Pappystein

no-no-no-no... Your fist stage should have been the S-II to S-IV Decoupler, S-II tank-age, S-II engine mount with 5x J-2SL Sea Levels... Then 4 x Radial decouplers with 4x UA-1207s.... The upper stage is right though And yes I am both Joking and providing the prescription to make a Saturn II Rocket (INT 18) :GRIN: Cause if you want to launch station parts into orbit, you can get a higher sustained orbit out of a Saturn II INT 18 rocket than you can out of the ETS rockets. Not that Multi-body isn't an awesome concept... I use it for Crew only Gemini-BigG launches tho.... since it is significantly less weight than the station parts themselves. Seriously Build the rocket your way and fly it your way. No one here to ACTUALLY say Build X or Y isn't right. It is all about what is right for YOU My upper stage almost always starts with the S-IVB IMU, TOPPED with a heat shield. And either the S-IVB or S-IVC tank-age with a B or C engine mount (I mix and match depending on the mission) I put for LARGE sized air brakes on the sides just above the RCS and a few parachutes near the nose (the Rocket flips 180 degrees after getting into thicker atmo anyway. Then I RECOVER my S-IVB/C Stage..... Saved Funds

Back in the day FASA was using a Reflection plugin to make the Atlas shiny. There were ram hits but the effect was beautiful. I want to say it took Frizzank at-least 6 or 8 public betas before Quality vs RAM was hammered down enough to include it in a release. Even today I would rate that Atlas (with Reflections working!) as the 2nd best looking Atlas in KSP. I think @CobaltWolf now has the best looking atlas (well it his Github master... it isn't fully released yet) in game but he is not using reflections. That being said, Shadowmage, I am assuming you would be using Reflections for more than one material. This could exponentially (each reflection having it's own additional channel yes?) pop up RAM usage... But I am MORE than willing to try!

And sorry if my original question to you sounded accusatory I was attempting to showcase the difference in RW vs KSP. I absolutely HATE docking ships, but I have a blast flying the rendezvous Seat of my pants style. And that is what is neat about MechJeb... use it as much or as little as you wish. Because of the inclination of my launch site in Galileo I almost always use Land at Target function to get me lined up with my KSC. But once I am in my ballistic flight in my Ship or Spaceplane I take over because I don't like how MJ tends to undershoot.... ever so slightly. I have a Closer CEP than Mechjeb does by overiding some of the "safety' features of MechJeb....

I still use BluedogDB for a lot... But SSTU has a lot of things that I use as well.... I would say my mix is 60/40 in favor of Bluedog. Mostly because I actually like the Stock alike look more than not. Conversely I absolutely LOVE the DOS style station parts and 100% of the Solar panels in SSTU. I do not launch a Space station that is not mostly made up of either SSTU COS or SSTU DOS parts. So I end up launching BDB based ships with SSTU parts on it... And SSTU payloads in the case of tinker-toy ships to other planets or space stations. Right and that is in part why NASA didn't want "Normal" Food to end up in space... so when a sandwich ended up in space on one of the Gemini flights.. weelll NASA and the US Congress went ape because a crumb could have 'destroyed the ship.' And yes that was an ACTUAL FEAR that a Rocket could be destroyed by a piece of debris caused by FOOD! I have Psoriasis... back in the early days it would have prevented me from flying with NASA due to the excess skin particles shed by my skin on a daily basis. Sure, NASA would have told me it was something else much more ominous... One of my EE Professors in College was tasked with designing part of the avionics for Apollo much earlier in his career. He stated the fear of most of the Electrical/Electronic Engineers in Apollo was a stray hair or other form of Biological contamination caused by but not limited to just Astronauts, could somehow cripple the entire spaceship and that would require the backup (the Human Pilot) to actually try to fly complex maneuvers and return the Capsule back to earth. Or worse leave the craft lost in space..... And that was for Apollo... Now imagine how it was when we hadn't gotten our feet "wet" yet as it were.

Nope that would be McDees... Mc-D was the abbreviation often used in the early days of McDonnell Douglas Aircraft/Aerospace company at the time of merger... With the Onset of McDonnalds on the world they changed theirs to MDC (Circa 1980 IIRC.) Or use FRMS (I think I have the letters in the right order.) Fly to orbit then go BACK and land your stages. It is.... cantankerous but between that and Staged Recovery I am recovering 80-90% of my un-fueled rocket by mass ever launch with the exception of the few times it has glitched or I screwed up and did too long of an orbital burn. I tend to loose service modules and obviously (I hope) any fairings I have on the Launch bird. Incidentally.... MOST rockets are flown by computer and have been since the dawn of space flight. Why aren't you @tater? The Pilots are on board if the computer (or for a component) failure.... IE Apollo 13... and even in the movie we can see just how hard it was for a Human to fly in space (mind you the ship wasn't optimized to fly that way but still!) To my knowledge the only space ship that was "flown" at NASA was actually the Shuttle orbiter. I am not trying to diminish the importance of Pilots... Because they ARE important. My example above (Apollo 13) would have never made it back to earth if a computer was the only pilot. But rather point out that at-least at NASA Space flight is run by computer (mostly).... Not Human (minimally.) Or to paraphrase a rather poor movie.... the Pilots roll is to be a monkey and flip the switch

@Shadowmage Didn't see any followup by you to your post asking for opinions on what is next. I will rank em with some thoughts on each/most of the choice by my preference: Most important: LC tanks. Like @tater the I like the LC tanks. They are awesome for their intended use... and SOO usable in other situations (small looking tanks of large volume for space station comes to mind. I just love them. Truth be told, they are probably the 2nd most used part from SSTU in my campaigns (the first being your awesome looking but not broken docking-ports.) Second most important.: Dragon. However a request. I assume the folding docking port cover would be used. While real life has a 90 degree opening. ASSUMING you model the part, could it be made to open 90 and then with a second click open to what ever the maximum angle to JUST clear the Dragon capsule (to allow more flexibility in docking.) If that is to be a jettisoned part than please move along from these comments... as these comments are not the comments you are looking for.... *HAN SHOT FIRST!* Third most important would be the Boeing CTS... Although, admittedly, this is almost an ancillary/dark horse type of capsule since most "Commercial" ventures are leaning towards Dragon (besides DRAGON-RIDER sounds soo much more cooler than CTS mission pilot! ) Bottom of the barrel in my opinion is the Mc-D ships. 3 reasons. Of all of the real world produced space ships, Mercury and Gemini are in 3rd and 4th place across many mods for being built by my count. Apollo is in 1st place. Soyuz appears to be second Of all these capsules mentioned Mercury and Gemini are only useful in a total conversion of the game as much as I love the Mc-D space craft, you have already mentioned in earlier posts that bringing them to full fruition (Gemini family) might be a bridge too far other than basic capsule that flew the R/W Gemini missions.... this also reduces effectiveness of the capsule. I will be honest here. I don't share your opinion on Stock-alike textures. BUT I understand your view on this subject. You already mentioned re-skinning existing models via patch and additional texture files as being an option. Might I suggest grabbing onto an existing mod that is UNDER DEVELOPMENT (please not a nearly dead necro mod for this.) for said re-texturing to your standard for textures on the Mc-D birds?

I am assuming you want my rough draft of UA156x rockets that re-use the UA1202 and UA1205 meshes? I am doing some polishing on them right now (changing the vertical scale of the UA1564 so that it is closer to RL, tweaking T/W Ratios etc.) But Soon (TM) Hydrolox LR-87-AJ-X twin bell is (I use the "Prometheus II" engine mesh for this) THIS is the engine that would have ended up as S-IVB stage Hydrolox. However some of the early proposals have 2x of the single bell LR-87-AJ-X on opposite sides of the original S-IVa stage. The Below MM uses better sourcing (Actual NASA/ABMA numbers not "book X" numbers that quote tests that were considered "failures," by Aerojet and NASA. Please note that I use the optional Realnames.cfg file that is included with BDB and these engines are named along that nomenclature.

For S-ID, maybe. For Pyrios type it is almost a requirement (Atlas after all.) S-ID shows a long spindly tank central tankage/structure. It is almost a funnel shape more than the Cone shape typical of SSTU mounts. @tater I recommed the HEX because it gives more room on a round tank for engines with odd shaped coliders. After all I might want to use Engine X from Mod Y with a SSTU engine for booster (I don't know why but that is my theory behind hex vs square.)

To be clear, I wasn't poking at this. Rather just mentioning that they were also needed if you want to "complete the collection" of SRMs developed for Titan. Yes the 156" version was developed for a contract that was never let (LDC Titan for MOL IIRC.) But..... You can easily edit that up yourself. I have one or two Once a Quad LR-87 comes out with LDC Titan, I will be looking to make a Hydrolox variant of that as well.

That is because Stock scale is so awesome Ok sorry Stock scale brings so may problems to this game when trying to do IRL stuff in game... But I had to say it. I came to Galileo for a challenge afterI had problems with a Stock System re-scaled to 2.5x... I am happy playing Stock scale in the Galileo world because of the challenges it provides.

Personally I use Neartea's Near Future technologies which has long spindly nukes that I could see using stage and a half for.... I know I am going to suffer performance issues... but I vote for 6 in a Hexagon arrangement

Er um. you are forgetting about the UA1562 and UA1563? Those were developed for Titan you know... Not Saturn like people seem to think. I am testing some UA-156x cfg files right now. They use the current UA1202 and UA1205 models so they DONT LOOK RIGHT but I needed to get my Saturn MLVs flying in style. And yes I do have stretched MS-1C and MS-II/-IIA stages already configured... Toying with the mass of them right now because currently I don't even need Castor-Is to get airborne. The payloadless Rocket LEAPS off the pad with BDB F-1A engines. On the subject of Bespoke parts and Mesh switching. Will we see more engines with Mesh-switching? No issues. I was un-aware you found better pics than those poor launch photos I sent you a few months ago. Some group of engineers tried to refute that the Roll Control system was part of Atlas stating the booster engines provided all the pitch and roll control Atlas needed.... If I had been awake when I did my original post (having just read that "news" article.... I would have caught on that the boosters are staged away.... Atlas needs Roll Control. dum dum dum. I know there are people that have made 1/2/4/5 axis switchable RCS modules (Actually I think it was B9 itself...) So you MIGHT be able to do that. *Goes to download B-9 to his test install...*

Depending on the rocket and flight profile as much as 2 minutes... but yeah... Not much more than that. Except the landers (Apollo LEM etc...)

I don't have any proof. I was just regurgitating several "studies" mentioned here in various forums for KSP. Ofcourse most of them are based on the Saturn V-C and V-D proposals but those were 5 F-1 engines with the S-ID Stage and a half first stage. The only positive is that the M-1 and the F-1 had somewhat similar LOX flow rates IIRC and thus maybe a 3 tank stage???

RE 1.5 stage rockets. 1.5 Stage rockets are an efficent engineering solution to a problem of LOW thrust + High Desired payload to orbit mass. in KSP they don't make sense because well... MOAR Boosters! but IRL the 1.5 stage actually makes a lot of sense still today. Imagine a Saturn V rocket. Remove the 5 J-2 engines from Stage S-II, Remove the central F-1 engine. Replace the other 4 F-1 engines with F-1As or better yet F-1Bs (Thanks for that one @Shadowmage!) and insert an M-1 where the central F-1 existed. Now at Launch it is just the four F-1 variant rockets with a flight profile similar to an Apollo moon landing.... Once RP-1 is exhausted in the new super stage (remember I never said remove S-II's TANKAGE!) the 4x F-1 engines are jettisoned and can be recovered via Parachute. The Monster Hydrolox M-1 now engages..... and flys the Saturn V variant in a more efficient profile than the old S-II assembly could have. The results in this scenario are more money saved than a standard 5 F-1 5 J-2 engined Saturn V upgrade... For a similar payload to LEO. IRL this was one of the proposals to try to save the Saturn V from no longer being produced... Make it partially recoverable. Atlas D/E/F/F(Hypothetical) and II are my primary satellite launcher for KSP because I can stack some chutes on the booster assembly and thanks to STaged recovery can gain some currency back. Probably the best bang for the buck in Satellite launching. My least used launchers are Atlas-V (BDB) and Delta IV (SSTU.) Both are used but no where near as much as the older tech Atlas families. Probably because I have an Agena fixation right now (Agena is the satellite bus of choice for me.) Too much to mention quite frankly. SSTU is probably the most innovative single mod-group in KSP right now... Add the fact that Shadowmage has also created/edited/modified/continued KSPWheel and KSP now has a great wheel setup in game........ Why haven't you been playing with this!

Ok so since we don't have any great pictures of it..... How about that Single thruster made in a 2x ROLL only RCS thruster for Centaur? The Marquardt R4D is likely NOT the "Hydrazine Roll Control Subsystem" used on Centaur for single engine flights but all the components are already or mostly made yes? Next to no texture involvement (just the 2x Fixture the engine bells are already done,) and you have stated a need for such a device. After all there really are no good pictures of the Centaur Roll Control System, correct?

You mean I have to download this again? AWESOME! Thanks for the update Beale!

Um, you could create a MM file that removes the gendered portion of the docking port nodes.... In THEORY the following would fix it.... But I am not going to guarantee this nor am I going to test it... that is 100% on you.

Several Issues. Mostly due to my own fly by the seat of MY pants, not some physicist who never flew in space, Launch profile (YES I AM JOKING ABOUT THE PHYSICIST!) Also the lack of controlability of Solid upper stages (hence my initial Inquiry about the SRMs being "cut-able." I also had several other mods that WERE not 2.5 safe causing issues.... Also I just didn't like how 2.5 felt in the campaign. And the last is totally my opinion... The Rockets don''t feel right to me in 2.5... But Spaceplanes feel even more comfortable....... I tend to stick with Stock tech Tree due to the fact that none of the alternatives have "done in right" I have ideas for a new Tech Tree something akin to the Engineering Tech Tree but much more streamlined... But to see it to fruition would require a total rebuild of the Career/ Science game mechanics and THAT is WELL beyond my Kin.... I am lucky to be an ALMOST passable .cfg hakor....

Heck I am flying Mercury around the Mun with this in BluedogDB and a stock system. In a 2.5 scale system you ALMOST need 6K stage to get a reasonable payload to a "fair" LKO. A Baby payload (500kg range) might be possible without 6K but I had too many problems with other rockets so I discontinued 2.5x and switched to Galileo for Career. without SSTU I would not have made it as far as I have in the Galileo verse... I may import some photos of my Tinker-Toy interplanetary Space Cruiser when I get home tonight.

Sorry that was a tongue in cheek joke... But you just made my point And Technically Vega was the Middle stage. Upper Stage was JunoIV-6K

Err... Um Vega was to fly with a JPL 6K Hypergolic upper stage and an ATLAS-E lower stage... Where for are you finding Solid rockets Seriously why do countries re-use other countries rocket names?! Whats next, the replacement for SLS in 2055 is Soyuz? Ok ON Topic now. Shadowmage those SRB upper stages are awesome. Are they going to have any way to cut thrust? In real life Man rated SRMs have an explosive charge that shatters the upper portion of the rocket to neutralize thrust and almost immediately blow out the explosive fire within the SRM. The ALMOST part is why Saturn IN16 (between 2 and 7 UA-1205/1206/1207s under a Saturn IVB upper stage,) was a non starter. I BELIEVE that Upper stages have a similar device built into them (else precise orbital positioning would not be possible due to any fluctuation in lower portions of the flight. http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnint-16.html Is it more involved than just cutting and pasting the Drogue chute data and tweaking it to my particular MM files? Either way I am sure such a document would be useful to myself or others. I really love the DP-1P family of ports but I have objects of other sizes so the ability to make my own ports to work the way I want is very VERY nice! Thanks In Advance (TIA!)

Cobalt, Wanted to mention, flew the Bossart Rocket the other day. Flew like a Dream. I had a Vega-Excelsior-Vega upper stage (Blue Streak small balloon tank in lieu of Vega tankage...) Looked awesome and flew even better. Coloration was obviously similar but not exactly the same (the Bossart vs Blue-Streak.)

Given statements from Cobaltwolf a few posts above... Please make, and Share via the Github (Pull request.) And THANK YOU in advance for doing so!

Nightshade, It is Gael which is the home planet if you use the Galileo mod. It is analogous to Kerbin in most respects (it is arid vs lush for example.) I have not had issues with any other parachutes which is why I brought up my unfounded concern.