Jump to content

[1.12.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.10.4 "Луна" 19/July/2022)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AlphaMensae said:

@GoldForestI see people using the standard Saturn tower and swing arms with these 2- and 4-booster variants of the Saturn V, but if those had been a reality, the mobile launcher would have undergone extensive changes. Most likely the liquid boosters would have been fully fueled up from tail service masts, much like how the Shuttle's ET and the SLS core was fueled through the orbiter from two TSMs. Swing arms would only have been used for upper stages.

I thought about doing that, but found I like the drop down umbilical better. And I do use swing arms for the upper stages only, but I guess I need to omit the S-II aft one, or stage it before vehicle release, is what I did the second time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

You pretty much just have to select the hydrolox fuel type in the part's right click menu and put the whole thing on top of a Saturn V. There should be the option to change it from a fuel tank to a lab once you're on a flyby trajectory.

I figured out that part after a short cheat "flight". My main concern is solar panels - how do I make them work properly? Just flip them all via action group so they cover the entire lab? I recall there were some advices on how to use them...

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, a bug: I can't transfer crew to VFB workshop - it says that it doesn't have "personal inventory space". I use KIS alongside stock inventory, but I don't think it is the culprit - the part has KIS inventory.

EDIT: Nope, looks like it is indeed a KIS bug. After transfering the default EVA canister to another kerbal, I was able to move crew into VFB workshop. Looks like there is no KIS config for it?

EDIT 2: Also, VFB needs a custom config for Snacks, at least for 2.5x KSRSS. There is a soil processor in the workshop, but it doesn't work (I presume it's due to its "dual" nature).

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I thought about doing that, but found I like the drop down umbilical better. And I do use swing arms for the upper stages only, but I guess I need to omit the S-II aft one, or stage it before vehicle release, is what I did the second time. 

The S-II Aft arm, the one without any umbilicals, was actually just an auxiliary access platform to the S-II interstage and the J-2s inside. It was retracted some time before launch whenever it was no longer needed.  For my Saturn V launches, I retract it along with the crew arm via an action group.

Both the S-IC arms were also retracted before launch; the S-IC Intertank arm (LOX fill and drain) at T-30 seconds, and the S-IC Forward arm (pneumatics, air conditioning, various electrical connections) at T-16 seconds. The only arms that retracted at liftoff were the two main S-II arms, the two S-IVB arms and the SM arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AlphaMensae said:

The S-II Aft arm, the one without any umbilicals, was actually just an auxiliary access platform to the S-II interstage and the J-2s inside. It was retracted some time before launch whenever it was no longer needed.  For my Saturn V launches, I retract it along with the crew arm via an action group.

Both the S-IC arms were also retracted before launch; the S-IC Intertank arm (LOX fill and drain) at T-30 seconds, and the S-IC Forward arm (pneumatics, air conditioning, various electrical connections) at T-16 seconds. The only arms that retracted at liftoff were the two main S-II arms, the two S-IVB arms and the SM arm.

I meant intermediate S-II arm (the one above the interstage), sorry. I had no room for the aft one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Now I see why VFB never progressed beyond drawing board...

...return is problematic, to say the least.

Oh well, I was planning to start a new save anyway.

Try it with Principia, you might have an easier time plotting a trajectory (though worth noting that if you do try this you'll need a new save because Principia will break existing saves).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

...return is problematic, to say the least.

This was my experience, too. The getting there went well. The return was beyond my ability. Tbh, I always wonder about the technical feasibility of recreating historical flight paths in a system where the planets are on rails, and therefore their resonance doesn't resonate :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Now I see why VFB never progressed beyond drawing board...

...return is problematic, to say the least.

Oh well, I was planning to start a new save anyway.

Apollo Applications was wild, man.

Like "We've got a case of beer, enough cigars to burn down the Manned Spacecraft Center, half a pot of coffee, and all night to come up with a way to get Congress to keep funding Apollo/Saturn. Let's get to work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else having an issue where the Kane docking Probe and drogue doesn't dock with the LM docking port? I've tried everything, docking with it extended then retracting, docking with it retracted, but I can't fix it.

Edited by TheKrakenHerder
Nevermind, fixed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7wJnIv2.png

gpQY0aY.png

R65XMUm.png

VXoEOzW.png

LR1HtDw.png

Full Album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Following the disaster that unfolded on January 16th, 2003, the Apollos for Artemis 8 and 9 were pulled from the Artemis program and were retasked with rescue operations for STS-107 Columbia. Artemis 8A was rolled back into the VAB, the boosters were quickly detached, the cargo fairing and Artemis lander were removed, allowing Apollo and the SLA adapter to be installed instead. To save time, one of the boosters for Artemis 8A was repurposed as the core stage for the Saturn MB M02 that would launch Columbia Rescue 2, or CR2 for short. CR1 and CR2 were finished within a week of each other, the engineers working 24/7 to finish the rockets that would save the 7 stranded astronauts who were already stretching the limit of what the shuttle could handle. 

Finally, on February 6th, 2003, CR1 and CR2 rolled out to the pad together. The two rockets and towers were set down as quickly as possible and fueling commenced as soon as the lines were installed. One astronaut boarded each Apollo. They had trained to work Apollo all alone, since the seats would be needed for Columbia. It was considered that launching a third rocket would allow for two people in each Apollo, to lighten the load for the one-man teams, but a third rocket was ruled out, as they were limited on resources to launch a third rocket. There were only two towers and two crawlers after all, one would have to be rolled back, the rocket assembled, checked, double checked, then rolled out to the launch pad. The resource drain wasn't worth it, and the two Apollos going up would be waiting around for days, possibly past the mission duration. 

CR1 roared to life and launched off the pad. CR2 followed five minutes later. This had never been done before, but the NASA engineers came up with a flight profile that would result in the two rockets maintaining separation. CR2 would take a one-to-three-degree shallower pitch maneuver than CR1. This would ensure that CR1's booster would fall below CR2, and not have CR2 run into CR1's booster. The launch went off without a hitch, both CRs reaching 120km to ensure they would catch up to Columbia as soon as possible. 

Once rendezvous had been achieved, the two Apollo's docked with each other and the conjoined crafts were maneuvered to within 10 meters of Columbia's cargo bay, one of the Apollo's hatches lining up with the airlock of Columbia to make the spacewalk as short as possible for the crew. It took hours as the only shuttle 2 EVA suits had to be flown back to Columbia for crew use each time. Finally, all 7 crew members were aboard the two Apollos. CR1 and 2 backed away slowly from Columbia, swinging around to get a picture of the damaged heat shield on the leading edge of the wing. The shuttle was remote commanded to close the cargo doors to give a better look in the sunlight. The crews stared in shock and horror at the size, some of them wondering how the wing wasn't ripped off during ascent, thankful it held though. 

After examining the hole for a few minutes, the two pods drifted away before undocking with each other, starting the journey home and arriving safely.

Rescue plans for Columbia were proposed and denied, none of them could rescue the shuttle, the damage to the wing too great to attempt an EVA repair. Even if the wing had been repaired, there was no way to guarantee a safe reentry for the pilots who would have to ride the shuttle home in order to land it. The Space Shuttle could be remotely/autonomously piloted, but not remotely/autonomously landed, unlike the Buran fleet. So, with just a few hours of battery life left, Columbia was ordered to burn retrograde and put itself into a back on orientation to the atmosphere. Columbia reentered and burned up on February 10th, 2003, a memorial held a few days later in the shuttles honor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, i just looked over the last pages because i wanted to reference a bug that was already spoken about: Someone said that, since the BDB update, his Mechjeb is going AWOL. I know: You don´t have anything to do with mech jeb, it´s just that i am wondering what could have happened? And it´s not even that it´s going crazy with the new BDB Probe-Cores only. I really don´t get it. It´s not even that the game is crashing, it´s just that the autopilot makes dump maneuvers in multiple modes / modules. And yes i already tried out a complete reinstal of KSP, it just doesn´t change. And there aren´t any damaged files in the game itself, steam just couldn´t find any.

I just wanted to ask if anyone has an idea to of how to fix that first before i make a request to the mechjeb team. And i will wait out the hotfixes / minipatches at first and see if it get´s fixed by then.

Edited by JoeSheridan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zorg said:

Make sure:

- b9partswitch is installed and up to date

- you dont have a saturn rescale patch from an old install of BDB Extras in your gamedata

- you're not using old craft files

that fixed it, thank you

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Now I see why VFB never progressed beyond drawing board...

...return is problematic, to say the least.

Oh well, I was planning to start a new save anyway.

Sounds like a great opportunity to transition the VFB program into… Moonlab. &)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DaOPCreeper said:

edit that fixed some of the issues there are a still a few seen here
https://imgur.com/a/3nt1LL4
1. LEM shield does not mate flush with bottom of csm
2. S-IVB Engine mount is smaller then bottom of tank
3.  S-II to S-IVB inter stage does not mate flush bottom of S-IVB

1) The Apollo Engine plate has two nodes, make sure you're attaching to the right one. (Attaching the engine will help as the orange SPS plate should be on the outside and not buried inside the plate.
2) You're using the wrong engine mount. You want the S-IVB not the S-IV. (See image)
3) See 2. 

HSz1KvD.png

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

1) The Apollo Engine plate has two nodes, make sure you're attaching to the right one.
2) S-IVB is set to 3.125 when it should be 4.375 
3) See 2. 
4) Tweakscale might be the problem. 

1.  yup, that works, thought it took a few try's, i guess its just finicky
2.  4.375 is way to big and 3.750 (the next step up form 3.125) is also too big,  3.550 Is where it needs to be
3. the engine mount at 3.350 fixes this
 

Edited by DaOPCreeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DaOPCreeper said:

1.  yup, that works, thought it took a few try's, i guess its just finicky
2.  4.375 is way to big and 3.750 (the next step up form 3.125) is also too big,  3.550 Is where it needs to be
3. the engine mount at 3.350 fixes this
 

2 and 3) You're using the wrong engine mount. And it's not too big, the S-IVB is 4.375 meters. See my editted post above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

Anyone else having an issue where the Kane docking Probe and drogue doesn't dock with the LM docking port? I've tried everything, docking with it extended then retracting, docking with it retracted, but I can't fix it.

Am I right in reading in your edit that you fixed it? Any insight into the issue?

 

1 hour ago, DaOPCreeper said:

2.  4.375 is way to big and 3.750 (the next step up form 3.125) is also too big,  3.550 Is where it needs to be
3. the engine mount at 3.350 fixes this

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

2 and 3) You're using the wrong engine mount. And it's not too big, the S-IVB is 4.375 meters. See my editted post above. 

I'm not sure if our tweakscale configs are working but those numbers sound like they're not reporting correctly. The size should be (and default to) 4.25m for the S-IVB. Though as GoldForest noted, you're using the wrong mount.

 

17 hours ago, TaintedLion said:

It's the LEM Shelter, a LEM modified to support two astronauts for stays of up to two weeks on the surface. So basically no ascent engine and an airlock.

17 hours ago, G'th said:

Fascinating. Wonder if its related to the other LM based shelter that took a Command Module and bolted it to a Descent stage.

17 hours ago, Jcking said:

As far as it is known, no. This does comes from the same study that gave the LM Taxi (a 2 man LM capable of being powered down, but there is also an 3 man LM taxi from a different study), LM Lab (spacelab for Apollo basically) and the LM Truck (unmanned descent stage capable of carrying cargo to the surface).

If I had to guess, they probably solicited both Grumman and North American for ways to reuse existing hardware. Same as there being MOLABs that use the LM and CM, and orbital labs based on both modules being considered. And then, usually, they also solicit proposals from other sources which is where you get the new-build (usually cylindrical in some way) modules.

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not sure if our tweakscale configs are working but those numbers sound like they're not reporting correctly. The size should be (and default to) 4.25m for the S-IVB. Though as GoldForest noted, you're using the wrong mount.

Oh right, you messed up the sizing and didn't change it due to how far along you were right? Was it just S-IVB that you messed up the size on or was it S-IC and S-II as well, I'm curious?

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...