Jump to content

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


CobaltWolf

Recommended Posts

Just now, Zorg said:

New 2.5m fairing and new ring type base. The fairing will also be available on the regular (DCSS) 2.5m fairing base. Meant to help with this sort of thing:

 

Thank you... so soon i will probably have less need to switch to a Saturn IB just because the fairing doesn´t works so well for may payloads. I think you just made my future launches a bit cheaper.

Edited by JoeSheridan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeSheridan said:

Thank you... so soon i will probably have less need to switch to a Saturn IB just because the fairing doesn´t works so well for may payloads. I think you just made my future launches a bit cheaper.

we already have a few 2.5m fairings 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

we already have a few 2.5m fairings 

I know ;) but you wouldn´t make new variants if there was already a fairing for every payload you can think of. And yeah: Incase of the Saturn I i am going in this direction pretty often. Just because it´s a relatively efficient launcher for heavy 2.5 meter Payloads... and because i am one of the people that have their problems with flying the Saturn IB into orbit. I like the S-IVB a lot, but i hate the combination with the S-IB-stage. So: I am thankfull for every single new 2.5 meter fairing. Either to have one that fits propperly or just to have some more variety for the looks.

Edited by JoeSheridan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

Initial testing of this new-fangled "Munar Flying Vehicle" ended early...

YKhsX1M.png
kZmDhMU.png

 

But by the second flight (once I'd properly configured the darn RCS...) I was able to land 100m from a base after taking off over 20km away!

uIu0pyj.png

It just keeps getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

Yes and it made the launcher as a whole less efficient. And my personal opinion is, that if they would have known how different the second stages the actually used for the Saturn I-family would be like, that they would likely have finished the E-1 project. It would have taken more effort, but they wouldn´t have had any problems to use a longer tank for the first stage.... even if they would have had to include a fifth E-1 in the first stage: They would have had to space to do it. And i really think this would have been an engine with a lot of potential for the future. I feel sorry about the fact that there were no new really large Kerolox-Engines designed and used after Apollo was gone.... If they liked to launch big things they either went to Hydrolox and SRB´s, or they kept with Hypergolics and SRB´s..... why not use the good old Kerolox? It´s relatively easy to handly, it´s much safer then hypergolics, You can shut down the engines at any time, you don´t have to think to much about boiloff and you get a lot of thrust out of it. It´s just perfect to launch big vehicles into space... but they just stopped with going big incase of Kerolox. And then they basically lost their minds when they found out how efficient Kerolox-Engines can be made when you keep working on them like the Sowjets did. Hydrogen is nice, i really love that stuff, but from my perspective it looks like it´s only viable as a single first stage powersource when you go REALLY big... but in most cases it should stay at what it was used for in the first place: On the upper stages for Orbital insertion and Transfer Orbit Injection.

Honestly, E-1 was dead before they even had cogitated on workable upper stages...   The death of E-1 and accepting the higher mass and lower thrust of LR-79+ (aka H-1)  was the reason for needing Cryogenic upper stages.  But I agree... and I am so glad that CobaltWolf decided to make it because it IS the best engine for Saturn I/IB and C-2

On the idea that since Saturn we have not made any big Kerolox engines... you missed two from before SpaceX was a thing. 

TR-106 and TR-107.    Those are TRW designed built and tested Pintle Kerolox engines.   They were developed in the late 1980s to early Oughts as an E-1 level and then F-1 Level engine.  the -107 being an almost drop in replacement for the F-1A.    Both engines were under various programs that culminated in the Space Launch Initiative.   Which was canceled when Congress said "why don't we use Space shuttle engines?"

FWIW the TR-106, and TR-107 lead DIRECTLY to Merlin and Raptor at what then became SpaceX.

 

7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Initial testing of this new-fangled "Munar Flying Vehicle" ended early...

YKhsX1M.png
kZmDhMU.png

 

But by the second flight (once I'd properly configured the darn RCS...) I was able to land 100m from a base after taking off over 20km away!

uIu0pyj.png

First, I am glad you didn't decide to do the Moon Couch! :D    While that one has some unique features about it, I think it would have looked too pedestrian. 

Secondly, was your test flying fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Honestly, E-1 was dead before they even had cogitated on workable upper stages...   The death of E-1 and accepting the higher mass and lower thrust of LR-79+ (aka H-1)  was the reason for needing Cryogenic upper stages.  But I agree...

Oh i didn´t knew that it was killed of sooooo early..... It´s a dump decision.

 

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

But I agree... and I am so glad that CobaltWolf decided to make it because it IS the best engine for Saturn I/IB and C-2

Yeah and i am absolutely sure: If i should write an alternative history timeline or book someday: There will be a use of the E-1 engine.

 

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

TR-106 and TR-107.    Those are TRW designed built and tested Pintle Kerolox engines.   They were developed in the late 1980s to early Oughts as an E-1 level and then F-1 Level engine.  the -107 being an almost drop in replacement for the F-1A.    Both engines were under various programs that culminated in the Space Launch Initiative.

I know of them yes, but still: They were not used in a real launch vehicle. Incase of flown vehicles there were only heavy lifters that combined either hydrolox or Hypergolics with some big SRB´s.

 

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Which was canceled when Congress said "why don't we use Space shuttle engines?"

Which was a crappy dump idea in the first place. That´s just not cost effective.

 

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

FWIW the TR-106, and TR-107 lead DIRECTLY to Merlin and Raptor at what then became SpaceX.

Yes, because SpaceX was one of the few ideas of mister Musk where he placed engineers and managers who really knew how to do it. I personally don´t like SpaceX so much, but they did an important thing: They broke up the decades old monopoly by some old aerospace company´s.

Edited by JoeSheridan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Initial testing of this new-fangled "Munar Flying Vehicle" ended early...

YKhsX1M.png
kZmDhMU.png

 

But by the second flight (once I'd properly configured the darn RCS...) I was able to land 100m from a base after taking off over 20km away!

uIu0pyj.png

That will be perfect for landing on really small bodies like Vesta and Halley's comet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Honestly, E-1 was dead before they even had cogitated on workable upper stages...   The death of E-1 and accepting the higher mass and lower thrust of LR-79+ (aka H-1)  was the reason for needing Cryogenic upper stages.  But I agree... and I am so glad that CobaltWolf decided to make it because it IS the best engine for Saturn I/IB and C-2

On the idea that since Saturn we have not made any big Kerolox engines... you missed two from before SpaceX was a thing. 

TR-106 and TR-107.    Those are TRW designed built and tested Pintle Kerolox engines.   They were developed in the late 1980s to early Oughts as an E-1 level and then F-1 Level engine.  the -107 being an almost drop in replacement for the F-1A.    Both engines were under various programs that culminated in the Space Launch Initiative.   Which was canceled when Congress said "why don't we use Space shuttle engines?"

FWIW the TR-106, and TR-107 lead DIRECTLY to Merlin and Raptor at what then became SpaceX.

 

First, I am glad you didn't decide to do the Moon Couch! :D    While that one has some unique features about it, I think it would have looked too pedestrian. 

Secondly, was your test flying fun?

I don't think this was built but since we were on the topic I wanted to say that RS-X is in the pipeline. I will hopefully make it as part of the classic Atlas revamp once Voyager Mars is done. Im not sure if I've mentioned this before on the thread.

Anyway for those not aware, its basically the MA-5 booster powerhead (Ie the pumps for a pair of LR89s) running through a single chamber.

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you guys don't mind a new guy in the forums. I wanted to ask a few questions about BDB. I've been awestruck by the screenshots I've been seeing on this thread. Namely I noticed that a lot of you guys have really good-looking rollout solar panels. But I don't see those anywhere. I have the BDB devbranch installed (at least I think I do), as well as a myriad of other parts mods installed as well. Am I missing something? Or are those panels something only available to a few people testing?

Also, I think the "Kilauea" SRB might be broken (at least for me). When I go to the pad it starts already ignited but no noise, then proceeds to pull a rapid unscheduled disassembly within a few seconds. All the other SRB's included in BDB, including "Pele" seem to work just fine. Really not a huge issue, I don't have much use for Kilauea, just wanted to pass that along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:

I hope you guys don't mind a new guy in the forums. I wanted to ask a few questions about BDB. I've been awestruck by the screenshots I've been seeing on this thread. Namely I noticed that a lot of you guys have really good-looking rollout solar panels. But I don't see those anywhere. I have the BDB devbranch installed (at least I think I do), as well as a myriad of other parts mods installed as well. Am I missing something? Or are those panels something only available to a few people testing?

To install the dev branch you must specifically install the 1.11 development branch from github by choosing the 1.11 development branch instead of Master on the left, and downloading the zip. (or use github desktop)

The rollout arrays should then pop up if you search for Skylab eRosa

Image

 

10 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:

 

Also, I think the "Kilauea" SRB might be broken (at least for me). When I go to the pad it starts already ignited but no noise, then proceeds to pull a rapid unscheduled disassembly within a few seconds. All the other SRB's included in BDB, including "Pele" seem to work just fine. Really not a huge issue, I don't have much use for Kilauea, just wanted to pass that along.

Will check on that...

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Also, I think the "Kilauea" SRB might be broken (at least for me). When I go to the pad it starts already ignited but no noise, then proceeds to pull a rapid unscheduled disassembly within a few seconds. All the other SRB's included in BDB, including "Pele" seem to work just fine. Really not a huge issue, I don't have much use for Kilauea, just wanted to pass that along.

Do you have SWE or other plume mods installed? It seems to be working fine here in my lightly modded test install.

Edited by Rodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Rodger said:

Do you have SWE or other plume mods installed? It seems to be working fine here in my lightly modded test install.

I actually do have Smokescreen installed for the B9 aerospace packs. Gonna check on that. Though it seems odd that it would only affect one of the boosters and not the other ones.

 

1 minute ago, Viper2 said:

Octan Space now have a Nuclear Shuttle :D

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

  Reveal hidden contents

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

 

That's neat! Octan doesn't happen to be one of those fictional brands from the old lego sets? Or am I thinking of something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:

I actually do have Smokescreen installed for the B9 aerospace packs. Gonna check on that. Though it seems odd that it would only affect one of the boosters and not the other ones.

Smokescreen should be fine... If you can upload your KSP.log somewhere and link it here I'll take a look

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodger said:

Smokescreen should be fine... If you can upload your KSP.log somewhere and link it here I'll take a look

I just checked. I actually think it is Smokescreen. That or the B9 aerospace pack that requires it. I fixed the rockets exploding issue with autostrut.

Edit: As near as I can tell, It ONLY affects Kilauea. All the other SRB's I have via BDB, stock, and all the other mods I have seem unaffected.

Edited by Blufor878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

I just checked. I actually think it is Smokescreen. That or the B9 aerospace pack that requires it. I fixed the rockets exploding issue with autostrut.

Edit: As near as I can tell, It ONLY affects Kilauea. All the other SRB's I have via BDB, stock, and all the other mods I have seem unaffected.

And do you have RealPlume as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rodger said:

And do you have RealPlume as well?

Actually I don't. I was just reading through the Realplume forum topic, and it mentions that it has compatibility patches with Waterfall and uses Smokescreen. You think I should give that a shot?

Edited by Blufor878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Initial testing of this new-fangled "Munar Flying Vehicle" ended early...

YKhsX1M.png
kZmDhMU.png

 

But by the second flight (once I'd properly configured the darn RCS...) I was able to land 100m from a base after taking off over 20km away!

uIu0pyj.png

Is this planned to release with v.1.11? Will it be deployable from the LEM like the LESS? Its really cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Actually I don't. I was just reading through the Realplume forum topic, and it mentions that it has compatibility patches with Waterfall and uses Smokescreen. You think I should give that a shot?

Im not 100% sure our realplume patches are written to be resilient when someone installs Smokescreen but not RealPlume. 

Installing Realplume and smokescreen together is better. And BDB will be ok even if you install Waterfall. Our liquid engines will use Waterfall and solid motors will use RealPlume+Smokescreen in this case. 

Edited by Zorg
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.

×
×
  • Create New...