Pappystein

Ok so I say this in jest... it has already been split by the N number 1. In all seriousness I see both sides of this. My Surface tablet strains under the STOCK game alone... But my desktop is currently running something like 85 mods. Many of them part mods (Yay Cheap ram and x64!) In the end I believe that the Creator of the Mods will determin what is right for them. Hraban, you have split your mods up one way. And that is great. Cobaltwolf has chosen to do his a different way... That is also great. Yay freedom of choice!

Yup I skrewed up on that. IDK why I was thinking OAMS... Obviously with the nestled Hypergolic engine it is the PBV... Only excuse is I worked on my day off today. Um There are PLENTY of mods that give you the more "fun" Soviet/Russian engines.... While not quite up to CobaltWolf's standards... a few (MadRocketScientist's or KOSMOS) are pretty nice looking.

Dayum dude! Why do you have to stream when I am working! Just got home and logged in to see all this beautiful fun stuff I asked for. Effin Awesome! That OAMS might just be your new "Best Looking Part" in the mod. WOW!

Well for some reason KSP won't let me take screenies with my current build... IDK why. But I have been flying Minotaur Vs and VIs the past two nights thanks to the new parts. Have not tried to orbit an Agena yet but I think I could do that once I figure out what the Agena is going to be a bus for. Eventually I will have a correctly functioning SR-118 for those of you who want the full Minotaur III+ Experience... Or for those of you who are actually crazy enough HAVE nukes in your game due to some weapon mod. (Say no to nukes, say no to Jello, say no to nukes!)

There is no such thing IRL. It was SUGGESTED that one be developed for the later Athena rockets but given most rockets that launch Castor-120/Castor-120 are still in the lower atmosphere and given the High Vaccum ISP already on the Castor-120 such a development would give a negligible gain for a greatly increased rocket cost. Further in the case of Athena rockets the later versions were to use the Orion upper stage with a much more efficent engine than the early Athenas and their origional upper stage I would add that there IS a Castor-120XL

Oh now there are TWO reasons I wish I didn't help my Best Friends move! Pain+Suffering and missing this Dev stream!

IDK you could have made a DOS style 6 way docking node for your end-piece instead of the Skylab one and it would have been a useful large First To Orbit (FTO) Station. Sure later stations would have more capabilities but given the lego block construction who cares... Update update update. A new station isn't needed The ONLY change I would have suggested was when using the Wet lab Skylab module use the Skylab solar panels or otherwise mount different (MOL?) Panels on the Skylab-wetlab before launch. That leaves room for you if you want to dock a space plane (SSTO, Shuttle, X20 ETC) to the station.... and they are BDB parts PS Nice use of the Venus Flyby module in conjunction with the wetlab. That is my prefered Skylab experience for non historical space stations.

I don't know. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just make a recoverable S-IC stage? I mean sure you would need something like 10 J-93 engines ala my Avatar and metal impinged wheels again like my avatar to properly do it and survive the Mach-3 environment an unloaded S-IC could fly in.... but... On a serious note. Nice set of pictures and thanks for sharing!

Actually that would be Saturn II INT-17's First stage. It was to be powered by 7 HG-3 Sea Level Rated engines (in the Pafftek Extras folder) Best to use with the MS-IIA Tankage in the same extras folder.... The leftmost of the three versions pictured: Center is standards S-II tankage and engine plate with either J-2S or HG-3 and UA-1207 SRBs and Right is Standard S-II setup again with Minuteman derrived SRBs. The Agol SRB is ALMOST the right size (it is too long IIRC and lacks the correct thrust/fuel load) but it is a good VISUAL fit for the Saturn II INT-19. Personally I fly almost exclusively the INT-18 (in the middle) for my big satellite launches.... Or for getting crew to my Apollo era stations. Not powerful enough to get my Tinkertoy parts in space (for my Deep Space rocket derived from Saturn.) Further, the 7 engine J-2/HG-3 mount was mentioned in a few of the MLV studies that were of the same generation as the Saturn II proposals.

I will probably have a MM files for the extras since while it is Visually nearly identical to the Castor-120, the SR-118 first stage burns ~2x as fast.... All so the MX missile could get away before enemy nukes blew it's silos up... Depressing but it is fitting that your SO is playing Fallout: New Vegas on your desktop while you are building a retired nuke launcher on your laptop RE your new parts I have used a few of them. Just relaunched a career after playing in the sandbox to design my Saturn derived Tinker-toy to Venus and beyond ship that supports Life Support.... Like all your latest parts, the new parts stand out and scream Porkjet was here and his technique was improved upon by Cobaltwolf!

Well since @CobaltWolf has stated previously he had zero plans to make one.... What ever you make it look like? And by the way welcome to the BDB forum.

Um maybe I did UN-BREAK something. I thought there was a LH2 only tank version used in the part switch. While a Tank cfg exists...... well the @PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen],@RESOURCE[Oxidizer] Group is missing the LH2 only tank option. Option 1 is LH2/O, Option 2 is LF/O and the last option (3) is mono. Should not a fourth option LH2 be added? I may have added this to my cfgs that I am currently not running.

Ahh but what a GOOD way to learn! I am running a clean new build with 1.4.5 and OPT (Legacy + Community continuation) all the near futures save the space craft (they don't quite fit with BDB like the rest of NF) and none of my additional mods beyond what is in the Extras folder. BUT a FYI, in the extras folder the S-ICFB which should have ~2/3rds the extra fuel as MS-IC has stock fuel loads of the base S-1C. I will get hard numbers from my data files via the Github.

I would have to see the origional craft file to see. But my one question is there a decoupler between the LEM decent engine and the Saturn LEM adapter piece? AWESOME! How many Delta-P (TR-201 AKA LEM Decent engine) engines did the landing stage have? 3 or 4? And what if any adapter did you use to mount said engines?

While you could.... And a lot of parts in stock are LESS than spectacular.... I found it to be less than an Ideal thing... BDB+SSTU.... Easier but still kept a lot of stock parts (Gears, Wheels and Batteries being the biggest ones!) BDB+Mk2 Expansion + SSTU with P-Wings (B9 version) and P-Fairings.... Was a great build for me. I am back to stock + BDB and I have OPT for BIG space planes using almost the entire run of Near Future (Aerospace, Electrical, Solar, Nuke and Cryo) to build a Saturn-Tinkertoy based heavy explorer vessel.) ===================================================================================================================================================== BTW @Jso, and @CobaltWolf. Something appears to have changed in @Nertea's cryo-engine MM files or the BDB B9PS fuel patch... All the BDB tanks lost their special fuel loads that were originally developed by him. Un-sure if this was intentional or just error creep between the BDB and the Cryo MM files. I went to make the parts I was using (several) have a better fuel load. I think altering the BDB tank setups so they are AFTER[zzzCryofuels] or whatever Nertea's exact nomenclature in that file is should solve the issue... Currently BDB is processing it's tank for B9... Then Cryofuels is wiping out that change for it's own.

Nope I agree the SR-119 stage is truly just a Cylinder with a cool Nozzle under it But isn't there some sort of wire conduit on one side? Two questions RE SR-118 then. 1) are you re-doing your existing Castor-120 model and if so are the Strongback/Wirechase or the metal to Composite joint going to be modeld in (you can see both in this picture:) In this picture you can see the Wirechase expands at the stage junctions on the left side of this picture: Secondly, Isn't the Castor-120 a different length than the SR-119? If you DO have the wire conduit on it then you could set up a greeble of several wires hanging at stage separation

Clarification question... Does this mean you are looking for something OTHER than a Minotaur IV/V/VI paint scheme for the SR-118 and SR-119? Most of the Minotaurs do have a new paint scheme on these lower two stages only.... I wonder why that is. EDIT Answered my own question.... Duh it is a Kevlar Epoxy composite case.... USAF didn't order them painted. Base color of Kevlar is a Tan-ish yellow and the epoxy dries to a smokey color.... Yup that could look awesome or WEIRD in conjunction with the rest of the mod.... But... the LDC Titan also is in the black spectrum so......

So is that a Shuttle rescue system or an Apollo Rescue system?

OH WOW that is AWESOME! I assume given all the discussion on the MX and the shape of the extendable bell that is the SR-120?

Woha Woha Woha! Arn't ALL the Updates!

@CobaltWolf For followup RE MX Missile actuators. The ones in the two pictures you provided, clearly pivot on the 3rd Bell segment and thus start wide and end up parallel to the bell. The Actuator would not fit in the area if it was FIXED, and in this case, would not be able to extend the bell if Fixed at the locations provided. For a Straight Thrust vectoring Actuator I would say they were fixed but extending ones will need to pivot at 2 or more points (the MX missile has 2 points of pivoting for example.... The Engine casing and the 3rd segment attachment points.)

Well I found plenty of pictures of mid-attachment Hydraulic actuators by searching google "Aircraft Control Actuator pictures" But just about every one of them has a url length that is too long to paste here.... The Inner portion of the Actuator (the piston stroke if you will) is always an end attachment. However the outer body, can be attached however/wherever the body is strengthen to withstand the forces. The Same end or Mid-end attachment schemes are used when lots of control/force are required but little movement is the result. They are also used in EXTENSION Actuators that are small and take up little space (EG missile nozzle extension or deflection (or both!)

That part is easy for me to describe. What you are seeing is the Tail end of the Actuator. The Attachment points are actually close together up at the start of the bell. One side is on the thrust structure and the other is on the bell just above/below the thrust structure and continues on to the part you can see. Actuators are rarely end to end attachment in aircraft or rockets. Often times they are End to middle or end to SAME end.

SSTU is ONE of a series of GREAT Mods by @Shadowmage and several of them can cross-refer to the core SSTU mod. I suggest going through your entire GameData folder and remove anything that references SSTU, PBR etc. I am suggesting this because you have PARTS of the SSTU suite installed but not all of it and theirfor it is broken. Point in fact, it sounds like you should delete all non Squad mods out of your gamedata directory and then start adding them in one at a time with new downloads. You have several PARTIAL mods in your GameData folder and this is what is causing 100% of your issues. If you are using ANY 3rd party mod downloader (like CKAN) then I would suggest to NOT use ANY downloader again. This was the exact problem that caused me to quit using CKAN. I know it is like pins and needles waiting for a reply but not all of us are available 24/7. Please be patient. If you have not had a reply in a few days then please re-ask your question. PS I do not work for nor am I really affiliated in any way with this mod... I have just been through the same experiences you have.

No, I have BDB and attendant attachments (B9PartSwitch, CRK and the OPT re-config my Jadeofmaar.) Beyond that it is simple gizmos like Diazo's VVC, NavHud and RealChute/SafeChute. I did notice this on several chutes so a possibility that Realchute is applying things incorrectly can not be left out..... I will remove Realchute/Safe chute and check again. PS Craft height only matters when doing a full career. I launched a single Koose on a 3 Vanguard first stage (ala Delta IV / Falcon9H) arrangement before I had even unlocked 1.25m or any other 0.9375m rocket parts. I can actually think of a LOT of reasons these craft DO make sense. IF placed 1 per module on a space station (and not in a centralized nest.... SORRY! ) The Module between me and the rest of the station has ruptured but I was able to close this module off before total de-compression. A catastrophic structural failure of the docking ports with new craft the afor mentioned Micro-Meteorite scenario The Apollo 13 Scenario. The question isn't if these are useful it is rather is a Kerbal's life worth the cost/space/mass/resources used to crate these buggers up and HOPE you never have to use them