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

[Hay]

47 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

 

Oh, you like Deltas?

Name every variant

[Minmus Taster]

3 minutes ago, Hay said:

Oh, you like Deltas?

Name every variant

Oh so you like "Oh so you like memes"?

Name every one of them.

[Starhelperdude]

2 hours ago, Hay said:

Oh, you like Deltas?

Name every variant

actually there aren't THAT many variants. Definetifley more than for example altas but not like 10 x10^100 variants

[CAPFlyer]

On 12/12/2020 at 4:10 PM, Pappystein said:

I have to respectfully disagree with you.   While I know Douglas, then McDonald Douglas and then Boeing each changed the naming nomenclature... it would have been EASY and relatively painless for NASA to use a forced designation system like the DOD uses.       Instead, by letting the manufacture name crap whatever they wanted... things get confusing.    I give you Delta P (rocket proposed but never flown) and Delta P Upper stage.   Or Delta K (again rocket Proposed, designed but then never ordered/flown) and the Delta K upper stage.    Delta D Rocket, and Delta D upper stage?

How about we jump to NASA's own rockets?    The Entire Saturn line is fraught with "unique" and non standardized designations starting with the stages and quickly progressing forward into entire rocket proposals.      From a Nomenclature standpoint Calling a modified Saturn I first stage the S-IB makes sense...   But when you call the Saturn V's first stage which is NOT a modification of the S-I or S-IB the S-IC..... yeah... an obviously not planned out nomenclature system.   Which leads to confusion, which leads to duplication of work, which leads to potentially bad things.        More modern.  NASA has stood by the Space Shuttle main engine is the SSME for close to 40 years... now it is the RS-25 which was the manufacture's designation from the start.   

Just two examples of poor nomenclature at NASA for projects originated at NASA and created by NASA.     heck the Pre 1962 US Navy aircraft designation conventions are easier to decipher than NASA's stuff.

But the problem is your premise is faulty and that's what I was pointing out.  If it was NASA's fault for not using a "forced designation system", then why is it that the DoD, who also launched many satellites (if not more than NASA) on the Thor/Delta family, didn't force their designation system on the launchers?  Because neither were actually buying the rockets.  They were buying the launch service.  I know the contracts say for the rocket and the launch service as separate items, but when it comes down to it, the only thing that the launch customer actually owns and controls is  the satellite being placed in orbit.  Everything else is done by the manufacturer, the customer just pays the bill.  So they get to make the decision on how they name and designate their stuff.

If you want to get into poor naming conventions, how about the Piper Aircraft Company?  They have no less than 27 factory certified versions of the PA-28, but some are vastly difference such as the Arrow, a retractable gear version, the Archer, a slightly lengthened version of the Cherokee Warrior, but with the same model number, and the PA-28S Cherokee, which there are 2 versions, and were factory seaplanes.

As for the whole S-I thing - considering that the problems that Apollo had were much more serious than how the stages were named and the fact that most of the confusion that led to problems was because NASA was 1) in a hurry, and 2) NASA kept changing the goalpost during construction leading to change orders that were out of sequence and block numbers within a given design that didn't make sense, I think whether you call the Saturn V first stage an S-IC or S-VC or "Stage One" isn't really where the problem was.

Edited December 14, 2020 by CAPFlyer
Late night grammer = bad. :)

[BadAstronaut]

Hey guys, 

i just downloaded this mod yesterday and messed around a bit with it, very great work i have to admite, i really enjoy all the content.

however, i have a simple question i can't find the answer myself. here's the thing:

i'd like to change the ressources i can tweak in the AARDV cargo. there's only ore, h2/o2, water, and material kits available for me to use in this part. i'd like to change them into or add monoprop and basic rocket fuel (oxydizer and liquid fuel). do you guys know how i can do this?

 

i really tried to find a way to do this myself and tried to find the answer here or elsewhere but the 738 pages really lost me, plz don't blame me for not reading them all 

thanks a lot.

[Starhelperdude]

the apollo parts are getting revamped in the next update, it would be propably better IMO to ask when it's redone

also, IMO the ''rocket fuels'' don't belong there, it is a cargo container, not a fuel tank

[BadAstronaut]

the idea is to be able to transport anything with a single and same part. i like to make standard models that i can use for different things. it has a nice inventory that comes with it, very useful when you need to add some stuff within a refuel mission. it also looks better imo to have one a homogeneous design.

and even if i kinda agree with you for realistics reasons, i'm still free to do what i'd like in my solo games  it's not a simulator anyway.

[computercat04]

 

I will upload lots of screenshots in the future.

[Jso]

10 hours ago, BadAstronaut said:

i'd like to change the ressources i can tweak in the AARDV cargo. there's only ore, h2/o2, water, and material kits available for me to use in this part. i'd like to change them into or add monoprop and basic rocket fuel (oxydizer and liquid fuel). do you guys know how i can do this?

You can do it but there's a large weight and cost penalty. Using a dedicated fuel tank part will be lighter and cheaper.

Create a Module Manager patch like this:

@PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#moduleID[cargoSwitch]]]:Final
{
	@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#moduleID[cargoSwitch]]
	{
		SUBTYPE
		{
			name = LF/O
			tankType = bdbLFOX
		}
		SUBTYPE
		{
			name = MonoProp
			tankType = bdbMonoProp
		}
	}
}

 

[BadAstronaut]

nice! that means i can do it! thanks a lot for this reply JSO.
i just don't really know how to create a module manager patch. do i open it with notepad to edit it?

[Clamp-o-Tron]

1 hour ago, BadAstronaut said:

nice! that means i can do it! thanks a lot for this reply JSO.
i just don't really know how to create a module manager patch. do i open it with notepad to edit it?

Just make sure you have Module Manager installed (you do if BDB is working), create a text file anywhere in GameData (I have a personal folder for my patches) with the extension .cfg, then copy/paste the patch into that file.

[computercat04]

Ranger 7 mission. First time.

Edited December 15, 2020 by computercat04
Changed a number.

[Minmus Taster]

11 hours ago, computercat04 said:

Ranger 3 mission. First time.

Ranger 3?

This is a Ranger 7,8,9 type of probe (Block 3 if you will)

This was Ranger 3:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_3

[computercat04]

16 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Ranger 3?

This is a Ranger 7,8,9 type of probe (Block 3 if you will)

This was Ranger 3:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_3

Yes. You are correct. This is Ranger Block 3. What I meant was the Ranger 7 mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_7

[DaveyJ576]

After fixing my previous goof with the Centaur stage I came to realize that prop boil off with Centaur was going to limit its effectiveness for trajectory correction and Munar orbit insertion. I had been playing around with the Ranger Lander and was in the mood for a little kitbashing to try to solve the problem. This is what I came up with:

It is a funny looking Frankenstein of the Ranger, Ranger Lander, and the Vega upper stage. It has plenty of fuel and power for mid-course corrections, Munar orbit insertion, and landing. I launched it on an Atlas Centaur using the Vega payload shroud. 

The center of mass is a little high so it is a bit tippy on sloped ground. Pick a flat landing spot or she will tip over. 

[computercat04]

32 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

After fixing my previous goof with the Centaur stage I came to realize that prop boil off with Centaur was going to limit its effectiveness for trajectory correction and Munar orbit insertion. I had been playing around with the Ranger Lander and was in the mood for a little kitbashing to try to solve the problem. This is what I came up with:

It is a funny looking Frankenstein of the Ranger, Ranger Lander, and the Vega upper stage. It has plenty of fuel and power for mid-course corrections, Munar orbit insertion, and landing. I launched it on an Atlas Centaur using the Vega payload shroud. 

The center of mass is a little high so it is a bit tippy on sloped ground. Pick a flat landing spot or she will tip over. 

Did the Vega upper stage has flown in real life, or it was just a concept? Just to know.

[Clamp-o-Tron]

17 minutes ago, computercat04 said:

Did the Vega upper stage has flown in real life, or it was just a concept? Just to know.

Never flown, it was meant as a temporary stage before Centaur, but wasn’t developed in time to be useful.

[computercat04]

26 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Never flown, it was meant as a temporary stage before Centaur, but wasn’t developed in time to be useful.

OK

[JoeSheridan]

4 hours ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Never flown, it was meant as a temporary stage before Centaur, but wasn’t developed in time to be useful.

Yeah they stopped the dev-project after the airforce disclosed the existance of the Agena to NASA. Agena had the same interim-function for which the Vega was meant to be

Edited December 16, 2020 by JoeSheridan

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, JoeSheridan said:

Yeah they stopped the dev-project after the airforce disclosed the existance of the Agena to NASA. Agena had the same interim-function for which the Vega was meant to be

But Vega has growth potential so there is a reason there are several versions of it's engines in the game.  Also the Centaur Gamma is basically a HYDROLOX / RL-10 version of the Vega tankage.

 

[Pioneer_Steve]

Further adventures with the Mariner Outer Planets Expedition.  KSC budget requirements froze the technology to several years earlier resulting in a more primative, but cheaper mission.

 

 

[computercat04]

2 minutes ago, Pioneer_Steve said:

Further adventures with the Mariner Outer Planets Expedition.  KSC budget requirements froze the technology to several years earlier resulting in a more primative, but cheaper mission.

 

 

So beautiful. Specially the last one.

[Starhelperdude]

 is the dish in the pictures from the coatl pioneer or from the bdb one( if it has come out yet)?

[Invaderchaos]

2 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

 is the dish in the pictures from the coatl pioneer or from the bdb one( if it has come out yet)?

It’s from coatl as I’m definitely not finished with Pioneer 10/11 yet. 

I also hate to say it but I’ve been side-tracked with Pioneer 10/11 and have also started working on other parts concurrently with pioneer. However, I think they are a much needed addition to BDB’s set of probes.

 

Since we  already have Mariner 1-2 and Mariner 10, it feels weird to have this large gap in interplanetary probes. That’s why I decided doing more Mariner probes would be a fun addition! I plan on doing the Mariner 3-4, 5, and 6-7 type probes. Mariner 8-9 I’m not so sure about. Also doing Mariner might eventually open the door for Galileo, since they utilize the same bus.

Between these three types of Mariner probes I have planned, the first two are both agena-based probes, and the last is the slightly larger centaur-based probes.

Additionally, if anyone has any obscure proposals for further applications of Mariner hardware (not including Viking, we’re not gonna do that), let me know and I’ll see what I can do as I’ve always been a fan of unflown proposals for probes.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Invaderchaos

[CobaltWolf]

23 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

After fixing my previous goof with the Centaur stage I came to realize that prop boil off with Centaur was going to limit its effectiveness for trajectory correction and Munar orbit insertion. I had been playing around with the Ranger Lander and was in the mood for a little kitbashing to try to solve the problem. This is what I came up with:

Perhaps more appropriate than you know... From "Lunar Impact" Ch3:

Quote

On February 1, 1960, Dan Schneiderman issued the design concepts and criteria for the Ranger spacecraft. ¹⁹ Since the Vega third-stage vehicle had employed a hexagonal truss and six longerons, the Ranger spacecraft possessed hexagonal symmetry (Figure 21).

 

 

22 hours ago, computercat04 said:

Did the Vega upper stage has flown in real life, or it was just a concept? Just to know.

22 hours ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Never flown, it was meant as a temporary stage before Centaur, but wasn’t developed in time to be useful.

17 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

Yeah they stopped the dev-project after the airforce disclosed the existance of the Agena to NASA. Agena had the same interim-function for which the Vega was meant to be

16 hours ago, Pappystein said:

But Vega has growth potential so there is a reason there are several versions of it's engines in the game.  Also the Centaur Gamma is basically a HYDROLOX / RL-10 version of the Vega tankage.

From Ed Kyle's Space Launch Report:

Quote

Soon after NASA was formed, it began development of both Atlas-Vega and Atlas-Centaur. Atlas-Vega would handle early unmanned missions to the Moon, to Mars, to Venus, and to Earth orbit. Planners even contemplated its use for launching an early concept for what became the Gemini two-man spacecraft. Atlas-Centaur would take over more missions as it entered service several years later.

Atlas-Vega would have flown in two-stage and three-stage versions. The first stage would have been essentially the same as the Atlas Centaur first stage. Atlas-Vega might even have flown from LC 36. The second stage would have been a LOX/RP stage powered by an upgraded Vanguard first stage engine, the GE 405H-2. The stage itself would have been a balloon tank design built by Convair.

The third stage would have been a pressure-fed Hydrazine/Nitrogen Tetroxide stage powered by a JPL "6K" restartable engine. JPL would also have built the stage. Development of this stage had begun during 1958 before NASA's formation as part of the von-Braun group's "Juno IV" program.

A guidance system from JPL's Sergeant missile would have been used at first, to be supplanted later by avionics developed for Centaur.

The Atlas-Vega program was initiated in March 1959. Prototype stages were built, engines were tested, and $28.2 million was spent, but NASA Administrator Glennan cancelled the project in December 1959 after the Agency became aware of the USAF Atlas-Agena B capabilities. Atlas-Vega could lift more to deep space than Atlas-Agena B, but the two were about equal to LEO. Most importantly, Atlas-Agena B development was paid for and its use could be shared with the Air Force.

The cancellation freed up NASA funding for Atlas-Centaur, which in the end needed every dime. It also ended GE's rocket engine work, JPLs upper stage efforts, and also ended U.S. LOX/RP orbital upper stage development until SpaceX created Falcon 1 and 9 more than 45 years  later.

 

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer_Steve said:

Further adventures with the Mariner Outer Planets Expedition.  KSC budget requirements froze the technology to several years earlier resulting in a more primative, but cheaper mission.

Wow, that's beautiful! :O

 

1 minute ago, Invaderchaos said:

It’s from coatl as I’m definitely not finished with Pioneer 10/11 yet. 

I also hate to say it but I’ve been side-tracked with Pioneer 10/11 and have also started working on other parts concurrently with pioneer. However, I think they are a much needed addition to BDB’s set of probes.

Since we  already have Mariner 1-2 and Mariner 10, it feels weird to have this large gap in interplanetary probes. That’s why I decided doing more Mariner probes would be a fun addition! I plan on doing the Mariner 3-4, 5, and 6-7 type probes. Mariner 8-9 I’m not so sure about. Also doing Mariner might eventually open the door for Galileo, since they utilize the same bus.

Between these three types of Mariner probes I have planned, the first two are both agena-based probes, and the last is the slightly larger centaur-based probes.

Additionally, if anyone has any obscure proposals for further applications of Mariner hardware (not including Viking, were not gonna do that), let me know and I’ll see what I can do as I’ve always been a fan of unflown proposals for probes.

Looks great! I'll see what else I can dig up