Foxxonius Augustus

I can't shake the sense that the upper structure (payload end) is too long. even if it's not, I think it would look and feel much better if it were a triangle pattern like the lower strut work (engine end). Just my two cents. The texture work looks great BTW!

If at all possible please don't tilt it. I have build dozens of upper-stages, transfer-stages and large probes around the Block-D fuel tank and in all of them most of the effort was put into artfully and tastefully clipping things into it to make it smoother or nicer or more practical. A non-symmetric tilt would render all of these craft not worth remaking. Whats more I know I'm not the only one who dose this with the Block-D. In the end as players, if the 3° is important "for realism sake" why are you not using the Soviet Launchers pack by @raidernick? In the end @Beale, you have to decide which is more important to the pack, 100% realism for realism sake or maintaining the lego nature.

I had noticed this as well I don't think it changes much as our "Specific Design" can mount the standard mechanical only Gemini docking mechanism as well as, if you remove the adapter, the planed .9375m A****o docking port that would be suitable for internal transfer. I did notice in that report that liquid cargo (i.e Propellant, water etc.) was transferred by an umbilical. That just makes me wish @CobaltWolf would change his mind about not making fuel lines... oh well I guess that's what KIS/KAS is for.

Hay everyone! Stream is up!

I'll just leave this here...

I may have been playing around with the MOS parts and this MAY have happened... http://imgur.com/a/1dyhB I even came up with rules for its development. Every 2 crew need 1 Lab and 1 Hab and vice versa. Every 2 Lab/Hab modules requires 1 solar panel Every Docking Adapter (Docking ports for visiting space craft) requires an associated Hab for dcon or cargo storage. I also produced a rough draft of what this design might look like when taken to extremes... http://imgur.com/a/Pb9bB As you can see, I may have let things get a bit out of hand... I sure hope I am posting this in the right thread this time...

whoopsie wrong thread

So I have just found something that isn't a bug with the MOS parts... Unless I leave a Gemini permanently docked or add a probe core I can't control a MOS since nether the hab nor the lab count as a control point. I know something like a service module is planned. Will it be treated as a control point as well as its other functions?

I am sorry I missed the stream even more now! It looks amazing, I was a little worried even just looking at my sketches that it would wind up looking pudgy but I think the proportions have worked out really well. I especially like that the scaling worked out that the door is in the same place and the 'Camera Port' breaks up the upper section the same way the view ports on manned Gemini do. I am also digging how the Block II prototype looks, although its kind of weird seeing the female Gemini port on there. Not bad, just weird. All around, I am supper happy with. Great work man! PS. Loving the pressurized and unpressurized sections on Cargo Transtage! PPSS. Also love that the adapter works well on Cargo Agena!

The rounded top is not really doing it for me... I might try and do some sketches and run them past you.

The reason why I think Cargo Gemini would have down mass is that the SM would already have space and linkages for Geminis heat shield and could reasonably fit one. That is if it were a bit shorter on the cylinder section. It also gives it more of a reason to be used side by side with Cargo Agena. The only real down-mass capable craft for ISS right now is the dragon capsule. As for model/textures they can probably be very similar, I'm thinking that KSA gave very tight requirements for the proposals and so all three company's came up with the same or very similar solutions. Edit: Also of interest is the proposed Cygnus RCM (Return Cargo Module)

The way I see it, the Agena and the Gemini retrofit both justify themselves. Trans stage I like the most but is hardest to justify for a MOL based station. In my head KSA (NASA) calls for resupply craft proposals, Klockeed (Lockeed) takes a week and cobbles together the Cargo Agena. MackDonnell (McDonnel) likewise comes up with a retrofit Gemini a few weeks later and boasts about the increased payload and down-mass ability that the Cargo Agena lacks. Kartin Karietta (Martin Marietta) takes to long but later proposes a modification to Transtage that would be able to almost completely retool an existing space station given it's very large cargo capacity and also boast that with the Prometheus-IIIC (Titan-3C) their craft would be capable of reliably resupplying space stations around the moon although it lacks the Kartin Karietta proposals return ability. In the end KSA awarded contracts to bothe Klockeed and Mackdonnell for Cargo Agenas and Cargo Geminis respectively but also funds further research by Kartin Karietta on a Cargo Trastage. KSA plans to primarily use the Cargo Agena, mostly for life support resupply. The Cargo Gemini would be used less frequently, only when high volume items were to be carried and/or down-mass ability would be required. /RP I want all three! (I am greedy though ) I only have two suggestions. One, by the looks of it, only the Gemini retrofit might be suitable for much beyond burning up in the atmosphere after it had served it's purpose. Two the Gemini retrofit might want a more conical shape given that, similar to Gemini, it would likely launch without a fairing. EDIT: Gratz on 100 pages!

It's... it's what I want...

Honestly I am burning out on KSP and I still have to do hraban's new antenna but yeah, I can do it. It would be super helpful if I could get a list stating the real world antenna/spacecraft name and the in-game antenna name.

I would love to see all of those probes and I think keeping them as .3125 is best.

I will get to work on RT configs right away.

@GreenWolf Just because they are legally allowed to does not mean they should. A million peoples convenience should never trump one persons free will.

A rim is present but, uhh... It is a lot smaller than in BDB (note the shadow towards the bottom). I also looks very different. I get that it's "supposed to be there" but then why not make it a part of the engine model? The way it is the engine sticks out like a sore thumb. As much as I know how deliberate you are in modeling, to the casual observer it might look like you forgot what size you were working on...

I think there is a question that keeps getting danced around and not answered. Can a Spacedock dev please answer this question with a yes/no. Does a user have to use CKAN to download a mod from Spacedock?

Err, it's just inconsistent is all, no other engine does this. The engine fairing can be made to fit. If the top (black band) is made the same diameter as the tank then the fairing would just come up to the bottom of the black band. The way it is makes this look like a bug.

@CobaltWolf If you're revisiting Agena can you make sure the engines fit correctly. Right now the tops of the Agena engines are very slightly smaller than 1.25... it's driving me nuts...

This makes me happy, I don't use CKAN and if I do use it in the future I don't want it to be because I HAD to.

kerbal stuff is being revived with a new domain name. they are still building it this is only a few hours old. @Beale never upload to curse if you can help it. Everyone lets just be patient and the new site should be up in a day or two.

Cobalt is streaming Right Now!!!

Ahh, I long ago came to grips with the fact that I am the only one who doesn't mind VAB clutter. I just find the form factor of many of the adapters very useful for small upper stages is all.