Jcking

May 1, 2022

58 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Removed Magpie's Mods, still getting the Z-fighting issue with BDBNIC + Bella_TU:

Clone the master branch (by clicking on the green code button and selecting download zip and dragging the Bella_TU folder inside the gamedata folder into your gamedata folder), do not go to releases and download the latest, that one is hopelessly out of date.

April 29, 2022

1 hour ago, 610yesnolovely said:

I have the same issue, and only on that one part (that I've seen), but I only have BDBNIC (Araym) and Bella_TU - definitely no Magie.

I cloned the master branch of Bella TU and Agena B and D looked just fine, with the exception of Agena D having compression artifacts for the white variants.

April 29, 2022

30 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

I have BDBNIC, Magpie Mods, and Bella_TU (and their dependencies) installed and I'm getting some nasty z-fighting on the long Agena tank on Agena B and GATV, but not Agena D:

Reveal hidden contents

Not the D:

Magpie and Bella TU aren’t really meant to go together, and that’s not what Agena D is supposed to look like with Bella TU. Make sure that Magpie isn’t applying it’s configs to Agena.

April 27, 2022

13 hours ago, Pappystein said:

So I hate to admit this. But I have lost some things. If any of you know the page/url to any of the old Historical Articles I have written on things like Titan etc, could you please share them. I am trying to upload all my documents to my very rough (just starting out and not real professional yet) Wiki that is in the link below.

From newest to oldest (because of the way this forum loads pages, you may have to scroll back to the post, but it is on the page)

Spoiler

April 25, 2022

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Hmm, I did a test flight last night with the not patched git, and was able to get to 150 x 150km with about a 1000 m/s give or take 100 m/s in the S-IVC.

Are you playing on RSS or larger than 2.5x system?

2.7 scale system with a 38.8 ton lander 8.2 meters height, 6.3 meters diameter plus block V for payload, which was within the margins set by a successful test with a block V and a 39.5 ton ore container as payload.

April 25, 2022

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

Didnt have time to test extensively but I believe the payload should be appropriately shielded now. Please see if performance is ok.

I am pleased to report that the vehicle performed exceptionally, exceeding the variant shielded with the fairing inside the SLA with 300 m/s more remaining in the S-IVC.

April 25, 2022

12 minutes ago, G'th said:

Not that anyone asked but heres an cluster of 5 Saturn V's in an asparagus configuration.

Four and three joined together was seriously proposed, although if it was a straw man design or something else is unknown (note that the 3 is in 3x symmetry and is spaced to allow a 33ft payload between the S-IIs).

April 24, 2022

29 minutes ago, Saltshaker said:

Where did you get that variant for the CSM?

It’s part of the base mod.

April 24, 2022

57 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Whats your test scenario?

Saturn H03 with F-1Bs for the first stage. core engine is kept at 60% thrust until 10 seconds to side booster burnout. LES is jettisoned after J2A2 ignition. Payload to 100x100 km orbit is a Apollo block V with a 38.8 ton lander with the main shapes consisting of the cryotanks H50-144 tank (90% of the oxidizer and 70% of the fuel is kept) with 4 LT-2 landing struts on the side of it and Benjee's PEV PT-M100C cabin on top. it is underneath a 3.75 meter fairing for comparison, but that faring is not built when testing the drag of the H03 SLA.

April 24, 2022

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

Anyways I've tried... something. Please see if its helped at all.

It helped a little, but not enough.

April 24, 2022

8 minutes ago, Zorg said:

What do you mean by not shielding? is the payload being destroyed? Or is it just a matter of drag. Because in my testing moduleCargoBay was working correctly and shielding the payload. If its drag I will see what can be done.

It's drag.

April 24, 2022

The wide SLA for H03 like the jettisonable SLA does not properly shield the payload, making the vehicle fail to reach orbit with more bulkier payloads, unless a regular fairing also covering the payload, which mitigates the drag issues.

April 24, 2022

2 hours ago, shakuvendell said:

Can someone bring me up to speed on the Leo-L-MFBS "Bellini" Service Module?

Specifically, what was the historical source, what's it's intended mission profile or purpose, and what LV would have launched such a mission? If someone has an old NASA reference PDF or something, that would be cool to have linked, but I don't wanna make things too hard, so I'll be fine without that bit if necessary.

That came from an advanced Gemini study and would service MORL (manned orbital research laboratory) and would have launched from a Saturn I

https://web.archive.org/web/20100519170319/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069218_1975069218.pdf

April 23, 2022

35 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Unless I'm thinking of a different study, Class I is S-II sized, not S-IVB

44 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

The one that used the S-IVB upper stage, obviously. So the Class I, I guess.

None of them are actually S-IVBs. Class II uses a 260 inch diameter propellant tank that uses an extended S-IVB with solids and a Space Shuttle engine as an expendable upper stage combined with the space shuttle booster. Class I is a 396 inch propellant module made for INT-21, but can alternatively be launched on the space shuttle booster and Class III uses 15x60 foot propellant tanks (and is specifically designed such that all parts can fit inside the space shuttle cargo bay).

The Lockheed design uses 15x60 tanks, except that the propulsion module tank is launched separate from the propulsion module engine, and the NAR shuttle is practically identical to the Class I MACDAC nuclear shuttle, just with a 8 degree slope that makes up 2/3rds of the propellant module compared to the 10 degree slope that makes up 1/3 of the propellant module and is single launched from an INT-21 (but a hybrid Saturn shuttle version was proposed)

April 23, 2022

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Just wait until we get Nerva, then we'll get real Nuclear Shuttle power!

@CobaltWolf @Zorg @Invaderchaos Are parts, besides Nerva, planned for Nuclear Shuttle planned for Phase II of the Saturn Update/1.11? Or are we just getting the engine?

Which one?

Spoiler

Lockheed

Pages_from_Nuclear_Shuttle_System_Defini

McDonnell Douglass (note that only class 1 and 2 were selected for further investigation in the phase III study).

Pages_from_Nuclear_Shuttle_Definition_St

April 23, 2022

1 hour ago, Ashiepoppy said:

That inflatable hatch looks goofy asf lol

love it

You'd love some of the alternate options proposed for this

April 22, 2022

12 minutes ago, chaos113 said:

oh my whats this

Skylab reboost mission

April 22, 2022

1 minute ago, Cdodders said:

What happened to the dorsal docking port?

Thermal cover, to insulate it. Same would be applied to the inside of the windows.

Pages_from_Apollo_Extension_Systems_-_Lu

April 22, 2022

8 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

What exactly is the difference between the LM Taxi and the regular LM, other than some versions of the Taxi carrying three astronauts?

All variations had the ability to enter a low power mode and be left unattended for the duration of the stay (14 days is what is quoted for the two man version). They would also be able to be able to hook up to an RTG, but that was located on the shelter and one of the astronauts would have to EVA to the shelter disconnect the RTG from the shelter, hitch it to the rover, and drive back and hook it up to the taxi.

April 19, 2022

1 minute ago, G'th said:

Fascinating. Wonder if its related to the other LM based shelter that took a Command Module and bolted it to a Descent stage.

As far as it is known, no. This does comes from the same study that gave the LM Taxi (a 2 man LM capable of being powered down, but there is also an 3 man LM taxi from a different study), LM Lab (spacelab for Apollo basically) and the LM Truck (unmanned descent stage capable of carrying cargo to the surface).

April 19, 2022

47 minutes ago, Daelkyr said:

Oof, sorry your LEM has cancer.

It's not the worst of it.

Apollo_Extension_Systems_-_Lunar_Excursi

April 19, 2022

57 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

Which of the BDB ALSEP experiments correspond to the real experiments? Some of them are obvious but a few are not (e.g. the "Advanced Gravioli Detector"). In particular, I'm not sure what corresponds to the Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment, the Lunar Atmosphere Compositon Experiment, the Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment, and the Passive Seismic Experiment Package.

While I haven’t checked all of them, the Passive Seismic Experiment is covered by the BG one (with the exception of the EASEP version which is included with the mod)

April 18, 2022

1 hour ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Are those APAS-75 docking ports? Would that system have been used if the shuttle were flying missions involving docking earlier, or would a new system have been developed like was done for Shuttle-Mir and ISS?

APAS-75 Ports appear in the illustrations, as well as in various proposed space stations and IPP stuff at the time. However it seems to me that they were more representative or an option for an androgynous docking port, and that the Shuttle or these other vehicles would have used an entirely different design as several are depicted with an entirely new design in conjunction and with APAS-75.

April 17, 2022

3 minutes ago, bjornadri said:

massive congrats on full release! now that apollo is completely revamped, will the manual be updated as well? i'm m assively struggling finding all the correct parts and pieces...

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/issues/60

April 17, 2022

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

LSAM?

Not Altair, but AES and AAP versions of the lunar module (Lab, Taxi, Truck, Shelter).

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by Jcking