Jump to content

[1.12.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.10.3 "Луна" 17/June/2022)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 4/24/2022 at 4:35 PM, 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. 

I did some testing on this on the release: the jettisonable SLA doesn't just fail to shield the payload, it itself seems to be a massive source of drag. I'm playing on a 3.2 scale system (which seems otherwise perfectly suited for the new Saturn parts) and with jettisonable SLA I was not able to reach orbit in Saturn IB without a stage 1 extension, it wasn't lofting the trajectory high enough for S-IVB to have time to circularize. I wasn't carrying any payload other than the CSM itself (open top version obviously, in case that makes a difference). With non-jettisonable version I could get into orbit just fine with otherwise identical config (SM in ASTP config, empty bay with just a docking target). Looking at flight recorder revealed that drag losses with jettisonable SLA were more than doubled, over 800 m/s against 300 m/s with non-jettisonable one.
I will look if the latest changes in repo fix this scenario.

Other, problems I noticed with the overhauled Saturn/Apollo:
1. The heatshield and CM do not have the body lift disabled. This is bad, because the body lift vector is opposite to the lift surface vector, resulting in completely bogus aerodynamics: at reentry no lift is generated without extreme pitch angles (because the body and lifting surface lift cancel each other out). At subsonic airspeeds the pod gets completely overtaken by Kraken (especially with offset CoM set) and starts to attempt doing loops, because for some reason the body lift completely overwhelms the lifting surface.
This is thankfully a very easy fix, just set disableBodyLift = True in ModuleLiftingSurface for both CM and heatshields, increasing the lift coefficient for the heatshield might also help but haven't tried it yet.

2. Less bugs and more design considerations (some are probably bugs though):

  • The lunar ascent module needs an additional, forward facing control point, this is thankfully a simple cfg edit
  • The CM experiment storage container doesn't have canBeTransferredToInVessel = True and canTransferInVessel = True, as a result experiments can't be transferred from ascent module without EVA
  • A stretch maybe, but S-IVB IU could use an additional control point too, this time rolled inverted, (0,180,0) as the reference frames of launch vehicle and spacecraft are rolled 180 degrees from each other - the rocket flies the ascent with the CSM facing heads down, but for the launcher that's actually a heads-up attitude. Not really necessary though, this can be accounted for in kos/mechjeb
Edited by m4ti140
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

About a month ago I found that I had a problem with the new ALSEP experiments. I can't deploy them from the astronauts. I tap the white arrow in the inventory, the experiment appears in front of the astronaut, but when I tap the space bar to drop the experiment and finish the deploy nothing happens. The experiment just hangs there. If I tap the escape key it goes back into the astronaut's inventory, and I can rotate it, but I just can't finish the deploy sequence. I can get the experiment to drop to the ground if I use the BG engineer function, but since it wasn't properly deployed from the inventory I can't use the experiment. The initial find of the problem was before the recent release while I was playing the dev branch, so I waited for the release and tried again. No joy. Same lack of result. It is obvious that one of my mods is interfering, or I have a broken install of something. I would like to ask again to see if anyone has seen this in the interim, or it anyone has any further suggestions. I am to the point of beginning to uninstall specific mods to find the culprit, but I would appreciate any insight as to what you think is the likely culprit so I can target the offender better. See below for my GameData file and the log.

Spoiler

FPZTnRQ.jpg

 

By the way, I can deploy and use the BG experiments without a problem.

Edited by DaveyJ576
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

I did some testing on this on the release: the jettisonable SLA doesn't just fail to shield the payload, it itself seems to be a massive source of drag. I'm playing on a 3.2 scale system (which seems otherwise perfectly suited for the new Saturn parts) and with jettisonable SLA I was not able to reach orbit in Saturn IB without a stage 1 extension, it wasn't lofting the trajectory high enough for S-IVB to have time to circularize. I wasn't carrying any payload other than the CSM itself (open top version obviously, in case that makes a difference). With non-jettisonable version I could get into orbit just fine with otherwise identical config (SM in ASTP config, empty bay with just a docking target). Looking at flight recorder revealed that drag losses with jettisonable SLA were more than doubled, over 800 m/s against 300 m/s with non-jettisonable one.
I will look if the latest changes in repo fix this scenario.

Other, problems I noticed with the overhauled Saturn/Apollo:
1. The heatshield and CM do not have the body lift disabled. This is bad, because the body lift vector is opposite to the lift surface vector, resulting in completely bogus aerodynamics: at reentry no lift is generated without extreme pitch angles (because the body and lifting surface lift cancel each other out). At subsonic airspeeds the pod gets completely overtaken by Kraken (especially with offset CoM set) and starts to attempt doing loops, because for some reason the body lift completely overwhelms the lifting surface.
This is thankfully a very easy fix, just set disableBodyLift = True in ModuleLiftingSurface for both CM and heatshields, increasing the lift coefficient for the heatshield might also help but haven't tried it yet.

2. Less bugs and more design considerations (some are probably bugs though):

  • The lunar ascent module needs an additional, forward facing control point, this is thankfully a simple cfg edit
  • The CM experiment storage container doesn't have canBeTransferredToInVessel = True and canTransferInVessel = True, as a result experiments can't be transferred from ascent module without EVA
  • A stretch maybe, but S-IVB IU could use an additional control point too, this time rolled inverted, (0,180,0) as the reference frames of launch vehicle and spacecraft are rolled 180 degrees from each other - the rocket flies the ascent with the CSM facing heads down, but for the launcher that's actually a heads-up attitude. Not really necessary though, this can be accounted for in kos/mechjeb

The H03 SLA (and I believe the normal SLA) have had their drag issues resolved in the dev versions, and BDB has been built for a 2.5-2.7 scale system with KSP naturally making large diameter rockets over perform due to mass fractions.

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Jcking said:

The H03 SLA (and I believe the normal SLA) have had their drag issues resolved in the dev versions, and BDB has been built for a 2.5-2.7 scale system with KSP naturally making large diameter rockets over perform due to mass fractions.

Yeah, I play on 3.2. And so far overhauled Apollo didn't need any boosts to parts, it's just the SLA that had an issue (and the regular one was fine in the first place). I'll check out the repo. I think I'll just do PRs for the cfg file stuff I mentioned above.

Edited by m4ti140
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

Yeah, I play on 3.2. And so far overhauled Apollo didn't need any boosts to parts, it's just the SLA that had an issue (and the regular one was fine in the first place). I'll check out the repo. I think I'll just do PRs for the cfg file stuff I mentioned above.

Just tested, the H03 SLA properly shields the payload, but not the Saturn IB/V SLA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

  

2 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

I did some testing on this on the release: the jettisonable SLA doesn't just fail to shield the payload, it itself seems to be a massive source of drag. I'm playing on a 3.2 scale system (which seems otherwise perfectly suited for the new Saturn parts) and with jettisonable SLA I was not able to reach orbit in Saturn IB without a stage 1 extension, it wasn't lofting the trajectory high enough for S-IVB to have time to circularize. I wasn't carrying any payload other than the CSM itself (open top version obviously, in case that makes a difference). With non-jettisonable version I could get into orbit just fine with otherwise identical config (SM in ASTP config, empty bay with just a docking target). Looking at flight recorder revealed that drag losses with jettisonable SLA were more than doubled, over 800 m/s against 300 m/s with non-jettisonable one.
I will look if the latest changes in repo fix this scenario.

 

1 hour ago, Jcking said:

The H03 SLA (and I believe the normal SLA) have had their drag issues resolved in the dev versions, and BDB has been built for a 2.5-2.7 scale system with KSP naturally making large diameter rockets over perform due to mass fractions.

The added cargo bay modules should provide the appropriate shielding now and I've just increased the shielding radius on the standard jettison panel. That said the jettison SLA still underperforms the hinged one due to part drag. The jettison SLA still needs a custom drag cube  and I've been experimenting but if someone can provide one that will deliver the exact same performance as the hinge one I would be very grateful. I get 350 m/s of drag loss with the Skylab 4 craft file (with original engine configs and in KSRSS 2.5x to 110km 0 degrees using Mechjeb PVG for a consistent ascent). But havent been able to reduce below 600 m/s drag loss with the jettison panel which eats up the margin to get to orbit. I'm kind of running out of patience with this one since engine upgrade or the alternate SLA can work and I've been bashing my head against this for a while.

2 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

The heatshield and CM do not have the body lift disabled. This is bad, because the body lift vector is opposite to the lift surface vector, resulting in completely bogus aerodynamics: at reentry no lift is generated without extreme pitch angles (because the body and lifting surface lift cancel each other out). At subsonic airspeeds the pod gets completely overtaken by Kraken (especially with offset CoM set) and starts to attempt doing loops, because for some reason the body lift completely overwhelms the lifting surface.
This is thankfully a very easy fix, just set disableBodyLift = True in ModuleLiftingSurface for both CM and heatshields, increasing the lift coefficient for the heatshield might also help but haven't tried it yet.

Im a little surprised by this since we've not had reports about reentry problems with the Apollo. The configs were fine tuned by JSO ages ago and should still be applicable to the new parts and the behavior seemed ok in our last round of testing. That said we can take another look but I'm curious if other people are having similar problems.

 

I've fixed the science transfer issue and about control points can consider those, I dont see any harm.

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MashAndBangers said:

Super Safe Shuttle System

I was let down as I expected the last picture of such a system to be one of rapid unplanned disassembly. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sneak peek at the next launch. A Saturn made up of all stages.
kztEHCX.png

sJPIlCH.png

S-I - 5x F-1

VVKm1va.png

S-II - 5x J-2

w4GVnzh.png

S-III - 2x J-2

80HZlw7.png

S-IV - 6x RL-10A-3
PFzfG3W.png

S-V - 2x RL-10-A3

Edit: Um... somehow S-I didn't make it. Opss. Fixed.

For those wondering, S-III is a half size 5m tank with restock applied.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Adam-Kerman said:

so in what configuration are the white dots?

never seen  them

Default SA-6 I think. They were added a little while back but got soon overwritten with old files while doing some texture fixes. This is probably the current dev or master branch (where it was fixed again a couple of days ago).

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, G'th said:

Query, is the Mercury pod not supposed to have a working IVA atm or did I break something?

It should be using the stock Mk1 IVA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jcking said:

It should be using the stock Mk1 IVA.

Hmm, somethings broken then. I'll play around and see if I can figure it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quick question: What launcher family do you use most frequently? How about upper stages?

In both my career saves, pre-moon landing, I use the Titan/Prometheus launchers by far the most. Simple launch instructions that is (mostly) compatible with MechJeb ascent guidance, and simple construction. If you need more oomph just slap on longer SRBs and/or a second upper stage. Post-moon landing though I switch over to the Saturns/Sarnuses as my main choice.

As for upper stages I use the Agena/Belle series by far the most. Extremely reliable, that one, at least 2000 m/s dV every single launch I do. It's extremely useful for spamming those small probes and relay sats I keep sending up. Post-moon landing I use Saturn/Sarnus and Centaur/Inon upper stages.

Edited by bigyihsuan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Quick question: What launcher family do you use most frequently? How about upper stages?

In both my career saves, I use the Titan/Prometheus launchers by far the most. Simple launch instructions that is (mostly) compatible with MechJeb ascent guidance, and simple construction. If you need more oomph just slap on longer SRBs and/or a second upper stage.

As for upper stages I use the Agena/Belle series by far the most. Extremely reliable, that one, at least 2000 m/s dV every single launch I do. It's extremely useful for spamming those small probes and relay sats I keep sending up.

I typically use the Titan rockets for small/medium probes and Manned LEO missions while I use the Saturn for larger probes, long distant and Manned missions to places outside the Earth's SOI. Some times I will use other rockets or make my own kitbashes.

For upper stages when I use the Titan I tend to slap a Merlin engine from the Tundra pack to the bottom of the top portion of an Atlas Fuel tank when I need more Delta V. as for the Saturn usually the S-IVB with a J-2X can work or if I am not carrying a lander I use the Apollo adaptor for an extra source of fuel or even make another supper stage again depending on my mission. I am not that good with making efficent rockets lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Quick question: What launcher family do you use most frequently? How about upper stages?

In both my career saves, I use the Titan/Prometheus launchers by far the most. Simple launch instructions that is (mostly) compatible with MechJeb ascent guidance, and simple construction. If you need more oomph just slap on longer SRBs and/or a second upper stage.

As for upper stages I use the Agena/Belle series by far the most. Extremely reliable, that one, at least 2000 m/s dV every single launch I do. It's extremely useful for spamming those small probes and relay sats I keep sending up.

Depends on the Mission.   I am about equally split for big payloads between Titan and Saturn II... except Station building then I am either LDC or 6.25m Saturn V derived.

Prior to unlocking the Titan III parts I am exclusively on "Big Redstone" (1.5m Quad engine Redstone) and Atlas...

I am a Huge fan of flexible "modular" launch systems and both Titan and Saturn II provide capability in spades in that way as you have already alluded to.

 

For Satellite launches where the satellite is self contained, Centaur & Vega variants...   For long duration flights either Growth Agena (kitbashed Titan Upperstage tank and a Dual Engine mount scaled down from the LDC one with Tweakscale.)   Or Ascent Agena.   I have some custom configs altering the 8096-x family so that the missing big bell one is now covered.  

 

While I love the Thor rocket family, I am not really a fan of the Delta Upper stage latter in life, So I am more likely to do a Thor-Burner or Thorad than say a Thor Delta-P or Thor Delta-K

 

But certain missions require certain parts to be used so in those cases... I build it out of what I NEED to instead of want too.

 

Late Careeer I tend to launch what is "Right" for the situation.   You don't see too many RD-180 launches from my pool of launchers however.   I will still be Launching Atlas D, E, F, F', G, and H rockets If they are more efficient for the payload.   Basically I play the "It has to work" ballance act several times and then choose the cheapest choice for the most Delta V :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Quick question: What launcher family do you use most frequently? How about upper stages?

In both my career saves, pre-moon landing, I use the Titan/Prometheus launchers by far the most. Simple launch instructions that is (mostly) compatible with MechJeb ascent guidance, and simple construction. If you need more oomph just slap on longer SRBs and/or a second upper stage. Post-moon landing though I switch over to the Saturns/Sarnuses as my main choice.

As for upper stages I use the Agena/Belle series by far the most. Extremely reliable, that one, at least 2000 m/s dV every single launch I do. It's extremely useful for spamming those small probes and relay sats I keep sending up. Post-moon landing I use Saturn/Sarnus and Centaur/Inon upper stages.

I'm a big fan of kitbashed Delta II - based boosters with Agena upper stages - those were the bread and butter of my last playthrough, but then again I haven't played since the summer of 2021 thanks to my modding habits, so that may change once I finally release the SSS Kerbalism update and get back to playing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jcking said:

It should be using the stock Mk1 IVA.

Yep something with stock got borked. replacing it with a clean install fixed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm replaying early game (up to Mun/Minmus landing JNSQ) for the third time now so I find that most of the stuff I send up is some combination of Bossart/Belle (Atlas/Agena). Belle D is my go-to platform for building early small SCANsat probes and Kerbin SOI relays, mostly I don't even separate them and just slap some instruments inside the fairing on top of the platform (GATV style).

That said, early Bossart is really annoying to launch due to the stage and a half design, Mechjeb PVG sort of works sometimes but most of the time I have to launch it manually. Sarnus (Saturn) is really expensive to launch though. :) Prometheus (Titan) or Muo (Atlas V) are a good middle ground for unmanned missions that need more oomph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

I'm replaying early game (up to Mun/Minmus landing JNSQ) for the third time now so I find that most of the stuff I send up is some combination of Bossart/Belle (Atlas/Agena). Belle D is my go-to platform for building early small SCANsat probes and Kerbin SOI relays, mostly I don't even separate them and just slap some instruments inside the fairing on top of the platform (GATV style).

That said, early Bossart is really annoying to launch due to the stage and a half design, Mechjeb PVG sort of works sometimes but most of the time I have to launch it manually. Sarnus (Saturn) is really expensive to launch though. :) Prometheus (Titan) or Muo (Atlas V) are a good middle ground for unmanned missions that need more oomph. 

I got around MJ PVG not liking the stage and a half by turning off auto-stage on launch, letting the skirt auto-jettison, then turning auto-stage back on

it's still really finnicky though

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...