Pappystein

No but Tweakeverything has been known to cause issues with many of the FASA animations (BDB's launch clamps are all FASA launch clamps... suitably modified as mentioned above). However, on thinking about it, many of the launch clamps will break/dis-engage due to craft mass/torque. Add more clamps and see if you still have the issue.

I will add, I was a long time FASA user. I had it on my PC almost from the moment it was "developed from / spun-off-of" Novapunch and was just a Redstone rocket with the Mercury capsule. FASA was a few parts for the Manned NASA missions only.... BDB is practically the entire US Space program (Rocket wise) from the formation of NASA to the end of the Saturn program and includes parts for some Alt-History time lines (Earth To the Sky being the biggest.) You won't find better mod for NASA type mission in KSP today. No offense to the other mod makers out there but @CobaltWolf and company have spent a lot of time working on this... I am proud to say that EVERY KSP game I have now has BDB as the first mod I download... I mean we just had a nice teaser for Titan Large Diameter Core stage parts a few messages above yours... Titan LDC was a PAPER study at best.

I assume you meant S-IE for the engine mount but besides that and the lack of LR-101s for Roll control... 3.125 means Titan LDC tanks????? ???? And since Titan LDC had many iterations of it's proposal including a 3 stack LH2/OX version (think Falcon Heavy) and a 5 stack version.... you made a nose cone for it??? Alternatively that could be one of the Jarvis proposals.

I am not having the issues you describe using BDB. But I am not using RO. there appears to be a known reported but not acknowledged issue with Mechjeb and RCS control so I would put it down to that. I mostly have problems like that if I have SSTU installed and believe SSTU was the culprit. IE I am not having these issues in my BDB + Mechjeb test build but I do when I add SSTU to the mix.

Proof is in the pudding. The last picture is of the Saturn IVB RESCALED into the Saturn IVC fuel tank (the REALLY long pipe is a dead give away.) You have an out of date Extras folder file for the Saturn Multi-Body/MLV Saturn. And yes before you ask, if two parts have the exact same name... Weirdness can ensue. Work is being done to eliminate the possibility of these artifacts causing issues in the future (RE-scales are getting a new naming convention rather than what the actual part name SHOULD be.) This will greatly reduce the chance of files from the Extra Folder having same names as files with Bespoke Parts of Awesomeness from Cobaltwolf That is one of the back end changes for a future update though. Your solution is simple. Delete the files you took from the extras folder from your BDB directory. If you want to keep some of the other Saturn parts, you can go into the Saturn file in the Extras folder and comment out the Saturn IVC parts (there are TWO parts.) you comment out by putting a // in front of EVERY line that you don't want to be used. FYI If you didn't insert extras from 1.4.1 the chances are you just copied 1.4.1 over the top of the previous BDB version you were running. That being the case DELETE the BDB directory and re-download the 1.4.1 files... or better yet the Master on github. There have been some changes to the Extras folder in the past few days but that is currently in a state of flux. Keep in mind it is YOUR responsibility to use anything in the Extras folder and no support is implied or promised for use of any of those files. @CobaltWolf RE the Delta-K To quote Firefly the TV show... "SHINY!"

If multiple parts use the same model or the same texture this is actually a pretty good PRACTICE. Thus if you modify one part you know all the other parts that might be affected. Conversely putting 2 widely different parts together (say a Fuel tank for Rocket 1 and an Engine for Rocket 77,) well then... Hilarity, hi-jinx and down right frustration can occur. My personal Hypergolic Titan update (converts all the Hypergolic BDB engines and tanks to actual hypergolic fuels..) is something like 90 parts long. It can be FUN to test if something is codded wrong. And I am GOOD at accidentally forgetting a closing ] In the future you might see nested MM configs right in the main part file too. Currently the F-1/F-1A is like this but there are more and more parts that are re-using the same models (J-2T-200/250K for example.)

I have not had any issues with this tank. I use it regularly. I would have to know what you mean by "...bug gets very big on the pad..." Do you mean the Diameter gets larger than 3.75m?

Delta-P is easy. Same tankage as Delta-K with the standard LEM descent engine... Yes the Delta-P was SLIGHTLY modified vs LEM use but for basic game play it works. If you want a Delta-F or Delta-G that would be the Ablestar tank with the AJ-10-118K engine (well a little OP but it works.) Besides, those are really for use on White/Gray EELT Thor Hulls and not the Blue Delta Hulls.

Not released yet. Ironcretin has been offline since the start of the month. We will just have to wait with some patience, and hope everything is A-OK

It hasn't even fully released in KSP but the parts that are in game are AWESOME! I have clipped in some of my own custom parts (IE clipped existing parts...) I have a 4x array of these beauties about to launch on a Saturn V rocket as a space station addon.... These are going to be my Escape vehicles

Um, I launched a Rocket into a sub-orbital path? Sorry I couldn't resist! Seriously, Kerbal01, I assume you are using some sort of planet pack mod... OPM or something else? On the subject of launches. Has anyone succeeded in using the long inline AJ-260 to launch a Munar lander + Apollo to the Mun?

Yep and it is less use-full but WAY more efficient than the LR-101s were... Since IRL the LR-101s were both Roll-Control and Vernier control (fine tuning the Atlas Rockets trajectory even after MECO) Just a heads up to all of you grabbing this off the Git... IRL it wasn't fired up until just before booster separation (the Boosters performed Roll Control up until Booster Cut-off and separation.) Besides when have you known RCS to work well at Sea-level

Um, Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that already possible? I could swear I was running around with a Single test engine on a Centaur just two hours ago... There are a total of 5 nodes on the Centaur Engine mount. Connects at the top to the centaur tank above Connects to the Centaur Inter-stage (both versions) Connects to a SINGLE RL-10 type engine Connects to ONE of 2 RL-10 engines Connects to the OTHER of 2 RL-10 engines. Did something get altered in the recent release? I know that a Centaur + RL-10B-2 just does not fit under the Centaur Inter-stages (but I think it WILL fit if you use tweakscale and the Delta Inter-stage...)

You sir are Crafty Like the new RL-10 and the return of B2....

Not real historical but the Heating in KSP could use some work so my answer is : Space, The Final Frontier. These are the continuing voyages of the Spaceship Apollo....

By looking at the Aerojet pictures. the Gimbal is ABOVE the engine hardware for the NK-33. IE not part of the model you created Alcentar. https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/19aj26test/ http://www.rocket.com/loxhydrocarbon-booster-engines The last photo on the 2nd link shows an Antares with the bottom skirt removed. You can clearly see new hardware above the thrust structure of the NK-33 engine. This hardware is not something that would be seen on any rocket due to how it integrates with the structure of the tank. So I personally see no reason to create this extra detail. By looking at this admitedly low detail picture it appears that the Gimbal setup is for 2 engines... As in the Gimbal hardware is separate from the engines that mount to it. And here is a Youtube video of an AJ-26 burn test from the top of the Rocket engine itself. Note you only see the engine bell and plumbing but you can clearly see the gimbal is ABOVE the point of view

And proud of it

While Pong boxes had a Tadpole (300 to 75ohm) transformer block... the output was actually 300 Ohm twin lead. So two brass screw heads on top of a brass or silver square slightly bigger than the heads would suffice completely Seriously while the RED WHITE and YELLOW coloring for RCA didn't come out until the early 1980s (stereo with video wasn't a thing until then) everyone should GET that this is an ANALOG system and not a digital (no solid silver wire HDMI cable can plug in HERE!)

Nope. PONG! You know, worlds first Video game... Came out circa the cancellation of MOL (well a few years later but built in future compatibility.... )

Yes a resize of the parts you are refreshing to a "true" 1.875m would be appreciated.

Just when I thought I had all the Space Station parts I could need. You HAD to MAKE me download this mod Nertea Now I have to figure out how to make my DOS based space station even better with your parts.... And then cry because the IVAs, are AWESOME and the other station parts I have either don't have IVAs or are very limited in their scale or beauty. Your hard work on the IVAs is much appreciated.

Sad to say in this case that is not the issue. The Payload is the same between both rockets. the ONLY difference is one part is swapped for the other. @CobaltWolf @ferram4 I THINK I know what is wrong here. Cobalt you correctly removed the big shroud housing off of the LR-101. They don't fly with them IRL. Without that air-cover you are exposing several parts that are at straight right angles to each other and many that are directly in the slipstream of air around the rocket. This would exponentially increase the drag co-efficient through interference drag as well as parasitic drag (I am probably missing a form of drag here as well!.) In layman terms you went from something that was aerodynamic to a real brick wall. Ferram4, is there a way to have a part NOT calculated for Drag purposes? I have not use FAR in a while so I am a bit rusty on it's workings. @Mike` Did you try flying the OLD Atlas vs the NEW Atlas with the same payload and the old LR-101s on both? Simplified test. You don't even need to stage the LR-89s off the Atlas to test this. Do a vertical climb. Record Apogee. Rinse and repeat for all three Atlas variants [Old Atlas, New Atlas with old LR-101, New Atlas with new LR-101.] It might take a launch adjusting the fuel load down (or more mass on the payload) until you keep the rocket from Exiting Kerbin's SOI. Just make certain all three rockets have the same fuel load when you test them.

I forgot to mention earlier that on Atlas ONLY the Tanks are polished. None of the engine mounting hardware is polished and only a few Centaur adapters were polished.

1) are you planning on posting the Textures unlimited cfgs? 2) the Polish of the CSM was in part to make it pretty for the media. Also it would aid in visibility for docking. There are other reasons for the polish which include to help with heat management etc... I do not think the AARDV, nor the engines need such a treatment. Every AJ-10 I have seen for the CSM had an oxidized or matte look. Something Cobalt has done an amazing job of reproducing. 3) While there may be an exception or two, Agena almost exclusively flew either White and black or Bare metal (non polished) and Black color schemes. The exception is the Gemini Docking target Agena. This was polished for several reasons once of which again is visibility in space for docking. Any chance of having it switch back and forth between the TexturesUnlimited Texture and CobaltWolf's? 4) Skylab, only had a few parts that were a bare metal (not painted.) Space Lab however is an ETS and I would defer to E of Pi. Over 2/3rds of Atlas Rockets were polished But again not all (although there was a far higher percentage of Atlas's launched with polished tanks than not.) So Atlas is a SURE as it was the most commonly flown variant. A lot of Atlas Rockets early on had Day-glow Orange on the plumbing fairings (the side structures) IIRC DayglowOrange is still the brightest pigment Humankind has used in Paint. I would ASSUME that the Vega upper stage would have received the same polish treatment. VERY few STAR rockets have a polished metal case. First off most of the metal cased STAR rockets are Titanium and that metal does not lend itself to polishing the same way rolled sheet steel or rolled stainless steel does. Actually a goodly percentage of the STAR motor cases were painted, Gloss black, Gloss White, Matte British Racing Green (dk green) or left raw with only a simple (matte finish) clear coat. Specificly the STAR-37 and STAR-48 family can be found here: https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/propulsion-systems/docs/2016 OA Motor Catalog.pdf You can clearly see the STAR-37 and Star-48 are mostly raw and steel reinforcement straps are the only part that have any sort of polish to them (IE not the Titanium hull, just the attachments to it are polished.)

Um Cobalt and JSO asked me why I needed some specific config alts for a MM file set I was helping to test (part NOT to be coming soon but maybe... someday) and I said because I need to reuse it. They said For a 60 cost empty SRM? I said yes. Local Congress critter didn't like me launching from KSP on my northern orbits and dropping stages on the poor Homes... err... trees. The only stage I have not been able to recover is the MS-IC stage (my personal MM file.) Seems it breaks up before StagedRecovery can grab it. I probably have something screwy in the MM file. I recover the engine mount and the engines but I never seem to recover the tank. Half of my launches are devoted to recovering non probe controled stages from LKO. And most of my upper stages have a probe core of some sort on board (even if it is a pioneer 0.125m core.) I ALWAYS try to leave a little fuel in my orbiting stages with probe core to de-orbit it to recovery. Actually the Winged Saturn S-IC stage was only *SERIOUSLY* proposed for Saturn-Shuttle. None of the winged proposals I have seen are for the Apollo era Moon launches except in VERY GENERIC, hey we could try this, kind of wishful proposing/thinking. Parachutes for the versions of Saturn IN BDB currently... to stay correct to history. But I do believe @e of pi was involved with an alternative timeline that had a Saturn Shuttle launcher and a winged Saturn S-IC stage.... I THINK. I ALSO think I read in one of the many books on the Valk I have, that North American and General Electric proposed slapping a bunch of J93-GE-3 or -9 engines on a Valkyrie derived wing structure, appropriately scaled up onto the S-IC stage. As part of a Saturn Shuttle proposal.