Pappystein

Drakenex, Not to nit-pic but isn't Army Blue, um well, Olive Drab? Now NAVY or AIRFORCE blue.... That I could get behind.... Seriously by all accounts the US AirForce groups behind the Blue Gemini project did not want a Blue capsule.... A PR person thought it should be painted that color to separate it from the NASA version. That being said Blue Gemini color would be nice. Now as to the black coatings on Mercury and Gemini. It is a Heat reflective and radiative finish designed to allow a somewhat limited safety net if the capsule did not come down as designed (and MORE importantly to also prevent heat buildup in Direct Sunlight.) I MM all Gemini and Mercury capsules to have an Ablative finish applied.... to the tune of 1/40th the BDB heat shield for said capsule.

Two things, 1) You only needed to add 2 additional fins to the S-IC? And it flies well? 2) where are the Jet engines, the landing gears and the big wings, and the single crew cockpit so you can recover your S-ICs?

Mmmm, Zeus, Spartan, Sprint.... Fun. Why don't we go for all of Project Bumblebee while we are at it? I think that the sprint Engine is too far out of scope for BDB and more inline with one of the SM-Armory type mods.... IF anyone could get such an engine to not just break everything attached to it in KSP... I fear everything would break at launch... even with KJR or lotsa struts or both. a 1.5 second to Space (and burnout) engine is NOT KSP friendly. EDIT: POP QUIZ what was the original Zeus Anti Aircraft system? http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/sprint.html

NICE!!! Do my eyes deceive me, are they narrower than before? Re-purpose the old model for Castor IV? Those had a Strong-back like the old GEM model yes?

Goes watch Always from 1989... If Hap doesn't inspire you then Peter Saint Peter might And no need to apologize! BTW I kind of imagine a Truncated cone like Saturn S-II with the skirt attached. Only the end of the engine bell extending in profile past the skirt.

Cobalt, I will state as well, COLOR CODE AWAY <SNIPED a mini novel suggesting multiple models be made for GEMs.... TOO MUCH WORK>

Um hate to be the bearer of bad news Abpilot. That is only ONE of MANY proposals for NOVA. And I think it was one of the SMALLEST late in the program. It is missing the M-1 Supersized Hydrolox engine... It is missing the lander compartment entirely... This is just a souped up Venus/Mars Flyby Nova from one of the last couple years when NOVA was actively funded (65/66???) That picture is actually one of the early DIRECT flight landers proposed for Apollo Saturn. For the Saturn C-8 IIRC.... Which your Nova Picture is almost a near copy of... That would be a Pre 1963(?) Lander proposal I think and it clearly calls this out in it's headings. When they switched to the rendezvous method to get a lander to the Moon, they scaled back from the Saturn C-8 to the Saturn C-5 which of course became the Saturn V with minor tweaks. And yes I know that the Diameter capable of the Michoud factory has a part to play in this as well. ABOVE ALL I want to be clear. NOVA had so many DIFFERENT versions... Feel free to like what ever one you like. Just please don't assume the one you like was THE Nova and also please don't assume @CobaltWolf Is going to make the one YOU like IF he ever decides to make a NOVA. Heck, as Cobalt can plainly tell you I have been pestering him about the Saturn S-III stage for like the last month and a half. It was canceled in 1961-62 timeframe even BEFORE Saturn C-2 and Saturn C-3 (the rockets it was to be used on) were canceled. Coincidentally anyone wanting to make a Saturn C-II from 1961... Use the S-IVC parts Cobalt has recently added to BDB.... The Tank extension and the 2x engine mount with 2 J-2s on it work GREAT as a S-III stage between your 4x E-1 powered S-IB stage and your 1x J-2 Powered S-IVB stage for a Saturn C-2 analog. and you can lift Moar to orbit than a standard Saturn IB rocket can (with either the 8 H-2s or the 4 E-1s) Oops SORRY Cobalt... I will shut up about the S-III stage again I promise!

Hey All, First LGG THANKS for reviving this! I know it SORT of worked before but 1.2 kind of messed with a lot of it's performance and it seemed to never work well after that. Those of you commenting on Falcon9 Recovery with Ballutes... Remember the most produced ballute to date is an inverted Pyramid with 4 triangular "air intakes" on the straight sides, NOT a floaty-doughnut. These are used on the Mk82-AIR, Mk83-AIR and Mk84-AIR bomb. AIR is the part of the designation used to denote the ballute is installed. F-16.Net and other modern combat flight sim sites have lots of photos of them... Mostly being dropped by F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-111 Aardvarks but also carried by other aircraft. These were used instead of the much more widely known SNAKEYE retard kit because of weight and size constraints. A ballute would slow a bomb 90ish% of what a Snakeye kit could at a significant reduction in carried weight and cost for a bomb of 2000lbs in size. you COULD put Air-brakes on a Falcon 9's upper stage to recover it... It would JUST be too heavy to be efficient.

So totally MY opinion and all. But I think the art on the Thor/Delta I parts is actually pretty good. No it does not have quite the shine of a lot of the later parts but I think it is Fitting for the rocket is is based on. I am still launching EELT Thor based Delta I rockets in my late career over the EEELT Delta II. I don't need the extra Delta V with how I fly a Delta-I/Delta-P + STAR-48BV for my science Satellite in Kerbin-SOI.

Ahh but FASA uses 5M for the First stage of Saturn V. That means it is smaller in all respects (except the CM and SIVB) to BDB's Saturn V. A BDB Based NOVA would be Gargantuan by comparison. As a Shameless plug of my own work, A Saturn V MLV boosted by 4 AJ-260Longs is actually MORE than NOVA and it is already possible with the latest masters (Using the Pafftek Extras folder in the Masters for the MLV tankage and HG3 engines.) So why would you want an over complicated and wasteful stage with 8x F-1 engines? 4 AJ-260s more than make up for it and you can still fit it in the VAB (barely) without resorting to Hangerextender or similar mods.

I feel that if not for two (3?) reasons NASA would have done Skylab the BDB way. 1) the Docking port is NOT automated. Automatic Docking ports didn't really come into existance until Post ASTP period. Skylab was already being readied to launch at this point and relies on the older/simpler Probe-drogue style docking port 2) NASA did not like not having a man in the loop as it were for docking. 3) and possibly (although I admit no knowledge on this subject.) there was not enough room in the docking room for more than 2 ships to dock (remember Soyuz was originally supposed to be docked with Skylab B as part of ASTP.) IE there are only two docking ports.

Add air-brakes to the top of your lander... It won't flip so long as you have large enough air-brakes on the top end. There are many MM files out there to give you tiny to ginormous air-brakes so fitting some shouldn't be an issue. It is amazing for a 0.9375m Probe core. that is for sure. Best Chute ever... I can use it from extreme attitude and not have to worry about popping it like an Inline Ballutte or shredding it like a stock chute.

IIRC that shroud is actually because the mounting was up high on the Agena tankage (notice the step between the standard Gemini service module and the Agena tankage.) The shroud served as an armor plate for the tanks so they wouldn't get diced by the explosive bolts at separation or wouldn't get hit by the inter-stage if the capsule suffered a pitch or yaw movement at separation. A cool thing that could be done with it if you want to tackle that and get Grebel happy on a hypothetical part... Have the shroud decouple after separation.. exposing two big and either 4-6 or 8 RCS tanks inbetween the two big cylindrical tanks.) It looks like those tanks would end up being a 1.25m stack after the shrouds are separated (assuming Agena at 0.9375m and Titan at 1.875m) Please note that there is a Rocket assisted Escape for early abort modes as well Same part would be needed for a "complete" BigG. If you want to do that dirty... Just cut the Apollo capsule shroud off the Apollo LES and add new girders that reach to 4 points around the windows on the standard Gemini capsule. White LES vs Red LES I could care LES personally..... (Sorry for the pun)

Or just use 4x of the new E-1s instead of the 8x H-1s???? After all there IS more DeltaV by doing so (as there should be.) JSO and Cobaltwolf would be the final people to determine if an upgrade should be applied but IIRC even the RS-27 (which is just an H-1 engine with a fancy new bell extension) isn't much more powerful in thrust than the initial production H-1 engines. Besides, most of the "improvements" in the S-IB were in weight reduction, not thrust of engines.

Ok So I have said most of what I want to say on BigG off forum but to answer a question Cobalt asked. Make the Docking port mount at the rear fixed, With a 2x engine mount to either side (splayed out 10 degrees please... no need to melt the docking port.) Set a shroud around the whole assembly with a node floating below where the actual docking port would attach. Depending on your final choice of SM(s) you may need to use B9 to switch between auto-shroud diameters (2.5-3.125-3.75m) For those not in the know... there were AT-LEAST 4 different SMs proposed for BigG. Including the Apollo Blk2 SM (the one that flew to the Mun) Cobalt has highlighted the 2.5m with a 1.857m (BDB scale) SM and the 3.75m conic (again BDB scale.) Personally I am a fan of the Conic to Cylinder @ 3.125m because should Cobalt or someone else later desire to make the 3.75m conic later many parts can be reused. An Apollo SM on Big-G needs an adapter tank between the SM and the BigG-SM decoupler. This is because the RCS in the nose of the capsule is for re-entry only. So translation needs to be handled behind the CM. And yes that means the quad R4D thrusters currently on the Apollo SM would need to be closer to the engine bell. Oops forgot to mention The engines nodes should be capable of first Generation AJ-10 Able style motors. Nothing bigger. It is likely that the AJ-10-118F would have been tapped for this roll.

And for those who have not installed the latest Master copy both it and the Inline LR-101 for roll control work AMAZING. have flown both a Saturn IB with 4 of these in lieu of the H-1s and a Titan with one of these (in a tweakscaled Saturn IE Engine mount) on a Gemini Titan II (don't forget 2 inline LR-101s.) AWESOME!

Thank you now the E-1s will work on Titan

I would add that I think the bottom LR-101s would also be used for Saturn S-IE and Saturn S-IF first stages. The side mount on Atlas was an in-elegant solution to the control problem after booster separation.

Given Atlas was side mounted by necessity (cause the skirt would be huge to have them under it when the 1/2 stage was seperated) I feel they would be Bottom mounted ala Thor.) Also because the thing is designed to launch out of silos (Atlas was always a pad or Coffin launched rocket) @Cdodders I am running the Masters (downloaded 3/16 @GMT -5) and I have the AARDV cargo pod in directory. I just created a sandbox since I haven't unlocked the AARDV parts yet in my career playthrough and I have all the parts (Ore/Resupply tank, Control module, adapted RCS, Nosecone and the obvious Apollo SM parts that are shared.) I am running 1.4.1. are you running a Life Support mod?

Um I have GOT to stop missing the Dev-streams! All I can say is WOW again another BMoA (Bespoke Model of Awesomeness) Titan I we are a go with Main engine swap... Just don't forget to add 2 LR-101s from the Atlas for Roll Control. For those that want to play with the E-1 before CobaltWolf get's his BMoA up, the E-1 (using the F-1 re-scaled) is in the Extras Folder of the Master copy of BDB. And it flys real well on the Saturn IB as well @CobaltWolf what is the diameter of the engine attachment ring?

I would add that each vendor may (and do) measure the "Parachute" mass as varied as the Chutes themselves for some all the way to the Structural re-enforcement required to use the chutes for others. You can't just take a published figure for an entire recovery system and say it is that of the parachute. Likewise you can never NEVER assume that published documents are correct in their description. Many "Science-y" documents are downgraded when handed to the press to "avoid confusion" AKA to make us work harder to get the data we really want So @Armchair Rocket Scientist I wouldn't worry about the mass as has been described in your source.. Unless you have specific data of the mass of the actual material (please note I do not mean the apparatus like you were quoting above, rather the canopy and riser material mass) used it is pointless.

Um, no, not really. It is a 0.625 to 1.875m conical piece that has Gemini sugar-scoops and 2 doors (in a texture.) It appears to follow the conical angles of the basic Mk1-3 pod in game already so it makes me wonder is this a new part or a masivly rebuilt existing Mk1-3. The texturing is cool but it is short and fat compared to a Gemini. Either FASA's Gemini or BDB/TRAILS/Gusmobile's Gemini are better proportioned. FASA has much more realistic texture and shape. BDB/TRAILS/GusMobile has that "Kerbal Kuality" that is awesome in it's own right.

I believe DMagic Science Animate has been updated (not verified yet) but as of yesterday mid-day B9PartSwitch was not... ======Just installed on a fresh copy of 1.4.1 to check dependencies======= I had no issues with the latest MASTER copy of BDB plus MM 3.0.5 and the game loads just fine. I will update this if there are any weird issues I see in game play. and I was wrong, DMagic Science Animate is not affected so it has not been updated

Everyone, I am just as excited as the rest of you but I think you are all miss-interpreting @CobaltWolf query above. He was asking for opinions on the bullet points in his own post. Specifically about Centaur Interstage and useability RE Titan, Titan-LDC and Saturn. Not what each of us wants to see in his mod.

Cobalt, Possibly a Contaminant due to the advanced Layering? IE could a layer have been crushed into the base layer that could alter the colors? Also, could it be an issue with different settings in Photoshop between one session and a next? Totally WAGing here but they are thoughts of two possibilities. Maybe for future section off a small portion of each of your Textures for "Reference color swatches?" Save a Blank texture with these references and start each new texture sheet from THAT sheet? IDK. As we have discussed outside of the forum... I am all left feet when it comes to the texturing side of things. So good-news / less good-news. The Saturn rockets were to fly with Big Centaur (canceled early) Centaur, and Baby Centaur (canceled late) all under a single unified fairing that was slightly wider in diameter than the narrowest point on S-IV. So call it a Fairing that boat-tails out from 2.5m to say 2.65m and then vertical sidewalls. But please remember S-IV was a place-holder for the definitive S-IVB EARLY on in Saturn's program. It was a dead end even before it entered production.... The only reason it was flown at all is because the J-2 was behind development... Had NASA chosen the LR-87... well I doubt the Pegasus satellite experiments would have been based upon the S-IV stage then. So in the end the Centaur 1.875m Inter-stage is plenty for most basic Centaur packages... Centaur (any variant) on both Titan (any variant) and Saturn (Any variant) would fly under the fairings completely with no exposed skin. It is only Atlas where the Centaur is exposed.