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

25 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Sea Dragon? Nah. Sea Dragon weak. Give me, Super Orion Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Interstellar Ark:

main-qimg-ea1ef76d4a9156eecc1c7c8f5cf395

But that's a little big, even with Hanger Extender, so I'll settle for: Boeing's Large Multipurpose Launch Vehicle:
LMLV.jpg?time=1591853435

A rocket powered by SRB's the width of the Saturn V and a core with a aerospike the size of a small island.  I also think the aerospike used SMART tech, so it was recoverable.

 

Roverdude's Orion is OP enough even with 2.5x scale lol.

As for Super Orion, I think there is a mod that adds large Orion drives atleast large for Kerbals, I am not sure where. Though where and how are you gonna launch it without nuking the space center lol the Saturn V wont do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pudgemountain said:

Roverdude's Orion is OP enough even with 2.5x scale lol.

As for Super Orion, I think there is a mod that adds large Orion drives atleast large for Kerbals, I am not sure where. Though where and how are you gonna launch it without nuking the space center lol the Saturn V wont do it.

Super Orion launches with SRBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Well, LMLV would have a purpose. Single launch Mun base missions, Single Launch Duna Base missions, Single Launch anywhere in the kerbolar system missions. And for those with other solar systems, a way to quickly launch a mission there. I mean, why use a Delta Heavy with complicated slingshot maneuvers when you can just one shot a 100 ton craft there. LMLV was made to lift 3.5 Million pounds. That's close to 1,600 metric tons. In KSP that's about 800 tons? Give or take a hundred?  I would like an 800 ton lifter. I could put a Saturn V on Lathe!

1140 tons (AMLLV is a 4 million lbs to orbit max). As for single launch bases to mun or duna, the parts available in mods and in stock aren't large enough to justify that (even the massive 5m centrifuge from SSPXR is only like 20 tons), and for fun you could launch 14 of FFTs antimatter beam engines to orbit at their full extension. Maybe in KSP2 there will be good use cases for such large vehicles, but not in KSP.

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jcking said:

1140 tons (AMLLV is a 4 million lbs to orbit max). As for single launch bases to mun or duna, the parts available in mods and in stock aren't large enough to justify that (even the massive 5m centrifuge from SSPXR is only like 20 tons), and for fun you could launch 14 of FFTs antimatter beam engines to orbit at their full extension. Maybe in KSP2 there will be good use cases for such large vehicles, but not in KSP.

1140? Is that KSP tonnage? And true, you can single launch bases simply using a Saturn MLV. 

LMLV and AMLLV (Side question, why did they rearrange the name?) will definitely be useful in KSP 2. Like I mentioned in my use cases, direct launch to other solar system would cut down travel time by months to years. 

But seriously, why the name change? Anyone know? They went from Large Multipurpose Launch Vehicle to Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicle? Is it because AMLLV sounds better than LMLV? Amullove vs Lemlove?

1 minute ago, biohazard15 said:

Page 1111!

Oh baby! A quadruple! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

  I also think the aerospike used SMART tech, so it was recoverable

It sadly wasn’t. When designing this vehicle Boeing was looking to develop a cheap, big rocket that would complete its job in the simplest manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It sadly wasn’t. When designing this vehicle Boeing was looking to develop a cheap, big rocket that would complete its job in the simplest manner.

On the contrary, a reusable version was studied, but was an entirely new vehicle more or less (note that the LOX and LH2 tanks are now conical with flat bulkheads and are made out of 32 segmented multicellular tanks to provide a lighter but more expensive tank structure). Recovery of strapons would consist of a tail first entry with a 70ft diameter ballute providing stabilization for the SRMs and parachute providing deceleration. recovery system weight is expected to be ~40,000 lbs (unknown if this is per strapon or for all strapons). Recovery of the injection system would consist of a base first entry using main engines for deorbit with a balloon or ballute/ parachute system providing stabilization and deceleration. recovery system weight for that is expected to be ~98,000 lbs.

Pages_from_Study_of_Advanced_Multipurpos

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jcking said:

So obsessed with big rockets, but when you get them you realize that there isn't much if anything in the game or mods to justify them, so they sit unused.

 

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Well, LMLV would have a purpose. Single launch Mun base missions, Single Launch Duna Base missions, Single Launch anywhere in the kerbolar system missions. And for those with other solar systems, a way to quickly launch a mission there. I mean, why use a Delta Heavy with complicated slingshot maneuvers when you can just one shot a 100 ton craft there. LMLV was made to lift 3.5 Million pounds. That's close to 1,600 metric tons. In KSP that's about 800 tons? Give or take a hundred?  I would like an 800 ton lifter. I could put a Saturn V on Lathe!

And they are great for Interstellar missions if you don't want to construct in space or need to send a colony to another system in one go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jcking said:

Wouldn't that make it 4 SMs? Mini Mod Big G IIIM, S-IB conic, Advanced Big G INT-20, and this culled one?

EDIT: Logistics Spacecraft Evolving from Gemini Volume I Summary Report states that "A third configuration was considered prior to mid-term but was dropped with the deletion of the Saturn IB launch vehicle as a study requirement", and the launch configurations and the final concepts consider lead me to believe that it was the conic Saturn IB version that was culled instead of a cylindrical design.

 

To me, the testimony in front of congress "NASA appropriations for FY1970" which was in 1969,  it sounds more like the INT-20 SM was the one that was culled.  That was the one I was referring to FWIW... The SMs are kinda interchangeable so I don't want to call one a Saturn IB SM and another one a Saturn INT-20 SM.  

It isn't inherently stated anywhere, but I think the pulling of the Saturn IB from the potential launchers was due to already Planned Skylab missions.   Even though Skylab was still pretty much up in the air.   I think the reserving of those remaining Saturn IB rockets is the actual death-knell for Big Gemini.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

It isn't inherently stated anywhere, but I think the pulling of the Saturn IB from the potential launchers was due to already Planned Skylab missions.   Even though Skylab was still pretty much up in the air.   I think the reserving of those remaining Saturn IB rockets is the actual death-knell for Big Gemini.

Well, that and asking NASA to create an entirely new crew vehicle with an uncertain future when Apollo is RIGHT THERE and capable of completing the very limited objectives they were aiming for...

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Well, that and asking NASA to create an entirely new crew vehicle with an uncertain future when Apollo is RIGHT THERE and capable of completing the very limited objectives they were aiming for...

When BigG was first thunk up (yes I typed Thunk, deal with it! :D )  NASA was still planning stations in space and to Mars and back.  By the time it got before congress Nixon had asked OBM to set things up to allow him to reduce funding to NASA without being to blame for NASA's failures etc.   And NASA kept scalling back their wants.   Big G was not a probable want to begin with but  was easily a sacrafical lamb in the end.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 9:53 PM, Socowez said:

I do have BellaTU installed.

It's not pulled into the main branch yet, but I have an updated version of BellaTU with fixes for the GLV decoupler, Titan I tank ends, a panel on the Transtage, the truss structure on the Centaur avionics, and a new simple set of textures for the Atlas CELV Skirt so it mostly matches the rest of the Atlas parts:

https://github.com/Rodg88/Bella_TU/archive/refs/heads/dev.zip

Edited by Rodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Well, that and asking NASA to create an entirely new crew vehicle with an uncertain future when Apollo is RIGHT THERE and capable of completing the very limited objectives they were aiming for...

I would give this a half-million likes if I could! I am a die-hard, unrepentant, unashamed Apollo fan!

Edited by DaveyJ576
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

I would give this a half-million likes if I could! I am a die-hard, unrepentant, unashamed Apollo fan!

The only problem with Apollo was it was not designed to survive past the initial moon missions.   The Structure of the Apollo capsule did not allow for expansion like that of the Gemini Capsule did.   Thus most "Big Apollo" proposals actually are McDonnell concepts in McDonnell documents.

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, msp307 said:

We can't really give proper support for RO installs, maybe try the RO discord? But you could try this patch first:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OiSO4lwoEVtndGBZO3XDcqj4FfTCay7/view?usp=sharing

Just place it somewhere in GameData. It may not do anything though, especially if there's a deeper cause for drag cube generation failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rodger said:

We can't really give proper support for RO installs, maybe try the RO discord? But you could try this patch first:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OiSO4lwoEVtndGBZO3XDcqj4FfTCay7/view?usp=sharing

Just place it somewhere in GameData. It may not do anything though, especially if there's a deeper cause for drag cube generation failing.

 

36 minutes ago, msp307 said:

 

Just to add to this, we cant provide support for RO installs since it fundamentally reconfigures our parts and BDB RO configs are written and maintained by the RO team. (even then its not the core team but volunteers who have submitted patches to them). Its not feasible for us to provide support as we are not familiar with the details of RO configs and how our parts are meant to work there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

 

 

Just to add to this, we cant provide support for RO installs since it fundamentally reconfigures our parts and BDB RO configs are written and maintained by the RO team. (even then its not the core team but volunteers who have submitted patches to them). Its not feasible for us to provide support as we are not familiar with the details of RO configs and how our parts are meant to work there.

I once deleted the corresponding file and restarted. Now the loading process stops at "bluedog_Apollo_DrogueChute". Seems to be with all parachutes. Is it due to RealChut and the associated RO configs? to understand exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, msp307 said:

I once deleted the corresponding file and restarted. Now the loading process stops at "bluedog_Apollo_DrogueChute". Seems to be with all parachutes. Is it due to RealChut and the associated RO configs? to understand exactly?

It could be but I'm really not sure. You could try removing RealChute and seeing if the part loads and if so can try to investigate whats wrong with the patches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the mysterious drill... (and the new sample container, which is more just for ground clutter/RP tbh...)
 
Fc4FHKmWIAEyePk?format=jpg&name=large
 
 
 
Surface Electrical Properties experiment, technically supposed to be paired with the weird experiment antenna on the LRV
 
Image
Fc4FZPuX0AQkQnC?format=jpg&name=large
Fc4FZnqWYAEre2G?format=jpg&name=large
Fc4FZ5kXEAUkffn?format=jpg&name=large
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

Some WIP previews of the VPE-14 lander concept for Voyager Mars by JPL. Lots more to do but legs are finished and much of the lower section and RTGs are shaping up.

Image

Image

Image

Image

 

This is genuinely amazing to look at man. Hope I can make something as good as this one day

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...