Pappystein

My only question/concern about this is, did this calculation factor in a direct flight to Eve and back or does it have quite a bit of wiggle room Given KSP's poor ability to plan complicated launches? For that matter are ALL the Intergalactic Planetary *dang you Beastie Boys!* parts so equipped? Beyond that, I have seen the the hard work you have done here and in other mods supporting the USI Lifesuport changes. THANKS!

So I am going to guess here because It looks like we are seeing an engineering diagram/artwork (4 side views)... I think you have 2 variants. White, and Black and White. but really Cobaltwolf will have to confirm. Pay attention to the nose cone in the pictures. you can see the upper Seperation motor 3 of the views... (center left, Center Right and Right) That tells me the SRM is just rotated for each image. I wont bore you with the details but suffice to say a UA-1205 flying without TVC is a big bomb waiting to land someplace and do damage... HOPEFULLY Range safety can blow it wide open if loss of TVC happens. @CobaltWolf I love how these integrate with the core stage. I assume that is a new decoupler for the SRMs... It isn't by chance built into the SRM itself is it? I am curious what kind of awesome wizardry you are using to make such a decoupler both attach and work (given what we "know" about KSP & Decouplers.) I see you went with the mid/late style conic bottom TVC tank. I have been unable to find proof but I think that bottom conic part is actually a tank extension (Some of the heavier Titan IVas flew with and the lighter ones did not is my only proof.) I prefer this look over the hollow bottomed look of the flat bottomed TVC tanks... It does not look like something is missing to me (obviously that is what I think when I look at the Flat bottomed TVC tanks.) Thanks for that design choice! By the looks of these Dev photos you will need to purchase inbox protection because when they release Realism Overhaul etc will want to come knocking and filling up your mail boxes for all the Titans! (If they haven't already) *EDIT* Oh and I didn't notice this without blowing the picture up. The Detonation cord/range safety destruct on the SRMs is awesome! It will make it easy to ensure the Separation cone is lined up correctly with the UA-120x (assuming similar split between the nosecone and the SRM like previous generation.)

Sorry What Retractable Lifting surface does is allow a single piece to have aerodynamic controls for both Stock and (since I don't use it I am unsure) maybe FAR. It allows something that does not normally provide lift to provide lift once deployed. I already have this via the REKT mod and I used to have it when I tried to make KRE work for this. It was KRE that made me realize another mod/dll was needed. The Problem is you have no way to adjust the COL/COM/COP of the rocket stage to MATCH the COL of the wing you attach from Kerbal Recovery (or any other mod.) The end result is at best a squirrelly stage that only an expert pilot (certainly NOT MECHJEB!) could land.... and Only with much effort. Sure I could slap on 9x SAS modules that are appropriately tweakscaled to my most common 1.875 diameter core with an equal number of large inline batteries to power all those gyroscopes... but then it would be easier just to do a SpaceX style landing then. Here is the set of retractable wings I have tried: Like I said, typically the COL and the COP are too far off from the COM when the tanks are empty for these wings to be effective on MY stages. While I have had issues with many rockets, does seem to work fine for most Zenit first stages I have flown these wings on (from various mods.) But then again to be a really effective boost-back plane style lander the retractable wings have to be able to carry with them the pogo/outrigger wheels for a Bicycle style landing system ala M-4/3M/3MN/3MS Bison, Harrier or U-2 Spyplane. Landing such a huge stage as say Titan III Stage 1, on 3 landing gears all attached to the fuselage leaves a lot to be desired with roll instability on landing.... More likely to have the stage roll over on it's side than make a smooth landing... Short of having 3 or 4 large SAS reaction wheels on it.

Sadly no... (I know I tried! ) HOWEVER I have had success with fly back of boosters and landing on the KSP runway. I have flown Atlas V Heavys (old models) and in one case a Titan II derived (only one of the two boosters made it back the other ditched in the ocean due to early MECO AKA I separated BOTH boosters a little too late and one flew worse than the other.) However each of those had wings attached to allow control and a boost-glide approach. Unfortunately there really isn't a configurable lifting surface that is retractable... so they were UGLY as well. For proper flyback at-least 1x new plugin would need to be developed and many people would think it was cheaty. You would need a custom configurable COL/COM/COP adjustment and the ability to edit the overall Lift vector (adding or subtracting lift.)

They are thanked! So a few things I have seen in my quick skim. Parts that could be used given BDB design goals (what types of craft used in BDB): The Growth Option for Shuttle Agena is remarkably similar to Agena 2000 for the Atlas V.... Drawing shows the correct tankage size (120" IRL or about 1.875m KSP) Actual exploded skeletal diagrams show that the current Agena D if not exactly correct is pretty good accuracy wise.. To the point I don't think the Agena D assets need any major changes to physical design (the GCU could be a tiny bit longer but that appears to be the biggest part change that I see.) Extended 50:1 and 150:1 bells are well drawn in this document. (including the possibility of making the 150:1 an extending bell ala RL10-B2) Parts that I like and will add to craft I make: 6x Drop tanks! Now I am even MOAR happy that Cobaltwolf has made the new series of decouplers! The CLAW! (yes there are two drawings with what in KSP is called the Claw!) In document it is a "Satellite maintenance mechanism" Extended RCS to work with the CLAW.

I know it wasn't directly for me but THANKS for posting that! I am just skimming it now but I love the Drop tank Idea for Agena as well as the picture in Figure 2-1 of both the Drop tanks and more importantly the larger engine bell that was used for Ascent Agena (supposedly.)

Game design fact: The implementation of Mode switching is pretty easy to do (I believe the effects become the most complicated part of this.) Now Putting on my "I am an opinionated Jerk" hat The REASON for this is boil off. The REASON for not doing this: Boil off. Personal opinion: Until such a time as Boil off actually takes tank construction into account (AKA each tank has it's own boil off factor) and assuming you keep with ONLY boiling off ONE cryogenic fuel (LH2) and don't add the LOX that would be needed for Accuracy, This is simple math. I see at-least 10 variables in play that will affect this. I see a lot of cogative work for a feature that many will not take advantage off (remember the altered state would be LOWER THRUST than a standard J-2) Yes if I am using BDB's boil off feature, I would get a little more d/v out of my S-IVB stage around the mun. My Centaur MIGHT survive to orbital Circulation around minimus. Or... I do what I already do and turn off Boil-off. No issues, no need to complicate the math (BDB's or ours.) DEEPER OPINION BEHIND THIS: KSP and SQUAD do not give us the tools to properly plan out a flight path before launch. Most of the mods that focus on this only focus on one part or another of the over all "I need to plan the launch to make it there" mentality that is the real world. It is one of the neat things I liked about the original implementation of the BDB Safe Solid program. I could shut off and then turn back on the engine... allowing me to deal with the slop that was the end of my interplanetary flight. Was soo sad to see that 'feature' (cheat if you will) go. Now you might be thinking "that is all and good but what does it have to do with the J-2 and Boiloff?" Simple: Without the ability for good planning, the average player trying to get somewhere from Kerbin SOI is left with a rocket in orbit near the edge of the SOI.... Boiling off fuel. or alternatively Said player is using rockets that do not have fuel boiloff to avoid the boiloff hit.... Or most probably... Like me they turn boil off either way down or OFF before starting to play the game. But as I said those are my opinions, feel free to have your own and share it. Just as I won't assume you all like mine I will not necessarily like or agree with yours.... The hat is off now Good luck with that. I have had exactly ONE TWO company(s) ever respond back to me for the various points of research I have done in the past. And their response was to contact the government body that was in charge of the program in 1952.... The government body that no longer exists... The second one was a company producing replica aircraft from original drawings and reverse engineered parts from real aircraft. Have you attempted to reach out to NASA's historical section, or the Library of Congress?

Aside from Saturn II and INT/MLV hypothetical parts I agree 100% with this statement. Titan is FrankenSTEIN's monster rocket in so many ways yet, even with the costly/caustic fuel it is near and dear to many peoples hearts. *History section to follow* Aerojet General, built a modular engine that could run almost any liquid fuel thought up with minor modifications. Swap a few parts here or there and you get a completely different engine performance with the same core set of parts. Martin Marietta took a conservative belt&Braces approach to designing the core missile for the USAF. Let Convair div of General Dynamics tackle the wacky and new Balloon tank. They are going to pop anyway... we will go old school. Heck we won't even use much of the technology that was common to aircraft in late 1920s. Monocoque* structures would greatly lighten the rocket.. Nope We are going to use plates to re-enforce plates to re-enforce plates to re-enforce the structure.... And our Missile will carry the same warhead as Atlas and do it more reliability (that part is debatable.) The only MOSTLY Monocoque parts in the Titan were the actual Fuel tanks INSIDE the tank structure. They were pill shaped in the first stage and semi-spherical in the 2nd stage. There is so much wasted room in the Titan stages that the USAF when refurbishing old Titan II missiles to use in the Titan 23G program added RCS in the middle of the 2nd stage. To my recollection no other Rocket in the history of space flight is/was more easily re-configurable (MAYYYBE the R-7.) When the NRO, or USAF or NASA asked for a change.... after the in Service Titan II missiles were in production (so after Gemini) Aerojet would slap together parts from one engine variant to another... heck this is why a lot of early Titan IIIBs claim to have flown with LR87-AJ-11 engines (they all flew with -9s but SOME of them had PARTS from the -11) I know of no other rocket to go through that kind of evolution. Monocoque is a French term that in the aircraft world is said to mean strength of egg-shell. or Strength of skin. Most aircraft and rockets are manufactured to a SEMI-Monocoque standard today... The Skin is most of the strength... but not all, there are still longerons, ribs, girders, flanges etc...) Titan did not use many classical monocoque structures... Conversely the Balloon envelop of an Atlas rocket is 100% pure monocoque in it's ultimate/lightest form. Oh and for those counting Atlas V structure is closer to Titan than any other Atlas variant on the monocoque spectrum. Oh and the list of Aerojet LR87/LR91 fuels: LF/O AZ-50/NTO Alumanize/NTO (Gelled AZ-50 with aluminum flakes in the suspension) <- if perfected this would have greatly increased thrust Hydrolox <- possibly not with the LR91 due to turbopump restrictions... <--this was mostly perfected and nearly ready to fly on Saturn when it was shelved! FLOx/UDMH, FLOx/LF, LF2/ <-thankfully none of these were tested and I am unsure how much if any design work went into them any of the Florine based acids are best left planets away! Keep in mind that the engineers at Aerojet made all these design changes... using slide rules. (not much better than counting your fingers and toes folks!) The sheer amount of math required just to solve the different flow rate from LF/O to Hydrolox is daunting to someone even today.... and they calculated it all out with 4 pieces of metal joined together in such a way as to aid their calculation process...... The Descendant company today, with all it's gee wiz computers couldn't figure out how to quickly put together the AR-1 which to my mind is just a staged combustion variation of the LR87... (I know there is more involved but in it's simplest form....)

First off, Moderators, Mod Creators/curators, and fellow players, thank you for your responses. I want to say first that I am not "mad" at anyone. Wrung out would be the proper term and it starts before I logged on today... so I may have over reacted... In a vacuum it was a funny joke *pun not intentional*. I got the joke...But with no easy way to verify it WAS a joke and not something permanent... The problem, that caused me to post as I did was you have a, what 8+ page thread now about people BEGGING for a down-vote button? Plus you have several people in other forums actively asking for said down-vote button. So to come on today and see it... my relatively new fears about the forum are realized. I hope you can understand what I saw and why I reacted so. Short of using the accursed down-vote button there was no way to know if this was a joke or the real deal. Better to bring this up now than to have a forum that would leave me, and others, feel un-welcome. We Hunams are not a perfect lot. We are squishy and we make mistakes. I know I have made my share of them today... Thanks again everyone! PS bonus points if you know what game the Squishy Hunams are from!

Opps posted before I was done adding/editing pictures! The result of these launches (and that of a modified Saturn V) was the following: I give you the combined Apollo-Lab Skylab-II! Yes that IS a S-III stage... But with 2 Hydrolox LR87s instead of the requisite J-2s (from early Saturn C-II/C-III proposals) I used it for final circularization burn to 600km orbit... Saturn V INT-23-Mod(?) could get it there but the S-II stage was too heavy for all the turning to get a proper orbit. AKA I don't like using lots of RCS when Mechjeb is doing the calculations.... It does not recalculate. IDK why but originally I had the Alternate Apollo parts equipped with the BDB supplied gendered APAS 0.9375m ports.... I couldn't get the Active port to dock to the passive port on the 4 sides of the end node in this picture. So I scrapped the entire launch and started from scratch (thankfully not my career this is me experimenting in sandbox before attempting this in career.) IDK if it is a collider issue on the Alternate Apollo stuff or if it is due to something else. The Alternate Apollo craft above originally had the APAS and it wouldn't dock either. Since I have no issues with the BDB parts and APAS I am chalking it up to a weird intra-mod compatibility issue. I also admittedly have a high mod count back in the game at this point. I had to sub the RL10 for the AJ-10 because SOMEONE forgot to install the AJ10 patch to eliminate the RO/Smokescreen lines that make the AJ10 not work in stock..... I wonder who that was! Next step is to RE-Launch the Apollo Lab from Alt-Apollo to join on the other side of the 5 way dock at the end. Oh yes, I forgot to mention the entire core launched as one stage and there are no docking ports between the Alt-Apollo 6 way and the Skylab parts they are "welded" for sake of gameplay.

More your comments about SRMs.... You said you were holding off on SRMs until you could devote your prime focus on them (thank you for that) So, in the Interim, I give you Titan's "New" SRMs! Modded and improved to work with Titan and LDC! Tweakscaled AJ-260s! (and yes the Titan *UGH* Saturn S-IV tanks are feeding Hydrolox to the core from atop the AJ-260s just like Saturn MLV was supposed to have Alternatively for those of you on a Liquid Diet: I don't know how well it shows up but I actually have a full Titan II first stage as each "Heavy" booster... except I put a de-activated decoupler between the tanks. The Top tank feeds via 2 different fuel lines the bottom tank on the boosters as well as the Core tank. Allows me to burn off some of the Core fuel before I loose the boosters (that Apollo D-2 seems a little heavy but it could be the alt config I did to get Hydrolox AJ10 per design specs.)

Many of you will probably not recognize me. I stay in a few of the Mod-development/release forums and that is it. I have been a member of the forums since October 2013 and have over 5000hours of game time in KSP. One of the reasons I have been involved in this game for so long is inclusion. I am here to talk about what I hope is a serious failure in this years April Fools jokes. First, A word from one of our friendly moderators (from another thread) So to start with I saw the TOTM post at 12AM GMT April first. Of course living in the US I didn't realize that an Official Squad (in Mexico) post would be posted on Greenwich time. Further, and IDK if the rest of the world uses this but in my part of the United States we say APRIL FOOLS after the joke.... So TOTM is a failure as a joke to my mind. Then today I went to @CobaltWolf's BlueDog_DB Forum... I had been waiting for him to post a picture from his stream yesterday so I could comment on the awesomeness that came from his stream. GASP 4x Downvotes. what the heck! SO having JUST read the above post from Moderator Snark yesterday, I initially played it off as an April fools joke... A REALLY REALLY bad one. But the more I worked on my post the more hurt and angrier I became. A) Cobaltwolf didn't deserve down-votes in my opinion and B) I was deeply saddened by WHO did the down-voting. I checked a few other threads and saw the same down-vote option If this new Downvote feature is an April Fools joke. It is in the poorest of taste. Not only does it make a Hypocrite out of great MODERATORS like @Snark here, it actively encourages bullying. Something I was lead to believe was not tolerated in these forums. I am not happy about any of the supposed April fools jokes that I have discovered this year from Squad. It wasn't a swing and a miss... Rather Squad took their trusty baseball bat and in one day bashed apart the entire credibility of the forum, and it's staff in my opinion. I know I am an opinionated jerk (but hey I also know they are opinions... I DO realize that they only matter for me and those that agree!) I know I can rub people the wrong way. That is what happens when your primary form of communication is reading lips. I have been half deaf for my whole conscious life. I process both the written and the spoken word differently than the "average" person in my part of the world. I say this not for anyone's pity, but for your understanding. I do not tolerate bullying (and am aghast if someone thinks I am in that roll.) I have been a repeated victim of bullying and discrimination. Anything that opens the door to it should be shamed or avoided at all costs. As Snark so eloquently posted above... if you don't like something vote with your feet and leave I do not know of a single April fools joke from this year that was Funny (coming from Squad) I am tempted to do just that. Pick my feet up and leave the forums. In my day job I am in peoples homes and I routinely encourage parents that KSP is great for STEM edutainment for their kids. I can no longer in good conscious consider doing that going forward, irregardless if this is a joke or a new standard. I will not bash KSP but I will no longer mention it to parents. I have a zero tolerance when Corporations + Kids on the subject of Bullying. By Giving someone partial anonymity(You don't know WHY they down-voted) you open the door to bullying, Squad, and you leave the moderators with little or no recourse to prevent it. Others of you may disagree and that is, in my opinion, your right too. But in the end I hope this mistake (and I truly hope it was an HONEST MISTAKE is quickly rectified!)

Thanks for posting it. One of the epic discussions Visa-V Titan on the Stream yesterday. I have a few pics that conform to your "new standard" *inside joke people, need to be on the streams to get this one* for Titan. Will post them later today if able.

If you want 2x engine mount Tweakscale the Saturn S-IVC down to 3.125... I run 2x of the LR87 singles on it all the time

Zorg, what decoupler gave you those pretty studs on the RS-27 engines? did it come with whatever mod you got your SRBs from?

A nice series of pictures (I too forget to put/check the skylab solar panels in their correct spot before launching ) A couple of suggestions for LDC if you want to use it with Orion (I haven't flown Orion on it from reDirrect so millage may not be perfect) Try using 5x the Sea Level J-2 (J-2SL) on the first stage with an All Cryogenic LDC Titan. Alternately 5x of the E-1s MIGHT get you more delta/V (unsure haven't tried) Of-course if you have a higher than 1.2:1 TWR at launch you could always check to see if drop tanks are your friend. LDC is my go-to for launching the Big Gemini (which is my station crew transfer/resupply barge vehicle of choice.) I think the AUW of the Big-G is less than the Orion because of the Hydro-lox SM. In my case the Big G is treated to a 3.125m (tweakscaled) Integrated Phoenix 4x engine plate and fuel tank with 2x RL10s I think @Orbital_phoenix has the best looking (most compatibly looking is probably more correct) mod in comparison to BDB currently out there (but I have been reducing my parts mods list significantly and may have missed one or 2.) I just hope he keeps his Textures Cobaltwolfalike moving forward. And yes, I think @CobaltWolf has moved beyond "Porkjetalike" into his own in Texture quality. That may be a configuration choice. Or, since I don't remember that functionality from with I DID use the Stock labs it could have been added to Stock after MOL was last touched... IDK That is something for Cobaltwolf or Jso to answer. Sorry I couldn't be more help

What do you mean PAW? Are you right clicking on an antenna to force the transmit or right clicking on the lab itself?

Updated my post with the pix Not used to the Tantares LVs yet enough to know what I could have KLAWed into action with so I just went with BDB's Saturn. Still honestly a bit thrown by the size of some of them (1.25m core diameter for R-7 kind of freaked me out when I first saw it.) The -E series are now in my game.

Sorry I don't know which part it was it just said the capsule was DEPRECIATED but it was obviously a station part (half cylinder half conical ending in a 0.9375m(guess) narrow node.) I MAY have pictures of it because I was talking a lot of pictures that day if it will help. *EDIT* I have a picture (see below) it is a 1.25m cylinder. Sorry about that.

Honestly haven't checked. I just ignore any contract that says DEPRECIATED in the part name. Fun one was the rescue I had to perform with KLAWaturn (Saturn IB with the Claw above the S-IVB IU in a fairing.) One of the Depreciated station parts had no access and a crew member stuck in side. Returned safely thanks to almost 20 parachutes on the S-IVB stage.... and the KLAW I didn't have Shadowmage's fix for no eva-able pods being used on rescue missions.

ACH! Buzzy Graphics! RUN AWAY! So seriously. A nob question I am sure but since I just started with Tantares, can I safely delete the depreciated folder(s)? I keep having part tests come up for DEPRECIATED in my Career playthroughs.

I wonder if they just took the original Apollo proposals for the Moon and applied them to Mars with the new technology (it looks whiz bang better than that old crap.)

Yes the quality of the model jump has been a huge improvement. But the texture quality so far seem to be several orders of a magnitude better!

um. WoW! NICE WORK Zorg! I am really impressed! These two pictures say it all for me. Titan has a notoriously clear burn pattern due to it's fuel and type of combustion. all I can say is WOW!

As you saw already Jso shared his work. While I started the process, he is the one who perfected it (I was using a different fuel ratio, and had some "issues" with how B9PS was converting some of the fuel tanks.) I like to dabble and between that and my Knowledge I have acquired over the years about all of this I want it to have an illusion of being realistic. The main reason for AZ50/NTO is the cost vs Efficiency difference. At an ~83% fuel load (which is the ideal mostly correct fuel load for AZ50) I have slightly higher Delta V than a fully loaded LF/O titan II. But my fuel cost is much higher. I don't know that I would go as far as some other mods have (Hypergolic RCS) but...