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

Hey I thought I would ask here since I haven’t asked before, but would anyone like to join the crew for Space station Freedom?

So far we’ve had 3 full crews of custom Kerbals go to the station, and a 4th to be launched today. If you haven’t already signed up, just reply to me what you want to be named, and I’ll put you on the mission list

Yes this is relevant to BDB because of these nice photos-

cehwcBE.png

definitely BDB related :sticktongue:

Vny1lk0.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

Delta III is too legit to quit!  (welcome to page 864!)

 

yOxSk4W.png

 

  Reveal hidden contents

lCeg0V1.pngHbOaQJG.pngwiLKTZj.pngTmzkPY9.pngr1tqp5c.pngvxd1Xdz.pngghNABKy.pngmJ82Es9.pngrF5nTRs.png7WvmL4n.pngi5VpeYP.png

 

kindly requesting that you delet this

8 minutes ago, AmateurAstronaut1969 said:

Hey I thought I would ask here since I haven’t asked before, but would anyone like to join the crew for Space station Freedom?

So far we’ve had 3 full crews of custom Kerbals go to the station, and a 4th to be launched today. If you haven’t already signed up, just reply to me what you want to be named, and I’ll put you on the mission list

Yes this is relevant to BDB because of these nice photos-

cehwcBE.png

definitely BDB related :sticktongue:

Vny1lk0.png

 

 

If you have a Joseph Kerman, that'd be great :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Be Weary here.   While there is a lot of stuff that is technically correct.   There are too many parts of Astronautix where a "blurb" becomes "Fact" instead of properly researched FACT (Saturn-NOVA anyone?)     

Excluding congress de-funding NOVA in the early 1960s to add more funding to Saturn they are not linked.

 

I posted a while back the entire INT series from actual NASA documents.    gosh I still need to get my "historical archive" up and running :D

Repost: @Starhelperdude

Spoiler

Saturn I MLV proposals, The LEO INTs:

So this is as comprehensive of a list of all the various Saturn IB proposals under the MLV study as can be easily surmised.   Early on, those rockets based on Saturn I flight profile (LEO only) received INT-x designations.    Those designed for beyond LEO received MLV-x designations and are almost exclusively Saturn V derivatives.

Knowing this, we can quickly break the INT series into three basic Rocket types.  They are the direct Saturn I replacement, the Saturn II based on the S-II stage from Saturn V, and the Saturn V S-IC derived LEO Rockets.

For clarity's sake, Rockets are denoted with the old C series designations (C-1, C-5, etc.) The reason becomes important when you add the un-built C-2, C-3, C-4, etc., to the mix as they all had stages of the same name even though they were rocket specific.  

Unless specifically denoted in the variant, any reference to a MLV stage eg MS-IVB, is for the standard tank but strength optimized stage.   No stretches should be assumed here.   The EXCEPTION:  There are calls for a S-IVC on some of these proposals.  To be clear this is the ACTUAL ORIGIONAL S-IVC not the awesome twin engine Earth to the Sky S-IVC (for clarities sake lets call that an ES-IVC.)  

 

Saturn I

INT-05 family.  This is two generations of proposals; the Original INT-05 had way too much acceleration for manned launches (one of the pre-requisites for the study.)   The 2nd study’s results, the INT-05A, offer significant changes.  A further INT-05B exists as well, but the data is sketchy.

INT-05:  MS-IVB atop a re-designed Saturn S-IB to S-IVB interstage.   Half-length “full acceleration” AJ-260.   56,000kg to LEO, but the g-force loads would be excessive (approaching 6x the force of gravity)

INT-05A:  Improvement to how the AJ-260 would be engineered and built, utilizing the latest advances in Solid Propellant grain manipulation, a Full “137ft 5in” length AJ-260 with an Augmented thrust profile would be used.   43,000kg to LEO but Man safe (less than 3.5g acceleration)

INT-05B:  Several websites and documents mention a -05B version, but none spell out anything about it except that it existed.   I am ASSUMING that this would be a “thrust profiled” short AJ-260.   The lower acceleration would cause a decline in the payload to orbit around 10-15,000kg or about the same as a standard late Saturn IB.

 

INT-11 to INT-15 family.   This is a series of proposals for either a standard S-IB(C-1) stage or one with a 20 ft stretch… In all cases, either four UA-1205s are used or in conjunction with the 20ft stretch 4 UA-1207s.  Various combinations of Air-lit or ground-lit H-1s and even removing some of the H-1s were studied in this group.   Assume that if the SRM equipped is UA-1207 that the core stage has a 20ft stretch.  In every case in this series, 4 of the 8 stabilizing fins are removed from the 1st stage of the Saturn Rocket.

INT-11(1205):  As Saturn IB in all respects except 4 UA-1205 SRMs are used to carry the Rocket as the 0 stage.  The First stage (8 H-1s) are ignited approximately 5 seconds before SRM burn out at altitude.  Payload not specified but believed to be slightly less than the 1207 version’s 48,000kg

INT-11(1207):  As Saturn IB in all respects except 4 UA-1207, SRMs are used to carry the Rocket as the 0 stage.  The first stage (8 H-1s) is ignited approximately 5 seconds before SRM burn out at altitude. Payload is 48,000kg  First stage tank stretch is designated S-IB-11

INT-12: As Saturn IB but only the outer 4 H-1s are fitted.  Equipped with 4 UA-1205 SRMs and both the UA-1205s and the H-1s are ignited at launch.    34,000kg to LEO

INT-13: Again using two versions of the Titan SRM, the INT-13 was proposed as a 2x SRM + core Saturn IB.   The base version would add two UA-1205s to ignite at launch with all 8 H-1 engines.  The stretched or INT-13-11 would use 2x UA-1207s.   Payload is listed for the INT-13-11 as 36,500kg to LEO.  I could find no payload listed for the base INT-13.

INT-14:  Three distinct rockets this one.  The INT-14 introduced the idea of using 4x of the Minuteman’s M55/TX-55/TU-122 engine (M55 being the Military designation for both the TX-55 and TU-122.)  With this would be combined a standard Saturn S-IB, a 10ft Stretched S-IB(C-1) tank or a 20ft stretched tank like the INT-11 above.  Each side would carry 2x M55s nestled side by side between each fin.     Data is for the 20ft stretch.   H-1s ignited at launch.  23,180kg LEO payload.

INT-15:  The final version of this series of proposals.  The INT-15 was again studied in 0, 10 and 20ft stretch to the S-IB(C-1) stage.   In this case we have data for the 10ft stretch.   8x Minuteman M55/TX-55/TU-122 engines would be utilized, No indication if the burn profile is ALL/HALF or some other combination.   Assuming all burned at once.  26,000kg to LEO.

 

The INT-16:   On the Subject of Solids and Saturn, after the INT-05 was deemed too high of acceleration for launch, several companies investigated the use of clustered Titan SRMs in lieu of the monolithic AJ-260.   IN the case of INT-16 the idea of using the UA-1205 as a 2 stage system before starting the S-IVB was introduced.  2 to 5 UA-1205,1206 or 1207s would surround 1 to 3 of the same SRM, with the outer 2 to 5 being ignited first and the inner 1 to 3 being ignited second.  To be clear the UA-1206 talked about here is a full 6 segment version of the 120” CSD SRM.   For clarity's sake, I will denote this as the UA-1206F.  This is NOT the UA-1206 that first flew on Titan 34D.  A conic Interstage would be developed as the stack of 120” SRMs would be larger than the base diameter of the Saturn IB.  In fact, a new version of the UA-120x would have been developed that used actual Gimbal Thrust Vectoring instead of Liquid injection.   It was this that put the proposal out of sight as the costs involved, given the technology was being developed at competing companies was excessive.    Supposedly a 5x UA-1205 first stage, arranged 4 +1, would lift 28,000kg to LEO.   An extremely optimistic number without creating an excess of acceleration in my opinion.

 

Saturn II family:

INT-17:   INT-17 was a paper study that latched onto the Paper engine known as the HG-3.  The goal was to showcase that while high-power engines COULD be made, putting them on a Saturn S-II(C5) stage would not make it fly well or with a viable payload.   This was done as a contrast to the latter INT-18 and INT-19 proposals for Saturn II which both showcased that with existing technology, it was cheaper and effective to replace the Saturn I completely with Saturn V derived components.

INT-18:  The true workhorse of the Saturn II, the INT-18 would combine 2, 4 or even 5 120” Titan SRMs.   The use of stretched tanks was not studied under this series of proposals but the mounting of the 120” SRMs particularly calls for it.   The Strap on SRMs to be used were UA-1204, UA-1205 and UA-1207 in 2 or 4 arrays, Latter it was proposed to use the unbuilt UA-1206F as well but I have never seen a full accounting of any particular performance and can guess that the payload would have fallen roughly between the UA-1205 and UA-1207’s.      The INT-18 was conceptualized in so many different configurations it is hard to keep track.   Be it with 4 UA-1204s and a S-IVB upper stage, or 4 UA-1207s and NO upper stage… the range and breadth of payloads and capabilities of the INT-18 is amazing.   The documented performance runs from 21,300 to 66,400kg to LEO.     This gives rise to my belief that the Saturn II would have become the first truly modular Rocket, something that MSFC engineers and scientists strove to develop with the Saturn Juno V rocket from the start!  Here is I hope a simple chart of the “part variants.” Play legos yourself and see what you can do!  The INT-18 should almost have a MLV designation because with certain combinations of tankage, fuel and engines you can launch a significant sized payload beyond LEO.

 

 

Saturn II INT-18 major components

     

 

Liquid stage

Solid Stage

 

 

 

 

 

S-II(C5)

 

UA-1204

       
 

MS-IIA(MLV)

 

UA-1205

       
 

MS-IIB(MLV)

 

UA-1206F

       
 

S-IVB(C-1)

 

UA-1207

       
 

S-IVB(C-5)

           
 

MS-IVB(C-5)

           
 

S-IVC (NOT ETS!)

           
               
               

 

Engine Choices for all of the various Liquid stages:

 

 

 

J-2

J-2 Sea Level

J-2S

J-2S Sea Level

J-2T

J-2L*

Advanced(RL-20)

 

*Also know as the Linear Test Bed Engine (LTBE) and is currently in the to-do list of EStreetRockets “Rocket Motor Menagerie”

  https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/202266-111x-rocket-motor-menagerie-v100-stockalike-engine-pack/

 

 

INT-19.  Almost a footnote in the development of the INT-18 was the fact that even with it’s modularity The INT-18 was TOO good for many LEO payloads that might be large.   Enter the INT-19.  Combining the already studied Minuteman first stage (the above mentioned M55) with the basic Saturn II premise of a Saturn S-II(C-5) stage with a Saturn S-IVB(C-1 or C-5 depending on actual use,) stage with Solids to help get it off the ground and you get a really fat Delta Rocket.  It was the NASA Delta Rocket’s then proposed (and shortly to fly) use of small solid boosters that started the genesis of the INT-19.  The INT-19, like the INT-18 before it would trade off fuel load for payload.   In every case the Saturn S-II(C-5) stage would be ignited on the ground and in every case it would be a sea level rated engine (so J-2-SL, J-2S-SL, or RL20-P3-booster in BDB.)  During the purposes of the study they only used the Standard J-2 with a Sealevel optimized bell.  Carrying 0 M55s the payload to LEO was a small but not insignificant 5,500kg.   Running in an 8x4 array of 12 M55s the payload could rise to a hefty 34,200kg.   In this way the INT-19 was a more direct replacement for the Saturn I and the INT-18 before it was a more “between” the Saturn I and the Saturn V.     While not currently in the game, although work is being done to bring it onboard, the M55 can be almost replicated by using the 0.9375m Algol SRB from BDB.

 

 

The Saturn V derived INT-20 is a unique look at a company’s study done almost out of spite for a competing company.   The S-IC(C5) rocket stage is vastly overpowered for LEO only launches…   At a Heavy and in-efficent 4.6gs of acceleration, in conjunction with a MS-IVB upper stage, the S-IC can hurl 72,000kg to LEO….   Conversely, if you remove all but 2 of the F-1 engines it can lift a stately 27,000kg to LEO… still at the still heavy acceleration of 4.6x the force of gravity.     Where it gets mind numbing is when you reduce the S-IC’s fuel load allowing for a peak acceleration of 6x the force of gravity… 133,000kg to LEO…   In short, the INT-20 is not a real workable design since most spacecraft have a hard limit of 4.0x the force of gravity.

 

The INT-21, the only member of the entire MLV family to fly, is Unique in that while it too has a 4.68x G acceleration like the INT-20 before it, it does not seem to be made from spite like it’s predecessor.  Utilizing a standard sized but optimized MS-IC(C-5) first stage and MS-II(C-5) second stage the INT-21 was poised to be THE large mass launcher for the US space flight.   In the end a some what related standard Saturn V was used to launch Skylab…        Like the INT-18 and INT-19 above, and to a lesser extent the INT-20, the INT-21 studied “basically standard” tankage from the Saturn V equipped with less engines.   With 4 F-1s and 3 J-2s the INT-21 was capable of 76,000kg to Leo.  With a full 5x5, 116,000kg to LEO.

 

         
 

INT-21 configurations

   
 

Designation

Mass to LEO

 

Saturn INT-21(4x3)

76,000

 
 

Saturn INT-21(4x4)

84,000

 
 

Saturn INT-21(4x5)

89,000

 
 

Saturn INT-21(5x3)

101,000

 
 

Saturn INT-21(5x4)

112,000

 
 

Saturn INT-21(5x5)

116,000

 
         

 

INT-27 the last of the LEO designs published:

The INT-27 is not really buildable in KSP.  It utilized 156” SRMs that do not exist (sure that is a 2.5m solid like the space shuttle SRB but the configuration of the parts requires a different shape to fit in the Saturn setup.    The idea is strikingly similar to the INT-16 above and the drawings for it are oftentimes confused with the INT-16.   In the INT-27, a single CTD-156 SRM would be centered under an X Truss that is below the S-IVB(C1) to S-IB(C1) interstage.   Then four more CTD-156 SRMs would be radially attached to the central one… like the INT-16 the SRMs would burn “outside-in” with the single in the center being the 2nd stage.  The problems start with the fact that United Aircraft Chemical Systems division (the manufacture of the UA-120x for Titan) never solved many of the issues with their 156” SRM.  Most MLV documents assumed they would be functional.  Instead, Thiokol and Lockheed would both solve the problems of nozzle gimbal nearly simultaneously.  The result was Thiokol’s 156” SRM being chosen as the basis of the Space Shuttle 148” SRB.   In theory, the combination of CTD-156 SRMs would have lofted between 18,000kg and 70,000kg to LEO.     

 

 

Here ends the role-call for all the Saturn Derived Saturn I replacements at the end of the 1960s.  A further series of studies were done for NASA in the 1970s but most of that was focused on technology growth rather than actual all-up rockets.  

Hope that helps.    While my reaserch started on the Astronautix website I did not stop there because other than names there isn't much that is SUPER trust-worthy.   The data tables and information I acquired from actual published NASA documents (mostly from the NTRS servers)

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AmateurAstronaut1969 said:

Hey I thought I would ask here since I haven’t asked before, but would anyone like to join the crew for Space station Freedom?

So far we’ve had 3 full crews of custom Kerbals go to the station, and a 4th to be launched today. If you haven’t already signed up, just reply to me what you want to be named, and I’ll put you on the mission list

Yes this is relevant to BDB because of these nice photos-

cehwcBE.png

definitely BDB related :sticktongue:

Vny1lk0.png

 

 

Jack Kerman would love to join to be part of expedition 4! (preferably a British engineer :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AmateurAstronaut1969 said:

Okay sorry for the double posts, but here are all the flags I use

None of these are made by me, I've just found them online or been given them from other people

US Flags - https://imgur.com/a/fnfQzhL

SpaceX - https://imgur.com/a/CUxR5Xu

ESA, Russia & Japan - https://imgur.com/a/CUxR5Xu

Freedom module flags - https://imgur.com/a/jSDqCII

:D

These are sick, thanks. The ESA flags are the same as the Spacex album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alrighty, couple updates. Mariner seemed like it was close to being finished, but I will have  to redo some stuff. Here's some extra technical details why I will need to redo many of these parts if any of you are interested:

Spoiler

At first glance, Mariner 3-5 seems like it uses the same octagonal bus as Mariner 6-10. However, while I was doing initial research, I learned that Mariner 6 and beyond received a significantly upgraded bus. However, according to some sources (like NSSDC and a few others), Mariner 6-10's bus was about 10% larger than Mariner 3-5's (which made sense to me, considering Mariner 3-5 launched on an Atlas-Agena, and Mariner 6-10 launched on Atlas-Centaur). I assumed this was one of the upgrades for the later Mariner's. It was also hard to compare Mariner 6-10 to Mariner 3-5 through pictures, as it 6-7 used a different engine cap, a different HGA, a different LGA, different solar panels, and a different science payload, while Mariner 8-10 bared even less resemblance to the earlier Mariner's. I assumed that looks deceive, and the Mariners must have a bus size difference. However as I later found out, I turned out to be incorrect about the bus sizes.

At the time I had started modeling Mariner, I was still fairly new to KSP modding (I modeled the bus and the engine in December of 2020) before moving on to other parts I wanted to make. At the time I was less familiar with using NTRS (which for me has been the best source of references for part-making) and I relied on most images, orthographics/diagrams, and any physical dimensions I could get my hands on. This will be important later. The dimension that was flawed was the 'diameter' of the bus. As it turns out, measuring the diameter/width of an octagon can be annoying, as the distance between two vertices of an octagon is larger than the distance between two edges. I found several references on google listing Mariner 3-5's diameter as 127 cm "across the diagonal" (another word for point to point) and its height as 45.7 cm. Many others referenced Mariner 6-10's diameter as 137-138ish cm across the diagonal, with the same height as Mariner 3-5. If you squint enough at the Mariner's, in my mind I could see how Mariner 3-5 would look skinnier/taller and Mariner 6-10 was thinner and shorter (as I thought Mariner 3-5 was less wide yet the same height as Mariner 6-10).  It didn't help that there are fewer high-res images of Mariner 3-5, since there are no museum models of those Mariner's while there are of Mariner 6-7, and Mariner 10.

What I did not realize was that for an octagon that is 137 cm (Mariner 6-10) across the diagonal,  the edge to edge distance is 127 cm, which is what I thought was Mariner 3-5's distance across the diagonal. Recently I realized there was a discrepancy with the size of my thermal louvers, and I realized that something wasn't adding up. I checked the documents I had collected from NTRS when I got back to working on Mariner, and I realized that several of them list Mariner 3-5's length across the diagonal to be about 138 cm, not 127 cm. These documents are final reports, design reviews, etc. so a dimensional value that consistently appears across many of these design documents is pretty much irrefutable. Frantically checking to see where I got my initial info from, it turned out NSSDC must have made the mistake of mistaking Mariner 3-5's edge to edge length as its length across the diagonal, thus giving a smaller, incorrect value for its size. The other instances of this incorrect value (notably Wikipedia) seemed to use NSSDC as a source as well. If they had also given Mariner 6-10's size the wrong value, I would've realized that 127 cm is an incorrect dimension, but instead, the Mariner 6-10  sizes were accurate. While I modelled many parts in terms of separate dimensional values I found (like the antennas, the engine, and the solar panels) making their size accurate, many parts were based on the size of the bus, like most of the experiments, the decoupler, the antenna support structure, and all bus endcap variants between Mariner 3-5, and will need to be resized along with the bus.

To make matters worse, the bus wasn't simply underscaled because the height was accurate. This means that I couldn't just scale up the model, I would have to manually edit it, requiring me to re-unwrap and retexture the bus. While a small part of me wanted to just say screw it and leave it underscaled (although I am somewhat of a perfectionist so I probably wouldn't do that), correctly scaling Mariner 3-5 now would save me the trouble of working with Mariner 6-9 later, as either Mariner 6 would be underscaled (which would impact the size of the experiments and more) and not line up with the size of Mariner 10, or I would have to model a whole new accurately sized bus, taking up a lot of extra texture space. While this doesn't seem too bad, all of Mariner's parts need to be very specifically made so they all fit together. The solar panels are a very tight fit in the Lunar Orbiter Agena fairing, Mariner 3-4 have dampeners that connect to solar panels (which were modelled around the size of the bus), Mariner 5 has a solar shade that needs to fit under the decoupler, Mariner 5's HGA and Mariner 3-5's LGA have struts that connect to specific points on the bus, etc. Additionally, I have already unwrapped many parts, and I try my best to pack my texture maps as tight as possible, so increasing the size of the parts would likely mean I would need to rethink my UV's. On the bright side, it would be nice to have the experiments be a little larger, as they were already quite small.

To summarize, Mariner 3-5's bus' diameter will need to be larger, and many other parts need to be upscaled by this same factor. I probably was on track to get the Mariner parts in game in a week or two(depending on how much spare time I have to work on modding), but it might take longer now. 

In better news, a blast from the past: the 0.625 m Klaw that Cobalt made a while ago is being brought in game! I am having some troubles getting it to cooperate but it will be on github soon.
screenshot1424.png
A little Pioneer 6 based probe I made with it:
screenshot1425.png
screenshot1433.png
screenshot1434.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Invaderchaos said:

Alrighty, couple updates. Mariner seemed like it was close to being finished, but I will have  to redo some stuff. Here's some extra technical details why I will need to redo many of these parts if any of you are interested:

  Reveal hidden contents

At first glance, Mariner 3-5 seems like it uses the same octagonal bus as Mariner 6-10. However, while I was doing initial research, I learned that Mariner 6 and beyond received a significantly upgraded bus. However, according to some sources (like NSSDC and a few others), Mariner 6-10's bus was about 10% larger than Mariner 3-5's (which made sense to me, considering Mariner 3-5 launched on an Atlas-Agena, and Mariner 6-10 launched on Atlas-Centaur). I assumed this was one of the upgrades for the later Mariner's. It was also hard to compare Mariner 6-10 to Mariner 3-5 through pictures, as it 6-7 used a different engine cap, a different HGA, a different LGA, different solar panels, and a different science payload, while Mariner 8-10 bared even less resemblance to the earlier Mariner's. I assumed that looks deceive, and the Mariners must have a bus size difference. However as I later found out, I turned out to be incorrect about the bus sizes.

At the time I had started modeling Mariner, I was still fairly new to KSP modding (I modeled the bus and the engine in December of 2020) before moving on to other parts I wanted to make. At the time I was less familiar with using NTRS (which for me has been the best source of references for part-making) and I relied on most images, orthographics/diagrams, and any physical dimensions I could get my hands on. This will be important later. The dimension that was flawed was the 'diameter' of the bus. As it turns out, measuring the diameter/width of an octagon can be annoying, as the distance between two vertices of an octagon is larger than the distance between two edges. I found several references on google listing Mariner 3-5's diameter as 127 cm "across the diagonal" (another word for point to point) and its height as 45.7 cm. Many others referenced Mariner 6-10's diameter as 137-138ish cm across the diagonal, with the same height as Mariner 3-5. If you squint enough at the Mariner's, in my mind I could see how Mariner 3-5 would look skinnier/taller and Mariner 6-10 was thinner and shorter (as I thought Mariner 3-5 was less wide yet the same height as Mariner 6-10).  It didn't help that there are fewer high-res images of Mariner 3-5, since there are no museum models of those Mariner's while there are of Mariner 6-7, and Mariner 10.

What I did not realize was that for an octagon that is 137 cm (Mariner 6-10) across the diagonal,  the edge to edge distance is 127 cm, which is what I thought was Mariner 3-5's distance across the diagonal. Recently I realized there was a discrepancy with the size of my thermal louvers, and I realized that something wasn't adding up. I checked the documents I had collected from NTRS when I got back to working on Mariner, and I realized that several of them list Mariner 3-5's length across the diagonal to be about 138 cm, not 127 cm. These documents are final reports, design reviews, etc. so a dimensional value that consistently appears across many of these design documents is pretty much irrefutable. Frantically checking to see where I got my initial info from, it turned out NSSDC must have made the mistake of mistaking Mariner 3-5's edge to edge length as its length across the diagonal, thus giving a smaller, incorrect value for its size. The other instances of this incorrect value (notably Wikipedia) seemed to use NSSDC as a source as well. If they had also given Mariner 6-10's size the wrong value, I would've realized that 127 cm is an incorrect dimension, but instead, the Mariner 6-10  sizes were accurate. While I modelled many parts in terms of separate dimensional values I found (like the antennas, the engine, and the solar panels) making their size accurate, many parts were based on the size of the bus, like most of the experiments, the decoupler, the antenna support structure, and all bus endcap variants between Mariner 3-5, and will need to be resized along with the bus.

To make matters worse, the bus wasn't simply underscaled because the height was accurate. This means that I couldn't just scale up the model, I would have to manually edit it, requiring me to re-unwrap and retexture the bus. While a small part of me wanted to just say screw it and leave it underscaled (although I am somewhat of a perfectionist so I probably wouldn't do that), correctly scaling Mariner 3-5 now would save me the trouble of working with Mariner 6-9 later, as either Mariner 6 would be underscaled (which would impact the size of the experiments and more) and not line up with the size of Mariner 10, or I would have to model a whole new accurately sized bus, taking up a lot of extra texture space. While this doesn't seem too bad, all of Mariner's parts need to be very specifically made so they all fit together. The solar panels are a very tight fit in the Lunar Orbiter Agena fairing, Mariner 3-4 have dampeners that connect to solar panels (which were modelled around the size of the bus), Mariner 5 has a solar shade that needs to fit under the decoupler, Mariner 5's HGA and Mariner 3-5's LGA have struts that connect to specific points on the bus, etc. Additionally, I have already unwrapped many parts, and I try my best to pack my texture maps as tight as possible, so increasing the size of the parts would likely mean I would need to rethink my UV's. On the bright side, it would be nice to have the experiments be a little larger, as they were already quite small.

To summarize, Mariner 3-5's bus' diameter will need to be larger, and many other parts need to be upscaled by this same factor. I probably was on track to get the Mariner parts in game in a week or two(depending on how much spare time I have to work on modding), but it might take longer now. 

In better news, a blast from the past: the 0.625 m Klaw that Cobalt made a while ago is being brought in game! I am having some troubles getting it to cooperate but it will be on github soon.
screenshot1424.png
A little Pioneer 6 based probe I made with it:
screenshot1425.png
screenshot1433.png
screenshot1434.png

How to beat the game with 1 probe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Invaderchaos said:

Alrighty, couple updates. Mariner seemed like it was close to being finished, but I will have  to redo some stuff. Here's some extra technical details why I will need to redo many of these parts if any of you are interested:

  Reveal hidden contents

At first glance, Mariner 3-5 seems like it uses the same octagonal bus as Mariner 6-10. However, while I was doing initial research, I learned that Mariner 6 and beyond received a significantly upgraded bus. However, according to some sources (like NSSDC and a few others), Mariner 6-10's bus was about 10% larger than Mariner 3-5's (which made sense to me, considering Mariner 3-5 launched on an Atlas-Agena, and Mariner 6-10 launched on Atlas-Centaur). I assumed this was one of the upgrades for the later Mariner's. It was also hard to compare Mariner 6-10 to Mariner 3-5 through pictures, as it 6-7 used a different engine cap, a different HGA, a different LGA, different solar panels, and a different science payload, while Mariner 8-10 bared even less resemblance to the earlier Mariner's. I assumed that looks deceive, and the Mariners must have a bus size difference. However as I later found out, I turned out to be incorrect about the bus sizes.

At the time I had started modeling Mariner, I was still fairly new to KSP modding (I modeled the bus and the engine in December of 2020) before moving on to other parts I wanted to make. At the time I was less familiar with using NTRS (which for me has been the best source of references for part-making) and I relied on most images, orthographics/diagrams, and any physical dimensions I could get my hands on. This will be important later. The dimension that was flawed was the 'diameter' of the bus. As it turns out, measuring the diameter/width of an octagon can be annoying, as the distance between two vertices of an octagon is larger than the distance between two edges. I found several references on google listing Mariner 3-5's diameter as 127 cm "across the diagonal" (another word for point to point) and its height as 45.7 cm. Many others referenced Mariner 6-10's diameter as 137-138ish cm across the diagonal, with the same height as Mariner 3-5. If you squint enough at the Mariner's, in my mind I could see how Mariner 3-5 would look skinnier/taller and Mariner 6-10 was thinner and shorter (as I thought Mariner 3-5 was less wide yet the same height as Mariner 6-10).  It didn't help that there are fewer high-res images of Mariner 3-5, since there are no museum models of those Mariner's while there are of Mariner 6-7, and Mariner 10.

What I did not realize was that for an octagon that is 137 cm (Mariner 6-10) across the diagonal,  the edge to edge distance is 127 cm, which is what I thought was Mariner 3-5's distance across the diagonal. Recently I realized there was a discrepancy with the size of my thermal louvers, and I realized that something wasn't adding up. I checked the documents I had collected from NTRS when I got back to working on Mariner, and I realized that several of them list Mariner 3-5's length across the diagonal to be about 138 cm, not 127 cm. These documents are final reports, design reviews, etc. so a dimensional value that consistently appears across many of these design documents is pretty much irrefutable. Frantically checking to see where I got my initial info from, it turned out NSSDC must have made the mistake of mistaking Mariner 3-5's edge to edge length as its length across the diagonal, thus giving a smaller, incorrect value for its size. The other instances of this incorrect value (notably Wikipedia) seemed to use NSSDC as a source as well. If they had also given Mariner 6-10's size the wrong value, I would've realized that 127 cm is an incorrect dimension, but instead, the Mariner 6-10  sizes were accurate. While I modelled many parts in terms of separate dimensional values I found (like the antennas, the engine, and the solar panels) making their size accurate, many parts were based on the size of the bus, like most of the experiments, the decoupler, the antenna support structure, and all bus endcap variants between Mariner 3-5, and will need to be resized along with the bus.

To make matters worse, the bus wasn't simply underscaled because the height was accurate. This means that I couldn't just scale up the model, I would have to manually edit it, requiring me to re-unwrap and retexture the bus. While a small part of me wanted to just say screw it and leave it underscaled (although I am somewhat of a perfectionist so I probably wouldn't do that), correctly scaling Mariner 3-5 now would save me the trouble of working with Mariner 6-9 later, as either Mariner 6 would be underscaled (which would impact the size of the experiments and more) and not line up with the size of Mariner 10, or I would have to model a whole new accurately sized bus, taking up a lot of extra texture space. While this doesn't seem too bad, all of Mariner's parts need to be very specifically made so they all fit together. The solar panels are a very tight fit in the Lunar Orbiter Agena fairing, Mariner 3-4 have dampeners that connect to solar panels (which were modelled around the size of the bus), Mariner 5 has a solar shade that needs to fit under the decoupler, Mariner 5's HGA and Mariner 3-5's LGA have struts that connect to specific points on the bus, etc. Additionally, I have already unwrapped many parts, and I try my best to pack my texture maps as tight as possible, so increasing the size of the parts would likely mean I would need to rethink my UV's. On the bright side, it would be nice to have the experiments be a little larger, as they were already quite small.

To summarize, Mariner 3-5's bus' diameter will need to be larger, and many other parts need to be upscaled by this same factor. I probably was on track to get the Mariner parts in game in a week or two(depending on how much spare time I have to work on modding), but it might take longer now. 

In better news, a blast from the past: the 0.625 m Klaw that Cobalt made a while ago is being brought in game! I am having some troubles getting it to cooperate but it will be on github soon.
screenshot1424.png
A little Pioneer 6 based probe I made with it:
screenshot1425.png
screenshot1433.png
screenshot1434.png

Sounds like it's Gemini satellite interceptor time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Beccab said:

People out there hating on the SRB-X as if the Nova MM 14 A wasn't a proposal too
Screenshot_7924.pngScreenshot_7925.pngScreenshot_7933.pngScreenshot_7946.pngScreenshot_7952.pngScreenshot_7960.pngScreenshot_7965.png

NICE another REAL Nova!    Are you keeping them intentionally small due to VAB restrictions?

Or is it just perspective issues between it and the Saturn V you have in the "comparison" pictures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

NICE another REAL Nova!    Are you keeping them intentionally small due to VAB restrictions?

A bit of that, plus me messing up the height of the first stage and finding out only when the assembly is already complete :wink: it would have been quite a bit higher than the Saturn V in real life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrStayPuft said:

Sorry To be a burdened on this spectacular build, but I couldn't help ignore something that caught my eye... That Saturn V is missing its fins  

That's not the only thing missing but it serves the job well enough as a size comparison.

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...