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

[dave1904]

sorry for asking this in this topic but I think the most informed people on these subject matters are on this topic all the time. Anyone actually know why the pressurized mating adapter was slanted in real life? 

[TaintedLion]

53 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

sorry for asking this in this topic but I think the most informed people on these subject matters are on this topic all the time. Anyone actually know why the pressurized mating adapter was slanted in real life? 

I think it's something to do with allowing the hatches to open fully.

[lemon cup]

24 minutes ago, TaintedLion said:

I think it's something to do with allowing the hatches to open fully.

1 hour ago, dave1904 said:

Anyone actually know why the pressurized mating adapter was slanted in real life? 

Back when Space Station Freedom was first being drawn up, plans were to feature two Space Shuttle docking adapters. The PMA was designed so that two could be mounted next to eachother, with the slant opposing one another, for clearance between the two orbiters.

This concept was cancelled and eventually morphed into the ISS, but by that time Boeing had already begun initial development of the PMA so the design stayed, even though there was no longer a use for it.

I’ll try to find a source here because this very well be highly anecdotal. 

Here is a couple of graphics I was able to find, not my work:

Edited December 30, 2021 by lemon cup

[pTrevTrevs]

On 12/29/2021 at 11:20 AM, lemon cup said:

I've had this issue before with robotics. Of course it might not be related to yours, but could be worth a shot:

Try setting Autostrut: Disabled to all parts of the Rover after you've landed and are ready to unfold, including the hinge mechanism. 

Yep, that was my first thought, but I've checked it over and I don't think autostrut is causing this issue. I could have missed a part, but I'm pretty sure that I never even used the feature when designing the rover.

[space-wizards]

One issue I'm not sure about. On the Dona lander, the descent segment will not attach correctly. If there is supposed to a a hidden node on the lander engine, it doesn't seem to be loading and the descent tank/leg part will only attach to the bottom of the engine.  Any advice on what to do? The mod was installed via ckan, if that helps.

[biohazard15]

4 hours ago, space-wizards said:

One issue I'm not sure about. On the Dona lander, the descent segment will not attach correctly. If there is supposed to a a hidden node on the lander engine, it doesn't seem to be loading and the descent tank/leg part will only attach to the bottom of the engine.  Any advice on what to do? The mod was installed via ckan, if that helps.

Use Move tool to slide descent tank in place. Or use NodeHelper to add a custom node for it. Gemini lander was made before widespread use of hidden nodes (I think these are some of the oldest parts in the mod now), and IIRC source files for it are lost, so unfortunately no fixes coming.

[RevanX_LSR]

With responce to Space Wizards, CKAN does not really help much if you install a mod correctly.

[Pappystein]

On 12/31/2021 at 12:48 AM, space-wizards said:

One issue I'm not sure about. On the Dona lander, the descent segment will not attach correctly. If there is supposed to a a hidden node on the lander engine, it doesn't seem to be loading and the descent tank/leg part will only attach to the bottom of the engine.  Any advice on what to do? The mod was installed via ckan, if that helps.

 

9 hours ago, JNSQFan said:

With responce to Space Wizards, CKAN does not really help much if you install a mod correctly.

CKAN can be a good "easy to install" method.  However it is not without problems.   As you add and remove mods CKAN does not do a good job cleaning up dependencies even though it thinks they are gone for example.   If you have been playing KSP for a while now @space-wizards, I suggest deleting all but the two non SQUAD folders from the Gamedata folder... then starting fresh.  If you are on steam you can just delete the mod folder and then Verify file integrity in Steam.

PERSONALLY I do not recommend CKAN for big mod projects like BDB.   In my experiments with CKAN from it's earliest days to today it just adds to the failure points and makes it harder to diagnose what is wrong.   And in my Experience CKAN caused more bugs in my complicated builds of KSP than it prevented.   so for me it is manual install only.

 

In regards to the Langley lander (the one man Gemini lander,)  You attach it below the engine, and then use the move part function to raise it up so the engine bell is below the tank structure.      I am guessing here but there is no hidden node because the parts are small and it would be harder to build the lander with the extra node

 

 

On 12/30/2021 at 2:25 PM, lemon cup said:

Back when Space Station Freedom was first being drawn up, plans were to feature two Space Shuttle docking adapters. The PMA was designed so that two could be mounted next to eachother, with the slant opposing one another, for clearance between the two orbiters.

This concept was cancelled and eventually morphed into the ISS, but by that time Boeing had already begun initial development of the PMA so the design stayed, even though there was no longer a use for it.

I’ll try to find a source here because this very well be highly anecdotal. 

Here is a couple of graphics I was able to find, not my work:

 

 

Right up until the ISS was scaled back mid-way through construction (basically after Columbia disaster) it was planned to have a straight conical PMA for the X-38 Crew rescue/Return craft.   Speed/smoothness of crew transfer and structural strength being more important than cost in this case.

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Pappystein

[davidy12]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

 

CKAN can be a good "easy to install" method.  However it is not without problems.   As you add and remove mods CKAN does not do a good job cleaning up dependencies even though it thinks they are gone for example.   If you have been playing KSP for a while now @space-wizards, I suggest deleting all but the two non SQUAD folders from the Gamedata folder... then starting fresh.  If you are on steam you can just delete the mod folder and then Verify file integrity in Steam.

PERSONALLY I do not recommend CKAN for big mod projects like BDB.   In my experiments with CKAN from it's earliest days to today it just adds to the failure points and makes it harder to diagnose what is wrong.   And in my Experience CKAN caused more bugs in my complicated builds of KSP than it prevented.   so for me it is manual install only.

 

In regards to the Langley lander (the one man Gemini lander,)  You attach it below the engine, and then use the move part function to raise it up so the engine bell is below the tank structure.      I am guessing here but there is no hidden node because the parts are small and it would be harder to build the lander with the extra node

 

 

Right up until the ISS was scaled back mid-way through construction (basically after Columbia disaster) it was planned to have a straight conical PMA for the X-38 Crew rescue/Return craft.   Speed/smoothness of crew transfer and structural strength being more important than cost in this case.

 

So... They designed an escape pod.

[Pappystein]

19 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

So... They designed an escape pod.

Actually the Crew Return Vehicle was like 85% complete (for the spacewothy prototype) when it was canceled...      It was canceled because it would add another Shuttle  to the ISS launch.   Not because canceleing it, itself would save money... But rather the TEST and LAUNCH of it would cost significantly more than the penalties for canceling it when it was mostly complete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-38

Wikipedia so trust it as far as you can throw yourself... But at-least it will give you a good idea.

 

Also it should be noted... That the Crew Return vehicle wasn't really an escape pod... Rather a way for a NASA crew to stay on station longer than the Spaceshuttles ~16 day maximum.

[Jcking]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Right up until the ISS was scaled back mid-way through construction (basically after Columbia disaster) it was planned to have a straight conical PMA for the X-38 Crew rescue/Return craft.   Speed/smoothness of crew transfer and structural strength being more important than cost in this case.

 

I never realized that the crew was seated like that. Wouldn't that position have been a problem for reentry?

[nothingSpecial]

Actually no, this position is actually almost the best one for the reentry, because this way body will have lowered stress due to G-forces.

Reentering facing back (like in capsules) but with spaceplane trajectories would have the least stress AND least G-forces, but requires larger  vehicles, like this one ESA ACRV project:

 

And reducing stress on the body is very important if we are talking about crew rescue with possible injuries.

[Jcking]

1 hour ago, nothingSpecial said:

Actually no, this position is actually almost the best one for the reentry, because this way body will have lowered stress due to G-forces.

Reentering facing back (like in capsules) but with spaceplane trajectories would have the least stress AND least G-forces, but requires larger  vehicles, like this one ESA ACRV project:

 

And reducing stress on the body is very important if we are talking about crew rescue with possible injuries.

I know that, but unless I am misunderstanding something about X-38, the crew is almost parallel to the direction of reentry, which is generally the worst directions to experience G forces.

[nothingSpecial]

Except for the spaceplanes reentry is bottom first, not nose first!

[Jcking]

X-38 reenters at an angle attack similar to shuttle (around 40 degrees).

Edited January 1, 2022 by Jcking

[Pappystein]

13 minutes ago, Jcking said:

X-38 reenters at an angle attack similar to shuttle (around 40 degrees).

Yes, the X-38 the crew is almost supine.   This was chosen because it offered the best g force reductions in ALL flight modes.   Remember the final landing was to be by Paraglider.   If the entire spinal column is supported evenly there is less likely to have damage to the body in the event of a hard parachute landing.   

 

During the actual atmosphere interface to slowdown to subsonic the crews back are to the direction of flight.    on Landing... crews backs are to the direction of flight.   In the end the laydown option has a lot of benefits... for an un-piloted spacecraft.

A lot of astronauts did not like the idea of this method...   Regardless of the science behind it.

[CAPFlyer]

And every one of those astronauts that complained weren't ex-Navy or Marine Corps.  Had they been, they'd have enjoyed the luxurious ride of the COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery), which has aft-facing seats and everyone I have talked to who's flown as a passenger on the COD agreed that while it felt weird in just about every other phase; the aft facing seats were much more desirable for launch and landing on the carrier.

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

And every one of those astronauts that complained weren't ex-Navy or Marine Corps.  Had they been, they'd have enjoyed the luxurious ride of the COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery), which has aft-facing seats and everyone I have talked to who's flown as a passenger on the COD agreed that while it felt weird in just about every other phase; the aft facing seats were much more desirable for launch and landing on the carrier.

I think the lot of them also wanted to FLY the X-38 themselves  "No computer is better than ****ME****" mentality.

 

[SpaceFace545]

41 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I think the lot of them also wanted to FLY the X-38 themselves  "No computer is better than ****ME****" mentality.

 

That’s just a pilot’s mentality, look at the Mercury design process. I can’t wait till the astronauts realize that Dream Chaser doesn’t have windows.

[Galileo chiu]

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

That’s just a pilot’s mentality, look at the Mercury design process. I can’t wait till the astronauts realize that Dream Chaser doesn’t have windows.

well, the Dream Chaser that will fly is a cargo resupply craft, not a crew one, so...

[Jcking]

1 hour ago, Galileo chiu said:

well, the Dream Chaser that will fly is a cargo resupply craft, not a crew one, so...

Which a crewed variation is something that SNC keeps bringing up as a possibility.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Jcking

[SpaceFace545]

2 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

well, the Dream Chaser that will fly is a cargo resupply craft, not a crew one, so...

Nope the official render of the crewed variant has no windows.

[Beccab]

11 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Nope the official render of the crewed variant has no windows.

[Galileo chiu]

5 hours ago, Beccab said:

no, I mean the one that will fly

[pTrevTrevs]

Apollo 15 Part 1: Apollo's Zenith:

That's right, part 1. These J-series missions are gonna be about twice as much work to cover as my earlier ones, so I'm gonna split them into two parts, one from launch to the end of EVA 1, and the other from the start of EVA 2 to splashdown. 

 

Historically, Apollo 15 was planned to be the last H-class lunar landing, scheduled to land at Censorinus crater sometime in early 1971. With the decision to launch Skylab as a dry workshop causing the cancellation of Apollo 20 and the Apollo 13 incident spooking NASA into cancelling Apollos 18 and 19, the decision was made to make Apollo 15 the first J-class mission instead, so that scientists could get the absolute most out of the few remaining flights. With this revision to the mission profile came a retargeted landing site, Hadley Rille. Rilles in themselves are particularly fascinating, riverbed-like formations that exist only on the Moon; geologists theorize that they are collapsed lava tubes or remnants of the Moon's volcanic past, however the site of the rille at Hadley is unlike any other place on the Moon. Located between the vast Mare Imbrium and the towering peaks of the Apennine Front, Hadley Rille features a diverse array of geologic specimens, and a single mission to the site would have the opportunity to sample three unique formations: the Imbrium basin, the rille itself, and the Apennine highlands. Originally considered as a grand finale for Apollo 19 or 20, Hadley was chosen as the ideal place to push the new J-class hardware to its limits, hopefully proving to Congress that Apollo was still worth supporting by the wealth of discoveries it yielded.

The Apollo 15 spacecraft represented the ultimate evolution of the Apollo moonship; in the CSM a new suite of scientific instruments and high-powered cameras derived from Corona-era reconnaissance technology enabled the command module pilot to study the lunar surface from orbit like never before. While the SIM bay's two cameras would work in conjunction with a laser altimeter to produce high-fidelity maps of the lunar surface, two boom-mounted spectrometers would study the surface in search of evidence of ancient volcanic activity. After recovering the crew from the lunar surface, the spacecraft would also deploy a small subsatellite to study the lunar gravitational field and measure the levels of plasma particles in the vicinity of the Moon. To support all the new equipment, the command module pilot would perform a spacewalk during the return journey to retrieve film canisters from the SIM cameras, making history as the first person to perform an EVA in deep space. The Lunar Module, meanwhile, was entirely redesigned in some respects. A larger DPS nozzle, longer propellant tanks, and a steeper descent profile all combined to enable more mass to be placed on the lunar surface; an advantage which would be exploited through the addition of the Lunar Roving Vehicle, more diverse ALSEP experiments, and additional consumables to stretch the maximum surface stay to three days. The Ascent Stage features reworked plumbing which would route waste products into the Descent Stage in order to lighten the craft and enable every possible gram of surface material to be hauled back into orbit, while the astronauts' spacesuits featured extensive redesigns which, among other things, increased comfort and mobility, increased consumables endurance, and allowed for easier recharging of the PLSS backpacks to provide up to three EVAs on the lunar surface. The LRV, which would make the ride to the lunar surface in a formerly empty quadrant of the LM Descent Stage, would be unfolded like a sofa bed and lowered onto the ground, after which it would be capable of taking the astronauts farther from their landing site than they could have hoped to achieve on foot. It featured a series of photo and color television cameras which could be operated by a controller in Houston, allowing geologists on Earth to supervise a moonwalk for the first time, pointing out features to the astronauts that they wanted retrieved or investigated. Additionally, the rover's camera could be used to acquire external footage of the lunar module's liftoff from the surface, as well as film of the landing site following the crew's departure.

Set to be the most ambitious flight to the Moon yet attempted, Apollo 15 sat on Pad 39A on a clear afternoon in may 1971 (historically July), ready for liftoff...

Quote

SA-510, the Saturn V for the Apollo 15 flight, was the first not to feature ullage motors on the S-II interstage. After numerous successful flights it was determined that they were unnecessary, and that the S-II could reliably ignite without them. Aside from that, SA-510 was virtually identical to its predecessors in every way; the new production run of Gen 2 Saturn Vs utilizing F-1A and J-2S engines had not yet arrived at the Cape by this time, but were expected to come into service in time for Apollo 18.

About halfway through the S-II's burn, one of the outboard engines experienced a loss of thrust and was shut down by the IU. While this briefly concerned mission controllers, the anomaly occurred late enough into the flight that it would not be mission critical. Acting on experience gained during the similar incidents on Apollo 6 and Apollo 13, flight controllers instructed the IU to burn the four remaining J-2s slightly longer, using the S-IVB's APU thrusters to maintain heading in spite of the unbalanced thrust on the vehicle.

Having overcome this small hurdle, Apollo 15 continued into orbit and onward to the Moon without further incident.

Approximately two hours before LOI, the panel covering Endeavour's SIM bay was jettisoned, exposing the instruments to the environment.

Shortly after LOI, the spacecraft began instrument observation of the surface as the landing crew waited for the sun to reach the proper elevation over Hadley.

Once Endeavour had placed the combined spacecraft stack into the descent orbit, Lunar Module Falcon undocked and began the harrowing descent to the lunar mountains.

In order to clear the imposing mountain range, Falcon followed a revised descent profile which required it to level off earlier and descend to the valley at a steeper angle than previous flights. A similar technique was employed by Apollo 14 at Taurus-Littrow, but it was on this mission that the revised descent profile truly proved its worth.

Despite the larger engine, Falcon still comes to rest on the valley floor with a considerable thump, startling the crew. This should not have been unexpected, however, as LM-10 is the heaviest lander yet to fly, almost dwarfing all the previous vehicles.

Unlike previous missions, the landing crew will sleep before exploring the surface; meanwhile the CMP begins his own mission in orbit. With greatly expanded responsibilities compared to previous flights, he will have his own CAPCOM in Houston and his own schedule to allow him to perform at maximum efficiency during his three-day solo flight.

 

Quote

Some six hours after landing, the mission commander descends Falcon's ladder, captured in unprecedented detail by the new HD color television camera mounted on the LM's MESA.

Once on the surface, the crew immediately gets to work deploying the rover. If you've read my previous posts you'll know that this is where I hit a major snag. At first, the rover's deployment hinge was getting stuck in place and refusing to unfold. I traced this issue to a strut on the rover itself which was originally installed as an aesthetic piece to support the television camera; unfortunately in copying the LRV over from the SPH (where I designed it) to the VAB the strut was inadvertently misplaced onto the wall of the LM's descent stage. Luckily, one of the crew is an engineer and was able to remove the strut, allowing the LRV to unfold. Heck, you can still see the offending strut in the bottom-right corner of the above photo.

I am a little embarrassed to admit that it took me a couple days to figure out what was wrong with the whole thing. No matter, what counts is that it's on the surface now, and I can fix the flaw on future missions.

The commander gives the LRV a short test drive to ensure all is working properly before being joined by the LMP. The two now set off on the first traverse of the mission; a short drive about 1.5 kilometers to the southwest, where the rille comes close to the foot of Hadley-Delta, the large mountain to the south of Falcon's landing site. Or at least, that's where the rille would be, if KSP were able to actually render formations as complex as sinuous rilles in KSRSS. Unfortunately, all I get is a barely noticeable depression in the general area.

Although the rover has a supplementary oxygen tank onboard for the astronauts to draw from, the possibility of the rover breaking down still necessitates a walkback limit, whereby the crew cannot go so far away from the LM that they cannot walk back before their PLSS consumables expire. Because of this, each EVA involves them driving out to the furthest station on the map before slowly working their way back to the LM. Here, the astronauts collect samples from the area between Hadley Rille and the mountain, captured on the rover's television camera. Oh, by the way, I'm using a few new TUFX profiles made by @ballisticfox0, they're really great for emulating in-flight photographs!

The drive back follows a more northerly route across the plain and includes a stop near the bank of the rille (just pretend it's there, alright), where the LMP photographs the commander retrieving equipment from the rover with the rille and Mount Hadley in the background.

Upon return to the LM the crew retrieves the ALSEP package and carries it to a spot about 120 meters west-northwest of Falcon for deployment.

With the Hadley Base ALSEP up and running the crew perform a few final housekeeping activities around the LM in preparation for tomorrow's moonwalk. The rover is parked about twenty meters from the hatch and the nonessential surface equipment is stowed. Altogether this EVA clocks in at about one hour and forty-five minutes.

As the crew onboard Falcon rest, Endeavour continues its studies in orbit. Due to the high latitude of Hadley, the spacecraft's orbit is significantly more inclined than other missions, and because of this the CMP is the first to sight a number of unique features which had hitherto been unknown. Of primary importance is the photography of future landing sites at Copernicus, Schroter's Valley/Aristarchus, and Tsiolkovsky. During this time the CMP experiences minor trouble with the tape drives and storage of the recorded data, but most what he collects can be streamed directly back to Earth instead of taking up space on the spacecraft's valuable film.

 

Also, while I'm at it I guess I should point this out: I think it's due to my using the Kerbalism compatibility patch by @Grimmas, but the mapping camera in the SIM bay acts like it doesn't have any sample space remaining even though it's not collected anything. I've been able to fix animation issues on the other SIM experiments myself by modifying his config, but I'm not sure how I would go about fixing this one.