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

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

Fun fact: in one of the NTRS docs that has been purged in 2012 (thanks again senator Wolf), there's an interesting LM variant proposal: using the LM ascent stage to go from a spacecraft in the orbit of mars (the baseline IPP highly elliptical orbit to salve delta V) to the surface of the martian moons and back using its 2100 m/s of delta v

Since I went through the effort to to FOIA a couple of the documents that Senator Wolf's efforts got expunged....   Some Facts:

1) NASA is not likely to re-institute most of these documents that were purged to the PUBLIC NTRS servers.   They, the documents, are actually considered proprietary information for Contractor X Y And Z by NASA of today.   Regardless of the fact that the documents were prepared on contract for NASA and are reports TO NASA.   

2) If A document on the list of purged documents is not available on NTRS today And is a NASA Created document, a simple request *should* get it re-instated.   Worst comes to worst a FOIA request.

This is how I got the drawings and information for my Saturn C-II and C-III article.

 

TL:DR and my opinions version:

NASA has seemed to have a shift in their relationships with various historical or current contractors.   A lot of documents that were purged in 2012, are documents that NASA considers "not theirs to disseminate."    For example, I requested EVERY Saturn C-II document that was purged in 2012.   I was given access to one (which is now again on the NTRS Public servers!)  I had multiple phone-calls and e-mails over my FOIA request.  I was told point blank that the documents by TRW, Boeing, Lockheed etc were all owned by their respective companies and were not shareable even under FOIA.  Given these were contracted reports **TO** NASA I think we can agree this was a load of Bull excrement.   That being said, the overview from Marshal Space Flight center was the main document I wanted so I jumped at the chance of getting that and not fighting further.       

Now me reading between the lines here:   

NTRS servers are divided into PUBLIC and CONTRACTOR/Government side servers.   Any company NASA works with has access (with a clearance program) to the CONTRACTOR side of the NTRS server.   All the documents that we lost access to thanks to Senator Wolf, STILL EXIST.  They are just on the Contractor only side.   Getting contractor created documents released publicly will be like pulling teeth but it probably CAN be done.  Actually NASA origin documents being much easier (and less costly) to free than documents from say Bell Aircraft on Lunar launch configuration feasibility or whatever.

I BELIEVE this is also why many of the documents do not exist on Archive.org or other sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beccab said:

I'm 99% sure the artist just forgot the ascent stage engine considering the stats of the MMRM are supposed to be:
- total weight 11 500 lb;
- inert weight 6180 ib;
-  fuel weight 5320 lb;
- specific impulse 400 seconds;
- available deltaV 8000 fps (2400 m/s).

The standard LM ascent stage has over 2200 m/s and this proposal adds 618 lbs of fuel to make up for the "moon docking bumpers" and additional life support stuff to make the acent stage by itself for 5 days, so it seems feasible overall. The hydrolox variant would definitely need bigger tanks (and probably an RL10 derivative), but considering that the manned mars mission profiles NASA was most likely to choose back then were nuclear it wouldn't have been all that useful for refueling anyways considering they wouldn't have had that much LOX with them for multiple trips.
Side note: determining the gravitational attraction of something once you've already sent people there doesn't reeeally sound like a great idea, but maybe it's just me
unknown.png

Maybe, though considering that Jarvis' 3rd stage was nothing but RCS (R-4D's specifically) thrusters meant for circularization and maneuvering, I wouldn't put it past NASA to try and do something RCS only on another spacecraft, especially during the Saturn age where wild ideas seemed to be running rampent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

Maybe, though considering that Jarvis' 3rd stage was nothing but RCS (R-4D's specifically) thrusters meant for circularization and maneuvering, I wouldn't put it past NASA to try and do something RCS only on another spacecraft, especially during the Saturn age where wild ideas seemed to be running rampent.

Oh trust me, wild RCS proposals didn't stop with the Apollo era. A few days ago I've put in the cancelled projects thread a proposal I've found on NTRS where the RCS of a conjunction class mars transfer stage was nothing less than RL-10 engines

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Oh trust me, wild RCS proposals didn't stop with the Apollo era. A few days ago I've put in the cancelled projects thread a proposal I've found on NTRS where the RCS of a conjunction class mars transfer stage was nothing less than RL-10 engines

 

A standard hydrolox RL-10 or a hypergolic fueled RL-10 for quicker reaction time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

A standard hydrolox RL-10 or a hypergolic fueled RL-10 for quicker reaction time?

Hydrolox! There's also a secondary hydrogen/propane RCS on the command module itself on top of this for course correction, as well as for use after the TMI stage is jettisoned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beccab said:

Hydrolox! There's also a secondary hydrogen/propane RCS on the command module itself on top of this for course correction, as well as for use after the TMI stage is jettisoned

Hydrolox RCS... wouldn't it have a ramp up time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

TL:DR and my opinions version:

NASA has seemed to have a shift in their relationships with various historical or current contractors.   A lot of documents that were purged in 2012, are documents that NASA considers "not theirs to disseminate."    For example, I requested EVERY Saturn C-II document that was purged in 2012.   I was given access to one (which is now again on the NTRS Public servers!)  I had multiple phone-calls and e-mails over my FOIA request.  I was told point blank that the documents by TRW, Boeing, Lockheed etc were all owned by their respective companies and were not shareable even under FOIA.  Given these were contracted reports **TO** NASA I think we can agree this was a load of Bull excrement.   That being said, the overview from Marshal Space Flight center was the main document I wanted so I jumped at the chance of getting that and not fighting further.       

Now me reading between the lines here:   

NTRS servers are divided into PUBLIC and CONTRACTOR/Government side servers.   Any company NASA works with has access (with a clearance program) to the CONTRACTOR side of the NTRS server.   All the documents that we lost access to thanks to Senator Wolf, STILL EXIST.  They are just on the Contractor only side.   Getting contractor created documents released publicly will be like pulling teeth but it probably CAN be done.  Actually NASA origin documents being much easier (and less costly) to free than documents from say Bell Aircraft on Lunar launch configuration feasibility or whatever.

I BELIEVE this is also why many of the documents do not exist on Archive.org or other sites.

If that is the case, then the enforcement is either spotty, or has been slowly chipped away by requests. For instance take LMSC-A989142 Volume I and II under NAS8-26362 (NTRS 19740078599, 19730024039). The later is freely available on the modern day NTRS with the designation of Contractor Report (CR), and the former is only found on the Wayback machine, meaning that it was available for download on NTRS pre 2012.

This second section has been confirmed to be the case for some time with the report that you were able to make public (19630045066) having long been on the NTRS database classified as Restricted, Limited Distribution, or Classified, as seen in this lovely list of NTRS numbers and titles produced in October of 2017 via FOIA https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/nasa/NASA-NTRS-Classified-1980.pdf, and most of the documents that I've been finding have been salvaged NTRS numbers from that list.

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 3:35 PM, zakkpaz said:

The Goo Lab Solar Panel is bugged for me, no matter what direction I point it sun exposure stays a 0.000

I think this has been addressed on the dev branch as of last night. Do you have a sec to try it again? I'm still having issues, but others have said it's fixed for them. If it's not fixed for you, then maybe it's something that we both have installed that's interfering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

I think this has been addressed on the dev branch as of last night. Do you have a sec to try it again? I'm still having issues, but others have said it's fixed for them. If it's not fixed for you, then maybe it's something that we both have installed that's interfering.

yeah i noticed that, it seems to be working for me now.

 

And it looks perfect on the back of the LEM Shelter, was that intentional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What's this. what did you do to the CSM Gus?"

zrskASw.png

Quote

bx7h1jD.png

ccUFAZp.png

"An upside-down unmanned CSM variant?"

iCxfmnp.png

(I'm using an upside-down BD-AFB-425 4.25m Fairing Base as a decoupler)

RrfFPHU.png

"A massive increase in cargo to Munar orbit without the need for a crew?" (Ignore the SLA change I totally didn't forget i was supposed to be taking pictures)

OqkhaCe.png

(separating from the SLA is a bit buggy do to cliping with the fairing base)

L2uhq9D.png

Py26YmV.png

Edited by zakkpaz
formating
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...