Pappystein

First off, glad you are excited by this mod. Download the current release here: https://spacedock.info/mod/442/Bluedog Design Bureau THEN, ( I am assuming your KSP is the 1.8.1 version and is up to date) Open the Zip file and copy the folders IN the GameData folder to your GameData folder in KSP. To be clear we are only copying the GameData folder out of the zip. The Rest is extra stuff. Open Your Game Data folder in the game's directory and verify that you have the following four Folders (DMagicScienceAnimate, CommunityResourcePack, Bluedog_DB, B9PartSwitch and the file ModuleManager.4.1.0) Start the game. The other Folders beyond GameData are for extra features... you have to be a more than a little experienced to use any of those (DON'T USE THEM NOW AS YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS!) If you still have issues follow the steps in the link in my signature!

No! I wanna Go baAAaaak!!!!!!!

Thanks for that. And I should have included a bunch of notes on Sarcasm/Joke cause that is slightly more than a small part what it was. I actually fully agree with everything in your bullet points except #4 but I also see where you come from ON #4. Rather, my question is why SQUAD didn't design the game to be more historically correct and that is a simple matter of (Opinion) Prior to the Tech-Tree the game was Sandbox, you could build whatever you wanted out the gate it *IS* a SPACE SIMULATION Who cares about how we get to space (<- I think THIS is the biggest cause) Squad didn't think that anyone would ever put the effort into a realistic Mod with enough parts to do a Whole space program. Stock tech Tree is built for STOCK not Modded games We are on Kerbin, not Earth (But lets not get into my opinion about RO) That being said. For all it's myriad of Faults. KSP *IS* the game that allows your mod to exist _Zee... And Cobalts, and Shadowmages, and JPLRepo and Arkon's, and Sarbin's and etc etc etc..... I play a lot of games that claim they support modding to the highest levels... and KSP crushes them all in it's openness to Modding. Sure some other game might have more mods but do they work well together? Likely no. So to end this, thanks for sharing your opinion _Zee. While I likely won't use your mod, I will say that it actually is one of the best stated reasons for building the game differently that I have ever read. Most of the other mods for Probes first just say "because they were!" My Space Program in KSP is 99% Probes anyway. Can't loose my precious Jeb and Val! Personal Opinion, I think BDB should be the next mod you support. Why? It has a large majority of the parts needed to pull of a successful Probe before Man build that are historically accurate. Um, Shielding?

I 1000000% agree that the Tech Tree is too small (length wise) and to narrow (height wise) to support a Historical Playthrough. I have played with the ETT and the CTT as well as a couple other Tech trees over the years. I have even toyed with an Idea of a HTT (Historical Tech Tree) I have a beautiful Idea for a tech tree but it would require a re-building of the entire tech tree code via a plugin... and I haven't a clue how to do it. But I have to ask. WTH is with this PROBE before MAN movement? Did we all forget that the Airplane (a core part of KSP) flew before the Probe? Before the Radio (*became publicly available).... Without the Airplane your probes never get off the ground. I mean Squad though so much of it that they put it square in the middle of the Tech Tree.... ERr oh wait! Node Start should be AIRPLANE PARTS including the command seat... Then should be some Fuselage parts for Airplanes (and bigger wings) Then Rocket engines for Airplanes... THEN your probes can exist! Then Mercury/Vostok... Then the rest Ok it is my opinion, and I thought I would voice it. @CobaltWolf Enjoy your time. look forward to seeing what you do next

No issues, Was just pointing out that once you do make a patch for BDB it is easy to update when Cobaltwolf goes through and makes all new parts of awesomeness.

Gordon, So with all the changes to Titan parts my Engine patches to grant Hypergolic fuels took all of 6 minutes to update. Change the names in the @PART[x] field, Save, Delete +PART parts that were covered by the new update, and Test... Most of the 6 minutes was waiting for KSP to boot! Now that does not include time to handle the new B9PS Multi Mode engines content. Just the time to get all the basic parts working right. I am sure that given you are just re-structuring the Tech Tree locations, any patch you do today will be easy to update when parts are depreciated/updated. So like my 6 minutes... not like the 6 hours over 3 days I spent getting the B9PS engines working (testing RIGHT NOW!) But it is just my thought.

Personally, I love the idea of the Hypothetical parts... But 1) I prefer tracking Solar panels and IIRC the same panel in a tracking for is already in Coatal... Except they don't have the folding extensions (they are one part not 3 that unfold for the panel itself) And 2) while I can think of uses for 2 lvl Ranger Bus, I don't think I have ever used ranger's existing bus... but maybe ONCE. So the way I see it... If a Mod that *YOU* like and endorse has the parts or a reasonable facsimile... Why waste the effort. Like I said, I am ALL for more parts. But my play-style has very little to do with real Satellites and Space probes... I build what I want/need and don't care if it is historically accurate.... But I DO Like the level of Historical Accurateness brought to your newer parts Cobalt... I appreciate and thank you for your efforts. I just like making my one history with historically accurate parts I guess... Sort of my own Alt History without a POD named? Of the parts you are showing in the drawing a Telescopic Magnetometer is the only one that would interest me.... The Folding ones tend to cause me problems... Esp your original one which unfolds 1/2 the way in one direction... and THEN unfolds the other 1/2 in the opposite direction... BOOM my lander blew up because it was flipped over by the magnetometer!

So I did a test flight or 2 of them today myself in a Stock (ish) KSP system. First off could not figure out how to do the outer rank. 2ndly I was right that the Mercury Separation motor works great (you mount it IN the White tail section or your rocket is upside down.) I have a Constellation of 4 of these circling the Mun and with the Agena I used to launch them in a 90 degree orbit, they almost always allow communication back to Kerbin. I also deployed 6 of these in at STOCK Geo. And yes they are WEAK but they DO WORK. (So yes PLEASE buff the antenna as I will be going back to JNSQ for my 1.8x playthough once it is up and running on 1.8.) I have no pictures because I am messing with KS3P ATM and not happy with the results I am getting (over-saturated Color, Green has too high of a luminosity and Red is too narrow of a color band... Also have several FOV related issues.... But that is a different story and KS3P is on my back burner as I solve other problems.) @CobaltWolf Thanks for getting the 8096 Big Bell LR81s in the game! I used the excess ISP to launch my Mun bound Agena IDCSP bus from a Thor (Well XELT "Delta II" first stage without a delta Upper stage) Agena.... Thanks to direct ascent and Gravity capture by the Mun I had plenty of fuel for my 58km Circular IDCSP orbit for a 4 sat deployment. Admittedly it was luck that the Agena was captured... But I had enough fuel left over to perform two orbital maneuvers (bigger orbit) + (Incliation 90 degree change.) Is there a mod that lets you calculate all your burns/captures/slingshots? I have tried several different ones in the past but they all made to too complicated for me to plan and launch a fleet of Rockets. I am looking for something to manage my launch window planning and calculate direct ascents to various planets (without all the stupid wasted fuel on Orbiting before transferring....) Heck for all I know I am just using the mods I have wrong!

It is True that Centaur C ended up as a Dev version. But it was originally proposed (before the drawn out Dev/troubleshooting cycle and re-assignment to Lewis for Centaur) as Saturn I's Fifth Stage. I have two drawings supposedly from ABMA) showing Saturn C-I or S-I with a S-V upper stage and in parenthesis (same hand writing) Centaur-C next to S-V. Somewhere in my collection I have an old document off BBoW that stated Centaur A was Static Test, Centaur B would be the one and only Test Flight (and fly on an Atlas,) and Centaur C would be the production Saturn S-V stage and Centaur D would be the production Centaur to fly on Atlas. Obviously no actual need for a Satellite lift of the size Saturn I could loft actually came to be needed. Pegasus was designed as a secondary experiment on "IF" Saturn would fly as designed. And YES while the S-IV stage uses RL-10s it is NOT a Centaur. It does not use Insulated Balloon tanks. but rather standard Stringer construction with Insulation. And Obviously the Centaur B failure and subsequently the complete restructuring and redesign of the program all those letter assignments went out the window! The problem is NASA and the Govt in their Wisdom likes to re-use designations because they are expedient *this is what we were talking about all the time... ignore that everything has changed* mentality. I know you are doing SOT... and I can't wait so bad I have to do it with non-bespoke parts. Then again I installed Tweakscale and got the fatal warning that is mentioned on that thread.... So /sigh I will probably have to wait. Please don't bump em up on my behalf. I am mature enough to wait if I can't get Tweakscale to work.... BUT If I CAN get Tweakscale to work.... Muhohahahaha

IDK if ETS and IRL used the same nomenclature for Centaur. But Centaur E was the 2nd proposed use of Centaur on a Saturn Rocket. Centaur C, being the previous Centaur. I have various documents that give VARIOUS sizes for these two rockets. I think The Big Book of War has the most comprehensive data points on Centaur and even it is a bit weak with both Centaur C and Centaur E. I have data that Centaur C is enlarged in diameter vs Centaur D and uses a larger engine. However NO hard data on the enlargement (is it just a larger PLF or is it the entire tankage... Is it just an improved insulation...) And the engine enlargement could (as Cobaltwolf has rightfully pointed out) been a THRUST enlargement to the standard RL10. Another source says Centaur E is just a Centaur C updated with Centaur D-1 Avionics, Engines and Insulation. *PERSONAL OPINION* In lieu of actual FACTs on either variant. Whoever makes bespoke parts for them first gets to decided?!? Much Like Saturn C-2 and Saturn C-3... the DAY a document was generated on determined what the Configuration Centaur took. This is COMMON in the world of "throw a proposal at something and hope it will stick." Prior to the use of Columbium/Niobium or Carbon-Carbon to make bell extensions a physically LARGER engine actually makes sense for a Hydrolox Engine. With the advent of the newer materials to make the engine out of however..... BTW modern Atlas V Centaur is actually Centaur D-3A! (AKA Centaur III.) ULA changed the name since no more "non D-1 Derived" Centaurs would fly. Coincidentally, the Fat Delta, as described in ETS was discussed last night in the Dev Stream. Is that what prompted you to do these awesome pictures? NICE looking Agenas. I really love the realism you have brought to these models. You mentioned yesterday interstage was going to be the way to go. Is there any chance of Saturn PLA style interstage for Titan-Agena and Thor-Agena Interface? I ask because I tend to pack stuff onto the Engine mount (OGIO Solar Panels, Extra Batteries etc) and the engine shroud would damage them on separation. Once I re-integrate Tweakscale and these make it to the Dev branch, I plan on mocking up a SOT equipped Agena and flying it. (Tweak-scaling down the Agena D tankage from it's 0.9375m Dia down to 0.75m Dia)

ONE OF my Mission's to the Mun I flew with it, I had under or about 1/3rd the Fuel left in the Transtage... I Left Transtage attached and used it to lower Periapsis. I then proceed to do a Landing with the Landing motor (fine positioning and Suicide Burn.) The only reason I had fuel left in Transtage was because I took advantage of the Mun's own Gravity to pull it it (Basically a Direct Ascent from Kerbin with no Orbiting of Kerbin.) I haven't had a chance to play with these yet (they are downloaded... Just not more than a few minutes of time today.) But what about the mini Mercury Seperation motor. For such a Small Payload could potentially give enough thrust to KICK the Sats into proper Circularish orbits ( KSP Resonnant Orbit Calculator would be a Big win for this) The Problem with this deployment system in KSP is there is No Solar Wind, nor is there drag in space.... Both exist IRL to one extent or another. Honestly, I have not flown this in JNSQ yet but I have flown it in 2.5x rescale. Sure I couldn't just take the lander and fly it off it's landing-base from the Mun and expect to get into Orbit. But my answer is SO? Just because Apollo had enough thrust and fuel to do that did/dose not mean the Gemini lander couldn't do so. That being said. Please don't do the FASA route of a Cylindrical SM at 2.5M with the same engines as Gemini's SM. IF you want to do something. Something along the disk HAPPS would be a good unique idea. Except that the Crasher stage would need more thrust... so maybe a 1.875m version of the Peacekeeper Trim stage? IDK. *EDITED* Peacekeeper Post Boost Vehicle is the correct name.

Early Career... How about ALL the Career! There is a patch for it. But I don't think it has been propagated to the Extras Folder. So if you look 15 to 30 pages back you should be able to find it. I use Mech Jeb Ascent Guidance and I do not have issues with the engine spool, but I admit that it takes a little getting used to. Sure you may not get a perfectly Circular Orbit... BUT you get one that is very close. And it should be notated that #RealRocketsHaveSpoolLag That should be just as important as #RealThrustHasCurves Yep, that is my opinion.

6T IRL = less than 2T KSP at 2.5x Scale. So It sound about right actually... The Math gets a bit fuzzy so that is a ballpark number. Basically a 2 Ton payload at Stock KSP should be around 0.524 Tons..

NICE! I love the new Agena parts look. Two questions 1) Is The Ageana going to use an Interstage or Decoupler/Shroud. I assume some sort of interstage due to the various engine choices? 2) Is the Coronna (I assume that is what the film capsule I am seeing is) Return capsule going to allow it to return science from other parts.... Sort of like the stock Science grabber box (which name escapes me ATM)

This is true but I don't like muxing up DevCycles. If I am dev-ing a patch or alternate Part CFG for a future update that is one thing... If new parts are coming I will wait for the ones I need to be in the game. I just never realized how much I would miss Agena. I think I use Agena for 2/3rds of all my upper stage launches... and a fully 75% of my satellite buses!

Other than the previously mentioned issue between KJR-Next, 1.8.1 and Launch-clamps + Booster Skirts (maybe you could put a note in the release notes that clearly states that there are a few parts that have un-resolved issues with KJR-Next and you are awaiting return comment from the KJR-Next Developer....) I vote Good To Go! Would LOVE for you to get Agena in the 1.7 Dev cycle. I had to downgrade my dev build back to 1.6.1/1,6,2 hot-fix due to lacking Agena in the 1.7 Dev build!. I actually think the Castor Decoupler for Thor is similar enough to the Agena SOT (the erroneously called Droptank) tank separation system, that a scaled down version of that would work for the SOT tanks. The only question is are you planning on multiple textures for the GCU to represent the 4+1 flown variants? (A, B, D, Ascent Agena, and Shuttle Agena) Obviously the +1 was not flown. If nothing else I recommend a Skin texture choice of 1) White, 2) Black, 3) Metal, 4) Black + Metal (Check), 5) White + Black (Check) Others have covered the IVA portion. I have some Documentation from the BigG Program. I did a quick skim through the documents I have and found exactly one reference to an External access port. Specifically why one was not included. The Big-G Family all have a heat shield pass-through point. And a common access point through the Gemini "Capsule" section. I put that in quotes because the BigG was always intended to be a SINGLE capsule not a Capsule with a hitchhiker tack welded onto the bottom. So no Leo/Gemini Heat Shield between the parts. Any sort of alternative escape would have come through either the Cockpit portion (the 2 Seat Gemini section in game) or would have gone through some sort of docking apparatus with the Service Module BELOW the BigG. In hindsight, this was probably not the best design choice (Even though the program was started AFTER Apollo 1, it seems NASA and McDonnell Douglas, didn't learn all that much from that mistake/accident when they went to work on the BigG design proposal. NOW... There IS a mockup that had huge windows in it. This was so various agencies (NASA/USAF etc) could look into the Mockup from outside of it. Those would not have actually been on the real Space Taxi.

That was actually the first step I tried. I deleted KJR-Next, Downloaded from the Github the latest release, And manually installed it... No change. Like I said I think this is some interaction change between KJR and 1.8/1.8.1 of KSP.

Stock Launch clamps... had same result. as CobaltWolf has already stated, it is the same FASA launch clamps that have been around since before (I think) KJR was even out of early testing. I would have to log onto Ferram4's original thread and FASA's thread and check the dates to be certain... But they were both out NEAR the same time-frame at-least (... at-least according to my memory) I Posted here because this has not been the behavior of KJR for several years.... Years ago KJR was not compatible with anyone's booster-skirts.... But I *thought* that Ferram4 had solved that issue (I was un-aware of the XML hack file..) I did NOT have this issue before 1.8 or 1.8.1 (I had so many issues with the bugs in 1.8 that I didn't mention/post earlier because I thought it was just caused by 1.8's serious issues. I will try apply a MM patch to both booster skirts to see if it solves the issue... I will then submit a PR on Github for BDB if this does solve the issues. Thanks for pointing us in a forward direction!

So I am posting a Git bug report latter today (I need to compile a list of parts first) but some/all of the 1.5m MOSS station parts are, using RealNames, Reporting they are 1.875m size... They have the EXACT same information as the 1.875m MOL Parts they are scaled down from.

Ok. So I have had good and bad luck over the years with Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. In no small part due to how KSP itself forces mod developers to break KSP's rules to do certain real life things. If these parts are "grounded" with a LaunchClamp... KJR leaves them attached to the launch clamp when the Rocket takes off. As if they were a part of the launch clamp and not the Rocket itself. Here is my post in the BDB forum testing Launch clamps with KJRNext installed in a 1.8.1 install. Is there anyway to eliminate the LaunchClamp+Decoupler issue? The Parts involved (both the Atlas A-G Booster Skirt and the Atlas CELV proposal booster skirt) are decouplers with multiple bottom nodes. The Launch clamps for Atlas are supposed to attach the the sides and hold the rocket. Pictures are of the CELV rocket only.

Take off the Verniers and see if it flys better. There WAS a FAR fix for that a year or so ago that I helped to work on. Basically as the Vernier deflected it was creating too much surface area (... FAR can't handle a Lift Vector combined with a Thrust vector that changes as rapidly as the LR101s can change... never was certain of the exact cause but we found a simple BDB fix to reduce/eliminate the issue.)

Ok as stated I am still having issues with CELV (this is tested in both 1.7 Dev and 1.6.1 Release.) Album 1) External Launch clamps (not inline engine ones) Album 2. With 4 or 5 Engine attached Launch clamps (only using the FASA 1.25m in this chain of images but even side attaching Clamps that are touching the ENGINE and NOT the skirt work! And a quick third album... Focused on the engines. Using BOTH the sets of launch clamps in previous setups!... Explosive fun for all. *EDITED* So I was pretty confident that the issue was due to the new release... and only on the CELV. Now I am having issues with the stock Atlas Decoupler so I am changing my mod setup and will CONFIRM or DENOUNCE this post in a few minutes (takes time for the game to load.) **RE EDITED** I left the pretty pictures... But KerbalJointReinforcement is the cause. It appears that KJR does not like Decouplers connected to a launch clamp. I will post up on the KJR Next forum to see what the maintainer/creator can do about creating a way to treat certain docking ports as decouplers instead of docking ports.

So Followup. I did a Survey between the two Atlas Booster skirts (as I stated I only have issues with CELV Skirt exploding on launch clamp decouple... I found no issues between the two CFGs. However in the B9PS portion of the CELV skirt I see references to NODES that are NOT NAMED in the cfg.... And B9PS does not seem to do anything on this part for me in game. I do not know if this could cause the skirt to explode on Launch clamp decouple or not... But It is not fun to have your engines all go away when you are at maximum lift and just starting to accelerate! stackSymetry =3 means it is 4x Symetry on things attached (for the engines.) This is the only real difference between the basic CFG between the two Atlas Skirts. Will do some actual experimentation after KSP finishes loading. Will post to Git if if I see anything else.!

Stupid... cool..... Stupid.... Cool.... Stupid... New work schedule. Working 4 10s now but Sunday through Wednesday... no dev stream for me The issue is not FAR. It is using a Launch clamp on the Booster Skirt. Switch to Engine Clamps instead of Skirt clamped... Works fine. I have the same issue without FAR... But I am using KJR-relaunched or whatever it is called... and both mods were originally by the same Author... I will try to check this out in the CFGs Once I get done settling in for the evening @birdog357 Thanks tater! Love History like that. Too bad (or is it good) that she never REALLY flew. That was just an aerodynamic mockup. Also for those of you wondering. The Nosecone in the photo is almost a perfect match for the new BDB nose cone. But the TVC tanks on the Side of the UA1205s is not because the actual UA-1205 modeled in BDB is the most flown SECOND generation (you can tell because it has a smaller TVC tank!) The 2nd Generation SRM also does not have that thick black band at the top. the band in the photo above is actually part of the Nosecone... And is only used on MAN RATED UA120x SRMs. The 2nd Generation Nose cone is therefor shorter because it does not have the cylindrical section that is approximately 2.5 feet thick (1/4th of one segment.) Yes that means a First Generation UA1205 is about 2.5 feet taller than a second generation UA1205. All in all there are 2 and a half (3) generations of UA1205s that have flown on Titans. And 4 Generations were DESIGNED to fly on Titans (and Space Shuttle!)

First off AWESOME looking AJ10s... and the TRW TR-201 for Delta P!. LOVE the color on the new payload decouplers. are you going to animate the 4 with the springs/pistons to push the payload off? *DUCKS AND RUNS!* I am joking about the animation. 96% of the time the player wouldn't even SEE it! But I see pistons and springs and I feel it move... even if it does not.