[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.14.0 "металл" 30/Sep/2024)

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Titan refresh is already decently far along. Thor refresh, along with a refresh of Vanguard, Redstone, Juno, Able, Ablestar, and the early Delta models, is coming eventually^TM. I actually already started pre-production on it as another time waster when I'm away from my home PC with all my active dev files. As a sneak peek, here's an early WIP of the Able and Ablestar engine refresh.

 

 

 

Oh Good god man!   Those are  NICE er...  GREAT err... FANTABOUSLY AWESOME lookin....    Are you planning on doing a Delta (Early) version? or doing B9PS Positioning with 2 shrouds on the Ablestar engine?    The Early Delta (Able Tanked) flew with an Ablestar grade engine (ISP wise.)   That is one of the Big Differences between Thor Delta and Thor Able.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Pappystein

[CobaltWolf]

6 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Oh Good god man!   Those are  NICE er...  GREAT err... FANTABOUSLY AWESOME lookin....    Are you planning on doing a Delta (Early) version? or doing B9PS Positioning with 2 shrouds on the Ablestar engine?    The Early Delta (Able Tanked) flew with an Ablestar grade engine (ISP wise.)   That is one of the Big Differences between Thor Delta and Thor Able.

I honestly don't know, but my hope is I'll be able to do enough preplanning (and maybe be more public on what I'm working on before I start unwrapping etc so people can offer more input and suggestions) that the parts will be as flexible as possible (think like the extra switches on the new Minotaur parts). Trying to make sure that, for example, the Able tank represents Vanguard-Able, Thor-Able, Atlas-Able, and the early Delta upper stages is going to be a challenge because there's so much variation. One of the issues that has resulted from the lack of proper research on the older parts is things were based very specifically on one version or another without giving enough thought to the other potential uses (another example would be the old Star-31, which was based only on the Redstone-Sparta and then had to be bashed into working for Scout).

(To answer your specific question, yeah it should be totally possible to have both of these engines include 0.625m, 0.9375m, and 0.625m>0.9375m shrouds)

I don't want to add four hundred new parts for this stuff, especially because researching this stuff is hard (the only thing that's really easy to research is the Saturn family, even Titan GLV gave me trouble finding good reference material and that's easily the second most well documented historical rocket) and there's not a lot out there. I recently signed up for NASASpaceFlight.com's L2 section and there was some illuminating material there that I cannot share (it's paid content) but will definitely help guide development. There will probably be two "Ablestar" type fuel tanks since there was a pretty significant stretch during the early Deltas. I might have to do an SSPS type tank (the kind used on the late pre-Delta 2 Deltas and the Japanese N-2 rocket) since there was a TON of late 70s to mid 80s proposals that used it. It was studied extensively as an upper stage for Atlas, Titan and even the Space Shuttle. I'd like to do a 1.5m cryo tank for a like Centaur-Jr. type upper stage for Thor/Delta. The Thor tanks will be redone with an eye towards making sure the various IRL variants can be built more accurately, but no promises that it will be perfect. The various decouplers, fairing bases, and probably even some of the adapters will be made into more generic parts, to make the mod more prune-resistant (basic parts won't be embedded in random folders and texture sheets). I'm really excited just since the old versions of these parts were particularly affected by poor planning and generally bashing out a lot of parts with poorly made or stretched textures. Another preview - here is a quick sketch I made a little bit back of a new 0.625m fairing base, the mating ring in the middle is 0.3125m.

And here is a new 0.3125m probe decoupler, inspired by the old AIES decoupler. The idea is it will have a little animation and the little pusher plate provides a gentle spring-loaded shove to separate the delicate payload.

In any case, all that is months out so I haven't been able to give tooooo much thought and planning to it. Once this upcoming release is out (By the way, looking for screenshots using the new parts!! ) the Titan stuff will move to my primary development PC, and all this other stuff will enter full pre-production and planning. Honestly, having to look at those low-quality early game rockets is probably one of the reasons I haven't been able to get back into a career save all these years, so maybe I'll be able to enjoy that too.

Oh, in case anyone noticed that I haven't listed it for revamp, the Diamant (Rosuette) rocket will likely not be in BDB much longer. I honestly have no energy or focus to spare revamping it, but fortunately @Well is making a new one for his awesome KNES mod. From what he's shown me so far the detail and quality is already far higher than mine. ( @Well if you want to share a screenshot that would be awesome!)

 

[Well]

Work in Progress

I hope to be able to make a rocket of the BDB level, even if Rosuette was made a long time ago, the level is high.

[komodo]

Very thoughtful responses all, thanks! I may have misrepresented myself, as I wasn't intending to speak directly to the in game cost, but more in the sense of finding a purpose for one booster over another. 

But I absolutely agree with everything being said. It's a tricky tightrope to clamber across.

I will try to post a more detailed response when I'm not on mobile. 

[Abrecan]

I had created a boilerplate Gemini spacecraft for the first unmanned Titan II orbital test (Gemini I)

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, Abrecan said:

I had created a boilerplate Gemini spacecraft for the first unmanned Titan II orbital test (Gemini I)

 

Interesting.  That was a lot more thought than I gave to Boilerplate launches....   I tend to launch the real pod sans people with a probe core bolted on somewhere.

My Little Joe rockets are FUN....   Too bad they are waste of fun and provide no science.

Huh...  A series of missions for each of the escape systems is a need in KSP still....     Abort launch at launch pad, Abort launch above 100m/s,  200 500 1000 etc.

 

 

[komodo]

23 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Lastly you have to be VERY precise when staging the 1/2 stage for Atlas in 3.2.    I had problems with Atlas and EELT Thor in my 2.5x scale play-through.   If I didn't fly them PERFECTLY I didn't orbit.   And Since Mechjeb does not understand 1-1/2 staging.....

I would agree with that. Some small fins on the 1/2 stage skirt tended to help. WRT Mechjeb, I have had some ideas on this, but nothing to share yet... I do agree with your dot dot dot, though.

 

16 hours ago, Jso said:

It used to be much better - or worse depending on how you look at it.

I've been out of the loop long enough that I had that fairly fresh in my memory. I do agree fully that things are more balanced than they used to be.

 

14 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I don't think it's the system scaling since performance is performance. Unfortunately cost is something that can't be easily modeled in KSP. There's a lot of stuff that matters IRL that simply isn't represented in KSP, for example the point mentioned in the end of that issue's comment chain about how much the cost of the Titans would increase if their very-expensive IRL propellants were properly modelled.

Broadly speaking, I think the solution is to try and remember that in KSP, cost should increase with capability. I don't think KSP balance really supports efforts to reduce costs, which is why a Saturn 1C costs more than a Saturn 1B, etc. Solids obviously are the big exception to this, which is why Titan 3 is so good.

I think it's also important to remember that all these rockets existed in a real life context, where there's a lot more going on that affects decision making. Pure performance is typically not one of the absolute prime concerns for a rocket design, and you have to remember that many of these rockets were competing and all being allocated their own little honeypots from people who had an interest in supporting their contractors. Think also of things like the pace of development back then - In some ways it's natural that a Titan 3 surpasses a Saturn 1's performance AND cost, because they simply had another half decade of experience and technology to work with. Don't forget also that most rockets IRL didn't have the legs, on a financial efficiency basis or otherwise, to go the distance, which is why they are long-abandoned historic rockets in the first place!

We will always strive for interesting and enjoyable balance for the parts in BDB, but at some point it's inevitable that there are parts that are simply better than others. At the end of the day, I enjoy making this stuff and enjoy putting things together that might not always be the most efficient, but the most interesting. Since the Titan revamp is coming up, we'll have plenty of time to examine these parts and make balance changes when necessary.

I agree with all of that. The political/historic motivation is one angle I hadn't considered, but it is quite relevant.  For my part I enjoy abusing tinkering with the toys you've generously shared, both in and out of game as much as I do flying the things. (but you probably knew that :P)

Let me try to articulate my initial thought a little more carefully. On the topic of kerbucks, I too am of the mindset that the stock system is overly simplistic. I have enjoyed the combination of Kerbal Construction Time along with Monthly Budgets. While not perfect, the combination of the two definitely shakes things up. (If that is good or bad is an exercise for the reader.)

What I had meant originally with my poor metaphor was that in terms of payloads that I end up launching, I find that in the early to mid game at least that the Titan types offer the most flexibility it seems. I am not advocating for perfect 100% balance across rockets, that'd be boring. I am a fan of the niche balance method. My point was more to wonder at the differences/similarities in the boosters.

To put it very plainly, is there a huge difference between the Titan, Atlas, and Delta boosters in the mid game? My mind tends to hold the three up as they all fit the 'typical mid sized expendable' class. It was mentioned above that the 1 1/2 stage Atlas takes a very fine hand in rescaled systems, (which is down to a different mass distribution plus higher speeds I imagine) so from a gameplay point of view, is there a niche that it can access when compared to the subjectively easier to fly Titan?

For the Delta, it is probably my favorite family, especially looks wise, (distinctive blue!) but I have a difficult time with finding suitable payloads, by which I mean my satellites tend to come out too massive for it to lift. This may be down to the limited types of missions/payloads which the game makes available.

In both cases, I had intended my point to land on the second half of my statement (what is it I am doing wrong as a rocket surgeon), while the ensuing discussion ended up on the very worthwhile topic of financial balance.

Feedback/Suggestions I can make having played with things a bit more recently: The smaller radial decouplers are a boon, both visually and functionally. I have an idea for further enhancing their use on the Delta booster. The even-fold symmetry that the editor favors makes some configurations of the booster difficult to construct. 5, 7, or 9 are not fun numbers to split. The decouplers can be placed singly but then alignment is a nightmare.

Here is the idea: I have not seen this done, but I don't know why it wouldn't work: Could the booster tank have invisible attachment nodes defined such that a decoupler could be placed in a known/set location? A matching node could be placed on the SRB. Normally I am opposed to single use parts and not the lego type, but I think here that it may be a plus in usability while not loosing any existing surface attach ability/utility. Setting up staging would still be annoying, but it is doable, where manually lining up surface attached parts is not easily done.

The other suggestion is probably easier/able to be done currently: I really like the idea of the build your own upper stage part that was added for Delta at some point. While I love the look of the included upper stage set, it may not always fit the payload requirements. The suggestion I had is to add a variable/selectable length interstage to go with it to give even further flexibility. This has been done recently with some of the SRB interstages (I think), but there I am trying to figure out the intended purpose still. The concept though is great. (@CobaltWolf, I LOVE that decoupler you just previewed. It's always one of my huge pet peeves to have a decoupler holding the payload by infinitely strong magnetic fields only. This parts suite is one of the few that has payload attachment/fairing/interstages/engine shrouds/etc that look like they make sense/could work, and its one of those things I didn't know I loved until I saw it.)

Anyways, thanks again for the feedback, it's been an interesting read to see your thoughts on the topic.

Edited January 17, 2019 by komodo
accidentially a word

[Jso]

2 hours ago, komodo said:

To put it very plainly, is there a huge difference between the Titan, Atlas, and Delta boosters in the mid game? My mind tends to hold the three up as they all fit the 'typical mid sized expendable' class.

Delta is light/small, Atlas-Centaur medium, Titan (with 1205/1207 boosters) heavy. Atlas V is kind of med-heavy.

2 hours ago, komodo said:

The even-fold symmetry that the editor favors makes some configurations of the booster difficult to construct. 5, 7, or 9 are not fun numbers to split. The decouplers can be placed singly but then alignment is a nightmare.

Fortunately they only use 3, 4, and 9 boosters. 3 is easy. 4 is easy too, but if you want them lined up with the mounting positions it's a little asymmetrical so you need to put them on in pairs using mirror symmetry. 9 is also easy, you just put them on in three sets of three. That makes it simple to put one of the sets in another stage for 6 on the ground, 3 in the air staging (using editor extensions 9x symmetry complicates this step a bit).

The variable height interstage on Minotaur is to accommodate different sized engines for the GCA.

[Abrecan]

8 hours ago, Pappystein said:

My Little Joe rockets are FUN....   Too bad they are waste of fun and provide no science.

Don't feel too bad... Sub-orbital flights are usually some of my favorite launches too. They just seem more relaxing for some reason, despite the short ride into the sky 

[Cdodders]

Is there an updated version of the BDB manual?

[golkaidakhaana]

4 minutes ago, Cdodders said:

Is there an updated version of the BDB manual?

Yep, the manual link in the OP now links to the wiki page.

[CobaltWolf]

8 hours ago, komodo said:

I would agree with that. Some small fins on the 1/2 stage skirt tended to help. WRT Mechjeb, I have had some ideas on this, but nothing to share yet... I do agree with your dot dot dot, though.

I've been out of the loop long enough that I had that fairly fresh in my memory. I do agree fully that things are more balanced than they used to be.

I agree with all of that. The political/historic motivation is one angle I hadn't considered, but it is quite relevant.  For my part I enjoy abusing tinkering with the toys you've generously shared, both in and out of game as much as I do flying the things. (but you probably knew that :P)

Let me try to articulate my initial thought a little more carefully. On the topic of kerbucks, I too am of the mindset that the stock system is overly simplistic. I have enjoyed the combination of Kerbal Construction Time along with Monthly Budgets. While not perfect, the combination of the two definitely shakes things up. (If that is good or bad is an exercise for the reader.)

What I had meant originally with my poor metaphor was that in terms of payloads that I end up launching, I find that in the early to mid game at least that the Titan types offer the most flexibility it seems. I am not advocating for perfect 100% balance across rockets, that'd be boring. I am a fan of the niche balance method. My point was more to wonder at the differences/similarities in the boosters.

To put it very plainly, is there a huge difference between the Titan, Atlas, and Delta boosters in the mid game? My mind tends to hold the three up as they all fit the 'typical mid sized expendable' class. It was mentioned above that the 1 1/2 stage Atlas takes a very fine hand in rescaled systems, (which is down to a different mass distribution plus higher speeds I imagine) so from a gameplay point of view, is there a niche that it can access when compared to the subjectively easier to fly Titan?

For the Delta, it is probably my favorite family, especially looks wise, (distinctive blue!) but I have a difficult time with finding suitable payloads, by which I mean my satellites tend to come out too massive for it to lift. This may be down to the limited types of missions/payloads which the game makes available.

In both cases, I had intended my point to land on the second half of my statement (what is it I am doing wrong as a rocket surgeon), while the ensuing discussion ended up on the very worthwhile topic of financial balance.

Feedback/Suggestions I can make having played with things a bit more recently: The smaller radial decouplers are a boon, both visually and functionally. I have an idea for further enhancing their use on the Delta booster. The even-fold symmetry that the editor favors makes some configurations of the booster difficult to construct. 5, 7, or 9 are not fun numbers to split. The decouplers can be placed singly but then alignment is a nightmare.

Here is the idea: I have not seen this done, but I don't know why it wouldn't work: Could the booster tank have invisible attachment nodes defined such that a decoupler could be placed in a known/set location? A matching node could be placed on the SRB. Normally I am opposed to single use parts and not the lego type, but I think here that it may be a plus in usability while not loosing any existing surface attach ability/utility. Setting up staging would still be annoying, but it is doable, where manually lining up surface attached parts is not easily done.

The other suggestion is probably easier/able to be done currently: I really like the idea of the build your own upper stage part that was added for Delta at some point. While I love the look of the included upper stage set, it may not always fit the payload requirements. The suggestion I had is to add a variable/selectable length interstage to go with it to give even further flexibility. This has been done recently with some of the SRB interstages (I think), but there I am trying to figure out the intended purpose still. The concept though is great. (@CobaltWolf, I LOVE that decoupler you just previewed. It's always one of my huge pet peeves to have a decoupler holding the payload by infinitely strong magnetic fields only. This parts suite is one of the few that has payload attachment/fairing/interstages/engine shrouds/etc that look like they make sense/could work, and its one of those things I didn't know I loved until I saw it.)

Anyways, thanks again for the feedback, it's been an interesting read to see your thoughts on the topic.

5 hours ago, Jso said:

Delta is light/small, Atlas-Centaur medium, Titan (with 1205/1207 boosters) heavy. Atlas V is kind of med-heavy.

Fortunately they only use 3, 4, and 9 boosters. 3 is easy. 4 is easy too, but if you want them lined up with the mounting positions it's a little asymmetrical so you need to put them on in pairs using mirror symmetry. 9 is also easy, you just put them on in three sets of three. That makes it simple to put one of the sets in another stage for 6 on the ground, 3 in the air staging (using editor extensions 9x symmetry complicates this step a bit).

The variable height interstage on Minotaur is to accommodate different sized engines for the GCA.

I think of Delta (and in general, 1.5m as a size class) as Med-Lite edging into true Medium by the time you reach Delta 2, Atlas as Medium, and Titan as Med-Heavy edging into true Heavy with Titan IV. Atlas V is probably Med-Heavy yeah. I think Atlas has trouble keeping up with the other LVs because the balloon tanks preclude using most strap-on arrangements, other than recreating the IRL Atlas 2AS. I think Atlas should probably have a performance edge (balloon tanks, higher ISP engines, cryo upper stage) over single stick configuration Titan, and the strap-on Titans should be a significant cost jump but with significant performance. Also worth remembering that IRL costs were a big driver, and engineers tended to focus more on cutting down missions and payloads to fit on smaller, cheaper launchers rather than always designing for the biggest thing available. I know you didn't want this to be all about cost but I think cost is going to be one of the main differentiators.

Something worth noting if you're struggling with the 9x (well, 3x3x) booster symmetry for Delta, is the placement is in increments of 40 degrees. So holding shift to get the fine snapping (5 degree instead of 15) lets you easily place them in the correct lateral position. The little struts on the bottom should line up vertically with the little holes on the engine housing.

Credit for the standalone fairing ring for the Delta must go to @PickledTripod, he made the edit to the original part and sent me the model wrapped up in a bow.

I would like to be able to have a longer variable length interstage but the design (ie, texture) of the Delta K interstage precludes doing that easily. I'm not sure if there's an easy solution to that. Worse yet, there's going to be another 1.5m interstage added for IUS that is also short. Maybe it will look cool combined with the Minotaur interstage and one of them can just have its staging disabled?

Also, re: Thor update because you brought it up, I'm going to be experimenting with doing smaller texture atlases for some of these new parts, with the hope that I will be less wasteful if I choose to add variants like I did for the Peacekeeper stuff. For ex having only a couple fuel tanks on a texture sheet so they can have multiple paint jobs (Delta Blue for the Thor tanks so that the 70s and 80s Deltas can be recreated? Having a correct black Able stage for Vanguard? etc) without a ton of unused space. That's in comparison to my previous technique of putting entire families on giant texture atlases, which then wind up going 70% unused in variant textures because only a fraction of the sheet needs to change. That of course assumes people want more paint variants in the future. Similarly, I'd like to be able to offer switching for the Titan solids between having black stripes and all white, stuff like that. If I can have different historical paint schemes with a minimum of additional overhead (it's not like Squad cares about efficiency anymore...) and additional time, I'd like to try and do it.

25 minutes ago, Cdodders said:

Is there an updated version of the BDB manual?

The manual has been moved to our wiki over on Github but doesn't have full coverage yet (partially because Jso doesn't want to make the pretty pictures for stuff that's going to be replaced soon)

 

[Marcelo Silveira]

1 hour ago, Cdodders said:

Is there an updated version of the BDB manual?

Yes, there is a wiki in github  
 https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/wiki

Edited January 17, 2019 by Marcelo Silveira

[Marcelo Silveira]

On 1/16/2019 at 3:51 AM, Pappystein said:

Lastly you have to be VERY precise when staging the 1/2 stage for Atlas in 3.2.    I had problems with Atlas and EELT Thor in my 2.5x scale play-through.   If I didn't fly them PERFECTLY I didn't orbit.   And Since Mechjeb does not understand 1-1/2 staging

Well... I don't use the 3.2x scale but the same problems apply. The Atlas rocket can be quite sensitive to the angle of attack during booster skirt jettison (aka when staging the 1/2 stage) so just keep the AoA close to zero when jettisoning the booster skirt. Otherwise the booster skirt might hit the sustainer engine and flip the rocket.
The wiki has a guide on how to calculate the delta V for the Atlas rockets, use the corresponding graph for the desired Atlas version and use the Smart Parts mod to automatically jettison the booster skirt at the desired configuration.

 

 

[Cdodders]

3 hours ago, Marcelo Silveira said:

Yes, there is a wiki in github  
 https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/wiki

Thank you

[Rustyskiessam]

On 1/13/2019 at 8:43 PM, sslaptnhablhat said:

Where are you downloading the version from, Spacedock, Github or the 'Development' link?

yeah.

[golkaidakhaana]

1 minute ago, Rustyskiessam said:

yeah.

What? I gave you multiple choices, what does "yeah" mean?

[Rustyskiessam]

Just now, sslaptnhablhat said:

What? I gave you multiple choices, what does "yeah" mean?

i did all of those options, sorry.

[golkaidakhaana]

Just now, Rustyskiessam said:

i did all of those options, sorry.

Hm, right. I don't really know what else to suggest, other than testing the latest commit in a new, unmodded game. @Jso is probably the best person to help with your issue.

[AlphaMensae]

On 1/14/2019 at 11:58 PM, Pappystein said:

Um,. 4 Posts Below the one you responded to.

AKA

 

Yep, as Cobalt said, that one is the Gemini-Titan pad from damon's updated Tundra Space Center.

But I am right now making a Delta II tower variant for my General Multi-Tower...and it can be "Delta Blue" color, or red...or other colors.

 

[Jso]

3 hours ago, Rustyskiessam said:

i did all of those options, sorry.

 

3 hours ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

Hm, right. I don't really know what else to suggest, other than testing the latest commit in a new, unmodded game. @Jso is probably the best person to help with your issue.

The first answer was correct. You need the dev files from Github to build those craft - Athena and Minotaur are new parts. Hang tight for the next release.

[Pappystein]

7 hours ago, Jso said:

 

The first answer was correct. You need the dev files from Github to build those craft - Athena and Minotaur are new parts. Hang tight for the next release.

@Rustyskiessam @sslaptnhablhatI would add that the NAME of the PLF changed before Final part implementation.  You seem to have a Craft file that predates that!

Suggest either Deleting the craft file and downloading a new one or better yet, make your own... The Wiki link JSO posted in another post just a few messages above this one shows the EXACT construction for Minotaur III/IV  and Athena I/II. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Pappystein

[golkaidakhaana]

3 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

@Rustyskiessam @sslaptnhablhatI would add that the NAME of the PLF changed before Final part implementation.  You seem to have a Craft file that predates that!

Suggest either Deleting the craft file and downloading a new one or better yet, make your own... The Wiki link JSO posted in another post just a few messages above this one shows the EXACT construction for Minotaur III/IV  and Athena I/II. 

Ah, yes, I just remembered all crafts containing the Peacekeeper decoupler and fairing became broken in a recent release, I guess I just forgot or subconsciously assumed the craft files were updated accordingly.

[CobaltWolf]

49 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

@Rustyskiessam @sslaptnhablhatI would add that the NAME of the PLF changed before Final part implementation.  You seem to have a Craft file that predates that!

Suggest either Deleting the craft file and downloading a new one or better yet, make your own... The Wiki link JSO posted in another post just a few messages above this one shows the EXACT construction for Minotaur III/IV  and Athena I/II.

42 minutes ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

Ah, yes, I just remembered all crafts containing the Peacekeeper decoupler and fairing became broken in a recent release, I guess I just forgot or subconsciously assumed the craft files were updated accordingly.

Oh, do I need to update those crafts?

[Gapone]

@CobaltWolf

Your mod is awesome, but...

It needs

a version without some dependencies: stock fuels, separate and stock variant parts instead of b9switched.

The parts (Pa) are too unkerbal. Some changes/patches/fixes needed. Hidden attachment nodes, integrated things, etc., just to recreate the historical missions. This is KSP, man! More flexibility (Fb), man!

Especially the Apollo: Have you nerfed the engines just for it to be suitable for the Mun only? ~Fb

Glowing windows are wrong color

Remove the parts that are available separately: e.g. antennas on the sina mem. ~Fb

Hollowable service bays (as in the making history) ~Pa ~Fb

Some nonexistent parts that never existed IRL

Switchable textures on some parts (read, toggleable gold foil on gemini service module)

A separate folder for Eyes Turned Skywards parts

Blue gemini service bay (variants blue/white/red) and MOL ~Pa ~Fb

Shepard booster/booster support (works like a strut) split ~Pa ~Fb

A 1.5m to 1.25m command pod (Botticelli-like, Gemini-shaped, not IRL) ~Pa

Apollo D2 ~Pa

Mercury A-D prototype parts ~Pa

Mercury Mk2 ~Pa

 

Also, why are the markings are written by russian letters?

 

p.s. i am really a gemini lover

Edited January 23, 2019 by Val
Font size