RocketBoy1641
-
Posts
192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by RocketBoy1641
-
-
30 minutes ago, Richmountain112 said:
Also, why does physics warp always destroy my parachutes?
Most likely shock when exiting warp if they are open....which may be in your settings for various mods/physics that you selected.
If they are deploying when you are at warp....ya, bad things happen with warp.
Can you give more details about sequence of when it is happening and things like altitude and velocity?
-
11 minutes ago, BravoAlpha101st said:
IVA doesn't work.
What iva?
-
3 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:
No. What are they?
Slight misspell. Ballute
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballute
-
1 hour ago, Richmountain112 said:
I usually play on settings that Kerbals don't pass out due to high G's. And regarding aerocapture, I almost never actually capture for another pass. Instead I usually proceed straight to landing because the G loads but sometimes if my capsule is too heavy it will escape Kerbin's SOI.
Ever use balloots? They can be useful in high atmo
-
2 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:
I'm using Stock system + OPM and Planet Cyran. The 2.5m stock heatshield can survive from Neidon but the Kane-11 one can't? The stock 1.25m heatshield was able to survive reentry from Urlum. I considered using a stock heatshield but it looked ugly.
2.5 stock is most likely overengineered compared to the Kane. I haven't looked at the numbers; but it goes back to the quote about physics....
2 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:Ah, something to compare. Both have almost identical aero properties, but the stock one has 1800 ablator, and the Kane has 800. Could be that?
Yes, yes indeed. Game crazy thickness v. Realistic-ish thickness. But hey, you can copy the BDB, rename the file to your liking and then give it the 2k ablation. But you better be honest and adjust weight etc to play fair.
25 minutes ago, Richmountain112 said:Usually I go for a steep reentry from Interplanetary speeds because if I go shallow then I don't aerocapture. If I remember, both have 800 ablator, plus I used the 5-kerbal command pod.
Pointing SAS to Orbital retrograde caused the heat shield to explode first. Surface Retrograde caused the command pod to explode first.
Plus the stock heat shield looks ugly on either of the Kane command pods (as well as the Fuji ones)
Well, their is another thing. Steep Kills b/c of massive G loading. And I don't just mean that it gets the LGMs. G loads can wreck anything. Work on aerocapture, even if it takes a couple passes through things to stay inside.
-
8 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:
The actual command pod exploded. And returning from Sarnus, there wasn't enough fuel for the braking burn.
I just resorted to cheating.
And usually I ready up the parachutes during SM and Orbital Module jettison.
I got that you said exploded. My point was that Mars, which should have a much lower m/s speed had massive heatshield requirements compared to the "fast" speed of a Lunar reentry that had been the reentry speed record. Yes, things will go BOOM when enough of a shock is exerted and things may also very quickly get overheated and (in game mechanics - explode) and melt enough to break up. To quote a character from Fringe, William Bell, "physics is a b!tch."
On 5/9/2023 at 8:11 PM, Pappystein said:Actually the Monotank S-I stage was looked into for the 1961 Saturn C-2. At the time, (prior to the Kennedy moon speech) there was a planned contiguous production. However with the "refocus" on TO THE MOON, concepts were slashed and everything not necessary for the Moon was left off the drawing-board so to speak.
There are engineering drawings in my Saturn C-2 article. The source clearly stated that in 1961, it was planned that the second batch would be Monohulls. No second batch was ever ordered....
Yeah only the INT-5 family and the all 5-9 UA-1205/UA-1207 stage families did away with the S-IB stage... problem is you were still making new things so you weren't saving much
RE INT-20 being a Front-runner. That was in the Boeing MLV study... Where they were trying very hard to push anything that would allow them to keep the "we are about to take over NAA-Rockwell" so lets keep the S-II-360 stage in production... Other MLV studies (Douglas for Example) looked to other things. Everyone got rid of S-IB (cluster sucks duh) But No one could replace it WELL without doing a proper monohull re-engineer of the S-IM
In NASA proper it was less concrete... and more... "well we kinda have to think about something in the future so lets do SOMETHING..." But no one at NASA had a true roadmap for their peers to follow. It is this lack of leadership for thing beyond MOON NAO that led to boondoggles like the Big Gemini getting the funding it got.In regards to the craft file for the S-1C, I noted that it needs vernier thrusters added. It isn't a big thing....but roll control would have been needed.
-
5 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:
Also, reentry from Jool and Sarnus caused the Kane Command pod to explode.
Perhaps liberal breaking burn is needed. If memory serves, the Mars Flyby would have needed several hundred pounds of additional heat shield.
Perhaps even a Mun flyby on the return for a breaking? Ya, I know that is getting to Jeb level manovering.
-
May not be in game tonight as much as I had planned. Geeking out with the Haynes Saturn V Oners Workshop Manual and the Skylab Owners Workshop Manual from the same...
-
8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
Chiming in here with some thoughts.
The Eyes Turned Skyward Saturn 1C is a fairly unrealistic design. I could make several arguments as to why, but there's one big one - nothing like it was ever studied IRL. No monotank S-1, no single F-1, etc. So in terms of plausibility it's more or less off the table. Something that comes up a lot is, as great as ETS is, it wasn't researched and written to the same standard as later space alt histories. The Saturn 1C is the result of the combination of switching to an orbital rather than lunar program, along with the authors' desire to keep the F-1 in production.
The Saturn 1B INTs were looked into, such as the ones with UA-120 boosters, but no matter what you still wind up having to keep producing the S-1B stage. The INT Saturns weren't just meant to fill the gap in payload capability - they were also meant to reduce to total number of production lines needed for various stages. Since the S-1B was only used for the Saturn 1B, it was primed on the chopping block.
Which leads on to @DaveyJ576's INT-20. From my understanding, the INT-20 was considered the favored design, since it essentially consisted of two Saturn V stages that would have to be in production anyways (assuming you want to continue the lunar program). As Davey pointed out, the biggest issue is changing the LUT - though, I think even in your explanation you downplay the difficulties and costs associated with said work. (Ground infrastructure is EXPENSIVE!).
INT-20 also offers the possibility of being combined with the S-1D first stage, greatly increasing the capabilities; in such a scenario, the S-1D would also become the first stage of future production runs of the Saturn V. Flying in that configuration, the skirt would be fixed to the stage resulting in a 1-2% decrease in payload due to the more complex (and without separation, redundant) structural design of the S-1D engine skirt. I can't remember if that assumed a stretch on the first stage. That would again require some expensive ground infrastructure work, but on some level you need to assume that money is forthcoming if you want to have cool toys.
Part of my reference to a S1C concept was knowing that there was push back to cluster's last stand as well as *IF* a stage was to be kept in service that they would seek to optimize twr. The cluster would naturally go. Add to that the S-IV stage being the same diameter would lead to push to make a longer tank using the existing tooling. That said, I had never seen any lthing about if let alone how seriously the 1C concept may have been. Any way you cut it, Nixon coming to office and the cost of the war in Vietnam certainly didn't help the case for any major exploration outside of LEO....and that was mainly accomplished by having left over Apollo hardware and politicians that like pork. The end of a percieved race was the biggest killer though. Any alt history is up to so many points of departure with real history.
Note: read manned exploration where I said exploration.
-
16 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:
SATURN IB REPLACEMENT?
For the record, I want to state that I really like the Saturn IB. It is one of the coolest rockets ever, and iconic to boot. The IB and it's older brother the Saturn I hold a special place in U.S. rocket history and for good reason. However...
It was not optimal. No respectable rocket engineer (
) would deliberately design a rocket with clustered tanks. No less than Werner Von Braun himself once testified before a Congressional committee that it was an engineering compromise, and if conditions had been different, it would not have been built that way. Its whole reason for being was to get a large powerful launcher built as quickly and cheaply as possible, hence the concept of using tank construction based on existing smaller designs and clustering them together. The biggest drawback is greatly increased weight, with reduced performance when compared to a comparable mono-tank design.
In most reasonably realistic alternate history scenarios, the existence of the Saturn IB is a given. So the real question is, assuming that some sort of Apollo/Saturn/Skylab program continued beyond what historically happened, what do you do for a follow-on medium lift, man rated rocket? 12 complete Saturn IB vehicles had been built under the original contract, so when all of these had been used what do you do then? It makes little sense to continue to produce what is essentially an engineering kludge. Making the assumption that financial concerns would continue to dominate any post-Apollo planning, I would like to present what I consider to be the best option available to NASA in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It is none other than the Saturn INT-20, which I will refer to as the Saturn III.
Specifically, the three F-1 engine variant (hence the name Saturn III) that could put 78,000 lbs. (35,380 kg) into a 185 km orbit. This is roughly twice the payload of the last version of the Saturn IB, eliminating a huge gap in capability. The four and five engine variants are overpowered and would require the shutting down of multiple F-1 engines before staging, requiring that you haul dead weight uphill. This rocket has several distinct advantages over other Saturn variants for the LEO mission:
- No new hardware needs to be developed. Everything already exists.
- No new engine development is needed.
- No heavy and time-consuming modifications to the S-IC are needed to accommodate solid or liquid boosters.
- The only changes to the S-IC are removing equipment like engine plumbing, and external fairings, and blanking off engine openings.
- Some software revisions would be necessary but would be minimal. Some aerodynamic testing would be required, but would also be minimal.
- Changes to the MLP are minimal, requiring only the removal of unnecessary hold-downs and piping.
- The single biggest change would be shortening the LUT, but this simply requires removing some arms and removing the S-II section. Yes, I know that is more complicated than I have made it sound, but no new hardware needs to be developed.
- The ability to haul hefty payloads (i.e. LM Lab or Skylab resupply modules) in the SLA, along with a full Block 2 CSM (still short fueled) is now possible.
- From start of the project to first flight would probably be about one year. The pacing item would be the work to shorten the LUT.
The prime contenders for a competitor to the Saturn III are the INT-19, aka Saturn II (S-II + S-IVB plus solid boosters) and the Saturn IB-C or IB-D (Saturn IB with Minuteman or Titan solid boosters). These rockets would have violated most, if not all of the points listed above. Specifically, any of these alternatives would have required substantial and expensive changes to the launch mount/MLP and the LUT to accommodate the solid boosters, and an extensive reworking of the basic airframe in order to handle the side loads imparted on the first stage by the boosters. You also accept all of the negative performance and safety issues of using SRBs with a manned launcher.
So that is my case for the Saturn III as a mid-1970s replacement for the Saturn IB. I like the Eyes Turned Skyward Saturn IC, but it would have required an extensive R&D program with new stages, new GSE and launch pads, and new spacecraft. I think the Saturn III is more realistic given the political and financial environment facing NASA in the 1970s. And it looks cool!
Saturn III is a handy and versatile launcher and I flew the below mission with it.
First stage uphill flight, staging, and second stage push to orbit.
Pitch down to hit orbital parameters, and stable orbit at 250km.
Payload extraction and orbital operations.
This flight uses what I call the Block 2B CSM. It uses the five man CM, along with a Tweakscaled roll out Gigantor solar array in the otherwise empty SIM bay. The LM Lab has a lot of greebles on it, and is intended for Earth observations. I flew four crew on this mission, pilot, engineer, & two scientists. I did fly a J-2S on the 2nd stage and standard F-1's on the first stage. If I upgraded to F-1A's my payload capacity increases. I used MechJeb PVG to a 250 km orbit. 2.5x KSRSS Earth. Upon SECO I had roughly 8% fuel remaining in the S-IVB. Max acceleration was 3.2 Gs, well within real life tolerances. It flew like a dream.
It is so cool to be able to fly these type of hypothetical missions with BDB. I would like to extend my personal thanks to @CobaltWolfand the entire dev team for all of the hard work.
To me the easiest for a what if of a plan for long term S1B-ish capacity is that they would plan to switch over to production of the S1C (1 F1S). That said, two SRBs from the titan program give even better lift and would be an easy inclusion in the S1C design. Add to that S-V still in the stable for interplanetary and an S3 is less likely. So, the question becomes why the higher cost of an S3 for missions that don't need it if you decommission both S1B and S-V in favor of S3 as a jack of all between the two trades. In the end, your history; your justification.
-
On 5/5/2023 at 1:47 PM, GoldForest said:
BS*R
Big Saturn Rocket.
Saturn is not a Falcon.
Well, Falcon was one F word. I always took it was something else a little more Freudian.
-
On 5/1/2023 at 2:18 PM, Blufor878 said:
I'm working on craft files for the LM variants. I already showcased my early build of the LEM orbital lab. I'm also working on the Taxi and the Shelter. I'm also doing the bigger shelters but that will come later. I wanted to post these so I could get your guys input to see if I'm missing anything.
First, the taxi
And now the shelter
Other than the different LEM modules, I also added batteries and thermoelectric generators to both lander variants. I'm also gonna tag in @Elro2k because this is something he requested awhile back.So, this has already been discussed. The answer is no (and their reason is understandable). However, you can make a reasonable facsimile using the 7.5m tanks from @Nertea's Near Future Launch Vehicles. @GoldForest has done this before, and even made a cargo variant (I sadly can't point to the exact post, that was months ago). Also I've made something in the Nova/Direct Ascent Style here:
https://kerbalx.com/ManateeAerospace/C7-DI-761-PadFailing that there's also Procedural Parts, so...
Good to see some "as intended pictures". If things could be updated to the unofficial wiki Friznet has, that would be awesome.
On 5/1/2023 at 4:02 PM, Entr8899 said:The rocket who shall not be named...
In that case, maybe something to be named in honor of Hans and Frans....the crawlers that could carry the greatest rickets ever built!
On 5/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, GoldForest said:Since Elon passed on BFR...I guess you could call this BFR. I mean...IT IS!
-
On 4/27/2023 at 4:56 PM, Invaderchaos said:
Might be cooking something a little more unconventional… (will not be including the shuttle grapple but that might give y’all a hint)Please sir, can I have some more?
-
4 hours ago, tg626 said:
Sounds like you've got your work cut out for you.
Lets us know how you get on.
Ya, somehow when I had tabs open for both mods and refreshed the BDB, it loaded this one. So, oh well, I *may* be able to be talked into things if it gets revived in KSP2; but, I will make do for now with having looks only from this one.
-
11 hours ago, Jim123 said:
Ya wish the same had happened also, I did use his Mars 1969 plan to get the dates roughly correct for Earth-Mars Transfer windows for the subtitles in it since I used JNSQ. Saturn was too short-lived of a vehicle in my opinion.
Both 1 variants/paper concepts and 5 were far too short lived.
3 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:Seasat Agena teaser..
think im getting the hang of using fabric sims for foil baking!
As many images in BDB, there should be a "RocketGeek-13" rating on these. Looking forward to playing with these.
-
On 2/16/2023 at 1:37 PM, Beale said:
Tantares 25.1 For KSP Version 1.12.X
https://github.com/Tantares/Tantares/releases/tag/v25.1
@benjee10has done an incredible (and from experience, difficult) job of making Zarya solar panels, with accurate scissor unfolding mechanism AND the ability to do a partial deployment, for accurate ISS recreation.
Huge thanks to the guy! And give him your cheers.
These are a new part.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/206472058228572162/1075851107382861855/screenshot499.png
https://i.imgur.com/XxUltVH.jpeg
(Images refuse to embed
)
You can complete the ISS build with Habtech:
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133501-112x-habtech2-stockalike-iss-parts-026/
In other news
I expect some will be waiting for news on the recent soyuz revamp, and I must say that development of this has moved to KSP 2. Sorry if you were waiting for this in KSP 1. But hopefully it will be more to show soon.I like Tantares mods for the historical. But I have two things that just trip me up about them. 1. The R7 having standard KSP Radial decoupling. One does not have an R7 without a proper Korelev's cross.
2. Science integration. BDB has made superb effort to include science. I mean T's MIR doesn't even seem to have any science baked I to the synthetic apeture radar....
-
On 4/19/2023 at 7:28 PM, Jim123 said:
Hope no one here minds me self promoting if so feel free to take down my post, but anyhow I performed a mission in JNSQ using for the most part Saturn and Apollo-related parts from Bluedog sort of inspired by the Voyage to Mars by Stephen Baxter, but not completely. Hope it is an enjoyable and entertaining video to watch!
Somewhere I hear Von Braun saying 'Thank you'. He dreamed of such; but there wasn't a government with the will to see it happen in his lifetime.
20 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:Sorry about the relative quiet here everyone, IRL has been pretty crazy. My car finally got written off after being rear ended two weeks ago, among other things.
Here's some more work on the M55 solid - a toggleable skirt, and a dedicated matching nose cone. Will hopefully have them in game some time this weekend.
IRL takes precedence. Hope you get to feeling better and through the new vehicle headaches. We will be patient.
-
I checked out the MORL in sandbox an am working through a campaign now with all the goodies in the most recent dev branch. Is the MORL still awaiting a lot of functionality for it? If not is there a suggested science equipment that should be used for it?
-
1 hour ago, Zorg said:
Completed MDA IVA with props.
And the Easter eggs....
-
4 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:
Saturn C3 or Universal Storage? i agree either way.
Universal
Don't get me wrong. I am all for variety in launch platforms. C3 would have been an interesting addition to what was built. But that can be said of so many paper projects.
-
8 hours ago, Blufor878 said:
First off, more than ok with this as long as you bought those Mozart chocolates.
Second, if this is what happened in FAMK then we'd get space AUG's...ah well.
On that note, I mentioned that the history of Saturn/Shuttle-derived vehicles is a deep rabbit hole. Well I found a rabbit hole within a rabbit hole via Saturn C3
So many different proposals. I might have also done a bunch of them.
The 1960 proposal
The November 1961 proposal
And one where nuclear treaties are an immensely personal problem.
I had to shorten the tanks A LOT though. Otherwise many of them didn't have enough TWR to even go, you know, up.Bonus Apollo CASM (Advanced Service Module) using universal storage II.
Not sure when these will be in the wild (meaning KerbalX). But I wanted to share my madness with y'all.I knew I wasn't the only one that had to use the wonderful synergy that these bring.
-
On 4/5/2023 at 2:50 PM, septemberWaves said:
If you want to bring more than one set to the same landing site, it's probably best to design your own cargo lander using inventory containers. There are a lot of surface experiment parts in BDB, and more if you also include the stock ones (most of which are based on Apollo surface experiments anyway), and it's not really possible to fit even one copy of everything into the same lunar module, much less multiple copies.
That said, getting all of the surface experiments set up is incentive to run multiple Apollo missions. Each real Apollo mission carried a variety of different experiments, rather than the same selection but repeatedly deployed elsewhere on the lunar surface.
Since I haven't had build time for this since I originally posted the question, I have come up with two modes that I can think of sticking to the BDB asthetics- 1. J-Series LEM with 1 LRV and three Inventory modules, 2. Non-J Series with 4 inventory modules.
The first makes more sense where you are looking to do a single lander and will need the LVR to get to and from your second site. Let's face it, working on the moon was exhausting and the safety margins required the rover to get anywhere.
The second relies more on a second lander such as the SHE-LAB being deposited at the site ahead of time... although I don't recall if the LRT has the cargo slots. But, that doesn't exclude the same sort of earlier automated lander bringing the rover.
-
-
Are the Pegusus and MORL 'live' in the development branch (1.11)? I did a download on it about a week back and they did not appear to be in at that time.
) would deliberately design a rocket with clustered tanks. No less than Werner Von Braun himself once testified before a Congressional committee that it was an engineering compromise, and if conditions had been different, it would not have been built that way. Its whole reason for being was to get a large powerful launcher built as quickly and cheaply as possible, hence the concept of using tank construction based on existing smaller designs and clustering them together. The biggest drawback is greatly increased weight, with reduced performance when compared to a comparable mono-tank design.
) 
[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by RocketBoy1641
Posting issues / duplication
Any official update about Viking? Asking since it has been several months. Understand irl constraints and they design may be on other things currently.