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

[Sgt.Shutesie]

2 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said:

@CobaltWolf @VenomousRequiem Any chance of SpaceX parts in your style sometime in the future?

Well since there is already Tundra Exploration, I don't think Cobalt really does anything that there is already a stock alike for. 

[Jso]

That little bump on the fairing looks like it. I've had very intermittent success using rcs for roll control on boosters and I just use reaction wheels for that anymore. On those occasions I do use it I forget to turn on rcs at launch about 93% of the time anyway. I haven't observed any unwanted rolling on the Atlas II. You don't lose roll authority until after jettisoning the boosters, and at that point you should be oriented and the minimal reaction wheel control in the payload can keep you from spinning.

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, Jso said:

That little bump on the fairing looks like it. I've had very intermittent success using rcs for roll control on boosters and I just use reaction wheels for that anymore. On those occasions I do use it I forget to turn on rcs at launch about 93% of the time anyway. I haven't observed any unwanted rolling on the Atlas II. You don't lose roll authority until after jettisoning the boosters, and at that point you should be oriented and the minimal reaction wheel control in the payload can keep you from spinning.

 

Bear in mind that the Atlas II deleted the verniers. You'll need more control than you currently have. These would be powerful - on the order of the stock Vernors - and would also have a Normal+ thruster so you'd have full axis control.

Can't you make RCS stageable now so that you can set it up so it only uses RCS for the current stage?

[Jso]

14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Bear in mind that the Atlas II deleted the verniers. You'll need more control than you currently have. These would be powerful - on the order of the stock Vernors - and would also have a Normal+ thruster so you'd have full axis control.

Can't you make RCS stageable now so that you can set it up so it only uses RCS for the current stage?

I keep forgetting that some people shut the engines down and restart after a coast. If your doing that this might be useful. Without the Vernors you have three axis control until the boosters separate, and then pitch/yaw with just the sustainer. The little torque in the Agena probe core has been adequate for roll stabilization. The real one probably does not use the booster gimbles for roll control, and I believe we can limit the axis now to simulate that, but I think that would be going too far. That's an RO thing.

I don't know what RCS improvements have been made. Waiting for a new computer, I'm down to 1 fps in 1.1 with nothing more than realplume.

[CobaltWolf]

3 minutes ago, Jso said:

I keep forgetting that some people shut the engines down and restart after a coast. If your doing that this might be useful. Without the Vernors you have three axis control until the boosters separate, and then pitch/yaw with just the sustainer. The little torque in the Agena probe core has been adequate for roll stabilization. The real one probably does not use the booster gimbles for roll control, and I believe we can limit the axis now to simulate that, but I think that would be going too far. That's an RO thing.

 

IIRC the IRL boosters did not gimbal at all. I'm kind of confused as to how Atlas actually managed to fly. It has a lot working against it. If anything I'd just like to have them in game to have a second / different set of LFO thrusters, even though the IRL ones were hydrazine.

[Phineas Freak]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Negative, I cannot find anything regarding hydrazine roll control on the Atlas III or V

It used the Aerojet Rocketdyne MR-107J ACS thrusters (4 in total): https://www.rocket.com/files/aerojet/documents/Capabilities/PDFs/Propulsion System Data Sheets.pdf

As to why there was not an Atlas IV: that's because the Atlas V is using the tools and the launch pads that were used for the Titan IV. The name of course is "Atlas" but the hardware and the code numbering is more "Titan".

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

It used the Aerojet Rocketdyne MR-107J ACS thrusters (4 in total): https://www.rocket.com/files/aerojet/documents/Capabilities/PDFs/Propulsion System Data Sheets.pdf

As to why there was not an Atlas IV: that's because the Atlas V is using the tools and the launch pads that were used for the Titan IV. The name of course is "Atlas" but the hardware and the code numbering is more "Titan".

 

You're my hero.  

[Jso]

26 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

If anything I'd just like to have them in game to have a second / different set of LFO thrusters, even though the IRL ones were hydrazine.

I'm not sure what you're planning now. I thought you were going to slap some rcs thrusters on the centaur interstage.

29 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

IIRC the IRL boosters did not gimbal at all. I'm kind of confused as to how Atlas actually managed to fly.

I'm pretty sure uncommanded gimbling of the boosters was the cause of a few failures.

[Phineas Freak]

The LR-89 engines did gimbal by 5 degrees and, in fact, they did the bulk of the job steering Atlas (the LR-105 had only 3 degrees of gimbal, mostly used after BECO).

Edited May 3, 2016 by Phineas Freak
Typo

[CobaltWolf]

35 minutes ago, Jso said:

I'm not sure what you're planning now. I thought you were going to slap some rcs thrusters on the centaur interstage.

I'm pretty sure uncommanded gimbling of the boosters was the cause of a few failures.

2

13 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

The LR-89 engines did gimbal by 5 degrees and, in fact, they did the bulk of the job steering Atlas (the LR-105 had only 3 degrees of gimbal, mostly used after BECO).

 

Huh, the conclusion I had reached back in November was that only the main engine was capable of gimballing. Good to know! 

I don't want to include a monopropellant RCS, I want to have an alternative/variant of the Vernor, for gameplay reasons. So it'll run on LFO.

[komodo]

On May 2, 2016 at 1:19 PM, kadavi1202 said:

My issue is with BDB installed, all the science options vanish in career mode.  No crew reports, EVA's or goo canister buttons.   Removed the mod and it went back to normal.  Maybe a 1.1.2 issue?

@CobaltWolf as well; this is 99.999% due to the duplicated science definition in "resources ", iirc the folder name. Check that spot out and see if it resolves the issue. 

On other news, I managed to play a bit on Sunday, at least through the early game. Everything seems legit that I've seen, although I need to fire up a ... Sandbox... (Ugh!  ) to test more of the parts in a time/sane way.

so... No news is good news, right?  

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, komodo said:

@CobaltWolf as well; this is 99.999% due to the duplicated science definition in "resources ", iirc the folder name. Check that spot out and see if it resolves the issue. 

On other news, I managed to play a bit on Sunday, at least through the early game. Everything seems legit that I've seen, although I need to fire up a ... Sandbox... (Ugh!  ) to test more of the parts in a time/sane way.

so... No news is good news, right?  

 

Basically. I need to see if I can push that update out if there are no more issues...

[Teslamax]

@TimothyC

For those of you who haven't seen my post on the HabTech thread, I am interested in a stock-a-like Skylab. I began collecting information/images of Skylab and its planned/hypothetical upgrades. I saw Skylab listed on the roadmap for this mod and would be pleased to contribute this research towards it.

Inspiration

• "Eyes Turned Skyward" (Skylab B/Spacelab)            *just found Blender files for many of the craft
• Wired's post on Marshall Space Flight Center's 1977 Skylab Reuse Study
• DSFP's Spaceflight History blog posts by David S.F. Portree:
  • "A Bridge from Skylab to Station/Shuttle: Interim Space Station Program (1971)"
  • "Reviving & Reusing Skylab in the Shuttle Era: NASA Marshall's November 1977 Pitch to NASA Headquarters"
• "So you've decided to rescue Skylab" at Aerospace Projects Review Blog (also at the "Unwanted Blog")

 

"Alpha"/ISS-based station with re-purposed Skylab

I became enthused with a further re-use of Skylab. I envisioned a progression of upgrades to Skylab ultimately leading to it as the first component for a US space station. Generally it be based on the ISS design although using Skylab instead of the Russian components. I believe the preservation of such a large diameter structure was too valuable. In an era where heavy lift vehicles to replace it were rare to nonexistant, it shouldn't go to waste. I realize that more realistic models of this exist for use with RSS/RO, but I'm thinking of a stock scale/stock-a-like solution. I began assembling a mock-up in KSP using mods:

• Procedural Parts (structure)
• SpaceY (3.75m probe core as Saturn V's Instrumentation Unit)
• HabTech/CxAerospace (docking ports/ISS components)
• Infernal Robotics (ATM deployment)
• UKS (scanner on the ATM)
• Tantares (radio antennas)

 

KSP vs. RealLife size scale table

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Teslamax
added "So you want to rescue Skylab" information/noted Blender files for ETS

[Sgt.Shutesie]

23 hours ago, Teslamax said:

For those of you who haven't seen my post on the HabTech thread, I am interested in stock-a-like Skylab A/B part.

 

Pssst.... Go to the roadmap, I think at least skylab is a possibility. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Sgt.Shutesie

[VenomousRequiem]

2 hours ago, Teslamax said:

...snip... 

Oh, lord, that's a lot. 

Yeah, Skylab, Apollo, Saturn, Apollo ETS things, Saturn ETS things, SpaceLab... All on the road map, albeit not for a very long time. You'll get it, don't worry.  

[Teslamax]

@VenomousRequiem @Sgt.Shutesie 

Apologies, the post wasn't to demand anything right now. I know its on the the roadmap for this autumn.

I only only thought to show my interest and offer to help in any way if possible. Even if that was just prototyping or collecting information.

(Now, I'm sorry I did....)

Edited May 4, 2016 by Teslamax

[CobaltWolf]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

Pssst.... Go to the roadmap, I think at least skylab is a possibility. 

1 hour ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Oh, lord, that's a lot. 

Yeah, Skylab, Apollo, Saturn, Apollo ETS things, Saturn ETS things, SpaceLab... All on the road map, albeit not for a very long time. You'll get it, don't worry.  

Me and @Teslamax spoke earlier via PM. I told him to post his ideas here to share and to discuss. He's chill.

[CobaltWolf]

@shutes did you have to quote the whole thing?

My day just got crazy. I was going to leave a longer post but whatever. Anyways, no harm in talking about it. I would like to hit the ground running with a plan when I get there. Those of you who check the roadmap will note that I've been updating the Saturn sections with more detail, since myself and some others have been doing preplanning on what's needed. Similar discussion for Skylab stuff will hopefully make that go faster as well. Couple of questions:

1) what kind of lifetime could be expected from Skylab after it was lifted? The thing was badly damaged and held together with a jury rigged repair right?

2)what were phases 1 and 2 of the Skylab reuse plans? I only see phase 3 there.

also I want to draft another release candidate tonight with a couple more changes. We are overdue for an update.

[Teslamax]

On 5/4/2016 at 8:26 AM, CobaltWolf said:

1) what kind of lifetime could be expected from Skylab after it was lifted? The thing was badly damaged and held together with a jury rigged repair right?

2)what were phases 1 and 2 of the Skylab reuse plans? I only see phase 3 there.

1. To be honest, I don't know. There was an intent for Skylab (A) to have a longer use life but I don't know how long it was supposed to survive. Skylab B on the other hand, which was never launched and put on display in museums, had longer-lived plans. At one time B was seen as the focus for a 1970's "ISS" allowing Apollo and Soyuz visitors to work there. I'll have to dig up links for this info. (A second look reveals Skylab B might not have had as long as a design lifetime as I first thought.)
2. The Wired article and DSFP's blog post have info about the full 3-phase reuse plans for Skylab (A).
   • Phase 1
     • reboost using shuttle-delivered Teleoperator
   • Phase 2
     1. develop refurbishment kits, a 10-foot-long Docking Adapter (DA), and a 25-KW Power Module (PM)
     2. deliver first refurb. kit, install DA, fold up forward 2 solar arrays on ATM to give more room for shuttle docking
     3. deliver more refurb. kits, repair cooling system plumbing
   • Phase 3
     • deliver and install PM

Edited May 5, 2016 by Teslamax
corrected DSFP blog post URL

[CobaltWolf]

@Teslamax ah I haven't had a chance to read the links yet.

How would Skylab B have launched? Where is the 'point-of-divergence', as it were? SV production was already shut down. How far back do you have to go to let that still be plausible?

So by phase 3, you have the Power module, a bigger docking node, and then the lab equipment is on the Shuttle's spacelab? That's kind of neat. Just bring the whole lab back and forth, use Skylab mostly for living space.

I am still figuring out some of the details for MOS, which is the small station architecture that I'm currently working on. I'll be streaming tonight hopefully. I need to finish drafting this new release then I want to get more MOS stuff in game. The adapters I made the other night, etc. I need to get the crew science stuff (including the Gemini science packages) to a point where they can be tested in career saves to get a feel for the progression. I think some of the more complex things such as the exposure module will be set aside, and possibly worked into the Skylab architecture instead.

Also, BDB is fairly behind on compatibility. If someone could take care of some MM patches, for things like life support and KIS I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Teslamax]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:24 AM, CobaltWolf said:

@Teslamax ah I haven't had a chance to read the links yet.

How would Skylab B have launched? Where is the 'point-of-divergence', as it were? SV production was already shut down. How far back do you have to go to let that still be plausible?

So by phase 3, you have the Power module, a bigger docking node, and then the lab equipment is on the Shuttle's spacelab? That's kind of neat. Just bring the whole lab back and forth, use Skylab mostly for living space.

I'll be streaming tonight hopefully.

I think the bulk of fabrication was already complete before B was cancelled.

There were up to 3 2 Saturn V's remaining. They are currently on display at various locations. (One is outside the VAB on its side for tourists to view.)

SA-515 was intended as a backup launcher for Skylab and was never used. 

I'd love to watch your stream but I work 'til 8PM CDT tonight.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Teslamax

[CobaltWolf]

10 minutes ago, Teslamax said:

I think the bulk of fabrication was already complete before B was cancelled. IIRC there were up to 3 Saturn V's remaining. They are currently on display at various locations. (One is outside the VAB on its side for tourists to view.)

I'd loveto watch your stream but I work 'til 8PM CDT tonight.

 

 

Ah, you'll probably be able to catch the last hour or two. I usually go until midnight EST at the latest, starting some time between 6 and 7 EST.

Were those Saturn Vs ever in a position to be launched?  I knew the station was fine but I wasn't sure if it would have a rocket to launch on. 

(Also, just to preempt it, nobody dogpile tesla for not censoring 'Saturn')

EDIT: Issues facing me trying to finish MOS:

@curtquarquesso I couldn't get the animated docking port to work. Does it have to be done in Unity 4.2.2? I've had to reinstall so I can do the light animations, which @Beale already helped me with.

The big station RCS module isn't working right last I checked. The wrong thrusters fire when you give it control input. I can't figure out anything wrong in the unity file.

The Malhena SM solar panels do not work. They need to be animated double sided solar panels with no sun tracking. Is that not possible? @Shadowmage I know you'd probably have an answer.

If I think of more things that are broken I'll let y'all know.

Edited May 4, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Shadowmage]

29 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

The big station RCS module isn't working right last I checked. The wrong thrusters fire when you give it control input. I can't figure out anything wrong in the unity file.

The Malhena SM solar panels do not work. They need to be animated double sided solar panels with no sun tracking. Is that not possible? @Shadowmage I know you'd probably have an answer.

If I think of more things that are broken I'll let y'all know.

RCS -- are you using multiple RCS modules?  If yes then you will need to add an 'fxPrefix' line to the module config with a separate name for each module (any name will do... I usually go with 'first', 'second', etc); its not the thrusters mis-firing, its just the effects being used by the wrong thrusters (the thrust output is correct, the effects are not).

Multiple non-tracking solar panels deployed by an animation -- possibly doable with stock modules.  You would need a single ModuleAnimateGeneric to control the deploy animation (all panels would need to deploy under a single animation) and then one solar-panel module -per- transform (not sure what the non-deployable solar panel module is called at the moment, can't seem to find it in my API list), and each suncatcher transform would need its own unique name.  The config gets quite ugly with all of those modules, but it should be doable.

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, Shadowmage said:

RCS -- are you using multiple RCS modules?  If yes then you will need to add an 'fxPrefix' line to the module config with a separate name for each module (any name will do... I usually go with 'first', 'second', etc); its not the thrusters mis-firing, its just the effects being used by the wrong thrusters (the thrust output is correct, the effects are not).

Multiple non-tracking solar panels deployed by an animation -- possibly doable with stock modules.  You would need a single ModuleAnimateGeneric to control the deploy animation (all panels would need to deploy under a single animation) and then one solar-panel module -per- transform (not sure what the non-deployable solar panel module is called at the moment, can't seem to find it in my API list), and each suncatcher transform would need its own unique name.  The config gets quite ugly with all of those modules, but it should be doable.

 

Re:RCS, yes, I was trying to break it up into multiple modules so that the player could determine what each axis of thrusters would be used for. Otherwise you have the retrograde thrusters being used for pitch, etc.

Re:Solar panels, I did not think of that! You're saying that instead of using the deployable solar panel module, just have the sunCatchers follow along with the animated parts? That sounds like it would work, but I don't think that there is a separate module for non-deployable panels. IIRC the stock static ones use the same one as the deployables, just with no line for animation.

[cxg2827]

58 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

@curtquarquesso I couldn't get the animated docking port to work. Does it have to be done in Unity 4.2.2?

Not Curt, but what I have done for mine is set up the animation in Blender, with the deployable active ring having its collider a child to it.

In Unity, you dont even have to export the blender file to .fbx since it recognizes the animation from the .BLEND file directly. Remove the mesh render components from the colliders and apply a mesh collider to them(set to convex of course).