Jump to content

[1.12.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.10.2 "Луна" 14/May/2022)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, something that would be neat, if suggestions are being taken for additions to the Unofficial Manual (and for parts to make, if more parts are needed to actually make this work), would be the Space Transportation System from "Right Side Up: A History of the Space Transportation System".  It's basically Saturn MLV's INT-20 configuration, with five of the F-1 engines on the S-IC - which has also gained a pair of snazzy wings, a detachable flight deck/escape pod, and a bunch of jet engines for use as a reusable fly-back first stage. The second stage, meanwhile, is essentially a reduced cost version of the S-IVB, later replaced by the "DEUS", essentially an S-IVC from Eyes Turned Skywards (thus, something that, in both cases, parts already exist for). The Orbiter, meanwhile, is roughly similar to the HL-20, albeit enlarged to fit a small payload bay with a robotic arm, docking hardware, and capacity for 8 tons of cargo in addition to itself - that said, the Orbiter is honestly the least relevant portion of the RSU!STS, and thus could be left up to players to design.

One advantage to this is that most of the guide would be "build a Saturn INT-20 as per the Saturn MLV page, then make these changes", rather than having to start entirely from scratch (at least in theory). It would also be helpful in that it would provide a reusable launch vehicle option for BDB users that doesn't involve unrealistic modifications to the existing rockets (or improvising an ETS!Saturn II using other engines and such), while also providing yet another alternative path to post-Apollo spaceflight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pappystein said:

So you look at the skeletal legs of the ATM mount... and you think.  This was mounted ontop of a rocket that could pull 4 or 5x the force of Gravity to get to space....    And you realize that the ATM itself is pretty massive....   And you wonder....   HOW THE HECK DIDN'T THIS break!   The solar panel broke!  This thing is at least 10x more likely to break!

I've been wondering the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jso said:

I've been wondering the same thing.

It could be, at least partially, due to the types of forces they experienced at launch.  The sun shield and solar panel experienced more shearing forces as they were connected to the exterior of Skylab.  The ATM, on the other hand, was connected and stowed along the launch vehicle's axis, meaning that most of the forces it and its mounting experienced were compression rather than shear.  Cylindrical structures can be quite strong when loaded with longitudinal, or compressive forces, but much weaker when experiencing shearing forces.  As an example, you can roll a piece of printer paper into a cylinder, stand it up on a table and balance a relatively heavy object, like a book on top of the paper cylinder and it could hold up the book (within certain parameters).  However, if you laid the cylinder down so that a portion was hanging off of the table and tried placing the same book on the overhanging end, it will collapse and the book will fall to the floor.

Also, @Pappystein referred to the ATM mount as "skeletal", and it's true that's what they evoke, but think about how strong a skeleton is, especially when the bones experience compression forces, compared to shearing forces.  We all tend to think of "skeletal" things being flimsy, I know I do, but skeletons are, or can be, amazingly strong.  I mean, think about how much force the bones in an elephant's hind legs take when they rear up on them.  I'm not saying that this is the absolute end-all-be-all reason, but it makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pappystein said:

So you look at the skeletal legs of the ATM mount... and you think.  This was mounted ontop of a rocket that could pull 4 or 5x the force of Gravity to get to space....    And you realize that the ATM itself is pretty massive....   And you wonder....   HOW THE HECK DIDN'T THIS break!   The solar panel broke!  This thing is at least 10x more likely to break!

I'm sure the smart folks at NASA knew what they were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TheShadow1138 said:

Also, @Pappystein referred to the ATM mount as "skeletal", and it's true that's what they evoke, but think about how strong a skeleton is, especially when the bones experience compression forces, compared to shearing forces.  We all tend to think of "skeletal" things being flimsy, I know I do, but skeletons are, or can be, amazingly strong.  I mean, think about how much force the bones in an elephant's hind legs take when they rear up on them.  I'm not saying that this is the absolute end-all-be-all reason, but it makes sense to me.

 

7 hours ago, TaintedLion said:

I'm sure the smart folks at NASA knew what they were doing.

well aware.   I wasn't commenting on the fact that the engineers at Douglas, Boeing, McDonnald, and Lockheed + NASA weren't genius... just that it LOOKS more fragile.   

I am related (shirt tail) to one of the Lunar Rover engineers (he later went on to be one of the lead engineers on the Viper super car.)  I am related to an Engineer who worked on The Service Module (even more distantly than the first) and my Uni Electronics Prof did several (3) switches on the LM for Grumman (at 6 years of work!)      It amazes me that none of them used a calculator... all they had was either a Slide rule or if you believe one of them, a large abacus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2021 at 7:27 AM, Fox62 said:

So, something that would be neat, if suggestions are being taken for additions to the Unofficial Manual (and for parts to make, if more parts are needed to actually make this work), would be the Space Transportation System from "Right Side Up: A History of the Space Transportation System".  It's basically Saturn MLV's INT-20 configuration, with five of the F-1 engines on the S-IC - which has also gained a pair of snazzy wings, a detachable flight deck/escape pod, and a bunch of jet engines for use as a reusable fly-back first stage. The second stage, meanwhile, is essentially a reduced cost version of the S-IVB, later replaced by the "DEUS", essentially an S-IVC from Eyes Turned Skywards (thus, something that, in both cases, parts already exist for). The Orbiter, meanwhile, is roughly similar to the HL-20, albeit enlarged to fit a small payload bay with a robotic arm, docking hardware, and capacity for 8 tons of cargo in addition to itself - that said, the Orbiter is honestly the least relevant portion of the RSU!STS, and thus could be left up to players to design.

One advantage to this is that most of the guide would be "build a Saturn INT-20 as per the Saturn MLV page, then make these changes", rather than having to start entirely from scratch (at least in theory). It would also be helpful in that it would provide a reusable launch vehicle option for BDB users that doesn't involve unrealistic modifications to the existing rockets (or improvising an ETS!Saturn II using other engines and such), while also providing yet another alternative path to post-Apollo spaceflight.

That's will be a lot of work for Devs, as it is fly back it need be be dealt with aerodynamics both stock and FAR. Also shares a very little commonality with normal Saturn parts with zero kitbash possiblity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, derega16 said:

That's will be a lot of work for Devs, as it is fly back it need be be dealt with aerodynamics both stock and FAR. Also shares a very little commonality with normal Saturn parts with zero kitbash possiblity.

I have no idea about that first bit, but I strongly doubt that last bit - if nothing else, the entire point of the RSU!STS is that it could reuse tech and tooling from the Apollo Program, at least to some extent - logically, at worst they might feel the need to mock-up some adapter piece that radially attaches to the S-IC main tank to provide an easier attachment point for wings, but beyond that they could likely use stock wings, stock jet engines, and either stock intakes or do as they do for a number of the other unofficial guide launchers and say "this needs [insert other mods here] in addition to BDB".

As it stands, my request was more directed towards friznit/whoever's maintaining the Unofficial BDB Wiki (under the "manual" link in the OP), as a request for yet another potential LV to evaluate - possibly also a flight profile guide, although I also wouldn't be upset if they just left that up to the player to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fox62 said:

I have no idea about that first bit, but I strongly doubt that last bit - if nothing else, the entire point of the RSU!STS is that it could reuse tech and tooling from the Apollo Program, at least to some extent - logically, at worst they might feel the need to mock-up some adapter piece that radially attaches to the S-IC main tank to provide an easier attachment point for wings, but beyond that they could likely use stock wings, stock jet engines, and either stock intakes or do as they do for a number of the other unofficial guide launchers and say "this needs [insert other mods here] in addition to BDB".

As it stands, my request was more directed towards friznit/whoever's maintaining the Unofficial BDB Wiki (under the "manual" link in the OP), as a request for yet another potential LV to evaluate - possibly also a flight profile guide, although I also wouldn't be upset if they just left that up to the player to figure out.

I meant in the term of 3D modelling  not real life construction. And by how Cobalt making texture set for BDB that's will equal to making a entire new set of parts with only common thing with S-1C is a mesh of a cylinder that is it's tank. Just stick stock wing and engine is not BDB ways at all.

Also as I see from the rendering the RP-1 tank and engine mount shape is actually different from S-1C

Edited by derega16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This unflown Titan proposal worked out pretty well. Improved Titan (1991). It carries Titan IV class payloads with plenty or room for growth. A pair of 1205's on stage zero, and an all hydrolox 3.125m core with three LR-87-LH2 Vacuum engines on the first stage, and one on the second stage. It's pretty too!

3V8Envu.png

Spoiler

tO4HL3l.png

dq9HDwK.png

dZ9A0PS.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jso said:

This unflown Titan proposal worked out pretty well. 

This looks so cool. In my latest career game, I'm using Probes Before Crew plus focusing on BDB rockets. I've just gotten to the Titan/Prometheus rockets and I'm loving them!

But can I ask a general (ok, basic noob) question RE: the large SRBs you're using on this Titan and other versions:

What's the best way to maintain control during a standard equatorial gravity turn? I keep nosing down and flipping around 10-12Km (even when activating the liquid engine to compensate). Or are the SRBs just too powerful/unstable to hold any kind of angle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scottadges said:

What's the best way to maintain control during a standard equatorial gravity turn? I keep nosing down and flipping around 10-12Km (even when activating the liquid engine to compensate). Or are the SRBs just too powerful/unstable to hold any kind of angle?

10-12K is around Max Q, so your angle of attack is too high. High acceleration worsens the effect so you also might be overthrusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 아무생각 said:

how to turn off boiloff option? unknown.png

The fuel keeps running out, so if I use time warp my rocket is run out of fuel!

There should be an option to turn it off under the in game difficulty menu. There will be a BDB section just for boiloff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Cdodders said:

Gemini Hatch? Now that's something I didn't know!

Ignoring all of the other AWESOME stuff coming with the Saturn revamp.  THIS  THIS ALONE makes the wait worth it...

IDK if Cobalt Even knew about the Gemini hatch being the Airlock until after he had already mostly built the OG Skylab. (going from stream memory 100 years ago so!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

IDK if Cobalt Even knew about the Gemini hatch being the Airlock until after he had already mostly built the OG Skylab. (going from stream memory 100 years ago so!)

I think I was less dedicated to getting the difficult parts right :P It made less sense back then since our Gemini's door didn't match the real one anyways. I definitely knew about it being a Gemini hatch - it's one of the more well known 'trivia' bits - just didn't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

it's one of the more well known 'trivia' bits - just didn't bother.

Shamely i didn´t knew that. But it makes sense :) Nice to know that at least one part of the gemini program survived said program.  And: Why invent the wheel again and again? If it works, it´s fine. The door had demonstrated that itt is usable and reliable for the  EVA purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zorg said:

Some work on the airlock module including the Gemini hatch.

unknown.png?width=1201&height=806

 

unknown.png?width=1124&height=806

 

Didn't even know we were getting a Skylab update! Is this going to be bundled with the Saturn update?

 

Coincidentally I launched a Skylab just last night:

UiobWDB.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NateDaBeast said:

Didn't even know we were getting a Skylab update! Is this going to be bundled with the Saturn update?

 

Coincidentally I launched a Skylab just last night:

 

The hope is to have the primary historical skylab parts (and perhaps ETS spacelab) ready for the initial Saturn update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...