[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[x170doom]

noticed a bug with the dev apollo sm engine waterfall plumes. when orbiting the mun and on the dark side, the plumes seem to appear behind the mun, best way to recreate is to burn when on the dark side and looking toward the mun's surface, not noticed it around kerbin. also if it makes a difference i am not running a planet pack, but i am using sigma dimensions/rescale at 2.5x

[bigyihsuan]

14 hours ago, Zorg said:

While of course people are free to do with their game as they like, personally I think Magpie's indiscriminate treatment of metallic shaders is quite frankly horrible.

The upcoming update of BDB will feature TU configs for the apollo capsule and skylab with custom PBR textures (as opposed to just broadly applying the shaders in config).

Beyond that if users would like more TU configs for parts I would recommend removing Magpie and using Bellabongs TU configs for stockalike parts. Bellabong has implemented these configs properly, applying metallic shaders only to metal, masking off paint where its necessary, using important PBR maps such as a smoothness map etc.

https://github.com/Bellabong/Bella_TU

I seem to have done something wrong from accidentally installing both Magpie and Bella at the same time lol, the fix is most probably removing BDB config for Magpie (since I want everything else to be shiny too).
 

Spoiler

EDIT: aaannnd it borks on some of the texture options. Interesting indeed.

Spoiler

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by bigyihsuan

[Jcking]

17 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

I do not allow myself to us more segments than the real life rockets have. Its more fun that way. 

For Atlas fairing extensions, you have to add one segment for the long or short extension to be visible.

[Zorg]

2 hours ago, dave1904 said:

I do not allow myself to us more segments than the real life rockets have. Its more fun that way. 

The reason why there is an extension switch at all is to allow for real world configurations.

In game this is

Short : no segments

Medium: 1 segment, short extension

Long: 1 segment, long extension

If you want to stick with realism keep in mind there are some other fairings IRL that supported extensions including the Titan IV/Delta IV metal fairing, the Titan standard fairing etc.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Zorg

[biohazard15]

@Zorg Please take a look at this post: 

(Yes, I am playing the matchmaker here - but hey, what's wrong with a CactEye-powered OAO-3?)

[flyairways_x3]

when i play ksp, the resource (equipment)'s definition could not found resulting the fatal error

                                                                                                                                                       my game data (small view on file explorer is enough screen size to see how much mods i have) :

if someone helped me, then i appreciated

log: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882421257822437496/929189444190343198/KSP.log

Edited January 8, 2022 by flyairways_x3
forgot the log file

[Galileo chiu]

8 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

I seem to have done something wrong from accidentally installing both Magpie and Bella at the same time lol, the fix is most probably removing BDB config for Magpie (since I want everything else to be shiny too).
 

  Hide contents

EDIT: aaannnd it borks on some of the texture options. Interesting indeed.

  Hide contents

 

what mod adds the different fuels?

[bigyihsuan]

1 hour ago, Galileo chiu said:

what mod adds the different fuels?

I'm using Skyhawk Science System, which adds hypergolics, hydrolox, and methalox, and reflavors liquid fuel and monopropellant to kerosene and hydrazine. It also has a BDB-focused tech tree, and it's very fun so far. I'm up to prepping for Iota landings with Gemini parts, which will be fun. (I'm using Galileo's Planet Pack, and it's close enough to stock for the Mun/Iota that the tree still works.)

 

[CAPFlyer]

One more item I figured out during this current History of Spaceflight run that I wanted to bring up - Neither the Agena B nor the Agena D have provisions for ullage thrusters in the base setup.  Multiple documents from the Corona program reference both the late Agena Bs (the ones that have the uprated XLR-89 also used in the Agena D) and the Agena D as having ullage thrusters and I've seen a couple diagrams that seem to show them as being part of the RCS thruster modules at the aft of the rack structure.  Currently, I'm simply adding separate RCS thrusters from elsewhere in the pack to add this functionality, but I was hoping maybe at some point these could be added?

[Galileo chiu]

3 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

I'm using Skyhawk Science System, which adds hypergolics, hydrolox, and methalox, and reflavors liquid fuel and monopropellant to kerosene and hydrazine. It also has a BDB-focused tech tree, and it's very fun so far. I'm up to prepping for Iota landings with Gemini parts, which will be fun. (I'm using Galileo's Planet Pack, and it's close enough to stock for the Mun/Iota that the tree still works.)

 

does it work with Tantares?

[Zorg]

3 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

One more item I figured out during this current History of Spaceflight run that I wanted to bring up - Neither the Agena B nor the Agena D have provisions for ullage thrusters in the base setup.  Multiple documents from the Corona program reference both the late Agena Bs (the ones that have the uprated XLR-89 also used in the Agena D) and the Agena D as having ullage thrusters and I've seen a couple diagrams that seem to show them as being part of the RCS thruster modules at the aft of the rack structure.  Currently, I'm simply adding separate RCS thrusters from elsewhere in the pack to add this functionality, but I was hoping maybe at some point these could be added?

Do you have these documents? iirc we looked into this and found the Agena D engine did not require ullage due to a special sump tank it had. (rather the stage had).

This is a review of the existing Agena D from Shuttle Agena Study Final Report NTRS 19720013179. Of course this could be a later development and earlier Agena D's did not have it?

Edited January 8, 2022 by Zorg

[DaveyJ576]

23 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

I second that.

In the meantime, you can use Rana mounts from Tantares:

(Superquick build, needs some extra Move magic to fit better, but you get the idea)

That works! Also, you can try flipping the S-II thrust block upside down, then Tweakscale it to fit the top of the Agena. Makes a great dispenser! You have to move the Poppies inboard a little to get them to fit inside the fairing.

Spoiler

 

[OrbitalManeuvers]

23 hours ago, Zorg said:

Edit: Er rethinking this perhaps worth adding them into the SPS mesh switch as suggested. I'll have a think about how many more to add.

sorry, one more thought on this not terribly important topic: engineIgnitors has a part that refills 8 ignitions, if you have an engineer. this seems like a perfectly reasonable solution if someone was reusing hardware designed for other missions.  so whatever you come up with, including nothing, will work fine

[CAPFlyer]

11 hours ago, Zorg said:

Do you have these documents? iirc we looked into this and found the Agena D engine did not require ullage due to a special sump tank it had. (rather the stage had).

This is a review of the existing Agena D from Shuttle Agena Study Final Report NTRS 19720013179. Of course this could be a later development and earlier Agena D's did not have it?

I posted links on the GitHub issue I opened for it.  It suggests the Ullage Tank modification was a late (late) Agena-D modification, which might explain the loss of the smaller nozzles on some of the later Agena D's to only having the larger SPS nozzles which were used for orbit fine tuning.

If you have the Agena D designed where Engine Ignitor knows I don't need ullage thrusters, that could be one way around it, but I don't think that's how it's configured right now.

Edited January 8, 2022 by CAPFlyer

[Zorg]

1 minute ago, CAPFlyer said:

I posted links on the GitHub issue I opened for it.  It suggests the Ullage Tank modification was a late (late) Agena-D modification, which might explain the loss of the smaller nozzles on some of the later Agena D's to only having the larger SPS nozzles which were used for orbit fine tuning.

If you have the Agena D designed where Engine Ignitor knows I don't need ullage thrusters, that could be one way around it, but I don't think that's how it's configured right now.

Oh I hadnt had a chance to look at github. But yes the Agena engine ignitor configs are set up so that only the A and B sub types require ullage. Using b9 module switching we are able to vary the ullage requirements and ignition limits for different subtypes.

I'll take a look at the sources in the github issue, we could theoretically make the 8096 require ullage but have 8096 HDA (later model) not need it. But frankly though it seems simple, going into the model and adding an alternate RCS configuration into the rack, and dealing with the AO from adding that to mesh etc is probably more bother than anyone wants to deal with right now given so many other things pending.

[CAPFlyer]

No worries.  Like I said, just a request.  I'm dealing with it my own way for now, just making the suggestion.

Love this pack and love all the new stuff that keeps coming because it's so fun piecing together and then trying to realistically fly all these missions.

5 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Oh I hadnt had a chance to look at github. But yes the Agena engine ignitor configs are set up so that only the A and B sub types require ullage. Using b9 module switching we are able to vary the ullage requirements and ignition limits for different subtypes.

I'll take a look at the sources in the github issue, we could theoretically make the 8096 require ullage but have 8096 HDA (later model) not need it. But frankly though it seems simple, going into the model and adding an alternate RCS configuration into the rack, and dealing with the AO from adding that to mesh etc is probably more bother than anyone wants to deal with right now given so many other things pending.

Yeah, the NASASpaceflight Forum image linked shows that the ullage tank was part of the SS-01B upgrade, apparently added some time after 1967, becuase looking at the launch report for the WS-117L from the NRO, it only lists SS-01A launches through that timeframe.

[Beccab]

Saturn 1B based Shuttle and station

Part of the ambitious Saturn Shuttle program, this first launch is much of a mix between the station Enterprise and Shuttle C proposals, featuring an unwinged version of the vehicle (which is itself based on Apollo equipment) without the cockpit and that effectively functions as the first module of the new space station. Next up: first crewed Saturn 1B shuttle launch and docking

Edited January 8, 2022 by Beccab

[linuxgurugamer]

@CobaltWolf

I just installed BDB using CKAN to look at something, and noticed that the bluedog_OAO3_PEP_instrument has two copes of the DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric module, which appear to be identical.

According to the version file, this is version 1.9.0

 

Edit:  Never mind, I just saw they were two different experiments

LGG

Edited January 8, 2022 by linuxgurugamer

[Pappystein]

SO just a small post here today on the History of Saturn.   Friday I received the long awaited Saturn C-2 Preliminary design document from MSFC.    This document is now restored to NTRS server but only findable by searching subject "Saturn" and a Date range of 1959-1961

 

A few things historically here. 

1) for the longest time it was believed that the Saturn C-2 used the same Juno V stage as Saturn C-1.  Turns out it SORTA does.  it is infact 65" shorter and intended to run between 600,000 and 650,000lbs of fuel and oxidizer.   The fuel load is mission dependent.

2) the document, dated early 1960 has already replaced the S-III stage with the 4 engine S-II stage.   This is contradictory to previous documents we have access to.   but most of those were "2nd tier" documents.    However interestingly at the time of this document's creation the S-III stage is listed as the 3rd stage for C-3!

3) we finally know Pratt and Whitney's designation for their un-built (well at-least un-flown) LR-119 meant for the S-IV and S-V stages.    RL10B-3 (YES that is correct!)   It appears that back in the 1960s P&W used the letter after the engine name to denote cycle.   So the LR-119/RL10B-3 is a LR-115/RL-10A-3 with a different or at-least altered combustion cycle.   We have already seen this in the amzing RL20 that Zorg has integrated into BDB.

4) S-V is NOT even a near copy of the Atlas Centaur but rather an Evolved Centaur.  The Tank skin is thicker, has significantly more HTP peroxide and does not shed it's Insulation until RL10 ignition.   I could not find how much thicker the S-V's tank skin was but it could be self supporting or a true monocoque structure that relies on no external forces (in this case internal air pressure)   At the time this document was drawn up the S-V was still called Centaur C.    This would change only once Lewis took control of Centaur away from Convair about a year and a half later.

5) one of the Moon plans just using C-2 rockets envisioned a C-2 with the S-II, S-IV stages surrounded by large drop tanks (similar to the AGENA SOT tanks)  These tanks were the length of the S-IV and S-II stages combined and the entire rocket would take approximately 33 launches to assemble and refuel in orbit!   But would have a payload capacity similar to Saturn V (10 ton return payload)

6) S-IV was to have insulation that was detachable as well at this juncture!

For those interested in reading this.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19630045066/downloads/Saturn C-2 Phase I Preliminary Design Report_CLEAN.pdf?attachment=true

 

[derega16]

49 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

SO just a small post here today on the History of Saturn.   Friday I received the long awaited Saturn C-2 Preliminary design document from MSFC.    This document is now restored to NTRS server but only findable by searching subject "Saturn" and a Date range of 1959-1961

 

A few things historically here. 

1) for the longest time it was believed that the Saturn C-2 used the same Juno V stage as Saturn C-1.  Turns out it SORTA does.  it is infact 65" shorter and intended to run between 600,000 and 650,000lbs of fuel and oxidizer.   The fuel load is mission dependent.

2) the document, dated early 1960 has already replaced the S-III stage with the 4 engine S-II stage.   This is contradictory to previous documents we have access to.   but most of those were "2nd tier" documents.    However interestingly at the time of this document's creation the S-III stage is listed as the 3rd stage for C-3!

3) we finally know Pratt and Whitney's designation for their un-built (well at-least un-flown) LR-119 meant for the S-IV and S-V stages.    RL10B-3 (YES that is correct!)   It appears that back in the 1960s P&W used the letter after the engine name to denote cycle.   So the LR-119/RL10B-3 is a LR-115/RL-10A-3 with a different or at-least altered combustion cycle.   We have already seen this in the amzing RL20 that Zorg has integrated into BDB.

4) S-V is NOT even a near copy of the Atlas Centaur but rather an Evolved Centaur.  The Tank skin is thicker, has significantly more HTP peroxide and does not shed it's Insulation until RL10 ignition.   I could not find how much thicker the S-V's tank skin was but it could be self supporting or a true monocoque structure that relies on no external forces (in this case internal air pressure)   At the time this document was drawn up the S-V was still called Centaur C.    This would change only once Lewis took control of Centaur away from Convair about a year and a half later.

5) one of the Moon plans just using C-2 rockets envisioned a C-2 with the S-II, S-IV stages surrounded by large drop tanks (similar to the AGENA SOT tanks)  These tanks were the length of the S-IV and S-II stages combined and the entire rocket would take approximately 33 launches to assemble and refuel in orbit!   But would have a payload capacity similar to Saturn V (10 ton return payload)

6) S-IV was to have insulation that was detachable as well at this juncture!

For those interested in reading this.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19630045066/downloads/Saturn C-2 Phase I Preliminary Design Report_CLEAN.pdf?attachment=true

 

That's monotank with 9 engines first stage is quite interesting

[bigyihsuan]

A giant rocket filled with toxic hypergolic propellants used for tourism? How Barbaric!

A Barbarian-class rocket, launching Egg Head 4, featuring broken Titan textures on the upper stages:

Mhm,  broken textures:

[Reimu Hakurei]

In Kerbin's desert, Jeb and Goya are training for their first J-class misson

LRV Deployed

"Miles and miles and miles !"

[GoldForest]

17 hours ago, Beccab said:

Interesting design.

[Starhelperdude]

  

 

[TimothyC]

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

3) we finally know Pratt and Whitney's designation for their un-built (well at-least un-flown) LR-119 meant for the S-IV and S-V stages.    RL10B-3 (YES that is correct!)   It appears that back in the 1960s P&W used the letter after the engine name to denote cycle.   So the LR-119/RL10B-3 is a LR-115/RL-10A-3 with a different or at-least altered combustion cycle.   We have already seen this in the amzing RL20 that Zorg has integrated into BDB.

 

If you read the text, it's the same combustion cycle, the nomenclature was simply not established at the time.