[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

[Ophiuchus]

Here's another GEM 40 that has a configuration for the air-lit trio too

PART{
// Kerbal Space Program - Part Config
// GEM40
// 


// --- general parameters ---
name = GEM40
module = Part
author = KW Rocketry


// --- asset parameters ---
MODEL
{
model = KWRocketry/Parts/Solids/025mGlobeI/KW_025mSRBGlobeI
scale = 2.54, 2.656078, 2.54
}
rescaleFactor = 1.0
scale = 1.25


attachRules = 0,1,0,1,0




// --- node definitions ---
node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, -0.508, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0


EFFECTS
{
  running_closed
  {
    AUDIO
    {
      channel = Ship
      clip = KWRocketry/Soundbank/sound_srbloop
      volume = 0.0 0.0
      volume = 0.4 0.4
      pitch = 1.0 1.02
      pitch = 1.0 1.0
      loop = true
    }
    PREFAB_PARTICLE
    {
      name = Smoke
      prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light
      transformName = OldFXTransform
      emission = 0.0 0.0
      emission = 0.05 0.0
      emission = 0.075 0.25
      emission = 1.0 1.25
      speed = 0.0 0.25
      speed = 1.0 1.0
      localOffset = 0, 0, 0
    }
    PREFAB_PARTICLE
    {
      name = Flame
      prefabName = fx_exhaustFlame_yellow
      transformName = OldFXTransform
      emission = 0.0 0.0
      emission = 0.05 0.0
      emission = 0.055 0.15
      emission = 0.6 0.8
      speed = 0.0 0.5
      speed = 1.0 1.2
    }
  }
  engage
  {
    AUDIO
    {
      channel = Ship
      clip = KWRocketry/Soundbank/sound_srb4
      volume = 0.5
      pitch = 1.0
      loop = false
    }
  }
  flameout
  {
    PREFAB_PARTICLE
    {
      prefabName = fx_exhaustSparks_flameout_2
      transformName = NozzleTransform
      oneShot = true
    }
    AUDIO
    {
      channel = Ship
      clip = sound_explosion_low
      volume = 1.0
      pitch = 2.0
      loop = false
    }
  }
}


// --- editor parameters ---
TechRequired = basicRocketry
entryCost = 600
cost = 230
category = 0
subcategory = 0
title = GEM 40
manufacturer = ATK
description = Graphite-Epoxy Motor


// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 1.4
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.3
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 12
maxTemp = 1700
breakingForce = 250
breakingTorque = 250




stagingIcon = SOLID_BOOSTER



MODULE
{
    name = ModuleEnginesFX
    thrustVectorTransformName = NozzleTransform
    engineID = KWGVSRB
    runningEffectName = running_closed
    throttleLocked = True
    exhaustDamage = True
    ignitionThreshold = 0.1
    minThrust = 0
    maxThrust = 499
    origMass = 1.4
    heatProduction = 175
    useEngineResponseTime = False
    allowShutdown = False
    fxOffset = 0, 0, 0.5
    PROPELLANT
    {
        name = SolidFuel
            ratio = 1.0
        DrawGauge = True
    }
    atmosphereCurve
     {
        key = 0 274
       key = 1 245
     }
}



MODULE
{
      name = ModuleAnimateHeat
      ThermalAnim = SRBs
}
MODULE
{
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 6640
        type = Solid
        basemass = -1
}
MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineConfigs
        type = ModuleEngines
        origMass = 1.4
        configuration = GEM 40
        modded = false
        CONFIG
        {
            name = GEM 40
            maxThrust = 499
            heatProduction = 175
            PROPELLANT
            {
                name = SolidFuel
                ratio = 1
                DrawGauge = True
            }
            atmosphereCurve
            {
                key = 0 274
                key = 1 245
            }
            massMult = 1.0
            curveResource = SolidFuel
            thrustCurve
            {
                key = 0 0
                key = 0.03 0.36
                key = 0.1 0.48
                key = 0.16 0.69
                key = 0.23 0.79
                key = 0.29 0.89
                key = 0.35 0.96
                key = 0.42 1
                key = 0.48 0.99
                key = 0.55 0.96
                key = 0.61 0.9
                key = 0.68 0.84
                key = 0.74 0.76
                key = 0.81 0.69
                key = 0.87 0.56
                key = 0.94 0.44
                key = 1 0.38
            }
        }
        CONFIG
        {
            name = GEM40V
            maxThrust = 468
            heatProduction = 175
            PROPELLANT
            {
                name = SolidFuel
                ratio = 1
                DrawGauge = True
            }
            atmosphereCurve
            {
                key = 0 284
                key = 1 203
            }
            massMult = 1.1
            curveResource = SolidFuel
            thrustCurve
            {
                key = 0 0
                key = 0.03 0.36
                key = 0.1 0.48
                key = 0.16 0.69
                key = 0.23 0.79
                key = 0.29 0.89
                key = 0.35 0.96
                key = 0.42 1
                key = 0.48 0.99
                key = 0.55 0.96
                key = 0.61 0.9
                key = 0.68 0.84
                key = 0.74 0.76
                key = 0.81 0.69
                key = 0.87 0.56
                key = 0.94 0.44
                key = 1 0.38
            }
        }


    }
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        ignitionsAvailable = 1
        autoIgnitionTemperature = 800
        ignitorType = SolidElectric
        useUllageSimulation = false
        IGNITOR_RESOURCE
        {
            name = ElectricCharge
            amount = 0.500
        }
    }
}

[Ophiuchus]

I posted the last GEM 40 under the wrong login (as AnyCH), but I was wondering what the typo with the Isp was: I spent forever trying to figure it out to no avail Also I was wondering how to make a MM file that adds an engine configuration to an existing modded engine, since my first thought was to just add a GEM 40 and GEM 40 air-lit to the Castor 4A but couldn't figure it out either, so my workaround was to create a new part with both configs from the start

[RedAV8R]

I posted the last GEM 40 under the wrong login (as AnyCH), but I was wondering what the typo with the Isp was: I spent forever trying to figure it out to no avail Also I was wondering how to make a MM file that adds an engine configuration to an existing modded engine, since my first thought was to just add a GEM 40 and GEM 40 air-lit to the Castor 4A but couldn't figure it out either, so my workaround was to create a new part with both configs from the start

There were a couple and every one of them is my fault - you just copy/pasted which took those problems to yours as well.

You can see the changes in the latest commit on GitHub. I could post here, but easier and cleaner to just point you in that direction.

The file in general also shows you how to add multiple configurations...of which the air lit is now part of it:)

[Woopert]

RedAV8R: the ZIP files included with Engine Ignitor are the ones you don't want to extract for RO, right?

[RedAV8R]

RedAV8R: the ZIP files included with Engine Ignitor are the ones you don't want to extract for RO, right?

That is Correct.

[Jetwave]

Thinking out loud though, some requirements I see of integration:

*The 'tech tree' for realism sake must be TIME based, not 'purchased'.

So, you would start in say 1945, and each time you progressed 5 or so in-game years you'd unlock a new node with parts realistic to that time? Seems to me like people could just sit in the space center view and max time warp for a couple hundred years, like just leaving it overnight, then have all the tech. Maybe the tech tree could be made to advance when you achieve something, like you would start off with probes and such, and when you first get into space you'd unlock something, first orbit, first moon landing, first kerbal in orbit, first manned moon landing, etc. Those achievements could be done with contracts too, when someone makes a realistic set for RO.

If you were to keep the tech as purchasable, it would be relatively easy to make science experiments give funds instead of science so that the only way to get science would be through the achievements and testing parts. Then, with the achievement contracts, one could have a custom tech tree, with parts that would match the years that NASA achieved those things. That way, you would still have the realistic progression, but you can't just sit in time warp overnight to progress, you'd actually have to achieve stuff.

Or, you could have it so that the achievement contracts would have the unlocking of a science node as a reward. Remove science rewards from all experiments and contracts, and make each of the achievement contracts would have a tech node containing parts from that time as a reward instead of science. I have no idea how to do this, but I'm sure someone knows. If it's impossible, all nodes coud be changed to only cost a low amount of science, and have the contracts for achievements give 1 science each.

EX: on the default tree, each tech level/column of nodes would increase by 1 science in cost to match their tech level.

1st level = 1 science, 2nd = 2, 3rd = 3, etc.

Am I making any sense?

Edited August 2, 2014 by Jetwave

[Woopert]

That is Correct.

Oh, sorry man. I must have been ninja'd, I checked the last page for a reply.

[Ophiuchus]

There were a couple and every one of them is my fault - you just copy/pasted which took those problems to yours as well.

You can see the changes in the latest commit on GitHub. I could post here, but easier and cleaner to just point you in that direction.

The file in general also shows you how to add multiple configurations...of which the air lit is now part of it:)

Awesome! Thanks. Does the massMult property do anything? I tried using it to make the vacuum version slightly heavier (bigger nozzle) but it didn't seem to change anything.

Launch

Air lit boosters

Staging

Delta-K, PAM and teensy tiny 1 ton satellite bound for GTO

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ophiuchus

[ninjaweasel]

Thinking out loud though, some requirements I see of integration:

*The 'tech tree' for realism sake must be TIME based, not 'purchased'.

*In addition to being time based...objects such as fuel tanks...anybody can make a tank...of any size...the question is, is it strong enough and light enough to fulfill the objective at hand...So some 'generic' objects are going to require cost/mass/strength changes as the tech tree advances that are in line with current technologies. IE don't want a generic tank of same characteristics as a Titan tank as found in FASA to have different mass/strength/etc.

*Cost, everything has a price. So how do we deal with inflation...to me this requires another plugin to automatically adjust cost based upon inflation at that time. Obviously there are going to be some guesses here as cost figures are likely going to be few and far between. Then there is a point, cost figures are likely going to be for a whole launcher or at least pieces as an aggregate...so balancing the cost individual small pieces as found in KSP is going to be a challenge.

*I agree with your contracts, I honestly haven't played with 0.24 contracts so I don't know the interface they used. But having restraints on an apoapsis between two points and a periapsis between two points would be ideal. I remember playing with one older mod, (not sure if it's been updated) which did such things.

*Wish list...RSS is designed to start in the 50's...with planets and everything in their respective places at that point in time...maybe with some help with NK and RSS, a person can choose at what point a person wishes to begin their game. Be it 50's, 60's...whatever.

I was just thinking of writing something to make the existing contract system work in terms of contracts that are achievable, make monetary sense, and are representative of real launch purposes (i.e. contrary to the current stock system, we typically launch spacecraft for reasons other than testing parts!). But you're right, that would leave a major deficiency in the whole "RO" concept. Much to consider.

[Jetwave]

*In addition to being time based...objects such as fuel tanks...anybody can make a tank...of any size...the question is, is it strong enough and light enough to fulfill the objective at hand...So some 'generic' objects are going to require cost/mass/strength changes as the tech tree advances that are in line with current technologies. IE don't want a generic tank of same characteristics as a Titan tank as found in FASA to have different mass/strength/etc.

So something like tech levels on the engines from RealFuels/RealEngines, but for fuel tanks?

[ninjaweasel]

http://i.imgur.com/ZX4HkTM.png

Launch

http://i.imgur.com/r9QeQZ0.png

Air lit boosters

http://i.imgur.com/qL2aFjO.png

Staging

http://i.imgur.com/iOFACuI.png

Delta-K, PAM and teensy tiny 1 ton satellite bound for GTO

Very nice! How did you find it to fly? I found that even the 6920 had way too much TWR for a 1t payload in the lower atmosphere, and that dropping the first 6 boosters into the mach 2.5+ airflow was... problematic.

I'm also having a hell of a time with my Delta III 893X. My success rate with it is roughly equivalent to its historical average...! It's supposedly rated for up to an 8t payload, but with that little mass up top, I can rarely get it past booster drop off before it disintegrates under high pressure. When I add payload to try to slow it down and/or ease off on the gravity turn, I run out of Dv before I can circularize. Do you have a reference for the booster sequence on that one? I've found one reference that says only 3 fire on the ground and the remaining 6 are air lit, which could be my problem. I was flying it with the 6/3 split as per the 692X and 792X.

Edit: Yup. that did the trick. Test flight with 3 firing on the ground and 6 in the air worked like a charm. TWR right off the pad is a bit low, but it's great other than that. Now off to go build my 7XXX Series Delta II's with those new GEM-40s!

Edited August 2, 2014 by ninjaweasel
Test Flight Results

[RedAV8R]

@Jetwave:

Well, that's a person's choice, if somebody want's to warp, then so be it. Maybe a person wants to play starting in the 80's. Either by warping from the 50s, or having RSS have the capability of starting automatically in the 80's. Either way, a person who wants to start then shouldn't have to launch Explorer just to get funds or science or whatever to unlock enough stuff to actually get to what's available in the 80's where they started in the first place. In the grand scheme of things a real 'progression tree' should also REMOVE technology from previous years...We aren't going to launch Gemini (as it was) today in 2014.

Think of it this way...Programs haven't advanced because someone launched into a certain orbit for a contact or put a probe on mars for science. They advanced because the science community and governments have poured money into making these things happen in order to get some form of return on that investment, be it intelligence gathering, communication, etc.

What I see in 'career mode' is not the advancement of technology, but making a viable business through the use of contracts and achievements for maximum profits and reputation. In other words...the technology is there as time progresses...but it's the cost that will drive what happens. Using science gained and reputation to drive what kind of contracts are available, which in turn gains more money and can increase reputation. Maybe even some form of dynamically decreasing cost of certain technologies as science is gained. There can be other optional contacts which are done at a loss financially, but gain huge rewards in reputation because it makes things easier for life on Earth. (Like the GPS system). What this needs is something like a 'star rating' or some form of 'milestone rating' or something for a company, get so much reputation that your 'star rating' goes up a notch, blow up a rocket or something (maybe it takes a couple times) and reputation decreases.

In other words....with my vision, just because the technology is there for somebody who warps...doesn't mean their coffers are full and game over.

TechLevels with engines won't be there or used..each CONFIG node will have a year associated with it...which will dictate when each specific version or whatever was introduced/used. BUT yes, something like the techlevels enabled with RealFuels could be modified using a time based system giving a multiplier to cost/mass/volume/whatever.

@Ophiuchus: Yes...It is a part of ModuleEnginesConfig...like the following:

PART
{
MODULE
{
name = ModuleEnginesConfig
origMass = some mass
CONFIG
{
name = GroundFired
massMult = multiplier1
}
CONFIG
{
name = AirFired
massMult = multiplier2
}
}
}

End result is GroundFiredMass = origMass * muliplier1 while AirFiredMass = origMass * multiplier2

Edited August 2, 2014 by RedAV8R

[Guest]

I think that it should be possible to use old hardware even late in the timeline. You probably won't be allowed to launch something like Gemini by 2014, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to just make another one from the leftover docs. If you can't afford anything newer (granted, original Gemini hardware would be pricey, but the technology used to make it is and might be less expensive, especially the LV), or have some other reason to still use it, you should be able to. Also, if you opt to keep using the Gemini (like Russians with their Soyuz), you should also be able to. We are more advanced than we were in the 60s, but some stuff from that era still flies (or used to fly until recently) with modifications. Proton-M isn't new at all (most of it harkens back to lunar program), yet it's only getting replaced now.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Guest

[Jetwave]

@Red: So, maybe something where you would have your money drain over time in order to advance to the next level of tech? Also I think in career mode the prices definitely need to be changed. No space program would start with 10k funds. We could have it so that instead of having branching nodes, we would have a linear path where each node represents a certain year/years. It could be possible to have a mechanic where you would have to decide how many funds per day/month/year you want to put into science, the more you put in the faster you unlock new science nodes. Reputation could also play a part, since smarter and better scientists will want to be part of a famous space program instead of one notorious for killing kerbals. When your reputation reaches a certain amount, your space program could be promoted to a new level, like from "Backyard Bottle Rocketeers" to "Model Rocket Enthusiasts". Each time you reach a new level, you'd get some kind of multiplier to your science research speed, since better scientists will want to work for you.

[RedAV8R]

@Dragon01:

You do bring up a good point, and so something needs to be designed on a part config based system, where some parts are obsoleted in certain years (likely an X number of years after it's last use), or X number of years after introduction, while others that never are obsoleted. Maybe there could be some way to obsolete parts based upon it's use. Keep using an object, then you can 'change the timeline', and push back it's obsolescence in game.

So, in it's true 'RO' form, objects in general, specific part mods especially, will have an obsolete date. The FASA Gemini will become unavailable. Sure some technology is cheaper, but some can also be prohibitively expensive, especially when OTS proven hardware can be substituted in it's place, to a point when there are so many newer/better/cheaper ways to build something...at what point is Gemini actually Gemini and not something that simply has a passing resemblance to it.

WALL-E is not based on Johnny 5. I call BS on that one.

[RedAV8R]

@Jetwave: I will say my focus has not been on career mode, and I haven't spent much time there. My focus is on realism, and in it's current form, the contract/science/techlevel/science based system of KSP isn't realistic. It's built on 'fun', and play-ability.

For true realism, it requires essentially gutting the existing way of doing things and starting out fresh. Aspects of the system might very well be of use, but for realism, this is going to take some major coding, and I'm not talking about simple MM edits of cost and TechRequired for parts (although there will be a ton of that as well). Like I said, "TechRequired" for parts availability becomes something based on "yearIntroduced" or something like that. Cost however becomes the main hurdle. Does one have the money to build a rocket using the parts they want. Build it wrong and blow things up, or fly it wrong and put something into the wrong orbit and a contract is left unfulfilled and therefore no money is gained from it. Maybe introduce a money system where loans can be made, and then repaid. Successful contracts generally can bring in money, and increased reputation, which makes more lucrative contracts appear for even more money. Maybe some contracts where there is no monetary gain, but larger increases in reputation (like building a GPS constellation. I could go on and on. The sky is endless. BUT the key is to recognize that the current system will NOT work as I see it.

[3_14159]

In general, the question seems to be what you want to model in RO. From your opinions I gather you'd like the 'space program' look more than the 'company' look. My idea would be the following:

- Funds: Represent the money available. This is basically your budget.

- Reputation: How 'good' you are. Whoever backs you will increase your budget depending on the reputation.

- Science: The engineering aspect.

The relations could be done as follows:

- You get a certain amount (budget) per month/year/whatever. This represents a general funding level. This is dependant on reputation.

- You get 'contracts' (which is basically just you promising to do something). Those would give you reputation to fulfill, and loss of the same if not. Only advance pay, the only reward you're getting is more reputation (therefore more advanced contracts and money).

- There'd have to be some differentiation between science and engineering, but I don't know what. Maybe developing new parts costs money only, and you get one science per year to progress in a linear fashion?

- The cost of rocket parts might be dependant on your usage of them: According to a report I read fairly long ago [1], doubling the number of parts built results in about 85% the cost for the aerospace industry. So, for example, if you've launched the same rocket 32 times it costs less than half the original costs. By combining this with a time-based reduction of such a factor - for example, every five unused years reduce the factor by one [2]. This gives a player the interesting task to decide between oft-used and cheap or new and more powerful or efficient rockets.

Please note that I have no idea whether this is at all codeable in ksp.

[1] I can try finding it, somewhen.

[2] The same rocket, launched 32 times five years ago would then cost 52 instead of 44% the original cost.

[Ophiuchus]

Very nice! How did you find it to fly? I found that even the 6920 had way too much TWR for a 1t payload in the lower atmosphere, and that dropping the first 6 boosters into the mach 2.5+ airflow was... problematic.

I'm also having a hell of a time with my Delta III 893X. My success rate with it is roughly equivalent to its historical average...! It's supposedly rated for up to an 8t payload, but with that little mass up top, I can rarely get it past booster drop off before it disintegrates under high pressure. When I add payload to try to slow it down and/or ease off on the gravity turn, I run out of Dv before I can circularize. Do you have a reference for the booster sequence on that one? I've found one reference that says only 3 fire on the ground and the remaining 6 are air lit, which could be my problem. I was flying it with the 6/3 split as per the 692X and 792X.

Edit: Yup. that did the trick. Test flight with 3 firing on the ground and 6 in the air worked like a charm. TWR right off the pad is a bit low, but it's great other than that. Now off to go build my 7XXX Series Delta II's with those new GEM-40s!

Hmm, I've been launching my Delta III with 6 ground, 3 air.

Booster sep is a lot more difficult on the Delta II because FAR tends to slam them back into the core. I used a S-II retro as an ullage motor with just 15 units of fuel. Put it near the booster center of mass and its kind of shocking how fast they jump away.

The Viking engine isn't in any of the parts packs I have installed, so I cloned the LR-87 to get a Viking 4, 5C and 6. Ariane is really difficult to control because of the skinny neck not being as rigid as the larger diameter core

[Ophiuchus]

@Red: BTW I picked the SL Isp for the GEM 40 air lit at random... probably closer to 220 or 230 SL, which can be important since the air lit usually kicks in at only 10-15km

[Jetwave]

Holy .... getting EVE installed was a pain in the ass, but it sure does look good... even if city lights don't work and it makes eve have a purple atmosphere again.

[Woopert]

Holy .... getting EVE installed was a pain in the ass, but it sure does look good... even if city lights don't work and it makes eve have a purple atmosphere again.

City lights do work, check out this link from the RSS OP.

https://nabaal.net/files/ksp/nathankell/RealSolarSystem/Textures/BoulderCo/CityLights/Textures/main.png

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello RedAV8R, I've been having issues loading the game. The game "freezes" on the LazTek parachute part. Of course, I'll be providing logs below. I have all the dependencies, and almost all of the recommended mods (if not all) and many of the supported parts packs. I tried removing many mods and loading the game again to see if it would fix anything, but no luck. I'll also be providing a mod list for your convenience, you can tell me if any of the mods I'm using aren't compatible with RSS (if that's the issue). All mods are up to date.

output_log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l726k98roeupyty/output_log.txt

KSP log (I know this usually of much help, I'm just putting here if you'd like to see it): https://www.dropbox.com/s/caj9bpkj1cgjgsc/KSP.log

Modlist:

blizzy78's Toolbar
Aerojet Kerbodyne
AIES Aerospace
Advanced Jet Engine
AnimatedDecouplers (64 bit)
ALCOR
B9 Aerospace (with 0.24 patches)
BahamutoD Constellation Essentials
BahaSP animation plug-in
blackheart612 PP textures
Soviet Engines
Environmental Visual Enhancements, Overhaul 9-2
Chatterer
CrossFeedEnabler
CustomAsteroids
CustomBiomes
DeadlyReentry
Distant Object (RSS config)
EditorExtensions
Engine Ignitor
Engine Thrust Controller
EnhancedNavBall
ExsurgentEngineering plug-in
FASA
Ferram Aerospace Research
Firespitter plug-in
Porkjet's Habitat Pack
Hakari SRB
RasterPropMonitor
Kerbal Attachment System (64 bit patched DLL)
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement
KerbX
KineTechAnimation plug-in
Space Shuttle Engines
KOSMOS
KW Rocketry
LazTek launcher and exploration packs
Lovad (deleted the Saturn V parts because FASA already has them)
MechJeb 2 (dev build)
MechJeb 2 KMGimbal
ModStatistics (disabled)
ModuleRCSFX
Docking Port Alignment Indicator
NearFuture Solar
NovaPunch 2
Part Angle Display
PartCatalog
Probe Control Room
Procedural Wings
Procedural Fairings
Procedural Parts
Taurus HCV
RealChute (without MM files)
RealFuels
Realism Overhaul
Real Solar System
RemoteTech 2 + ground stations config
ResGen plug-in
RLA Stockalike Alternate Models (should I be using the standard version? have been using this since February)
SDHI
SelectRoot
Sam Hall's Mk2 IVA
TouhouTorpedo's Mk3 IVA
SmokeScreen
StretchySNTtextures
Texture Replacer + BlubberMonkey's skybox
TAC Life Support Pre-release #3
TweakableEverything
Kerbal Alarm Clock
TweakScale
Modulefixer
Module Manager 2.2.0
curiousepic's Skylon MM file (adds new parts via MM patches)

Edited August 3, 2014 by Woopert

[tmikesecrist3]

The Titan is still in use actually...If for some reason we wanted to go back to a Gemini capsule it should not be two hard, all we would have to do is retool a factory, and we could likely run them off the line in job lots fairly cheaply to. But there is really no big advantage to doing so, for what is at best a leo system

[RedAV8R]

The Titan is still in use actually...

As static museum pieces maybe, there hasn't been a Titan launch for nearly 10 years. Unless you'd care to share your source?

[RedAV8R]

@Woopert : Yep...the Dragon Parachute is bugged...won't be in about 5min. Latest is now on Git, grab it there, won't make a release until tonight after work.

Edited August 3, 2014 by RedAV8R

[Ophiuchus]

The Titan is still in use actually...If for some reason we wanted to go back to a Gemini capsule it should not be two hard, all we would have to do is retool a factory, and we could likely run them off the line in job lots fairly cheaply to. But there is really no big advantage to doing so, for what is at best a leo system

Titan is dead because it was too expensive, not because it was old. And considering Titans launched the both Vikings, both Voyagers, both Helios, and Cassini it's hard to argue it was a LEO launcher