Pappystein

So I have already edited these two entries out of my copy of the Optional Saturn Multibody parts cfg (in the BDB extra folder.) but can someone tell me why the UA-1207 was DOWNscaled for Saturn? I would assume that this was to represent the 156" UA1562 or UA1563 ESRM (Enhanced Solid Rocket Motor) that was built and tested but never launched....But 156" is LARGER than 120" Thanks for the clarification

Nice improvement! @CobaltWolf Each new texture seems to have some improvement over the last. Vega was good before but dayum... now.... WOW! So does this means I don't have to keep using the Excelsior (Blue-Streak) small balloon tank then for Vega? Actually your step 1 would be to go to the first page and then visit the Github and see if anyone has posted an issue in the bug tracker relating to this. I didn't open any of the issues currently listed at :https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen But by title I did not see anything related to Spica lander (the Apollo Lander's name in BDB) I haven't used the lander in a while and we often times see issues with one mod playing with another, so this might not be related to THIS mod even though the part in question is from it. Now Cobalt has had issues with ladders with some of the older parts (sliding Kerbals on Gemini and Mercury for example) but I don't remember this being one of them. I have just unlocked the lander in my career and am planning a visit to Iota today with it...

BLASPHEMER! Number of Rocket Launched Cargo and crew transport modular options to space stations better than Big-G < 1 An Orion with an Apollo Blk IV module MIGHT be almost equivalent hence I didn't say zero Ok so the above is 100% opinion... But I love Big-G. Why? Docking backwards seems to make the most sense to me. If I need to go I don't have to back up to start.... Just like I try to never pull into a parking spot. I either drive through or back into my spot when possible.

@G'th I had a brief aside conversation with E of Pi where we were talking about McD's Big Gemini proposals. Inferring a lot from my memory as there were several of us in the conversation at the same time.. but in the conversation the ACV was described as a prettied up version of Big-G to get Big-G without it being a Gemini derived part. So in effect, when @CobaltWolf finishes Big-G (or if I ever follow through and finish learning how to make parts.. so I can make my own Big-G) you will have ACV. In a more usable and cost efficient manor....

So I don't have hard data on this but about 2 or 3 years ago I read that the orientation package was jettisoned with parachute deployment. Here is the issue with that statement. Where are the landing rockets? I checked every photo of the VA I could find and never found rocket orifices or places that could be covers for said orifices.... This leads me to believe that the VA DID keep the Orientation package. This made me think of an old proposed "suicide burn" option proposed in the early days of US space flight for a recoverable satellite part (Likely a Photint pod.) A rocket mounted above the pod fires just above local ground level and slows the pod down to ~0.1g negative acceleration (IE it is falling approximately 0.981 m/ss.) The final altitude was to be something like 0.5m AGL. The pod would release and the Rocket would then fly unguided up and at an angle away or the Rocket would auto separate upon landing.... there were many proposals for stuff like this before the world had the computing power to actually calculate when to do all these steps.. Final impact would be below 3m/s most landers seem to be comfortable landing. Could this be what VA does I wonder. As it applies to VA this means... Orientation module (via pilot or autonomous via something like Mechjeb,) seeks correct heading for retro-burn. Retro rocket fires and after burning out detaches (... or see 1 below) Orientation pod keeps HS pointed at Periapsis through combination of drag/RCS modules. Aerodynamically for a conical VA Pod the Orientation module is like a big tail fin.... large Drogue Parachute is ejected and slows the VA pod down to something like 15-30m/s Again no hard data. At point just before impact Retro-rocket fires releasing the VA pod automatically at ~ 2-4m AGL After the retro-rocket separates the VA "crash" lands at 1G of acceleration and approximately 3-5m/s The Orientation Module has now rocketed back up to altitude (tens of meters... no more) and the drogue chutes now have enough surface area to act as a regular chute... The VA Orientation Module is fully recoverable. (See 2 below) 1) Separation is likely but not certain. All of my statements are based on the theory that the OM separates just before landing. 2) Separating the OM is likely a crew safety feature... After all fuels would be UDMH/NTO. To replicate this in game would require a plugin or a group of plugins for optimal performance (very few people have a reaction time fast enough to do all these steps... esp given the delays introduced in KSP itself in the manual staging process.

Great idea, But this could leave you stranded on the home planet for a long time in alternative solar systems... Galileo for example where planetary exploration has a much higher science potential than Kerbin (or-whatever home planet you are on.) I mention this because my main career is in the Galileo system I have some ideas to flesh out further before discussing but I too am not happy with the current tech tree layout. I think I have tried all of the Techtrees out there and found that each one had a purpose but each one would fall apart at a certain point with my play style. May I suggest you prototype your Tech tree for BDB as a MM file to alter the placement of the BDB parts in either a Stock or Community Tech Tree. Even just do it for the early tech levels to get a "feel" for how your own Tree is going to evolve.

First off you are Quoting the Saturn C-2B design. Lots of documents drop the suffex letter since they were 'just proposals'. Original Saturn C-2 proposal was Saturn S-I Stage, Saturn S-III stage and Saturn S-IV stage. I will cover my choice of Diameter below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-III At the Time NASA/ABMA were wrestling with vehicles needed for EOR Lunar launch. Proposed were C-2 and C-3. C-3 originally had the S-I, S-II, and optionally S-IV, and S-V in it's stack. C-2 had the S-I, S-III, S-IV, and possibly S-V stack. The C-2 was developed after the original C-3 but before C-3B to be cheaper to develop/make. However the launch cycles needed to build the proposed Orbital escape vehicle went from 6 launches to something like 26. First C-2 was dropped, then C-2B was ginned up to use the parts left over from the original C-3 when C-3B was evolved (2x F-1 first stage.) Then Both C-2B and C-3B were dropped in favor of the larger diameter C-5. Lets not bother to mention C-4 because it muddies the water even more. The problem here is NASA/ABMA(Post NASA Takeover) do not follow any sort of structured naming procedures. Thus designations are re-used and re-used.... For example the S-II with 4 engines has NOTHING in common with the S-II from the Saturn V.... Other than they are powered by J-2 engines in a cluster... at some point. As for my Saturn C-2 rocket. I took a WAG as I stated already. I do not foresee a Saturn C-2 or C-3 surviving with the S-IVa stage given they would come after Saturn C-1's launch (aka Saturn I.) Thus I upped the top diameter to match 3.75 and then just went with a resized S-IVB tank and the S-IVC's (From @Drakenex's alternate parts patch) engine mount with more mass and a higher cost (because it is available before S-IVc) Again, Total WAG but it fits with original proposals and is a nice single payload launcher (Station parts.) for lower Kerbin orbit. I use Saturn II-INT-18 that has a S-IVc for my heaver station parts. I am not going for total realism here.... If I was then I would only be running Saturn I and Saturn V based rockets after all! But The S-III stage fits.... Oh and I forgot to mention, you can ACTUALLY get a fully fueled Blk-II Apollo CM/CSM stack into orbit with it. Have not played with the Blk III/IVs yet but I foresee getting them to a 200km orbital station without major issues. In CH2 of Stages to Saturn, (your link) it even outlines the building block concept at the start of NASA integration as the S-III would be the first J-2 engined stage and would be the 2nd stage of the C-2 Rocket. The S-II stage would then be developed as an enlarged S-III stage with 4 engines. for the C-3 rocket... To save space here search for the following passage: "[48] Moreover, all first three candidates " https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch2.htm

I chose to go a different route with my C-2 rocket. I took the Saturn IVB Fuel tank and then shortened it. Making the S-IVC (Optional part) available earlier at a higher cost gave me my twin J-2 Saturn C-2 S-III stage. S-IB first stage, S-III 2nd Stage, S-IVB 3rd Stage and CSM/LLM uppers = Saturn C-2. Needs SRMs to launch both Apollo and the lander but... Neat rocket. By Going this route, I am still able to use the later ETS Saturn IE first stage and I just have 2x of the 3.75 to 3.75 Saturn 1 Inter-stages to contend with. My Vision of the Saturn C-2 or C-3 is they would have evolved to production after S-IB so no need to use the S-IVA upper stage. Please note the tankage volume is completely a WAG based upon two drawings (no hard numbers were used in the creation of these parts!) While I am still playing with my own S-III stage (Nodes are not correct.) Here is what I have:

Can we get a link to the Github for these parts? I know @CobaltWolf that you posted it in your Bluedog Design Bureau topic.... But people might be finding this and wishing to download the early parts themselves without that knowledge.

I noticed that no where in the MM file does the Category get changed to = none, so that RealChutes can re-catagorize the Ballutes This is optional but I added the @category = none Like this: @PART[InlineBallute*]:NEEDS[RealChute]:BEFORE[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @category = none Still working on my testing... I am going to try to scale down the Height of the larger baluttes so they are not so volumous

@riocrokite @Starwaster So I RE downloaded the 1.28 vers from the Git to verify my findings before posting. To start Realchute.cfg can not work as a MM file as included in 1.28 there are 4 missing } and an un-needed '@Part' call Here is my final cleaned up version: Starwaster, the #$ etc are operands for bulk math processes in Modulemaneger. IIRC they are correct but I haven't delved through the code (KSP is loading while I type this.) I am going to go through each CFG file and see if I can clean them up next because there seems to be a bunch of extraneous lines in each file....

Yeah.. I didn't write the code. I just added the missing { to every @Part section. I posted it with only that change. I will attempt to write a cleaner code after I read through Realchute forum as well as do some testing (Realchute just got downloaded to my Galileo and testing installs.) Any thoughts on the main parts having 'Scale =' in two locations?

Um... The only problem is I am guessing that the Kane probe does not release quickly... like when the fuel load pitches the receiving aircraft suddenly? On the subject of Docking ports. Am I the only one who is having problems with the APAS ports? I use the passive on the target vessel and the active port on the maneuvering vessel... They won't join up without a lot of re-jigguring (twisting left and right... extending and retracting the active port several times and lets not talk about DE-Coupling!)

@Starwaster @riocrokite I had two different MM files causing issues from outside. Also I noticed a missing { or } (Don't remember which) in the Realchute.cfg patch. On top of this, I had my own MM file trying to add new sizes (0.9375, 1.5m, 1.875m,) and at the same time slim down the height on the larger Ballutes. Finally I had a MM that was incorrectly setup to parse Fuel tank changes that was somehow causing the final part of my problem (with B9PartSwitch.) I don't know how B9PartSwitch was causing the ballutes to fail, but as soon as I removed B9PartSwitch the Ballutes appeared. Once I deleted the Realchute patch, and my B9Fuel patch and my Ballute patch, the base Ballutes would work with B9PartSwitch installed. I am curious... All the CFGs use the Realscale once and the Scale = TWICE!.... IIRC SCALE = should only be used once... yes? I am posing a modified "cleaned up I guess" code in the spoiler tag below for Realchute.cfg. I have not tested this since I am currently not using realchute but all the { now have a }

So I found this error spammed in my log files for The Inline Ballutes... [LOG 20:19:07.841] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'KermangeddonIndustries/InlineBallutes/Ballute062/InlineBallute062' [ERR 20:19:07.844] PartLoader: Encountered exception during compilation. System.FormatException: Unknown char: , at System.Double.Parse (System.String s, NumberStyles style, IFormatProvider provider) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.Single.Parse (System.String s) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PartLoader+<CompileParts>c__Iterator66.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 The same basic chain is for each IB provided. I am now going though the individual CFG files as well as the patches that are installed that can affect this mod. In the base CFG... the only thing I can find wrong is this: node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.175, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 Please note the extra space before the last three coordinates. The node_stack_bottom does not have the extra space.

@riocrokite I am also having an issue with this... but since I have not unlocked any of these parts in my carreer yet I didn't notice it. Mods installed: B9PartSwitch Bluedog DB MM 1.81 SSTU (but parts were missing before I added) Mechjeb Toolbar Tweakscale DMagicScience Animate Porkjet Part Overhaul (with MM file to actually activate the parts.) Kommitz Nucleonics (Both old and new since they add different parts.) After I solve an issue that just popped up yesterday with BDB fuel tanks missing... I will tackle the Ballute troubleshooting.

So I am unsure yet if this is a BDB issue, a B9PartSwitch issue or an issue with a specific MM file on my computer. Last week I updated to the latest B9PartSwitch as well as my copy of the BDB master files. No BDB tanks appear in the game unless they were ones created by my MM files (they don't have names starting Bluedog_ etc.) If I remove either MM1.81 or B9PartSwitch the BDB tanks re-appear. I am posting here to ask if anyone else has updated B9PartSwitch to the latest version and are they having issues? For the record I am using the MASTER copy of BDB that I downloaded on the 7th. The only other mods I have are Tweakscale, SSTU BREXIT (added after the issue) and Mechjeb in this build. Obviously something with the MM files is the problem I am just seeking confirmation before moving on from others.... Situation solved. I found a file with old code from when I was trying to integrate UDMH/IRFNA-IV to BDB without knowing the process for B9partSwitch. Don't know how it got copied from my code archive... Ach So!

Don't know if this was supposed to be deleted or left on the list but UA156x Nosecone is on the list, as is the INLINE version of UA156x but no mention of the 3 segment or 4 segment side attaching UA156x 2.5m SRM. Oh and according to the NASA SRB study for STS, the UA156 would do away with the external hydraulic tank... Rather the Hydraulics would be in the skirt (similar to the Shuttle SRB.) Other than that... NICELY simplified! The Atlas D/E is coming along NICELY Cobalt! I can't wait for all the "Why can't I attach to the side of this rocket" questions start porting in. I have a reply already ginned up and ready to spam reply back

Damn, I go away for just a couple of days and you post this! I CANT wait for THIS! .... but I will... If I have to... I guess... I assume those smudges in the WIP texture will eventually be "No attach" warning strip like your Blue-Streak? Will colliders for the vertical "pods" on the side of the balloon tank allow attachment? I STILL can't wait! PS bonus points for the first person to guess where I got the".but I will... If I have to... I guess"

Like @Jimbodiah I use the version in BlueDog... Same model, newly updated textures. But as I stated above, when it comes to the Big-G model, it is a VERY bare-bones model (No paraglider or Landing gear to START with ) and in the end, it is of limited use. I have cobbled together a few SMs for it but none have worked "JUST RIGHT...." and lets not talk about docking going backwards AT ALL

Thanks for at-least considering the Idea of Big-G. Many mods have a bare-bones variant (FASA even has a 2.5-3.75m SM for it) but none have anywhere near the complete program as proposed in 1968 or finalized and canceled/ignored in 1971. I knew the SM would be an issue but I figured it would solve your geometry issue since the top would be 0.625 and the Bottom would be 2.5m. I think most mod developers stay away from this beast for exactly two reasons... 1) Multiple configurations of SMs. 2) Docking port BEHIND the capsule... not in front of it. In your diagram above the Docking port would RETRACTED into the bottom of the bottom cone... Then extend out about a meter and a half and connect with a Station. Incidentally, in my notes, I have several references to the 2.5mx3.75m conical SM being the least preferred version of the SM (Unsure if NASA or McD-D was calling it "least preferred") It appears a 2.5m (Kerbal Scale) Cylindrical SM would be used for both Apollo and via an Adapter... Titan IIIM (Ala Titan IVa) In Kerbal scale Titan should be ~2M (1.95m to be exact.) same is true of the UA-120x SRM family (120" = 3.048m = 1.95m in Kerbal Scale) The UA-156x family of 156" then becomes almost exactly 2.5m (2.53m to be exact.) *Considers looking into learning Blender, how to do layers in PaintShopPro and how to use Unity to make a Big-G mod....

@Shadowmage I was just about to post about the VA... the SM for VA is FGB and the combination of-course is called TKS. IF VA launced it would launch with FGB module. This is what made the FGB architecture so robust that it is used as the basis for several previous/current and future proposed Russian modules on the ISS and beyond. Just like Gemini-B, VA has a hatch in the heat shield. However I am guessing that the Soviet/Russian space program didn't design it well, didn't like it or just preferred to stay with Soyuz (all are EASILY possible.) since VA was never landed maned..... that we know of.

So, Gemini is the part of the NASA space program I liked the most. A Pure science in preparation for Apollo missions that was added to speed up Apollo. HOWEVER, there are many hurdles as several people have mentioned. Since @Shadowmage mentioned he was concerned about the Geometry, since many people have mentioned that the docking port on Gemini is not passable (very true.) Might I suggest an alternative? I give you BIG-Gemini! The Nose is no longer used for docking but instead has a LANDING GEAR! The tail end diameter is STOCK 2.5m (the front of the nose would be 0.625 but wouldn't matter for much.) It uses a PARAGLIDER to land and @linuxgurugamer already has a modlette to support deploy-able lifting surfaces and someone else we know should have a good grasp on wheels/skids by this point . It is designed to, and supports, many OTHER parts already in SSTU. Parts like, I don't know... .STATION parts. And it's two primary service modules (3.75m for Saturn launched and 3.125m for LDC-Titan Launched) would have the docking ports, Life-support consumable/cargo and Retro thrusters. Also Early on it would have used the Apollo Mk2 CSM. The whole point of Big-G was to support Space Stations starting in the mid 1970s. More cargo and cheaper to build/maintain than Apollo Blk III/IV. Via Part switching the CM can have a crew capacity from 14 down to 4 with a capability to increase stowed consumables for the station (Life support.) If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologize. But it is a way to get one of the three variants of Gemini in the game without worrying about the geometry BTW stay away from Wikipedia on this one folks. It has data makes it sound like BigG was a small program with one path... the neat thing about Big-G was that it was pretty modular and the only fixed points were that it was LOOSELY derived from Gemini. Very few parts were the same however. Rather it was a new space-craft with a structural similarity to an in production space craft at the time of proposal (Gemini-B) The below link has some good RW documentation on it http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37347.80 Had NASA gone the route of many Space Stations like they thought they would in the late 1960s.... Big-G would likely have been built since it would have been cheaper than any Space Shuttle program. To be clear. Big-G is not a space shuttle replacement... rather it is a cheaper alternative for several of the rolls Space Shuttle was designed for. Historically, as soon as the Follow on order for Saturn rockets failed to happen (in two consecutive years) there was no point to develop Big-G since no more Saturns meant no big Space Stations.

Except the Production LR-87-LH2 was supposed to be 2 or 4 bells and actually MORE powerful than J-2. J-2 just one due to less moving parts. Full up LR-87LH2 was to be scale-able to the launcher. The TEST article is what you see stats for on astronautix and Wikipedia was a SINGLE bell configuration designed to replace the similar LR-91 on a Titan LDC upper stage. Saturn used, LR-87LH2 would have had >= ISP to initial J-2, MOAR thrust and MOAR parts... NASA chose simple instead of efficient.... That being said, I have used parts from another mod to make my own single and twin bell version. And if they ever release their LDC Titan (3.125m kerbal scale.) I will have a TRI, QUAD or QUINT bell for Saturn-NOVA type missions. But... @Shadowmage I am curious about Gemini. Most "in update" mods that have Gemini have the Capsule being 0.625 to 1.5m, with the SM maxing out at 1.875m Are you setting the capsule to max diameter of 1.875 to limit your sizes? Titan RW to Kerbal Scale is just under 2 meters I think... (I am going by memory..) others (FASA) that are in a maintenance mode only seem to be 2.5m The reason I ask is because it matters if you want to later make a BIG-Gemini version (Big-G for short.) Big-G would fit perfectly on the Apollo SM without any adapters (meaning in KSP scale it would be 2.5m base.) I have a LARGE collection of data on Titan/Gemini if needed and am willing to share. Most of it is data I have just collected across the web to support other mods. But I did find a link to diagrams of the BIG-G Paraglider setup.... As Tater stated MOST of the LR-87 variants and MOST of the LR-91 variants were Hypergolic (either UDMH or AZ-50 with NTO.) The -3 variants of both engines where RP-1/LOX. And as Jimbodiah has alluded there WAS a Hydrolox Engine tested BEFORE The J-2.... For Intents and purposes the LR-91 is just a single bell LR-87 with smaller pumps and a larger bell (those were the bulk of the changes between the two engine types.) Unrelated I have to say YES! a quality VA capsule! I can't wait for that and TKS (Well actually I CAN wait but you get my meaning!)

So to quote a REALLY OLD video game..... " Mein Leben!" <Deleted un-needed whining!> But I REALLY like the texture update for the Agena parts.... and that probe is too cute and actually will fit under an approved Agena payload fairing!