Jump to content

[1.12.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.11.0 "вне" 22/Oct/2022)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

UGLY

 

:D

Althought I  fully admit you did a nice job kit-bashing it (given you really don't have parts the right size for the 1st or 2nd stages)

BEAUTIFUL 

The second stage is within a meter or two of being the correct length.

As for the 1st stage, I'm positive I measured it and it's within the same margin of error. Though, I can't really remember, so I might have eyeballed it, so the margin for error might be hire.

If you're talking about diameter, then they're are both the right diameters. 2nd stage is 6.25 and 1st stage is 7.5 (minus skirt radius)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You'd need to copy the .mu files, .cfg files, and textures (probably the ones for the command modules?) from an older version, into the Apollo folder of your current BDB install. Or change the file directories in the cfgs.

It worked! Thank you both for the advice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just noticed a bug where the cockpit IVA on the standard LEM appears to be backwards relative to the module itself. I'm using devbranch, but not the latest version. Downloading it now to see if it changes anything. Just wanted to post this to see if anyone else is having this problem?

Edit: Have the latest version of devbranch, but the bug still seems to be there. I did find a kinda-sorta temporary fix. Apparently having a kerbal go EVA and then enter the LEM fixes the problem. Weird. Should also note that this doesn't affect the other LEM variants. The lab, taxi, and shelter IVAs show up normally.

Edited by Blufor878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Viper2 said:

@GoldForest wow looks pretty nice, would you be so kind to tell the mod/part list for this kitbash, or even craftfile ? the C8 would be pretty handy for mars missions

Stage 3 - S-IVB - Stretched by 1.5m. Comes in both 1x J-2 and 2x J-2 variants. - BDB
Stage 2 - S-II - Stretched by 9m. 8 xJ-2. Use the S-II alternate engine mount. Place 8x BZ-25 Radial Attachment Point Jr.'s around the edge. - BDB
Stage 1 - Kitbash top to bottom: 
EP-50 Engine Plate - Flipped upside down to connect to the S-II engine mount - SquadExpansion
AE-FF5 Payload Fairing (7.5m) - Normal orientation - NFLV
EA-F768 Fuel tank - 8 Saturn S-II Ullage motors attached upside down to provide retro thrust upon separation - NFLV
EA-F192 Fuel Tank - NFLV
AE-FF5 Payload Fairing (7.5m) - Flipped upside down to create the C-8 aerodynamic engine skirt. Skirt should be long enough to just hide the exhaust manifolds on the F-1 engines -NFLV
EA-F96 Fuel Tank - NFLV
8x BZ-25 Radial Attachment Point Jr. - Placed on the very edge radially - RestockPlus
8x F-1 engines - Fuel pipes facing inward with vectoring hydrallics outward - BDB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pappystein said:

While it wasn't a great idea (and should never have seen the light of Day) Atleast Big Gemini was INTENDED TO FLY

The only mistake Big G did was stopping at the S-IVB diameter and not making it as large as the S-II stage - *that* would be awesome. INT 21 >> INT 20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dogyeos said:

i like this mod there is just one problem for my ksp it lags for me and i dont know what is causing it for me

BDB does add over 1000 parts so theres not too much to be done about that if your computer can't handle it sorry :( . Unfortunately KSP loads all parts into memory at game startup. You can go to the BDB parts folder and remove folders for rockets you're less interested in. This might help a bit.

 

Its safe to delete an entire folder inside Bluedog_DB/Parts but you shouldnt try to delete individual models and cfgs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GoldForest said:

BEAUTIFUL 

The second stage is within a meter or two of being the correct length.

As for the 1st stage, I'm positive I measured it and it's within the same margin of error. Though, I can't really remember, so I might have eyeballed it, so the margin for error might be hire.

If you're talking about diameter, then they're are both the right diameters. 2nd stage is 6.25 and 1st stage is 7.5 (minus skirt radius)

First stage is 9m minus the skirt, second is 6.5 (but you can get away with it being 6.25), third is 5m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dogyeos said:

i like this mod there is just one problem for my ksp it lags for me and i dont know what is causing it for me

Zorg has already covered much of this but I will say, I have a pretty monster system (i9 Quad Channel with 64GB of ram on a Modern high end RTX Video card)  and KSP USED to lag all the time.  Downloaded the new Waterfall SRB mod and most of my lag issues went away (no more volumnious clouds hogging memory and CPU cycles.    The SRBs look good but not as good as they did with the Smokescreen/RealPlume etc mods that were running before.  

HOWEVER BDB SRBs are currently bugged as always running leading to things like this:
aHMYrc7.jpg

NO SRM plume here

SczW2am.jpg

ALWAYS SRB plume here

 

Admitedly the first image (my first full up C-2B Rocket I have flown FWIW) has my custom M55 based on the Algol and it may not be recognizing it...  Yes there was supposed to be a Minotaur I with the M55 but it has never been released and may have been abandoned.

BDB Devs,

Small QOL request;

I know that at some-point their MIGHT be another Saturn I engine plate be in the offering... But either if it isn't coming or if it is much latter, can we get a Saturn I Engine plate switch configured with 5 nodes (the center hole geometry from 8 engines is fine.)   For those of us who want to either do 4 H-1/-2 & 1 F-1 or 5 E-1 engines.

The Saturn C-2B I posted just above was 4 E-1s + my custom M55 engines... if I could have put a 5th E-1 on there I would have been able to use smaller/less/no SRMs

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Beccab said:

The only mistake Big G did was stopping at the S-IVB diameter and not making it as large as the S-II stage - *that* would be awesome. INT 21 >> INT 20

Sadly, I am writing an article on it right now... and while I love the IDEA of Big G, it was a cash sink nothing more.   Much like the F-35 Lightening II, and the 737 MAX fiasco, the Big G was a way to get lots of cash for minimal investment... and the lack of early engineering and planning would have caused similar problems to the other two programs.    Had the actual hardware started, the costs would have escalated several magnitudes of an order beyond the estimates.   Before the haters start hating, That isn't to say either the F-35 or the 737MAX are not functional today (and may even be good aircraft) just that in both cases the company in question seriously underbid/under-planned what was needed to make them successful.    McDonnell / McD did that with Big Gemini too.   And hmm, some of the same principles of business exist to day in McDonnell Douglas that hides under their new name... Boeing :D.   I won't get into it here but THAT is an interesting story, how McD bought Boeing with Boeing's money and have turned Boeing into McD.

To be clear, there were TWO Big Geminis,    People seem to not be aware or able to separate them.  

The one represented in BDB is the "Min-Mod" Big G.   It is what the mock-up review article was made for and it was "supposedly" a Gemini B capsule and avionics with the aft bulkhead mostly removed and a scabbed on "hitchhiker" module for up to 18 extra crew people (in super sardine mode)   or realistically 6-9 additional crew people + some dry goods cargo.   Problem was Gemini B was never fully developed... and was actually CANCELED by the point we are talking about so all the costs associated with the new capsule + Avionics (and the Avionics are the main issue here!) now get folded into the Big G program from the USAF MOL/KH-10 program.

So the CHEAP option was the All new Big Gemini which actually looks closer to a Stretched Apollo Capsule (in height) since it no longer has the characteristic Gemini Nose/RCS setup.

I think that is enough of a teaser for what is coming in the next week or 3 (there is a LOT of info I still have to collate but the above is basically the conclusion I am drawing from all available documents/testimony.)

 

Big Gemini may have worked, in a different world where KH-10 actually flew.   But in our world, ITL as it were, Big G was a cash grab, nothing more.

PS at least it wasn't as big of an attempted Cash Grab as "Big Apollo"   Co-incidentally most pictures credited as "Big Apollo" are actually the All new Big Gemini drawings (look at the windows!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jcking said:

First stage is 9m minus the skirt, second is 6.5 (but you can get away with it being 6.25), third is 5m.

I was using the numbers off Wikipedia. 

S-IC-8 = 12.2 * 0.625 = 7.625 + round down = 7.5m

S-II-8 = 10.1 * 0.625 = 6.3125 + round down = 6.25m

S-IVB = 6.6 * 0.625 = 4.125 + round up = 4.375m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I was using the numbers off Wikipedia. 

S-IC-8 = 12.2 * 0.625 = 7.625 + round down = 7.5m

S-II-8 = 10.1 * 0.625 = 6.3125 + round down = 6.25m

S-IVB = 6.6 * 0.625 = 4.125 + round up = 4.375m

Oh, I know what that vehicle Wikipedia is quoting and it’s not the vehicle you think it is. The 520, 396, 260 vehicle is the baseline all liquid nova vehicle that had a 6 f-1 first stage, 12 j-2 second, and 2 j-2 third stage.

IMG_8840.png
 

The vehicle where I got the dimensions, and more closely represents the C-8 vehicle can be found here https://web.archive.org/web/20100515071742/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740076058_1974076058.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jcking said:

Oh, I know what that vehicle Wikipedia is quoting and it’s not the vehicle you think it is. The 520, 396, 260 vehicle is the baseline all liquid nova vehicle that had a 6 f-1 first stage, 12 j-2 second, and 2 j-2 third stage.

IMG_8840.png
 

The vehicle where I got the dimensions, and more closely represents the C-8 vehicle can be found here https://web.archive.org/web/20100515071742/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740076058_1974076058.pdf

Huh. Interesting. Also, that diagram shows 8 F-1s and 8 J-2s. Or is it an oversimplification? 

Also, holy hell, 12 J-2s? Damn.

Also also, if they build the 48 foot wide Nova, would it have even fit in the VAB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Huh. Interesting. Also, that diagram shows 8 F-1s and 8 J-2s. Or is it an oversimplification? 

Also, holy hell, 12 J-2s? Damn.

Also also, if they build the 48 foot wide Nova, would it have even fit in the VAB?

I’ve wondered about that, but documentation quoted 6 F-1s for certain and 12 J-2s from what I remember. As for the VAB problem, even these smaller NOVA vehicles wouldn’t use the VAB and crawler transport, but would instead be integrated on the launchpad (with later proposals including static firing the booster on the pad as well).

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jcking said:

I’ve wondered about that, but documentation quoted 6 F-1s for certain and 12 J-2s from what I remember. As for the VAB problem, even these smaller NOVA vehicles wouldn’t use the VAB and crawler transport, but would instead be integrated on the launchpad (with later proposals including static firing the booster on the pad as well).

Hmmm. Well, I'll stick with my 8-8-1/2 C-8. A 6-12-2 config just seems 1) Underperformance for the 1st stage, 2) over complication of the 2nd stage as well as making it the main work horse instead of the 1st stage being the work horse, imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Hmmm. Well, I'll stick with my 8-8-1/2 C-8. A 6-12-2 config just seems 1) Underperformance for the 1st stage, 2) over complication of the 2nd stage as well as making it the main work horse instead of the 1st stage being the work horse, imo. 

Yes and no.  The first stage is just to get the stack into Upper atmo where the Hydrolox can take over.     Hydrolox is sooo much more efficient once you get up to low pressure area of the atmosphere that the S-II-(my guess at the stage name) would be much better at getting the payload into orbit and beyond.

As an aside, only boosting to the 20km range makes recovery of the stage (or even just the engines) significantly easier!

 

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Huh. Interesting. Also, that diagram shows 8 F-1s and 8 J-2s. Or is it an oversimplification? 

Also, holy hell, 12 J-2s? Damn.

Also also, if they build the 48 foot wide Nova, would it have even fit in the VAB?

Absolutely not.  In fact they couldn't have built the first stage anywhere but at a Shipyard.   Aerojet owned the only plot of land suitable to make stages and it was barely able to handle the AJ-260 effort.   The Ingalls Shipyard, the only government certified shipyard in the area (Mississippi) was in the middle of spooling up for what became the Spruance class Destroyer, and it's near siblings the Ticonderoga class Aegis destroyer (Fake Cruiser) and the Kidd Class.     Remember first flight would not be before 1974 so we have to look to what the construction-scape was like 1970-1975 range.

 

From my previous reading the issue is size of pressure vessel needing naval submarine type welders and the transportation as an all up first stage was impossible (the tank would have to be submerged below water level to clear many bridges.)

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While browsing old IPP docs I found something very interesting with a ton of Skylab-like stations configurations:

unknown.png

(from here, a document wrote in 1970)
Other than a nice EOSS representation and a few designs that I can trace back to a Boeing study ("Saturn V Single Launch Space Station and Observatory Facility", the study itself seems to have died in 2012 but it's been pasted in its entirety in the post in the link with images included); however, between some more famous designs like MORL, LORL and the standard orbiting workship I count at least different configurations that I have never seen before:
- 3 man IOWS (interim orbital workshop)
- 6 man clustered IOWS
- 6 main IOWS (presumably a later configuration of the first)
- B-2 W.S. (B-2 workshop)
- BSM (???)
- ISS (interim space station?)
- EALM - AES - MMM (????)

There's also the 5 year manned SS, but I presume that one is simply an initial Skylab version back when they thought the CSM fuel cells would have been perfectly good to power it

Does anyone know anything about these configurations ( @Pappystein maybe)?  Google/NTRS unsurprisingly doesn't find anything interesting about these names, with the exception of the IOWS which still doesn't explain much about them however. The clustered IOWS looks fantastic, I'd love to know more about it

Also also, here's in the same document a fantastic drawing of a very rare Skylab sized modular space station (top right)
unknown.png

 

Edited by Beccab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beccab said:

While browsing old IPP docs I found something very interesting with a ton of Skylab-like stations configurations:

unknown.png

(from here, a document wrote in 1970)
Other than a nice EOSS representation and a few designs that I can trace back to a Boeing study ("Saturn V Single Launch Space Station and Observatory Facility", the study itself seems to have died in 2012 but it's been pasted in its entirety in the post in the link with images included); however, between some more famous designs like MORL, LORL and the standard orbiting workship I count at least different configurations that I have never seen before:
- 3 man IOWS (interim orbital workshop)
- 6 man clustered IOWS
- 6 main IOWS (presumably a later configuration of the first)
- B-2 W.S. (B-2 workshop)
- BSM (???)
- ISS (interim space station?)
- EALM - AES - MMM (????)

There's also the 5 year manned SS, but I presume that one is simply an initial Skylab version back when they thought the CSM fuel cells would have been perfectly good to power it

Does anyone know anything about these configurations ( @Pappystein maybe)?  Google/NTRS unsurprisingly doesn't find anything interesting about these names, with the exception of the IOWS which still doesn't explain much about them however. The clustered IOWS looks fantastic, I'd love to know more about it

Also also, here's in the same document a fantastic drawing of a very rare Skylab sized modular space station (top right)
unknown.png

 

Ooh, I am gonna have a field day with this!

I actually have a station that loosely resembles the two in the middle of the second picture. My original inspiration was a post on the website "No Shortage of Dreams".

Edit: Found it.

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/03/outpost-in-leo-mcdonnell-douglas-phase.html

Edit 2: I'm only going to post one image because I don't think this is the best place to do a whole post about it, but here. My station loosely inspired by the aforementioned stuff.

52346499165_87566733d5_o.png

Edited by Blufor878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beccab said:

(from here, a document wrote in 1970)
Other than a nice EOSS representation and a few designs that I can trace back to a Boeing study ("Saturn V Single Launch Space Station and Observatory Facility", the study itself seems to have died in 2012 but it's been pasted in its entirety in the post in the link with images included)

Luckily that one was saved, many of that series were either not saved, or were never there. BTW, can you post the title of your first link as it requires a university account to access? Never mind, the title is: The Space Station; A Fundamental Part of the Integrated Space Program.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100519121815/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700075027_1970075027.pdf
 

A little bonus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100519212255/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700018358_1970018358.pdf

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Beccab said:

While browsing old IPP docs I found something very interesting with a ton of Skylab-like stations configurations:



(from here, a document wrote in 1970)
Other than a nice EOSS representation and a few designs that I can trace back to a Boeing study ("Saturn V Single Launch Space Station and Observatory Facility", the study itself seems to have died in 2012 but it's been pasted in its entirety in the post in the link with images included); however, between some more famous designs like MORL, LORL and the standard orbiting workship I count at least different configurations that I have never seen before:
- 3 man IOWS (interim orbital workshop)
- 6 man clustered IOWS
- 6 main IOWS (presumably a later configuration of the first)
- B-2 W.S. (B-2 workshop)
- BSM (???)
- ISS (interim space station?)
- EALM - AES - MMM (????)

There's also the 5 year manned SS, but I presume that one is simply an initial Skylab version back when they thought the CSM fuel cells would have been perfectly good to power it

Does anyone know anything about these configurations ( @Pappystein maybe)?  Google/NTRS unsurprisingly doesn't find anything interesting about these names, with the exception of the IOWS which still doesn't explain much about them however. The clustered IOWS looks fantastic, I'd love to know more about it

Also also, here's in the same document a fantastic drawing of a very rare Skylab sized modular space station (top right)


 

So I don't have a lot of information on my own on Space stations...   

Jcking has already covered most of your question I believe.     HOWEVER I do have one tidbit...

SOME of the parts to make EOSS are already in the Dev branch for BDB.   @Zorg made pretty much the entire EOSS part list.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jcking said:

Luckily that one was saved, many of that series were either not saved, or were never there. BTW, can you post the title of your first link as it requires a university account to access? Never mind, the title is: The Space Station; A Fundamental Part of the Integrated Space Program.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100519121815/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700075027_1970075027.pdf
 

A little bonus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100519212255/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700018358_1970018358.pdf

Anyone else run across stuff that isn't locked behind privileged access or pay access, please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

Anyone else run across stuff that isn't locked behind privileged access or pay access, please share.

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/

Not sure if it's quite what you're looking for. This site has a lot of articles on NASA concepts and proposals.

Edited by Blufor878
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...