biohazard15

So, that thermal patch... it didn't change much. Delta-class solids do show a mild overheat (tried on 3910). UA120s don't. LF engines don't. Any guidance on testing?

I usually pull a 23F and use Centaur interstage. Note that it wouldn't hurt to have a shorter-than-standard version in the upcoming revamp. Note that it would be quite challenging to man-rate SRM/Core2, if possible at all.

It is worth mentioning that you can also find all necessary parts to build a historical (and unique) Atlas SLV-3B that was used to launch it. Speaking of unique Atlases: can anyone point me at some history of Seasat launcher, aka Atlas F\Agena D? All I can imagine is something like this:

Nodes fix is already implemented. I think he meant that line:

Hmm... Is it me, or Big G's top is slightly larger than Gemini's bottom? Not only the seam - look at that red decoupler lock: on Big G it's a bit larger. Like someone shaved off a couple of centimeters. Here's the edited screenshot (look at fullsize image):

Big Gemini: visible seam between pods (see screenshot). Blue Gemini: - Maybe add a "Place retro motors in 6x symmetry, on a node adjacent to black box" to the part description? Using other nodes result in bugged placement. - "two supplemental abort solids" on adapter module don't work. They drain fuel, the sound is here, but no thrust and visual effects.

OAO is absolutely gorgeous! Somewhat heavy for SLV-3B, though. Spacelaunchreport gives 1770 kg for OAO-1; compare that with 2 tons for BDB OAO. This leaves Atlas quite underpowered after BECO.

I assume you launch a Titan IV? Then as I said, just keep fairings until burn, and stage them right before burn start. Boiloff is disabled when engines are running, and when the tanks are shielded by fairings (for now, at least - not sure if it will be the case after aforementioned update)

If you use dev version, there is a new boiloff mechanism introduced some weeks ago, based on current sunlight and part size and reflectiveness. It is not balanced yet, so it will feel too harsh on default settings (I believe Jso said that in commit notes on github). For now, if you want something more manageable, set boiloff to 10-20% in difficulty settings, and try not to coast too much in sunlight (and try to launch LH2 stages at night, it really helps). Or just keep fairings until burn.

IIRC Cobalt said that the next thing to come will be a Saturn revamp. But Delta IV would be nice too.

Small request: please include a "Longer" B9 option for Delta P\K interstage. Currently it's okay for historical configs, but it's too short for some other things, like this Delta-P with Delta-K AJ10 (and this Agena on the right, too): Oh, and speaking of Agena: 8096C needs to be rotated 90 degrees clockwise to match other LR81's orientation. (you can see it installed in correct position on ghost Agena)

Thanks! Also, putting size on part icon is pretty much the best idea ever. I wonder if it can be expanded to other decouplers and heatshields (and possibly fairing bases).

What's wrong with giving both options?

I know, okay! But if I can do something to influence the new specs, I'll do that

That's what I plan to do as soon as the new Gemini specs are finalised - unless Cobalt adds some oomph to the puffers new OMS thrusters. Little problem here: only 4 (ATM) nodes for thrusters. And I outright refuse to use offset in order to place these. Old ones came built-in, by the way. You can ignore me as some cantankerous oldtimer, but all I'm asking for is the old performance! I really like the new visuals, and I don't want do drop them because they come with "ooohhh so realistic" package.

This is probably where we should draw a border between "realistic but still fun" and "so realistic is stops to be fun". Old Gemini was the first - not quite realistic, but still a fun and useful little ship. Moreover, it was nicely placed between Mercury (a simple, LEO-and-back ship) and Apollo (advanced thing for Moon missions and possibly beyond) in terms of thrust, dV etc. New Gemini is basically an Advanced, 2-man Mercury. I agree that it's realistic. Problem is, it's TOO realistic to be FUN. Technically, it can do all the things the old one could do... if you don't mind to waaaAAAAAAit. Please, for the love of God, include an optional "non-realistic" config for OMS engines.

I thought the question would be "WHAT payload would go on top of this thing"?..

Quick 2 cents: 1) New Gemini SMs: additional propellant brought back the old dV. Unfortunately, OMS engines remain the same 1kN puffers - even 4 of them give only 40% of old thrust. I suggest adding a B9 profile with 5 kN thrust, 0.5 monoprop\sec, etc - in other words, 50% of the old SM. Or maybe 25% of the old SM, so four nodes could find some use. 2) Just noticed this: Hermes-Muo 1.25m interstage. Since Muo designation is now used only for Atlas V, shouldn't it be Hermes-Bossart?

Unfortunately, the new Gemini does not bring back the same functionality as the old one. Namely, the dV and thrusters power. The old one could easily do some basic orbital maneuvers; the new one is, well, a flying joke with its 2x 1kN thrusters. This effectively retires it as a vehicle for rescue contracts (for which the old Gemini was an ideal choice). This functionality can be brought back via adding Transtage (or similar upper stage), but this leads to increased weight and forces you to use at least BAS2 (3A barely lifts it). I understand that the new Gemini is more realistic than the old one, but still...

Delta II and III were always OK - probably because GEM-40/46s burn for much longer than Castor 1/2s. Thus, at the burnout they are at far higher altitude, where aerodynamics is not a problem. Castors, on the other hand, tend to do a "drunk dance" when dropped low - just drop them and then look back and see them flying around like they've been fueled with pure C2H5OH. These dances often lead to collisions with boattail (now fixed) and/or each other (doesn't really need a fix).

Well, that's unfortunate. There is no real benefit in repeating it - all experiments that are involved give 100% return. After that, it would just take one of six available slots. Hmm... Maybe limiting it via another way? IIRC CC can check for available science - so if no science available, no contract. Or maybe check if any docking was made (there is such achievement in the save, although there might be the problem with manned\unmanned I've mentioned earlier - docking does check for that).

You mean it cannot be done several times for the same planet? Because that's what I meant (mostly). Being able to launch both Gemini and ATV at two targets can be a bit confusing, but okay.

Waiting for that pull request to be merged. BTW, is there a way to somehow stop generating ATV part for other bodies while the second part is active? I had two contracts at the same time - Gemini to already launched ATV at Kerbin, and ATV to the Mun. Looks kinda strange. Maybe rework it into one contract, and limit it to one per planet? If it even possible with CC? ("possible", heh... more likely "with as few bugs as humanly possible")

Deltas with 9x Castor-2s did not jettison ground-lit boosters right after air-lit ones' ignition - they apparently jettisoned all 9 shortly after air-lit boosters burnout (at least according to spacelaunchreport...). The problem is, BDB Castor 1\2 like to collide if you jettison several at once (including three at a time). Especially if you try to drop them "Delta II-style", i.e. drop ground-lit ones right after air-lit ignition. The recent patch fixed collisions with boattail, but did nothing about them colliding with each other. Stage delay deals with this, but what's the correct order to drop them? Or should I just stop caring about what happens to the boosters after jettisoning? (apparently I should - see that tumbling booster on video )

Just figured out how to use "Stage delay" feature on Deltas. Niiiice. What was the particular order of booster jettison sequence on Deltas? Suppose I've placed 9 decouplers in 9x symmetry (with EE), with "original" placement point being on the "bottom" (i.e. this particular decoupler faces N when the rocket is rolled out to the launchpad). When expanding them in stage tab, they go counter-clockwise, from 9 to 1, with 9 being the "original" decoupler. How should I configure them to be as close to the actual Delta 900\19xx as possible?