Pappystein

Latest release runs fine in 1.6.1 as far as I can tell Lots of people say it does not but It seems A-O-K to me.

What? No Green Super-laser-additive-death-beam? NICE composite image! oh and ROFL-MAO

err um.. THAT'S NO MOON! Nice photo sequence. Had to mock the huge crater visible on the Mun!

I will re-state my earlier statement... I think any issues between After Kerbin and SSTU are the cause of After Kerbin. But thanks for being open to trying to solve problems with other mods!

I don't use the AK mod but I did download it to look at it's code. It is pretty standard Kopernicus/Alter planet pack. I compared it to Galileo Planet Pack and did not see any files to alter stock panels. I use Galileo and do not seem to have issues with SSTU... so IDK. I will do some testing in GPP with SSTU Solar parts and see if I can find any info. @Shadowmage I don't know of any planet packs that does not use Kopernicus. If they are out there I am unaware of them.

So I am was building a massive station in Space around Gael in a Galileo Planet Pack 2.5x Rescale game. I am err was going to be using station parts from 4 different mods including SSTU, I am using Rockets from 6 different parts packs etc. This is a picture of my "poor" station. I have so many different node types I put a bunch of docking ports in the WRONG spots. This was originally supposed to be a station in a form of a H stacked on-top of a h. it WOULD have had 4 of the amazing SSTU Solar arrays at each end of the Capitol H. Instead because I didn't build it on the ground first to test it I end up with this string bean station that is missing 75% of the planned station parts. It still performs basic functions but I was trying to build a Fuel depot / Crew transfer / OP Exploration launch base for my expansion beyond Gael. Currently that is a BDB Apollo Mk2.5 (has the Mk3/5 SM with the TR-201 LMDE engine.) And an Orion from reDirrect. Haven't seen any station luv here in a while so I thought it was time to pay my taxes. BTW Shadowmage, I do LOVE the airlock end-cap available on some of the COS parts! I think EVERY SSTU big solar array I have used has ended in one of those.... To go do maintenance on the Solar array when it breaks right

I will put it up later as I don't have a good picture of it. But I put a APAS right in the middle of the Skylab Radiator for my Skylab-Enhanced/COS/DOS/ISS station I am currently assembling. Using Station parts from 4 or 5 different mods to complete (Skylab from BDB obviously) Currently have a reDirect Orion and a Mk2+ BDB Apollo (Mk2 capsule with AARDV Control betwixt the Heatsheild and the capsule so no pilot needed and the Mk3/5 tank engine combo for SM.) I have an Agena doing a re-supply (no LS in this game but I still fly LS type missions every once and a while) and 2/3rds of the way through construction I realized I screwed up (it is supposed to be a H form factor station with 4 wings and a central core..... I am using so many different Docking ports (APAS, Probe/Drogue and Gemini/Agena from BDB, SSTU 1.25m etc... I have several ports in the WRONG spot causing a series of problems... So it is linear with only 1 of it's projected 4 Solar Sail arrays. You can just make out the APAS adaptor centered on the Radiator on the end of Skylab. That is my Big Gemini docking port (and I don't have a good rocket to Lift Big Gemini there without being wasteful ATM... and I don't have the funds to be Wasteful. I wasted too much money on the reDirect Orion that is docked there...

Thanks for the clarification Marcelo. Also I use almost exactly the same stack you just drew up (Scout B... I like) I use it to carry the Probes PLUS! version of the basic Scansat hardware into LGO. It BARELY makes it to a 250km circular orbit but it does make it... I do have to use a pair of Castor-1s for a safety factor however.

Nice set of Photos. I tend to not eject the Boosters until the LF meter is between the Q and the U in the word Liquid. Not a real efficient way of doing it but it GENERALLY in STOCK game gets me into a nice orbit that way. Did you compare your rocket/Payload vs the very nice Separation graphs that @Marcelo Silveira did for Atlas? I have used his graphs 5 times now and each time I had the easiest orbit with Atlas from BDB. My L-Q Guess method is quick and dirty but it isn't real accurate. Marcelo's graph method takes a few more minutes to do but it is pretty damn accurate. The only monkey wrench is it is for KSP stock scale in a Stock system. Nearly useless for a 2.5x rescale (yes I know multiply DV by ~1.6 to get 2.5 scale DV) in the Galileo Planet Pack. And that brings up a Subject change. If you REALLY want a challenge, Try flying BDB in a 2.5 Rescale with the GPP.... To get a single DOS station module from SSTU into orbit I am using a Saturn V with 2x AJ-260S SRMs My target orbit for the stack is 800km with an initial orbit at 500km before navigating to the existing station core. A Titan II is too small to place a Gemini Capsule into orbit of Granus (the starting planet) Now that MIGHT have to do with the fact that I have the Titan II set to use IRW Aerozine-50/NTO for fuel but I am not 100% on that. Stock GPP for LGO orbit is ~3200 d/v... Or about 5600d/v for 2.5x rescale. So for my Gemini type missions I am launching a Titan IIIc(-) with UA-1202s or 4x Agols and Air ignited LR87. Oh and for those not in the know, if you are using some sort of Rescale you have to multiply the Stock scale Delta-V by the Squareroot of the Rescale factor (In my case square root of 2.5 is 1.58113 so I round it to 1.6 for easier math )

1) I agree about stupid fairings. 2) it is a good thing that the Agol 2nd stage is in the DB now. So your first and Second stages can be the larger 0.9375m diameter size. I am routinely launching Agena payloads on the Agols in stock.... I am BARELY orbiting Agena payloads on Atlas in 2.5x-GPP (1 in 3 failures to orbit typically.) But of course that is because I need 3200dv default scale to LGO, and that equates to just under 5100 D/V for LGO in 2.5 rescale. More likely 5500 due to my poor orbital efficiency

Agreed, It is a visual thing and makes the Rocket more realistic with out being real I think that should be "Simplifications/Improvements" in quotes because most of those "simplifications" were to allow the S-3D to be mounted on the Saturn Fixed/single axis gimbal base. The Improvements had to go because it created an awkward thrust line that would be hard to compute a controlled flight profile against/ the twin LR-101s were not powerful enough to counteract. Remember in Saturn each engine canceled it's opposite engine out. In delta there is no cancellation as there is only a single engine.

@CobaltWolf I love how the top of the first stage tank has the blow-holes in it actually have depth! Awesome! That was a big neg on the old model/texture the First stage blowholes were just black marks in the texture.

I am flying in GPP + Rescale! 2.5 with BDB, SSTU, reDirect and ProbesPlus! (and a few other smaller part mods.) None of the mods in question have issues tracking between the TWO solar bodies and I get a variable EC level depending on WHICH solar body they are tracking. I dug into the files for AKPP and could not see anything different between GPP and AKPP dealing with solar power.... I would suggest this is actually a mod in-compatibility between SOMETHING ELSE that is altering AKPP and SSTU and not AKPP or SSTU itself. But as I am NOT an expert on Solar effects don't hold me to that! Un-related a few Bugs/questions that have popped up in my play-through. RS-68 engine effects are always on. RS-68 Engine seems to be wrong scale... 5m * 0.64kerbinscale = 3.2m Closest Diameter commonly used in game is 3.125 yet RS-68 default is 3.75 is this an error or correct? I am trying to build a Delta IV to launch my Big-Gemini from BDB with IOPT derived 2.5m SM (you have seen the SM in action already.) I need something smaller than Saturn I(any) but bigger than Titan IVa and Delta IV would fall into that range if it wasn't 3.75m At 3.75m scale It is almost cheaper to launch it on a Saturn IF with extra SRMs.

Currently use of the Delta P would be a Ablestar tank with the LEM Decent engine. I tend to use the small Delta K tank that was converted to an Avionics module (I have a personal file that converts it back to fuel) and the Ablestar because I feel it is closer to correct fuel load (atleast burn time is closer.) The engine has been in the game since Apollo Moon lander was implemented. The Delta P is powered by the exact same TR-201 that powered the Apollo Decent stage. Delta P (much like most of NASA's Delta program) reused parts from other rockets. The RS-27 is a re-belled H-1 Engine (turbopumps etc that were made for H-1s were "upgraded" to RS-27 standard the only physical difference is in the engine nozzle itself... for the most part.) The Tankage was a stretched Ablestar I believe and the engine for Delta P was TR-201 without any modifications. The prime feature of TR-201 was the pintle injector which reduced the complexity of restart mechanisms and therefor reduced overall engine cost while increasing reliability. Err um... Goes and quickly starts KSP... Where did I put that space station... Seriously that is pretty tight grouping and I like the concept. You are making me want to launch a Skylab module to my DOS & COS based station.

Also SSTU has everything needed to make a Delta IV (any variant.) IIRC Shadowmage uses the 3.125m form factor (but I could be wrong... while I use SSTU it is mostly for the COS/DOS Station parts.) The only Tricky part is that SSTU has variable tank and SRB sizes so you need to size it all by Eyeball.

talk about a fugly rocket... But hey you don't see any/many of those in KSP and none have ever flown IRL to my knowledge...

No and I won't get to my Storage locker till tomorrow. I have a bunch of contractors running around my house today so joy I will say in re-reading that post I wasn't as clear as I should be. After clearing the tower until about 40+/- seconds into the flight it is Ejection seats to the rescue. Beyond the point of Mach 1, if I recall correctly it was fire all 4 SRMs at once on the retro stage and hope you have enough thrust + Delta to break away from the Titan Behind you. Or Quoted from Wikipedia: Retro module The Retro module contained four solid-fuel TE-M-385 Star-13E retrorockets, each spherical in shape except for its rocket nozzle, which were structurally attached to two beams that reached across the diameter of the retro module, crossing at right angles in the center.[20] Re-entry began with the retrorockets firing one at a time. Abort procedures at certain periods during lift-off would cause them to fire at the same time, thrusting the Descent module away from the Titan rocket. The LES tower design was never finalized to my knowledge. I have several drawings showing part or all of the LES and each one is different. About the only thing that is universal is they attach at the back end of the landing gear bay on the Gemini capsule OR They attach in the middle of the space a Gear bay would be on a Big G module (they were still trying to get Rogilo to work for Big G in some parts of the McDonnell' Gemini program engineering department. Yeah I got half way through and probably took it the wrong way. I actually think a Delta HOSS would be an awesome upper stage. And no I was only comparing it to the H-II and DCSS as a point on the scale of efficiency. I would LOVE to see the HOSS added in game. Because yes it isn't as efficient as the later Cryos but it still makes a MB-3 powered Thor-Delta into an amazing rocket beyond what it already is. I am guessing the parts for it sans the engine should be 1/2 or 1/3rd the cost of equivalent Centaur parts? No insulation, No advanced materials etc?

Actually that is sort of an urban legend almost and kind of. The Ejection seats were not usable on the launch pad and not at high speed/pressure. So the Retros are used in stead. Instead of burning in series like they would to de-orbit they all burn at once. At one point McD-D was looking into North American Aviation's "Escape Capsule" for the F-108 Rapier and the B-70 Valkyrie... It was to big and to unweildly. In the end the Retro rockets have enough impulse in most of the flight modes except at ground level to separate the capsule from the rocket. Then if the capsule itself is damaged or parachute is unable to deploy, The crew eject at low-medium altitude. I may not have that 100% correct, my Gemini book is buried in my storage locker ATM. The Craziest one is that for the Gemini B however. The huge hole for astronauts to navigate back to KH-10 Dorian/MOL is just near the center of the "SM" section on Gemini B. So USAF/McDonald Douglas had to design a retro package of 9 small SRMs that burnt in such away to keel thrust line through the center of mass of the Gemini B capsule. There is a small window with Gemini B that an Abort was impossible on due to this asymmetric thrust and it's interaction with the CoM and CoP (could not line up all three.) So many of the Gemini B abort modes were abort to orbit.. AKA Hang on and Hope nothing worse happens. Also given the thrust line, the Gemini B retro-ed Nose down vs the Standard Gemini. By my calculations about 10-15 degrees nose down.

While he mentions it several times in the wording on his site.... Ed Kyle's page is a very good reference but it is not 100% accurate. Specifically many of the Titan Drawings for the later Titan 3 Rockets have the stage lengths being wrong per his own descriptive text. Yes and no, The Japanese upper stage is nearly 100% New Engineering. The HOSS upper Stage is a repurposed Delta 2 tankage that has been cut down. That means it is likely LESS efficient than the Japanese upper stage (and probably why it didn't go into production.) I would rate efficiency wise, the Delta 3/4 DCSS, then the and the H-II upper stage THEN HOSS. That due to boil off concerns. The DCSS is an evolved H-II after all with an RL10 engine vs the LE-5 BUT HOSS is probably the easiest to model Game wise.A Tank and An Engine plate that allows the Delta II inter-stage to work with RL10 engines. and a small adapter plate for a PLF and Delta Guidance (re-purpose the Delta P one most likely)

So for the longest time we have had Launch escape systems for Apollo, and Mercury in this beautiful mod. But never has there been a LES for Gemini. Yes part of the reason is that the SM is made as one part and not two (lets NOT go down that road please!) BUT with the new Atlas V Seperation motor... we can come up with a LES that works in all flight modes: Yes that is TWO of the new Atlas V stage seperatrons added with the most recent release on each TB-16 on the Big Gemini capsule. With 6 pairs of these mini SRMs I was, in 2.5scale Galileo, able to abort a Big-G in any flight mode other than pointing down at 1000m or less. I have not tested on a Basic Gemini capsule yet but I am hopeful that only 4x total of the SRMs are needed to safely save a Gemini.... (Say that 5 times fast.) More pictures of the BigG Service module in this post: They are post Escape module separation however.

@Barzon Kerman most of those documents are for POST Apollo. That is to say one of the myriad of proposals for the Space Shuttle. Back in the negative Nixion years (he hated the idea of 'wasting money in space') a LOT of programs were restructured and had similar sounding names to disguise the extra funding being used on things the administration didn't really want. Others, like the McDonald Douglas Big Gemini are talked about as if they are derivative from an earlier program. The Big-G capsule would have been a complete re-engineering of the original Gemini capsule making it actually something new. Same thing happened again 30 years later in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program... Besides general configuration, the two platforms have nothing in common except manufacturer. But it is awesome to see a Navaho style Launch fully re-usable shuttle type program was thought of...= Also interesting to note that early on when NASA was looking for the most EFFICIENT Space Shuttle the HL-10 derived Lifting body was the most sought after design... Of-course it couldn't carry as much fuel as a slab sided shuttle so we got what we got.... Then they decided to remove the fuel from the Shuttle to an external tank.... Why didn't they go back to the MORE EFFICIENT HL-10? Ok enough off topic Oh and Speaking of Big Gemini and Phoenix Industries... BDB for the engines and the Big-G parts, Stock for the Heatshield (so staged recovery can recover the SM) RealChute because reasons, and Orbital Phoenix's tank and engine mount. This is early in my career so I have not unlocked a docking port (Probe/Drogue or APAS/CAMBS) to place between the engines. Solar panels are from Probes! Plus That is The Galileo skybox/Sunflares ofMaar on the Galileo planet mod with all appropriate dependencies in a 2.5scale rescale. The neat engine effect is stock to BDB courtesy JadeofMaar as well.

The original Centaur Engine plate was re-made...ish. It now has built in RCS?!... It supports 2x engine mounting and is similar shape/size to the Centaur V engine plate.

Personally I don't see the point... that is unless they actually modify how boil-off works for BDB? Or if you need it to make the stage look better.

Agreed, Also depending on if you are using a re-scaled system or stock system will affect this. In my 2.5x Galileo play-through I am currently playing through, I don't auto-stage but wait until my Apollo capsule has slowed to ~220m/s and below 8000m and above 3300m. Further, are you using a Pilot on the Capsule? Remote control can be setup to have plasma blackout... If so the chutes may not deploy if no pilot/crew is present. IF you are doing all the above as we suggest and still having problems...

There is a lot of neat stuff in the Extras folder (My stuff is in there so I *AM* biased ) I just don't like the Saturn or Titan Rescales (The Saturn MB config alters some Titan parts.) Makes the parts not Kerbal anymore (you can't use them as easily with other parts.)