Pappystein

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.

Err, I think Sputnik 3 was Cobalt saying "Hmm I want to make something new to practice on." rather than... "I want to take over ALL of KSP and also make Russian stuff." Besides @Beale has a great mod with lots of R-7 stuff!

First thanks for the quick and detailed replies. I ran 3 tests. Test 1) BDB Apollo Blk-IV. MM created DP-05P of 0.9375m Diameter. Single Deploy altitude in the right click menu (more on this in a bit)..... No mater what altitude I set it to, UNLESS I click Deploy BEFORE that altitude... I get a deployment starting around 200m. Test 2) SC-V VA capsule on TKS. (I needed to try this out since I haven't played with it yet.) inbuilt Dockingports have 2x deployment altitudes showing on the SC-V and 1x on the TKS... I discovered something... tragic here. The Chutes deploy over about 8 seconds..... 8 x220m/s = ~4000m traveled.... https://imgur.com/a/Se5yM Test 3) Final test... BDB Apollo Blk-IV with MM created DP-05P of 0.9375m again. This time setting deploy altitude to 5500m (Max allowed). Well you can see the results in the Imgur library. The Chute is deciding the speed is unsafe and not deploying. Cause is not my MM file as I initially surmised but the fact that SSTU built in ports have both a Drogue and a main chute whiles the add on ports only have the mains... Add the fact that the BDB Apollo has less intrinsic drag than the SSTU Apollo..... Yep 100% not an issue. So I did Test 4 before posting.... Same Atlas V launch vehicle... Launching the SC-B Apollo capsule. Interesting... On a rocket that could only get the SSTU SC-V to 453km and the BDB Apollo to 1.1Mm.... The SC-B went past escape velocity. Judicous use of the Hyperedit Thrust adjustment tool.... and I am ALMOST escape velocity.... Landed safely 28 days after launch. Sorry for raising this @Shadowmage Maybe I should play KSP more often so I can not make these....fun... mistakes. NOTE: The only reason the SSTU VA and Apollo capsules did not burn up was because of the drogue chutes.... I attached the 0.9375m docking port to both and they both crashed. This was in my sandbox game so I just reverted My Solution.... Add 4 Air-breaks to any capsule I am trying to land with the docking port serving as a parachute module.

RE Textures on Station parts: Please disregard my previous query. I have found exactly ONE missing texture... And I don't think it was intended to be on the adapters anyway. The ST-B texture that is on the cores of the stations does not extend to the adapters.

I am loading my KSP build right now (takes 5 minutes to load with all the mods for Galileo... But a Fun system to play in!) I will run through. and create a spreadsheet. Sorry I screwed up.. Gael is the planets name and is the Kerbin equivalent in Galileo. I will run a couple tests with the Barometric Atmosphere sensor since I don't know where to dig it out of the myriad of CFGs for Koperenicus/Galileo. I also Forgot to mention I am running Realchute. Per the Sensor 100kPa at SL. down to 45kPa at 5000m RealChute derived parachute modules are deploying at correct altitudes (pressure 0.1 for pre-deployment and full deployment at 700m)

@Shadowmage Not really an issue so REAL LOW priority. But the DOS station parts endcaps do not have a complete set of matching "default" texture types/styles to the base body. If this is as intended COOL. If not I will create an issue in the Hub. I ended up with a pretty DOS core part for my refueling station but the Top 5x Node was unable to match the central body. It ended up looking awesome with the color adjustments you have given us but I wanted to make certain it was mentioned. I am using 0.6.36.139 Also I am not certain if the following is an Issue with SSTU, My MM file or Kopernicious. I have resized your DP-1P docking port to a 0.9375m size for Various other parts (Agena or Apollo being two keys units for this.) The Parachutes don't deploy on Granus (Galileo Solar System) until I am at 200m... That is with a deployment set to 1200m. I have included my entire resize MM for the 0.9375m port.

That is what I get for using the optional rename cfg for all your parts! Ah, didn't think of THAT particular reason but I should have known better THANKS!