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

1 hour ago, komodo said:

I ought to have been more explicit: I wasn't trying to get them going with 6.4x and "stock" parts, I had both @Nerteas cryogenic fuels as well as SMURFF doing fuel fraction rebalancing. I agree that at that scale, the numbers just don't work out. That SIVB I posted a page or two was made of tweakscaled Titan and centaur parts, and worked well for the mission of "get a half fueled CSM to low orbit", before the extra mass boost. The "canonical" S1 config doesn't have a prayer at either mass, fortunately. In contrast, Gemini + Titan works well with a slight stage stretch, so I don't doubt a balanced solution can be found here.

I know you're using SMURFF on 6.4k, you won't get close to orbit without it! SMURFF is fixing the fuel fraction (fuel mass / gross mass). At 6.4x utilization (percent of volume filled with fuel) becomes an issue. These tanks all hold 87% rounded down to the nearest 100 with some special handling for small tanks. The Titan II tanks are setup to hold 4900 units in the first stage, and 1100 in the second. At 100% utilization they would hold 5743 and 1325. That's where your stretch is coming from. It might be correctable with a simple fuel = fuel * 1.1 type patch across the board, or it may need hand tweaking, I'm not sure. Under 6.4x this shouldn't be an issue.

SMURFF has always been on the radar so hopefully upscaling will be pretty painless. The solid boosters have had their Isp's lowered to account for the buffs SMURFF gives solids. Solids shouldn't have the above issue though since their fuel was set if I remember correctly by a mass percentage of the real one rather than volume.

2 hours ago, komodo said:

I will have to try a 2x w/o extras to compare.

@CobaltWolf, it was the S1 with the SIV that got off the ground with the CSM, albeit it partially fueled, but aside from a sluggish surface TWR and a lousy stage 2 TWR, it was able to make orbit and even to a TMI burn (plus insertion, but we've passed ridiculous at that point)

I am not trying by any means to go full torches and pitchforks "FIX EET NAOOOO", but just to get some current feedback on where we were vs the goals. I have a decent idea now, so I'll have to have a think on it. To reiterate, I have no doubts that a balanced configuration will be found, and a use for each booster as well. :) 

Too soon for pitchforks :-)

The masses on the CSM+LEM are crude right now. The service module especially I can't justify. We're only at 2/3s the payload weight I'd like to see for Saturn and I'm literally just throwing weight on the thing to see what I can get away with. Once I get some models for the rest of the stack we can spread the pain a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

How do we feel about colours? I was thinking that the F1 should have the distinct Rockomax oramge, and the J2 should have the same blue highlights as the RL10, but Cobalt was thinking orange all around. What do you guys think?

#teamDerrick 22b2c-gjn81wvxqsq6yzcwubok.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Only person I can think of that's near there is @Tristonwilson12. I've been to Wallops a couple times but never during a launch. Just passing through on vacation.

I think our (read: my) plan was to just give the F1 stats closer to the F1-A. There really isn't much of an external difference and they would fill exactly the same role in terms gameplay niche. I'd also like to make it so the F1 can only throttle down to 70% but I've received pushback there. :wink:

@CobaltWolfMaybe habe the F1-A have a big stovepipe like the F1-B, but have the old fashioned F1 nozzle, hinting at it being an intermediate engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, awsumindyman said:

@CobaltWolfMaybe habe the F1-A have a big stovepipe like the F1-B, but have the old fashioned F1 nozzle, hinting at it being an intermediate engine.

I guess. I'll think about it, I really hadn't intended on trying to make multiple F1 variants.

Anyways, after getting some... less than positive (but appreciated! :) ) feedback on my J2, I've been trying to rectify the situation.

M6lp74C.png

PJ2jaxq.png

Also, because it has been brought up - the J2 does not have a light colored engine bell. That light coloration is not present on flight examples of the J2 as far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CobaltWolf From what I remember way back in the beginning,  From what I gather you planned this to be a slightly "kerbalized" version of the NASA rockets with your aesthetics put in.  Not another FASA project.  I think you should do what you want and don't cater to the %100 accuracy.  Your work has been great so far and I am pretty sure you will make the right call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, field test report time. :cool:

Found an interesting feature on the Dina engine... after a random interval between 20 and 100 seconds, it will suffer an "internal failure" and promptly overheat. Test stand runs of up to 441 seconds duration have revealed that it generates enough heat to max out six of the medium deployable radiators before reaching an equilibrium point at about 1767K internal.

Can't wait to see where else this little feature crops up next. :D

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Only person I can think of that's near there is @Tristonwilson12. I've been to Wallops a couple times but never during a launch. Just passing through on vacation.

I think our (read: my) plan was to just give the F1 stats closer to the F1-A. There really isn't much of an external difference and they would fill exactly the same role in terms gameplay niche. I'd also like to make it so the F1 can only throttle down to 70% but I've received pushback there. :wink:

DOOO EEET. I haven't seen anyone do that before, and I'd love the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Okay, field test report time. :cool:

Found an interesting feature on the Dina engine... after a random interval between 20 and 100 seconds, it will suffer an "internal failure" and promptly overheat. Test stand runs of up to 441 seconds duration have revealed that it generates enough heat to max out six of the medium deployable radiators before reaching an equilibrium point at about 1767K internal.

Can't wait to see where else this little feature crops up next. :D

every tantares engine... #spacerace2016... @Beale...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, drskitts said:

@CobaltWolf From what I remember way back in the beginning,  From what I gather you planned this to be a slightly "kerbalized" version of the NASA rockets with your aesthetics put in.  Not another FASA project.  I think you should do what you want and don't cater to the %100 accuracy.  Your work has been great so far and I am pretty sure you will make the right call.

It's always a balancing act. I have an easier time out the door since I work with both kerbalized color palettes and am working at polycounts/model detail levels closer to the stock game. The issue was that the J2 model was, in the words of another modder (I think), not properly capturing the 'feel' of the J2's fairly unique appearance. The engines should be slightly cartoony and simplified, but thing like the overall silhouette of the J2 were not right. It still have a way to go.

6 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Okay, field test report time. :cool:

Found an interesting feature on the Dina engine... after a random interval between 20 and 100 seconds, it will suffer an "internal failure" and promptly overheat. Test stand runs of up to 441 seconds duration have revealed that it generates enough heat to max out six of the medium deployable radiators before reaching an equilibrium point at about 1767K internal.

Can't wait to see where else this little feature crops up next. :D

You're absolutely correct on that behavior. Considering it's an unstable engine on which the majority of the BDB rocket technology is developed, it's no surprise that it would be dangerous. The thing is basically meant to test the shear limits of early kerolox rocket technology, developing immensely powerful engines while not necessarily knowing how to keep them reliable or give them a long enough lifetime to complete a stage burn.

Right now we don't have this feature implemented on any other engines - I felt that it nerfed the BDB engines compared to their counterparts from other mods, while the Dina doesn't have a comparable engine except perhaps the LVT-10 Dachshund from Ven's Stock Revamp.

1 minute ago, VenomousRequiem said:

every tantares engine... #spacerace2016... @Beale...

BDB v1.0 (why don't y'all think up some clever names for it while we wait?) will include MM configs that make @Beale's N1 explode ten meters above the launchpad. #SpaceRace2016

Also, if you didn't know - the next release of BDB will be v1.0. Once that is out, I can get started on the interesting stuff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You're absolutely correct on that behavior. Considering it's an unstable engine on which the majority of the BDB rocket technology is developed, it's no surprise that it would be dangerous. The thing is basically meant to test the shear limits of early kerolox rocket technology, developing immensely powerful engines while not necessarily knowing how to keep them reliable or give them a long enough lifetime to complete a stage burn.

Oh, it's a Screamer engine, then. :D Yeah, there were a lot of those back then. Combustion instabilities and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Okay, field test report time. :cool:

Found an interesting feature on the Dina engine... after a random interval between 20 and 100 seconds, it will suffer an "internal failure" and promptly overheat. Test stand runs of up to 441 seconds duration have revealed that it generates enough heat to max out six of the medium deployable radiators before reaching an equilibrium point at about 1767K internal.

Can't wait to see where else this little feature crops up next. :D

That was created for the Able and Ablestar engines and maybe a few others, but it didn't really pan out and ended up finding a home in the Dina. In KSP terms there's not much difference between Able and Ablestar. With this the Able would be safe for about 2 minutes, the Ablstar 5 or 6 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jso said:

That was created for the Able and Ablestar engines and maybe a few others, but it didn't really pan out and ended up finding a home in the Dina. In KSP terms there's not much difference between Able and Ablestar. With this the Able would be safe for about 2 minutes, the Ablstar 5 or 6 minutes.

Is there any way you could add it to parts that are part of a test contract while they're experimental, giving you a "reason" to test them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Is there any way you could add it to parts that are part of a test contract while they're experimental, giving you a "reason" to test them?

I think that's a little outside the scope of BDB. There's no good way to explain that to players in-game. If it only affected BDB engines, that would be strange. And if it effected every engine, we'd probably wind up with some very surprised and upset players.

out of curiosity, Jso, how hard would it be to implement that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I think that's a little outside the scope of BDB. There's no good way to explain that to players in-game. If it only affected BDB engines, that would be strange. And if it effected every engine, we'd probably wind up with some very surprised and upset players.

out of curiosity, Jso, how hard would it be to implement that?

Not sure, the devil is in the details. I think that wheel has already been invented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jso said:

Not sure, the devil is in the details. I think that wheel has already been invented.

I've looked at making BDB configs for TestFlight twice in the last three weeks and every time I open their documentation, I remember why I closed it the previous time/curl into the fetal position.

its extremely robust in what it offers, but the implementation is almost too flexible; there isn't much guidance on how to make new configs. The technical aspects are challenging, but not impossible. I would have to find a decent float curve editor, and perhaps brush up on YAML, but at that point it is a gameplay impasse; if career, how should one engine experience flow into another? Many times, the different lines don't have much to do with each other, for example. This is all just restricted to engines as well, while TestFlight has options for almost any system you'd want... For RSS/RO, it's "easy" to set the numbers up as, well, they just go look them up, but for more "game-y" systems like stock/alike, I have no idea where the "fun" cutoff is, or even what would make for a productive gameplay element.

tldr: :confused:, possible but challenging. Gameplay balance also (quite) challenging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said:

What's the Skylab situation? I assume it's going to be a part of the complete Saturn, but, could we get the release of just the Moonshot rocket before the extras?

I wasn't even planning on working on Skylab right away. @Angel-125 just released a really awesome one, and BDB has a bunch of half finished stuff that got thrown aside when I decided to make a mad dash to finish Saturn/Apollo/LEM before the 1 year anniversary of the mod (September 30th! Someone should start a countdown!)

35 minutes ago, Daelkyr said:

I mus say @CobaltWolf that your LEM engines are wonderful. They look perfect attached to a model I'm working on while trying to climb back onto the modding horse.

Oh wow. Please do. I know that if I make the Eyes Turned Skywards Apollo and Saturn variants, I'll have tons of people asking for the landers - which I have not interested in doing. If I do non-LEM based lander architectures, I'll likely be looking elsewhere. I don't care for the Altair design - it just doesn't appeal to me visually.

Perhaps you can more definitively answer a question myself and @cxg2827 had the other night - what is the reason for the massive descent stage and the miniature ascent stage? The descent stage is huge, while there's next to no room for the crew to live in the ascent stage. Meanwhile, the shelter variants I've seen still don't have much room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, komodo said:

I've looked at making BDB configs for TestFlight twice in the last three weeks and every time I open their documentation, I remember why I closed it the previous time/curl into the fetal position.

its extremely robust in what it offers, but the implementation is almost too flexible; there isn't much guidance on how to make new configs. The technical aspects are challenging, but not impossible. I would have to find a decent float curve editor, and perhaps brush up on YAML, but at that point it is a gameplay impasse; if career, how should one engine experience flow into another? Many times, the different lines don't have much to do with each other, for example. This is all just restricted to engines as well, while TestFlight has options for almost any system you'd want... For RSS/RO, it's "easy" to set the numbers up as, well, they just go look them up, but for more "game-y" systems like stock/alike, I have no idea where the "fun" cutoff is, or even what would make for a productive gameplay element.

tldr: :confused:, possible but challenging. Gameplay balance also (quite) challenging. 

Yeah, I never pulled the trigger on installing it for that reason. I'll mull it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Oh wow. Please do. I know that if I make the Eyes Turned Skywards Apollo and Saturn variants, I'll have tons of people asking for the landers - which I have not interested in doing. If I do non-LEM based lander architectures, I'll likely be looking elsewhere. I don't care for the Altair design - it just doesn't appeal to me visually.

Perhaps you can more definitively answer a question myself and @cxg2827 had the other night - what is the reason for the massive descent stage and the miniature ascent stage? The descent stage is huge, while there's next to no room for the crew to live in the ascent stage. Meanwhile, the shelter variants I've seen still don't have much room.

The Altair's descent stage is designed to be a lunar heavy "lift?" descent...er (That was weird.) With the underpowered nature of the Orion ICPS, mission profiles called for the Altair to perform the lunar insertion burn for the Orion/Altair stack. As well, the descent stage was designed to have lowering bay doors at the bottom to have carry rovers and supplies for a long stay. With the soon-base shelters and 15 ton cargo haulers originally planned for the Altair missions, a single massive descent stage that could be under-fueled or topped off depending on the mission was demeaned the best bang for the buck.

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...