is REQUIRED for BDB to work properly. You remove it, you remove a good chunk of BDB. 2) as DeltaDizzy has already said we will need, at a Minimum, a Screenshot of the Gamedata folder to see what other mods you are running. Ideally we would like the logs as well posted to whatever you favorite File sharing website is (onedrive, Dropbox, Pastebin, etc.)