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

1 hour ago, Drakenex said:

wqdXDj0.png

 

Amazing revamp! congratulations team BDB!

 

hmmm, I can't seem to find the multibody fairing and the copper (or whatever that stuff is on multibody first stages) coatings in my game

EDIT: ah, now I know how you buildt the multibody

Edited by Starhelperdude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

hmmm, I can't seem to find the multibody fairing and the copper (or whatever that stuff is on multibody first stages) coatings in my game

EDIT: ah, now I know how you buildt the multibody

Those variants are coming soonish. Both orignal SOFI, and more technically accurate treated Atlas V aluminium styles.

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/2 Not based on anything specific but just for legoability an alternate mount for SII with a 3.75m base and a custom mount for the M1 to attach there.

Will try to add a few more options to the upper part later using some smaller mounting plates I can switch around. We can add some options not available on the original SII mount. 

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks amazing, and assuming that 3.75m mount is separate, it's gonna enable some fun options to the S-IV I’m looking forward to figuring out.

 

If you’re willing to look at more engine plate switches, I was wondering if you could add an option to the SIV-b engine plate to include the grey fabric from the Skylab radiator unit for a more historical look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

Could you guys add the Saturn C-8?

They are not interested. Here's why:

On 11/25/2020 at 8:03 PM, Pappystein said:

Somewhere about 30 pages back is a big info-graphic that Cobalt made that says why.
Let me try to dredge up the memory of why.....

Oh yeah.  He said something about not making ugly rockets! :D

However I will add.   I seriously SERIOUSLY wonder why you all want a rocket that would never have been built and was not even wanted by Von Braun.

Oh and before you start spamming old magazine articles...   Look at ACTUAL NASA documents where the C8 is barely mentioned.   In every mention on the C-8 it is listed as a study for how to extend the base Saturn Hardware further ignoring the fact that there was no place to build at-least the first stage, and no way to Launch it without building an entire new infrastructure at the Cape.

Mostly a  "Hey Von Braun, can you make a bigger rocket than Saturn V with the same basic building blocks?"  

And Von Braun's answer is "Why yes, we could...  It would look like this... but you..."  

"Cool that is the info we needed"   Everyone seems to want to leave the building as fast as they can

With Von Braun finishing up  "But you haven't let me explain that...."

*everyone else has left the room as Von Braun has still not said The entire way NASA launches rockets would have to be made a-new again.*

Note to everyone the quotes in Italics are not a literal or real quote of VonBraun and anyone else... I made the lines up to showcase what I believe happened to bring about the Saturn C-8.

If you don't want to take my word for it.  How about this 1965 document by Von Braun's Future Projects Office at MSFC on what should Follow the Saturn Apollo program as far as rockets are concerned:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19650007941

If you want something "bigger" than Saturn V.  You want SATURN MLV.   Saturn C-8 is a bad curiosity that shouldn't be mentioned here.

OK I freely admit I am using a lot of tongue in cheek above but the fact remains:  Saturn C-8 was for lack of a better term, a propaganda proposal and not a real proposal.   There are literally 10s of documents on the Saturn C-8 on the NASA file server.  There are Literally 100s of documents for each of the major NOVA and NEXUS proposals (and Saturn C-8 isn't one of them.)  So unless there is a secret backlog of Saturn C-8 documents that NASA is illegally withholding.... C-8 is just a marketing gimmick....   AKA NOTHING TO SEE HERE PLEASE MOVE ALONG.

PS I welcome all who criticize my view point.  But please, Keep it clean.  And also PLEASE REMEMBER.   No matter what you say the Devs themselves have said there is no place for Saturn C-8 in BDB, so your thoughts and arguments are not going to help persuade anyone to make the "fictional" Saturn (well more fictional than Saturn C-2 pre 1960, C-2, C-3 pre 1960, C-3 and C-4, C-3B, and C-4B)   Oh wait, look at all THOSE Saturn variants that COULD have been built IRL and COULD have been launched without totally re-thinking the KSC.

I hope this is helpful to someone and I am posting it here because there is no point in 3 more pages of posts on wanting something that isn't going to happen in BDB

On 11/26/2020 at 12:36 AM, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not planning on doing Saturn C-8. There's actually a reason past "it's ugly" (it is) - it would require a lot of single-use parts in new sizes that would only really be useable to build... well, Saturn C-8. I'd rather do uprated Saturn V variants and such like that, which would be lego'able to make lots of new crafts.

Quote

Another reason I'm not interested is doing Nova would require adding another size class of parts which then require additional adapters, etc. Plus it's just always looked kinda ugly to me :P

Quote

I'm not planning on doing all the C-series, nor am I planning on doing anything Nova related.

 

Edited by OrdinaryKerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mozartbeatle said:

Looks amazing, and assuming that 3.75m mount is separate, it's gonna enable some fun options to the S-IV I’m looking forward to figuring out.

 

If you’re willing to look at more engine plate switches, I was wondering if you could add an option to the SIV-b engine plate to include the grey fabric from the Skylab radiator unit for a more historical look.

nah they live in different part folders. not really feasible to combine assets and the greebling is specifically skylab stuff.

4 hours ago, Jcking said:

It still would be nice to have some sort of table that non LEM stuff can sit on in the SLA.

yeah we plan to do something for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

A little reading of this thread should tell you.

Problem is this thread is 914 pages long, finding a certain piece of information in a post in the thousands of posts in this thread is a bit like finding a specific needle in a needle factory. What might be an idea is a FAQ on the front page which can be linked to when someone does ask such questions.

I realise there is a FAQ already but not one that answers such specific questions. Maybe a list of what they will and will not make and possibly with reasons why (for both) is something required.

 

Edited by Cdodders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

Is there any chance you could add 1.875m and 2.5m rings for the mission modules, and a 0.9375m ring for the Apollo KH7 lunar orbiter thing?

I even have a picture of what they were thinking.

Lm3F9ej.png

 

With that said, if people have like, trusses or other adapters they want for Saturn payloads... sketches are cool ;)

 

4 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

It was Genuine, then someone was nice enough to tell me I'm not the first to ask, so sorry.

It's all good lol :)

Anyone wanting to be upset on my behalf... uh, don't.

 

11 hours ago, ballisticfox0 said:

Apollo 7

Could use the standalone docking target too, I think?

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

nah they live in different part folders. not really feasible to combine assets and the greebling is specifically skylab stuff.

Ok cool I understand. But just to make sure/clear, I wasn't talking about it in terms of a meaningless greebil, the SIV-b in general had that grey insulation. e.g:

Spoiler

AS07-04-1571HR.JPG

AS09-19-2948HR.jpg

But I understand it's not easy or necessary. Thanks for the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mozartbeatle said:

Ok cool I understand. But just to make sure/clear, I wasn't talking about it in terms of a meaningless greebil, the SIV-b in general had that grey insulation. e.g:

  Hide contents

 

 

But I understand it's not easy or necessary. Thanks for the answer.

Yeah I meant more that mesh wouldnt necessarily fit together nicely with the S4B mount. Though they are similar theres some pipes and greebles and such on the S4B version thats not on the Skylab version so the baked ambient occlusion wouldnt match up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zorg @CobaltWolf So, recently I've been playing a lot with BDB/JNSQ/Kerbalism and I found myself writing MM patches to update Kerbalism support for BDB parts (which you can find here - still a work in progress but a lot is already done). Kerbalism originally comes with a science compatibility patch for BDB but it is now very out of date. I've added special Kerbalism support for GATV, Keyhole, SIGINT, and many of the Probe Expansion science experiments, and am currently working on HDD data/sample storage upgrades for command modules.

I was originally considering whether to contribute it to Kerbalism, but I got no reaction from that side yet, plus they prefer not to add any new experiments, so for now I can only either leave it in my own repo or propose a PR to BDB later on. But this update comes with many patches, some are somewhat complex as they depend on understanding what Kerbalism is doing. It could be hard to maintain, plus I obviously do not offer any support... I am updating it for now but may stop at any time. So I'm leaning towards leaving it separate and publishing it as part of that repo (which contains some of my other patches as well, the Kerbalism update just happens to be the lion's share) or even splitting it off into a separate mod. But please let me know your thoughts on this. 

And regardless of where this ends up ultimately, I am also interested in hearing from anyone about the experiments' balance in this patch, as I'm not that great at balancing stuff (mostly related to experiment length and data size). 

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...