MajorLeaugeRocketScience Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 I know it’s gonna be a while until you hit Apollo again, but here’s a great wealth of information and plans for the follow on to Apollo including the Integrated Program Plan, Nuclear Shuttles, and Mars missions https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700026519.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said: I know it’s gonna be a while until you hit Apollo again, but here’s a great wealth of information and plans for the follow on to Apollo including the Integrated Program Plan, Nuclear Shuttles, and Mars missions https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700026519.pdf Thanks for the post. I am willing to bet most of Apollo stuff is already in Cobalt's possession but it never hurts to offer up a piece. I love how this one is scanned BACKWARDS! (you are supposed to scan LEFT edge to the top if scanning a portrate document... They scanned right edge... Makes for a very Manga read feel to the document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 25 minutes ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said: I know it’s gonna be a while until you hit Apollo again, but here’s a great wealth of information and plans for the follow on to Apollo including the Integrated Program Plan, Nuclear Shuttles, and Mars missions https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700026519.pdf 17 minutes ago, Pappystein said: Thanks for the post. I am willing to bet most of Apollo stuff is already in Cobalt's possession but it never hurts to offer up a piece. I love how this one is scanned BACKWARDS! (you are supposed to scan LEFT edge to the top if scanning a portrate document... They scanned right edge... Makes for a very Manga read feel to the document. Saved. I actually usually don't have stuff unless I'm immediately working on the parts in question, so it's always good to share... moreover, better to have me say "yeah I already have that" than miss out on something I might otherwise not have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Couple of suggestions about Mercury-Atlas interstage: - Shortened variant, or variant without Atlas connections (gray bits at the bottom) - for stuff like Mercury-Jupiter (fortunately, BDB Jupiter\Juno II doesn't have mating problems) - Same color variations as Mercury (because white capsule doesn't look right on a black interstage...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdodders Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, MashAndBangers said: No hidden docking port, it's all for show to make it look like the Mercury is attaching to the lab. And it's the adapter, hinge, hinge, and then the lab. In the VAB, I have to move everything around so it looks stacked. Autostrut is your friend. How did you autostrut it? Trying to get the skirt to strut to the station module but not getting results? I might just use an old fashioned strut Edited March 20, 2020 by Cdodders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashAndBangers Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 9 minutes ago, Cdodders said: How did you autostrut it? Trying to get the skirt to strut to the station module but not getting results? I might just use an old fashioned strut I just auto strut to the heaviest part, never had an issue with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdodders Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said: I just auto strut to the heaviest part, never had an issue with that. The skirt says the Capsule is the heaviest, while the station module says the hinge is (if I have everything else removed). I just get the capsule swinging on the hinge Edited March 20, 2020 by Cdodders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: If I remember, at that point they essentially were custom... I think chemical milling? the thickness of the Atlas tanks tailoring them for each mission's structural loads. The Atlas tank structure was essentially unchanged all the way through the Atlas IIAS, after all. Given Mercury and the Mk-IV (Mk 4) RV have about the same mass, I doubt much if anything was actually done to "strengthen Atlas" Its the nature of the Balloon Pressurized tank after all. Had this been a standard UNPRESSURIZED monococue tank like say... Agena, then the skin walls would have to be thickened. Somewhere I remember reading that an Atlas D's structural capabilities were 20,000lbs. That means that it would fail if 10 ton (US) load was subjected to flight conditions. And that is not counting safety factors (IE most things are engineered to be 2, 3, 4 or even 8x stronger than what they SAY they are.) Agena is about 2500lb, the Lab is probably 500lb more and a capsule of 4000lbs or so... we are still way less than 10,000lbs. The question really should be, could the LR89s and LR105s be up-rated in time to actually launch this sucker when intended with the tank stretch on Atlas proper? I don't want to talk about deflate-gate (the original Atlas one, not the stupid NFL one) or anything like that. But the Atlas Structure, when properly pressurized, could actually haul a lot more than even an Atlas-III's capabilities. It just gets VERY expensive to maintain that pressure when transferring such a rocket. Add the concerns about how to physically transport such a long structure... and you get a solid reason to scrub and replace with the much easier to transport CCB for Atlas V. 27 minutes ago, biohazard15 said: Couple of suggestions about Mercury-Atlas interstage: - Shortened variant, or variant without Atlas connections (gray bits at the bottom) - for stuff like Mercury-Jupiter (fortunately, BDB Jupiter\Juno II doesn't have mating problems) - Same color variations as Mercury (because white capsule doesn't look right on a black interstage...) I am not certain but I think the bottom of the Retropack would impinge on the stage below if you shortened it by any appreciable length. The current interstage is ALMOST the right shape and about exactly the right SIZE for use on the larger diameter rocket stages. IRL the Interstage had a slight taper down to the Atlas rocket (Mercury is bigger in diameter than the top of the conic section on an Atlas D) In KSP that would break legoing so it is slab sided.. I don't know about color variations.... except for maybe an Orange band or Check pattern band in the black? But we each got opinions and they are right for us eh? Besides, new textures are coming daily (New Thor textures arrived today?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashAndBangers Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 39 minutes ago, Cdodders said: How did you autostrut it? Trying to get the skirt to strut to the station module but not getting results? I might just use an old fashioned strut Oh um, I saw on one of @CobaltWolf 's streams he pressed a button and stuff auto autostrutted before he went to launch. Perhaps he could elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphisor Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 12 minutes ago, Pappystein said: Given Mercury and the Mk-IV (Mk 4) RV have about the same mass, I doubt much if anything was actually done to "strengthen Atlas" Its the nature of the Balloon Pressurized tank after all. Had this been a standard UNPRESSURIZED monococue tank like say... Agena, then the skin walls would have to be thickened. Somewhere I remember reading that an Atlas D's structural capabilities were 20,000lbs. That means that it would fail if 10 ton (US) load was subjected to flight conditions. And that is not counting safety factors (IE most things are engineered to be 2, 3, 4 or even 8x stronger than what they SAY they are.) Agena is about 2500lb, the Lab is probably 500lb more and a capsule of 4000lbs or so... we are still way less than 10,000lbs. The question really should be, could the LR89s and LR105s be up-rated in time to actually launch this sucker when intended with the tank stretch on Atlas proper? I don't want to talk about deflate-gate (the original Atlas one, not the stupid NFL one) or anything like that. But the Atlas Structure, when properly pressurized, could actually haul a lot more than even an Atlas-III's capabilities. It just gets VERY expensive to maintain that pressure when transferring such a rocket. Add the concerns about how to physically transport such a long structure... and you get a solid reason to scrub and replace with the much easier to transport CCB for Atlas V. Actually, Mercury Atlas 1 failed precisely because of insufficient structural strength. Or so the investigation concluded. Subsequent Mercury Atlas flights added what is basically extra strutting to compensate. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Pappystein said: I am not certain but I think the bottom of the Retropack would impinge on the stage below if you shortened it by any appreciable length. You actually can. For reference: Mercury-Redstone decoupler and 1.5-1.25m Thor structural adapter fully cover the retropack. They are about 55-60% length of M-A decoupler: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 46 minutes ago, biohazard15 said: Couple of suggestions about Mercury-Atlas interstage: - Shortened variant, or variant without Atlas connections (gray bits at the bottom) - for stuff like Mercury-Jupiter (fortunately, BDB Jupiter\Juno II doesn't have mating problems) - Same color variations as Mercury (because white capsule doesn't look right on a black interstage...) My thought was that it would be possible to use the Mercury-Redstone Decoupler and then any other structural adapter with staging disabled. The short variant of the 1.25m interstage, for instance. Or the interstage I just added for the mini-lab (though honestly I should probably delete that part and just... make a version of the 1.25m interstage that's the same length. In general we've been adding the staging toggling so that users can easily convert interstages to structural adapters and vice versa. Which kind of takes care of the second question. 2 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said: Oh um, I saw on one of @CobaltWolf 's streams he pressed a button and stuff auto autostrutted before he went to launch. Perhaps he could elaborate? I believe that was Editor Extensions, but I think @Zorg uses something that does it automatically and it's nice. 1 minute ago, Morphisor said: Actually, Mercury Atlas 1 failed precisely because of insufficient structural strength. Or so the investigation concluded. Subsequent Mercury Atlas flights added what is basically extra strutting to compensate. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_1 There were a variety of additions to the basic "rolled 10ft sheets of stainless steel welded together"... remember, Charlie Bossart was a structural engineer first and foremost. They just had to adjust the numbers in the calculations to figure out how much strengthening they needed for the various configurations, including, yes, varying the thickness of steel slightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: My thought was that it would be possible to use the Mercury-Redstone Decoupler and then any other structural adapter with staging disabled. The short variant of the 1.25m interstage, for instance. Or the interstage I just added for the mini-lab (though honestly I should probably delete that part and just... make a version of the 1.25m interstage that's the same length. In general we've been adding the staging toggling so that users can easily convert interstages to structural adapters and vice versa. Which kind of takes care of the second question. You mean the one from Juno IV? You might want to move it into Engineering 101 then - there is no 1.25m "generic" interstage in first three nodes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 11 minutes ago, biohazard15 said: You mean the one from Juno IV? You might want to move it into Engineering 101 then - there is no 1.25m "generic" interstage in first three nodes uhhh I mean I don't see why not. If people want to yeet 1.25m rockets all day let em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Morphisor said: Actually, Mercury Atlas 1 failed precisely because of insufficient structural strength. Or so the investigation concluded. Subsequent Mercury Atlas flights added what is basically extra strutting to compensate. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_1 Actually the document sites the attachment points where Mercury was attached to Atlas as the failure point... Meaning it wasn't Atlas that failed but how they attached Mercury... and yes this is just arguing both sides of the same coin The article actually states they changed the webbing on top of the tank to alter how Mercury attached to the top of the tank. It does not on it's own state they increased the thickness of the tank to Support Mercury. 29 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: There were a variety of additions to the basic "rolled 10ft sheets of stainless steel welded together"... remember, Charlie Bossart was a structural engineer first and foremost. They just had to adjust the numbers in the calculations to figure out how much strengthening they needed for the various configurations, including, yes, varying the thickness of steel slightly. And I will freely admit I don't know at WHAT thickness they were referring to the 10 Ton load for Atlas. For all I know that was Atlas G/K and not Atlas D as I stated above. I based my statement on the Picture of an Atlas D next to the text (shame on me.) But you are correct. Bossart was a genius when it came to this stuff. PS I love how Convair (read that as Bossart) demanded the LES be included in that launch for AERODYNAMIC purposes.... One wonders what would have happened had the LES been included as Convair demanded. Edited March 20, 2020 by Pappystein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 28 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: uhhh I mean I don't see why not. If people want to yeet 1.25m rockets all day let em Quite pleasantly looking rockets, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashAndBangers Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Time for some Courier love with Thor Ablestar: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, MashAndBangers said: Time for some Courier love with Thor Ablestar: Shouldn't it be the stepped adapter setup and not the Delta type? And we need to do something about that fairing... Bonus Thor-Ablestar fun... Edited March 21, 2020 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) It seems that Courier satellite does not work as relay\part of the comm network. According to tracking station, it connects to non-relay sats (several Explorers), but it does not connect to any other Courier. I've launched three so far, all are at 400km circular orbit (2.5x Kerbin), they can "see" each other (i.e. no occlusion) and according to their specs they SHOULD be able to see each other. But they don't. Which kinda nullify their value as "relay satellites". See screenshot: As you can see, Couriers can't connect to each other, but they both can connect to Explorer. I sincerely hope that it is a bug, and not "working as intended". To summarize: - Explorer 7 can "see" both Couriers, and it does have a very weak connection to KSC via the "left" Courier - Somehow Couriers can't see each other, which is kinda defeats the whole point of relay network - You can see a third Courier (look at the other weak connection from Explorer, forgot to place an arrow, sorry), and you can clearly see that there is no occlusion between it and the "middle" Courier. Yet there is no connection. Edited March 21, 2020 by biohazard15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) So I decided to Launch a Target in my Sandbox for future launches to use as an aimpoint. Ahh Sunset launch! of a Titan IVB-3 (3 Segment SRMU) Spoiler YES that is a LONG fairing! Nope you don't get to see what it is YET! My Payload ended up in a less than ideal orbit (was going for 300x300@0 ended up 125x288@2) So I decided to launch a Growth Agena tug to take care of it.: Titan IVB-2 (2 Segment SRMU) is all that is needed to launch a heavy Agena Tug: Spoiler The Tug Starting it burn to match orbit with the "target" Caught up to it on the Dark Side of the planet.... Hard to see but here you can see the "target" for the first time: And now my SSTO spaceplane target station is now in a 300x300@0 degree orbit (+/- 15m) Time to park the Tug near by (Spaceplanes invariably need to use Clamp-o-tron so... ugly port is at "bottom" of station... and on tug... ugh! Now the Question is... Can I fly a SSTO to that orbit without getting excessively cheatie (IE can I build a SSTO that is similar to an Airplane and not use NUKES!) I spent most of the Afternoon trying to build a SSTO with the parts I have, to make the 300km orbit of my target station in the post above.... I never broke 250km orbit without running out of propellant or burning pieces I would need on re-entry off the bird as I took off. GAH! SO time to switch up. I have never played with the light gun and glowey bulbs that Cobalt has put in the dev build. How about a mariner/ranger Bus derrived Light-Sat! 1st) I have to say Ohhh! Blue! (I feel Someone should yell you Canada now!) Blue Thor Agena launches away (may not be exactly correct but it is how I wanted to build it...) I am really loving how this build with JNSQ and the various JNSQ suggested Visual mods works.... I feel like I am watching the launch from right next to the pad! Sadly.... Mechjeb failed to realize that engines were running (spoolup?!) and ran 5 stages one after the next without pause... so I ended up steering my Agena by running the RCS on my probe: OK I turned the lights on... Why isn't the disco ball lit up!? I mean, here is the Spotlight! You can all *PLAINLY SEE* it is off right (the light switch is on in the previous frame!) OK I KNOW that isn't a light but when I started putting it together and I put that pioneer probe on top of the truss with this camera below... well it kind of looks like a Disco ball and Floodlight... Oh and here is my seperation motors.. yep the new Mercury rockets! And last but not least, another artsy shot!: Edited March 21, 2020 by Pappystein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 34 minutes ago, biohazard15 said: As you can see, Couriers can't connect to each other, but they both can connect to Explorer. They look occluded. What antenna power do the Couriers have? If you're antenna ranges aren't rescaled then they're out of range of each other too. If you've got the hoop antenna on Explorer 7 then it's got about 16x the range of the Couriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, Jso said: They look occluded. What antenna power do the Couriers have? If you're antenna ranges aren't rescaled then they're out of range of each other too. If you've got the hoop antenna on Explorer 7 then it's got about 16x the range of the Couriers. "Left" and "Center" Couriers are slightly occluded, but only slightly - on default occlusion settings (which this save uses) this is not a problem. "Center" and "Up" Couriers are not occluded. I use stock antenna ranges with rescaled system (because all rescales tend to make antennas OP), and this seems to be the cause - if I use range modifier, Couriers can see each other. Still, Courier antenna range is kinda too small IMO. I understand that it's an early sat, but still - "early" shouldn't mean "barely useful". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashAndBangers Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: Shouldn't it be the stepped adapter setup and not the Delta type? And we need to do something about that fairing... I typed in Ablestar, and got lots of stuff in the VAB.... And we don't have the SAF version of the Fairing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 5 hours ago, biohazard15 said: I use stock antenna ranges with rescaled system (because all rescales tend to make antennas OP), and this seems to be the cause - if I use range modifier, Couriers can see each other. Still, Courier antenna range is kinda too small IMO. I understand that it's an early sat, but still - "early" shouldn't mean "barely useful". If we made it more powerful it could end up OP for the stock system and for rescaled systems as well (where most people play with antenna scaling). Your use case seems to be an edge case where you are playing upscaled with stock antenna powers. Courier and Telstar have sufficient power (1M) to set up a functional low orbit constellation to support 250k rated probes with no extra groundstations at eng101 tech level. Keep in mind the first sock relay HG5 (5M) doesnt unlock for another 2 tiers. The early relays could probably use tech upgrades though so they can keep up with tech progression. will look into that. 8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: And we need to do something about that fairing... 42 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said: I typed in Ablestar, and got lots of stuff in the VAB.... And we don't have the SAF version of the Fairing... I feel like people are hinting at something but I'm not sure what >_< 14 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: I believe that was Editor Extensions, but I think @Zorg uses something that does it automatically and it's nice. 14 hours ago, Cdodders said: How did you autostrut it? Trying to get the skirt to strut to the station module but not getting results? I might just use an old fashioned strut Theres a little mod called Full Autostrut that can automatically set up Autostruts even as you build your craft without needing to manually remember to set it up. But honestly I only use it whenever Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is out of sync with a KSP release. I personally use KJR continued. I think KJR Next aims at playing nicer with robotics though but can't speak to that fork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashAndBangers Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Is it Screenshot Tax season?! Yes, yes it is. Revisited my Ranger Lander on Duna. And then I decided to go on a voyage! This time, no cheats thanks to the Agena Drop Tanks. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.