Pappystein

I too was building stations last night... Unfortunately I crashed litterally in the flight of my Gemini Cargo transport testing the new rear docking port... The Gemini capsule DID however survive the crash (luck I I have no clue how it ended up crashed on the ground with no nose, no parachute no RCS and no heatshield... I was literally asleep at the keyboard. But anyway here are my pics: First my version of the Saturn Wet Workshop.... Using the Saturn S-III stage(1960) ERrr sorry the S-IVC engine mount and tank as a booster stage.... MOL 1.875m Docking ports between the wetlab proper and the S-IVC booster. And a Probe on the end of the Skylab Docking system allows: And 1) yes I did re-install Integrated Phoenix Industries Mod parts for that Big G SM. And YES you can see why I HATE the colider on the APAS docking ports. You have to plan in advance and can't be wrong. Oh and I didn't get a good shot of it but Right below the Wetlab on the vertical portion is a Agena/Gemini low profile docking port.... I took the Airlock module and spun it (with a tweakscaled battery underneath it to fit in the cargo module. And I surface attached the Low profile Docking port to the Airlock back... Sure I don't have Access to the Airlock but it was a convinent part to do this with. You can see the Unpressurized cargo module is open below the Skylab in the last shot. @CobaltWolf Thanks for fixing the MOL RCS as quickly as you did. The Vertical component you see was my test to verify functionality..... ERR oops I DID get a couple good shots of the LP Agena Docking port + Airlock/battery in the cargo bay:

err I can come up with two ways to do that already... One doesn't even require other mods except tweakscale And add the parts by In the picture above I have the Integrated Phoenix 4x engine plate... I was going for full recovery so the chutes are there but if you didn't put the chutes there.. and so long as you use the shorter RL10 engines you can put an APAS docking plate in the center. In both pictures above these are both my kitbash of a BigG Service module. So the Gemini 2/1 engine plate is tweakscaled up to 3.125m and the forward fuel tank is actually a Saturn S-IVA conic tank with a Centaur G, 2.5m tank The Integrated Phoenix one is a IPI Tank plus 4x engine mount all adjusted to Hydrolox for fuel and a brace of RL10s. I think I modified the engine plate CFG so I only needed 2 engines (2x symmetry instead of locked at 4x symmetry) I currently do not have Integrated Phoenix Industries installed so I currently can't do this. I am trying a minimalist build to see how far BDB + Stock can carry me in Career and what hurdles I have to overcome... Basically trying to have a firm grasp of the balance of the stock tech tree with BDB.

So a thought just popped into my head. If you want to make parts from Dawn of the Dragon, IF or when you ever DO make a new Gemini capsule that is accurate.... Re-texture and reuse the existing model for a DotD clone? That way the IVA isn't wasted and only a couple of parts are needed (nose cone forward mostly) After all If I recall correctly Dawn of the Dragon was near Gemini clone but NOT a Gemini capsule.... I know re-using existing parts isn't your favorite thing Cobaltwolf, and I get it. You are going for accuracy where before you did not prioritize that previously. But DotD would be a good use for those parts. I would have to re-read it but I think the RCS system was also the retro system (like existing Gemini in mod.) ETS, DotD and the Flyback Saturn (I don't remember the story name At the moment) stories are all awesome inspiration for much of what I do in KSP. I don't follow the stories tightly (I use them for inspiration only) but I do like some of the concepts that have come out of that group of authors. RE parts list. Instead of removing Airlock request it be lengthened so that it is the same height as the Un-pressurized module and that that the back be flattened so a docking port of 0.9375m can be placed opposite. This way it can be used in the Unpressurized section and be "full station Diameter" As well as if turned backwards in the unpressurized section It can be used as a mounting point for a recessed APAS or the new low profile docking port from the Gemini lander... so a Gemini capsule can be nose docked without dramatically extending the width of the station. As stated above I, and others use the airlock to get crew out of Gemini capsules to our stations due to that is how it was done before Blue Gemini! Beyond your list I see 2 or 3 structural parts that I would love to see receive MOL style texture but they are decidedly NOT historically correct (well one of them anyway.) 0.9375 aperture 6 way sphere (so sphere's max diameter is 1.25m but the 6 flat plates are all 0.9375m) VERY Russian but it would allow me to drop other mods from my playlist and eliminate the ugly stock 6 way from my station building. 0.9375Dx0.625L structural tube There are not enough SHORT WIDE structural parts in the game. The 1.25m Diameter stock tube is ~2 Meters long! 0.9375 to 1.875 45 degree cone Yes all 3 together turn the MOL into the Russian DOS style station parts. But I tend to like the flexibility of the DOS spherical docking nodes... Esp if I am making tank farms in orbit.

hey I am NOT a fit person and I can get into those 1x2 openings just fine. But as un-fit as I am I am still more than a bit of a contortionist. And remember that Kerbals (other than their heads) are WAY smaller than 0.625 so even with a bulky space suit they could fit through that sized opening... again forgetting their heads.... Add the heads and esp the ladies with the ponytails and not only no but HECK NO! That being said, I do love all the people that seem to think ALL docking ports allow a full sized person to get through it. So you totally proved you were my squishy friend the Hunam..... Err Human Sorry for the gratuitous Star Control repurposed quote

That is why the Airlock is the next module "Up" from the nose cone port. I tend to follow CLS in idea if not actual MOD. No crew through the stupidly too small nose-cone. Besides, that port is a Limited use port. Mostly for orbital Gemini missions that run low on RCS propellant (or need to transfer only 1 crew member.) My plan is to use the new Gemini Shuttle components for most of the flights. Also, I will be using BigG in the same roll with either my SM I have been flying for a while thanks to Orbital Phoenix OR I may try to tweakscale the new Gemini Shuttle parts.

Some new part love! MOL station Segment 1 Command Control + LAB. Tug was jettisoned shortly after this pic to make room for.... The HAB + Airlock / Gemini Docking nodes (as welll as APAS behind the stock structural ring decoupler in ugly orange) Both launches are on what I call a Titan IIIC(40B) (Titan IIIC plus Titan III Comerical Fairing base and SRMU boosters on a Titan IIIM core) And the Advanced 5 way Docking port for the top end was launched on a Titan IIC(23-3) Which is a Titan II(23G) updated with 2x UA1203 SRMs and Transtage Left that one full size due to beautiful sunrise launch The Titan IIIE fairing is hiding the Advanced Docking Module for MOL + a fun new toy I have been playing with... Centaur JR. Final Result: First 3 (CORE) segments of my MOL station. Note, I have had to use several stock parts on this due to BDB not having similar parts..... Specifically I actually like Trust type decouplers for inside fairing decouplers. Also they allow room for things like the APAS passive Docking port I have between that orange one and the station proper on Transtage Tug. Also the 6 way port for my APAS / Drogue docking system. and lastly I ended up using a Tweakscaled Rockomax structural cone to go from 0.9375 to 1.875 because any of the BDB ones with their rather old textures did not look as nice. And yes, I know those will be updated very SOON(TM)! I did use the Thor 0.9375 to 0.625 cone for the Drogue at the very right end of the Station. As reported above the MOL RCS ports do not seem to work 100% right. I ended up using Apollo R-4D + Transtage single Direction RCS on the Advanced Docking module (right side of the above picture) to ALLOW the Advanced Docking Module to actually DOCK with the core station. Originally I had a 4x MOL + 4x Transtage single direction. The station above has enough RCS to supply 2 or 3 Gemini Shuttle missions with enough Mono for a full on return without using retro system. There is only 2 Drogue ports (Y+ core and X+ Advanced Docking port) in the view Z positive being considered the side facing in this shot. New MOL lab part Textures are pretty awesome. I was going to wait for a new MOL HAB module but decided to just launch the old one... as I had that segment built prior to the newest parts hitting Dev (just needed a Core to attach to.) Oh and Yes RE the Black SRMUs... The Black Ones Go Faster (err wasn't that supposed to be RED ones??? IDK Been a while since I played 40K) Oh and a major post script here. I am making up my designations for Titans for my own play-through. The Designations above are 100% mine. Martin Marietta had nothing to do with these designations (although they may have postulated similar vehicles.)

Minor bug report. MOL RCS (new one) does not seem to have a For/AFT function even though that would be the largest nozzle on the module. I am trying to add a new Docking node to my station (5 way dock) and using one set of these I get no fore/aft thrust (whatever direction the nozzle is pointing.

Gak! Wish I wasn't in an Armada Tournament in 45 minutes! Can't wait to see what you come up with next!

I did a Saturn II (no S-IC stage) to the Mun in 2.5 scale yesterday. Didn't have enough fuel in the CM to orbit but I DID carry the LEM. SO I would say it is SMURFF + RSS where the breakdown is. IIRC SMURFF is not 100% BDB compliant but since I don't use it please don't quote me! The Saturn S-IVB to CM SLA adaptor will not work with those settings (since It is designed for the 3.75 to 2.5m scale and Real life the angle is different.) Unless I am un-aware of something!

Thanks, I noticed that aside from the X-15 accident none of the USAF Accidents/deaths are listed. I wonder if that is because they were for weapons programs and not "Space" programs. The multitude of Reaction Motors Rocket explosions for the Entire X family of planes just one SET of examples.

Size for size, the Algol SRB is almost the exact same size as the Minuteman segment that was supposed to be used on INT-19. Somewhere I have a CFG to remake the Algol into the correct performance too. I didn't release it because it is too singular use and I didn't want anybody making mistakes (completely different rocket/flight profile.) I will have to see if it is in my saved CFG folder (I don't fly it anymore.) VERY LOOSELY semi related.... A few years ago I remember reading about the canceled 100 inch SRB for Titan I that is represented by the Sultan SRB in game. One of the things I read was that there was a spontaneous ignition (caused by Lightening) and people were injured/died. Anyone know where to find that info? I am reaching out because I thought I still had this info (I was sure it was part of the introduction to the Space Shuttle SRB size/qty PDF from NASA. I mentioned it on Cobalt's dev stream last week and have wasted a couple of good gaming days digging through my files.

HEY!!!! DON'T KNOCK MY BABY!!!!!! \ It is probably one of the Better Ideas to keep Saturn Flying that was proposed. Relatively low cost but canceled due to "lack of need" and "new engine = too expensive on top of the Space Shuttle that will have it's contract let in 2 years" Saturn II INT-18 is my favorite Station resupply Station Building rocket. I am the one who strong-armed persuaded Cobalt into making the Sea-Level J-2 a few years ago. OK I admit I actually BEGGED since he was touching up some textures on J-2 already! Come to think of it... I have not flown it with the new Titan Revamp... Umm Be back in a Bit!

Likely this is a Sanitized Picture and not a proposal in itself. AKA one that has all the TOP SECRET and above portions removed. The Experiment Module is empty and doesn't even show an internal skin. That is the big clue in for me.

So everyone loves the F-Atlas SLV-3X now yes? Well... I had to do something different with another Atlas Variant that was never built.... The ORIGINAL Atlas-F. Atlas-F was to be powered by 2x H-2 engines + the LR-105 and twin LR-101s from Atlas-D (MA-5 engine complex with new boosters) We don't know what H-2 would look like but I have taken a stab at it by scaling up the old H-1D engine model (the new model is awesome but I built my CFG prior to it's existence) The Reason for the new engines is Atlas-F is 1.5x longer than an Atlas-D. And on top would either be a stretched Centaur OR a Regular Centaur D-1A + a Centaur JR. Thanks to liberal use of Module Manager as well as Tweak Scale I chose the latter option: Now here is the problem.... As I said we don't know how H-2 would have actually worked or looked so even after putting two of my H-2 engines in the booster skirt I only had a sea Level TWR of 0.93. Obviously the H-2 will be getting a tweak up in thrust.... In the interim since I wanted to launch this tall beastie I subbed in one of the new H-1D models for the LR-105. And put my comm-sat in an orbit around Minimus.... in a 2.5 scale system. the Centaur D-1A was able to do a Disposal burn back to Kerbin... and the Centaur JR did a disposal burn that intersects the Mun in 14 days.... Will see if I properly disposed of it. Jettisoned the Booster skirt at 3.0+G and the remaining H-1D + 2x LR101s was enough for a 0.93 TWR so I didn't loose much altitude or much performance by my early Jettison. The only MM files I created were for the Centaur Avionics and the Centaur D-1 engine plate (the old plate, not the new one.) I had to turn Boil off OFF to get the Centaur JR to behave properly. Centaur JR was totally depleted before it could do it's first burn at 33 minutes into the launch on my first attempt.) I tweak-scaled the Centaur D-1 Tank down to 1.5m diameter for the tank. And my Comm-bird in space (sorry needed bigger GCU than one of the new BDB provided ones... But there are still some BDB parts on board..... Oh and since I have not unlocked much of the Saturn parts and None of the Apollo parts in my play-through... I am planning on a Gemini based KOR-MOR mission.... here is my MOR return vehicle on the launch pad (Excelsior Vega + Agena for Munar return booster.) With the exception of the Obviously Bluestreak parts, the Parts are from Atlas, Castor, Agol, Vega, Thor, Pioneer and Agena as well as the modern BDB 1.875m fairing available in Titan Red I love how Excelsior and Bossart Atlas share similar art and can be used interchangably without massive clashing of the textures. Vega impacts the Mun and Agena only has to do a small circulation burn (using the APS engines only.) The main Agena Engine is saved for the Burn-back from Mun with the Gemini Capsule.

For followup. KSP2, the trailer starts off with what can best be described as a thin Sat-V with 6x LRBs so I don't think BDB will be "obsoleted" Rather it is a question of if the needed add ons for BDB will port over. And thanks to your vicious, relentless and inevitable refusal to add more mods as requirements I think BDB will end up in a good place for those jumping ship to KSP(V)2. Now if Squad is still doing KSP(v)1 then I am a happy camper. Oh and if you were wondering, While I may purchase KSP(V)2 I will still be pounding hours into KSP(V)1. @MOARdV Yes the trailer seems to focus on what KSP(V)1 would call "LATE" technology but I don't know... The trailer also says we will still be building our space programs from the ground up. I am thinking they are using an alternative to the existing Tech tree or greatly extending said tech tree. But we will see. I will pre-order it but I won't jump ship unless it is everything KSP(V)1 is and MOAR (pardon the play on your name please) AND BDB can be EASILY ported over (with B9PartSwitch.)

Yes it is. IIRC the Lander version came first... then The Lunar Recon widebody SM came next (AKA they reused it for a new role proposal.) Um you mean I don't have to fly the Excelsior Rocket anymore? Naw I need to still fly the Blue Streak!

Actually, I believe, STAR 13 was only used for Gemini-A (NASA) and not Blue Gemini (Gemini-B or USAF). Blue Gemini used longer and thinner SRMs (I don't have my source in front of me but the rockets look more like little Antares SRMs instead of the Spherical Star like NASA Gemini.)

What no NK-43 for the Sustainer? Heck even Bobcat's old Soviet Engines mod has that model! Nice Fatlas! Did you end up with tank wobble on it or did Autostruts keep it all purdy and solid?

And that alone is the reason I am glad Cobaltwolf uses 2 tanks to make up the S-IVC for the Multibody Saturn parts. Leave the small tank as Hydrolox and the big tank for Hydrogen only. Then your dual mode Nukes have a good Initial impulse with the Augmentation but when you need JUST efficient thrust you have plenty of LH2! Choices choices choices Although admittedly I have not see as pretty of a S-IVC(N) fly Zorg! Mine tend to be Ugly to Fugly.... Of-course if I stopped trying to use FTMN Nukes they might be better

I believe it is in the Dev branch but was not yet released.... Although I am not certain because my own fuel patch could be overwriting it (I had activated it in my own game before you guys went that step for just this reason.) @birdog357 Good luck getting an Engine + Shroud to fit well. It is my Big ticket on my wishlist if Cobalt ever opens up a Wishlist for a rebuilt Saturn. A proper engine mount + Interstage to work with any of the various NERVA engine mods that Cobalt prefers... Personally I am hoping it is Kommitz FTMN Nucleonics OK I am kidding since those models are huge and derived not from the NERVA but anyway But I do like both the origional and the revamped FTMN style of Nuke... not realistic at all in how they look but massive and gargantuan do not express how little thrust they do provide Err wait, are you thinking of Doing a Fatlas now? COOL!!!! A Metal 2.5 - 1.875m tank is one thing that has been missing in your art style....

As I understood it... THIS is how the Abort was supposed to work Alternatively this is also how you would abort in the case of a Single Engine SRM failure or Single SRM separation failure (obviously without all the extra thrust on the remaining SRM... The Abort would still fire due to the chance of ANY remaining positive thrust however. Thanks @CobaltWolf Won't get to it until likely Tuseday Night at the earliest (stupid chores) but I appreciate the effort. Since I won't be able to test fly it until then, @Zorg Did Titan Become Ballistic... or NEARLY Ballistic when you Aborted the full stack with no separation? IE did the G Meter read around 1-1.25G?

Glad to hear it is possible because it is decidedly something I would use.

Didn't see this before my previous post. It is too bad you didn't do a twin chamber LH2 version... But you have already done so much so no biggie! Maybe you might get into that for an Alternate Saturn Hydrolox engine.. IDK and I am not asking... Just pointing out it would be convieniant for the purposes of the LDC. But more importantly: First off, like the new model. I can't wait to recover SRMs with that new nose cone. I have said off channel I would love for something like this. But the key thing I keep thinking is HOW this would happen. Cause it would have to run for however much fuel remains in the main SRM. Is there some B9PS trickery that I am missing (hey I am missing a lot already so IDK hence my ask! ) For those Not in the KNOW, all of the first generation UA1205s (on the Titan IIIC but not on the 23C or 23D or later) you know the ones with the HUGE honkin TVC tank, were man rated. They had those large circular apertures on the Nose cone and a special blow out section in the 5th segment. @CobaltWolf did a great job modelling them in on his nosecone (you can see it in the picture above as well as on any of the previous dev photos!) This would reduce the effective thrust of the UA1205 to less than 1/10th it's nominal thrust for it's fuel load (it wouldn't completely cancel it out and since it was only tested on the ground we don't know EXACTLY what the thrust reduction would have been at Altitude.... Titan IIIC with the Mockup of the MOL and Blue Gemini with the first generation UA1205 (notice the white circles on the nose of the SRMs and the 3 segment long TVC tanks that are of a large diameter.. And no, the UA-1205s were not modified in any way from a standard Titan IIIC that had flown at this time... This is just one of the better color pictures of a First Generation UA-1205 I could find quickly. Vs a Titan III(23)C.... The public Designation was still Titan IIIC but the actual designation was Titan 23C. Main Difference is the newer generation UA1205 SRM (2 segment long TVC tanks of smaller diamater + no more blow holes in the nosecones on the SRMs.

I don't use Kerbalism so IDK about that, but I too use the Wet Workshop. Personally I use it as part of my Venus Flyby Mission as well as a few other unique Stations that require more than a Saturn INT-21 to launch. For the Venus Eve fly-by run with the Mk-III CM so I can get 2 Scientist + Command Pilot + 1x Engineer (to fix those broken solar Panels.) I did a short term experiment as a kid on living space (AKA I was grounded . ) In my barely scientific experiment I played with living space constraints for about a week... AKA I was basically locked in my room with nothing to do but think. Wet Workshop + CM + VFB Module = about enough space for 4 crew on a long mission... with a Bonus of SCIENCE! Ok kidding aside (groan! didn't mean that as a pun... I SWEAR!) I have read a few studies that talked about space requirements for comfort and well to put it bluntly sanity... Even though I am un-aware of any mod that deals with Psychological effects of space in game... I try to follow those guidelines....

Actually it is more complex than this. 1) Solid Rockets are less controllable than Liquid. 2) Solid Rockets need to be "Formed" for the Correct G-Loading of any mission carrying people. That means you have to know well before launch within say several 10s of pounds or even 100s of pounds, what the final payload is going to be... Hard to do with a computer, imagine with a slide-rule and paper. (Space Shuttle takes advantage of the SSME's performance and limited throttle-ability to reduce/ignore this need) 3) Solid Rockets are much harder to "abort." You either blow the casing up, or you create blowout holes (like on the new UA-120x Nosecones in the dev!) for the Thrust to cancel itself out. 4) Segmented solids, have many many failure-points... (Challenger,) and even with the latest technology are not considered as safe as Liquid boosters. However Unitary Solids MUST be made at the launch site (AJ-260) or be of a relatively small size (GEM) All that being said, On the ground before launch, I would rather be next to a modern Solid Rocket than a fully Fueled Liquid Rocket (in any non-storable form.) Of course, a Storable Liquid rocket I want to be the furthest away from.... Didn't one of the Atlas SCORE launches do just that? I know an Atlas took a took a hard right at Albuquerque and was destroyed like 3 seconds off the pad, But I thought one of the SCORE Atlas' did a back flip to crash a mile away.