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

6 hours ago, Beccab said:

You may have heard of Apollo-Salyut and Skylab-Soyuz, but what about Apollo-Titan-Soyuz?
unknown.png
 

Love the Kitbash... wanted to point something out.   That is a not a Titan 23D, rather it is a never flown hybrid between the 23D and the 34D...   It is the long tanks from the Titan IIIM/Titan 34 family line but it still uses UA-1205 SRMs (not the 5.5 segment UA-1206.)   I have seen this spelled out in exactly one document and I would not consider it a RELIABLE source.  But to see it here leads credence to that source.   I never covered it in my Titan articles because, to put it bluntly, the source was highly questionable.    Problem... I no longer have the source (as I considered it un-reliable and made up.)   gah! :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear that that mission profile image was not designed by someone who understands the capabilities of the Soyuz spacecraft. The orbital module cannot simply remain docked to a space station as an extension of the habitable space because the hatch between the orbital module and the return module is attached to the return module; when the orbital module is jettisoned before re-entry, it is no longer a complete pressure vessel. The Shenzhou spacecraft used by the PRC does have the ability for the orbital module to operate independently, but Shenzhou is not Soyuz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, septemberWaves said:

It's clear that that mission profile image was not designed by someone who understands the capabilities of the Soyuz spacecraft. The orbital module cannot simply remain docked to a space station as an extension of the habitable space because the hatch between the orbital module and the return module is attached to the return module; when the orbital module is jettisoned before re-entry, it is no longer a complete pressure vessel. The Shenzhou spacecraft used by the PRC does have the ability for the orbital module to operate independently, but Shenzhou is not Soyuz.

It might have been intended for unpressurized storage after detach, though, I do agree it is kind of ridiculous to block off the docking port now. Unless they would have modified the Orital module to have a docking port on the reentry module side. Just keep stacking the modules together, adding more and more space. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Unless they would have modified the Orital module to have a docking port on the reentry module side. Just keep stacking the modules together, adding more and more space. 

That doesn't seem especially practical. While I'm not sure exactly what this approach would entail, modifications to the orbital module would not be sufficient. The return module would need to be significantly altered because the connection between the two modules is smaller than the docking system (unlike the Apollo MkIII from Eyes Turned Skyward, which has a similar module layout but builds upon the fact that the Apollo spacecraft already has a docking system without the orbital module). Alternatively, the required alterations to the return module could be minimized by designing a smaller and more complex docking system, and reworking the orbital module to use this alternative docking system instead. The changes needed are so extensive that you'd really be better off just designing a new spacecraft if this capability is desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, septemberWaves said:

That doesn't seem especially practical. While I'm not sure exactly what this approach would entail, modifications to the orbital module would not be sufficient. The return module would need to be significantly altered because the connection between the two modules is smaller than the docking system (unlike the Apollo MkIII from Eyes Turned Skyward, which has a similar module layout but builds upon the fact that the Apollo spacecraft already has a docking system without the orbital module). Alternatively, the required alterations to the return module could be minimized by designing a smaller and more complex docking system, and reworking the orbital module to use this alternative docking system instead. The changes needed are so extensive that you'd really be better off just designing a new spacecraft if this capability is desired.

Yeah, it is a little impractical, but I was just putting out one possibility, which after taking a look at the diagram, looks more likely. If you look at the Soyuz, the connections between the Orbital and Reentry modules looks wider than it would normally be. This could be simplification for the diagram, but it could also be that they planned to do something like they did with Pirs and Poisk. Without actual documentation, it's hard to determine which. 

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 9:40 AM, Beccab said:

You may have heard of Apollo-Salyut and Skylab-Soyuz, but what about Apollo-Titan-Soyuz?

unknown.png
unknown.png
 

Amusing how this is referenced to be a "predecessor" RAM (research and applications module i.e.  shuttle spacelab) in the one congressional report where this is found. Unfortunately the RAM papers available online have no information about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GoldForest said:

it could also be that they planned to do something like they did with Pirs and Poisk.

Both Pirs and Poisk (and the recent Prichal) were essentially a Progress lower half mated to docking module. While mating a crewed Soyuz to such module is possible technically, it would likely exceed max payload weight of Soyuz rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, biohazard15 said:

Both Pirs and Poisk (and the recent Prichal) were essentially a Progress lower half mated to docking module. While mating a crewed Soyuz to such module is possible technically, it would likely exceed max payload weight of Soyuz rocket.

What if fregat is used? 

Also, anybody got any ideas I could do? Kind of tapped out on them for now. I want to do a station, just not sure if it should be MOL or Skylab based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jcking said:

Amusing how this is referenced to be a "predecessor" RAM (research and applications module i.e.  shuttle spacelab) in the one congressional report where this is found. Unfortunately the RAM papers available online have no information about this.

Yeah, it's a shame that there's extremely little stuff on alternate Apollo-Soyuz stuff on NTRS. I wonder if they weren't cleared for publication or just were never put on a formal paper

55 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

MOL

My vote goes for this, there were a lot more different applications proposed for it than there were for earth orbiting Skylabs

Edited by Beccab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

What if fregat is used? 

That definitely would be too heavy for any Soyuz variant. Empty Fregat weighs about 1 ton, full mass is up to 6280 kg. For comparison, Soyuz 19 used in ASTP weighs 6790 kg.

They could use a Proton to launch it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

They could use a Proton to launch it, though.

Between 1965 and 1970 Proton had a barely over 50% launch success rate, I wouldn't have flown on it for all the money in the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

What if fregat is used?

Fregat didn't exist until the 90s.

 

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Also, anybody got any ideas I could do? Kind of tapped out on them for now. I want to do a station, just not sure if it should be MOL or Skylab based.

Some sort of OWS with LMSS/MOL derived expansion modules on the MDA

 

28 minutes ago, Beccab said:

My vote goes for this, there were a lot more different applications proposed for it than there were for earth orbiting Skylabs

I know we're planning on adding at least MORL parts to round out the Skylab-diameter station part set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

@Rodger The new Shaddy parachutes switch between transparent and pink textures instead of having the real textures. Not sure what I did wrong if anything. I have Shaddy and TU. Only seems to effect BDB chutes.

Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwjwhmu8zvjcwtr/KSP.log?dl=0

I was just having similar issues, and it looks like it's due to the TU shader loading patch in shaddy not working properly, causing the shaders to not get loaded at all. Once the next version of shabby is released, it will work to load the shaders instead of TU, while TU does the actual shader replacements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rodger said:

I was just having similar issues, and it looks like it's due to the TU shader loading patch in shaddy not working properly, causing the shaders to not get loaded at all. Once the next version of shabby is released, it will work to load the shaders instead of TU, while TU does the actual shader replacements.

Ah, so all we can do is wait for Shaddy 2.2 and hope it fixes it? Alright. At least it's just a visual glitch and not a physical one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Ah, so all we can do is wait for Shaddy 2.2 and hope it fixes it? Alright. At least it's just a visual glitch and not a physical one.

This should also fix the issue - if anyone is getting pink parachutes or solar panels with Shaddy, install the new version of Shabby:

http://taniwha.org/~bill/Shabby_v0.3.0.zip

Edited by Rodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Soviet_Velir said:

I repeat my question again: Does anyone have a working LRV craft file in conjunction with the Lunar Module? I need it urgently, but I can't get it on my own

There's one on the dev branch now:

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/tree/1.11-development/Craft Files

J-Class with LRV.craft or LRV.craft for a standalone craft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Soviet_Velir said:

I repeat my question again: Does anyone have a working LRV craft file in conjunction with the Lunar Module? I need it urgently, but I can't get it on my own

@Rodger Has included one in the development download on Github. Download the zip and you'll find it in the Craft Folder.

Just now, Rodger said:

There's one on the dev branch now:

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/tree/1.11-development/Craft Files

J-Class with LRV.craft or LRV.craft for a standalone craft

Sniped me :D

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...