[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[frizzank]

If you want to be accurate, the time to jettison the Atlas boosters is at T+2:05 (T+125 seconds) for the standard Atlas, or T+2:33 (T+153 seconds) for a stretched Atlas representing one of the later models, regardless of altitude and speed. (Of course, you also shouldn't throttle it at all, since the Atlas had non-throttled engines.)

Mercury Atlas 9

At 8:04:13 a.m. EST, May 15, 1963,[1] Faith 7 was launched from Launch Complex 14. At T+60 seconds, the Atlas started its pitch program. Shortly afterward, MA-9 passed through Max-Q. At T+2 minutes 14 seconds Cooper felt BECO (Booster Engine Cutoff) and staging. The two Atlas booster engines had been left behind. The Launch Escape Tower was then jettisoned. At T+3 minutes the cabin pressure sealed at 5.5 psi (38 kPa). Cooper reported, "Faith 7 is all go."

At about T+5 minutes was SECO (Sustainer Engine Cutoff) and Faith 7 entered orbit at 17,547 mile/h (7,844 m/s). After the spacecraft separated and turned around to orbit attitude, Cooper watched his Atlas booster lag behind and tumble for about eight minutes. Over Zanzibar on the first orbit, he learned that the orbital parameters were good enough for at least 20 orbits. As the spacecraft passed over Guaymas, Mexico still on the first orbit, capsule communicator Gus Grissom told Cooper the ground computers said he was "go for seven orbits".

I had been making everything at 64% since Kerbin is almost half the size of Earth that means you want to split the run times in half as well. So a little over half of 2:14, i just go for somewhere around 1:30, all of this depends on your load and your mission profile as well. Generally I keep my speed below 130m/s and when I get to the point where 1/3 throttle keeps my speed constant I dump the engines and throttle up.

[The Destroyer]

Is this bug with PF known?

Lol I tried that, and it was hilarious. It makes sense, PF is trying to.. fairingize the clamp

[MOARdV]

Is this bug with PF known?

Yeah, I saw that too. Stock clamps do the same thing, FWIW. I put in a request on the PF thread to ignore parts that have the launch clamp module, but it's not clear to me how active development on PF is.

[jpinard]

What does the indexing bar do?

[Guest]

Ensures proper alignment when docking.

[RoboRay]

What does the indexing bar do?

Notice the V-shaped notch at the top of the Agena docking port? The Gemini's indexing bar slides into that, ensuring you dock at the proper rotational alignment.

[Woodstar]

Great looking mod, is there a way I can use the probe parts (geigercounter, laser, camers) only without the rest of the mod?

[Mecripp]

Great looking mod, is there a way I can use the probe parts (geigercounter, laser, camers) only without the rest of the mod?

You can the cam but, I haven't try'ed the laser and geigercounter.

[Woodstar]

How did you do it? because I have put the FASA_Probe_Parts folder in game data and the parts don't show, same if I put them in the parts folder just dont show. I dont want to install the rest of the mod just the probe parts.

[G'th]

Is this bug with PF known?

Yep. There's a workaround however. Take the launch clamps off first, set up your fairings how you want them, and then, press L on every fairing piece. What this does is lock the shape of that particular fairing so that it won't change no matter what you place within it or around it. Then you'll be able to place the launch clamps. The faring base will still show the fairing path being all wonky, but your actual fairings won't change.

See here:

Without locking the fairings, my fairings would also have ended up all fat.

How did you do it? because I have put the FASA_Probe_Parts folder in game data and the parts don't show, same if I put them in the parts folder just dont show. I dont want to install the rest of the mod just the probe parts.

Install the mod, then delete all the part folders within the FASA folder that you don't want. You still have to maintain the structure of the whole folder, but you'd just remove everything within it that you don't want.

[Mecripp]

How did you do it? because I have put the FASA_Probe_Parts folder in game data and the parts don't show, same if I put them in the parts folder just dont show. I dont want to install the rest of the mod just the probe parts.

The part path as to stay the same so you can make a fold in KSP/GameData/FASA/Probe

then in side probe put your FASA_Probe_Parts folder.

EDIT OR on a reinstall FASA delete what you don't want.

[Woodstar]

Great thanks a bunch guys!!

[frizzank]

Great looking mod, is there a way I can use the probe parts (geigercounter, laser, camers) only without the rest of the mod?

The easy way

Download the mod, and extract it to a temporary location.

In the FASA folder delete everything except "Probes" and "Resources"-Resources has the definition for the Geiger counter.

Open up the "Probes" folder.

Delete the "Explorer" folder.

Drag the FASA folder into your GameData folder

-Done..

[Cdodders]

What versions of the Saturn V are you doing?

[MOARdV]

Yep. There's a workaround however. Take the launch clamps off first' date=' set up your fairings how you want them, and then, press L on every fairing piece. What this does is lock the shape of that particular fairing so that it won't change no matter what you place within it or around it. Then you'll be able to place the launch clamps. The faring base will still show the fairing path being all wonky, but your actual fairings won't change.[/quote']

I didn't know about that. Hopefully I'll remember it next time I use the pfairings.

[frizzank]

What versions of the Saturn V are you doing?

I am doing the Apollo 11 version of the engines and fuel tanks, Denny is doing the CSM and the Lunar Module.

[EuSouONumero345]

Is this bug with PF known?

http://i.imgur.com/fwBIwRO.jpg?1

The fairings looks like cheese wheels

[GoldForest]

Hey frizzank, how do you fly the shuttle? Every time I do my gravity turn, it flips head over heels.

[frizzank]

Hey frizzank, how do you fly the shuttle? Every time I do my gravity turn, it flips head over heels.

Yea that one is hard. I set up action groups to turn off some of the engines (#1-4) to help balance things out in the flight. If your pitching forward turn off some of the shuttle engines. Also try adjusting some of the thrust amount, there may be a better setup.

[K3-Chris]

Really like these parts, but I got a bit of a problem with the launch towers, they clip the ship as they detach somehow and makes the rocket wobble horribly (sometimes causing a RUD), would be nice if the arms at least became no-clip when they detach

[rdfox]

Hey, frizzank, a thought on the Saturn series. I know you don't plan on building a full Saturn I version, with the unique S-IV stage, but a thought occurred to me.

The RL-10 engines used in the S-IV ended up being some of the most commonly used American engines ever built (because they were WIDELY used in upper stages, including Centaur). If you were to include the RL-10 and a baseplate for the S-IVB that would give us six radial engine positions and a lowered central bottom node for attaching the interstage, we could not only do a reasonable facsimile of the full Saturn I stack, but we could also use the RL-10s for their many other upper-stage applications. (The RL-10 is still in production today as an Atlas V upper stage engine, after all.)

Also, this might be something you could toss into the flavor text for the H1 engines: I did the math, and for those who want to do an accurate reproduction of the original S-I stage from the Saturn I (as opposed to the Saturn IB's S-IB first stage), all that needs to be done, after checking astronautix.com, is to set the thrust limiter on the engine to 91.7%. (The Saturn IB technically used "H1b" engines that had been uprated in thrust for the same specific impulse by simply increasing fuel flow; my calculator shows the H1's sea level thrust to be 91.59865% of the H1b that you've simulated.) This would allow us to simulate the Saturn I first stage without any actual coding changes on your part...

[Guest]

Note, RL-10 had many different variants, and they look very different on Saturn I, Delta IV (much longer, extendable nozzle), Atlas V (shorter, extendable nozzles) and on early Atlases. Some kind of RL-10 would be nice for Centaurs, but because of Frizzank's timeframe, I'd only expect a baseline version for early Centaurs.

[frizzank]

Note, RL-10 had many different variants, and they look very different on Saturn I, Delta IV (much longer, extendable nozzle), Atlas V (shorter, extendable nozzles) and on early Atlases. Some kind of RL-10 would be nice for Centaurs, but because of Frizzank's timeframe, I'd only expect a baseline version for early Centaurs.

I don't have time to finish variants or even the other launch vehicles that actually flew. So my scope of work is limited to what I can actually finish in my limited amount of time I have. Also I don't mind suggestions or tweaks but please no more requests until I am done with Apollo.

[Guest]

I was more referring to the RL-10 variants with extending nozzles being from '90s, which is far from the timeframe you're working in. You'll most likely be making the Centaur-D. Oh, and BTW, there were plans to incorporate Centaur as the final stage of the original Saturn I, so it is related to the Apollo program, if only in a "what if" way. But you're right, actual Apollo hardware first.

[Pappystein]

Really like these parts, but I got a bit of a problem with the launch towers, they clip the ship as they detach somehow and makes the rocket wobble horribly (sometimes causing a RUD), would be nice if the arms at least became no-clip when they detach

Simple solution is to stage them BEFORE you stage your bottom attachment points and start engines. I use 1 Tower, 4 Service gantries and then 4 of the Atlas 2.5m base restraints (if not more on an apsaragus launch) I Pop all the tower and tall gantries first. THEN I stage the engine start with the release of the rest of the restraints. BTW that is pretty close to real life.