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, Starhelperdude said:

it seems to me atleast that the models of F1 and F1B merged into the engine you show here, I would recommend you to check if the dependencies of BDB are up to date

 

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

This is the result of a bad install. Probably b9partswitch is missing or out of date or you have some other patch interfering with it. The picture shows the F1 and F1B being mixed together.

if everything is up to date then you need to post your modulemanager.configcache file from the gamedata folder

 
The problem has been resolved was an error in my RO files. Just overlooked.

Anyways thanks for your help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: In the future, will we get a 6.25 IU/Fairing for Larger Rockets and the Saturn INT-21 (Imagine Skylab's Saturn V but the IU atop the S-II instead of atop the workshop)?

Also, will the SLA get adjustments to get proper sep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Question: In the future, will we get a 6.25 IU/Fairing for Larger Rockets and the Saturn INT-21 (Imagine Skylab's Saturn V but the IU atop the S-II instead of atop the workshop)?

Also, will the SLA get adjustments to get proper sep?

yes, we're kind of obligated to do proper 6.25m parts this time around.

I haven't gotten a chance to look at the SLA panels, idk what's wrong with them. People just keep saying they're wrong and that's not really helpful/encouraging. :P EDIT: Sorry if that was rude, I saw the post right as I sat down after an annoying meeting. I'll see if I can check it out tonight during tabletop.

EDIT2: With that said, I'd appreciate some screenshots and better descriptions of what you think needs to be changed.

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

yes, we're kind of obligated to do proper 6.25m parts this time around.

I haven't gotten a chance to look at the SLA panels, idk what's wrong with them. People just keep saying they're wrong and that's not really helpful/encouraging. :P EDIT: Sorry if that was rude, I saw the post right as I sat down after an annoying meeting. I'll see if I can check it out tonight during tabletop.

EDIT2: With that said, I'd appreciate some screenshots and better descriptions of what you think needs to be changed.

I think the issue is the SLA panels are ejected upwards, but I'm not sure. Functionally, they work fine. It's just that they do not seperate like they do IRL. Here is a short clip showing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MhLZNPf.png

@CobaltWolfIt's really just the jettisonable petal adapters. It's not game breaking, just kind of immersion breaking. The Saturn/CSM stack is an amazing vehicle to launch, but on all the Sarnus-Class missions post Apollo 7 when you launch the Saturn V/IB it looks really weird to see them launch and get to CSM Sep. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

It's really just the jettisonable petal adapters. It's not game breaking, just kind of immersion breaking. The Saturn/CSM stack is an amazing vehicle to launch, but on all the Sarnus-Class missions post Apollo 7 when you launch the Saturn V/IB it looks really weird to see them launch and get to CSM Sep. 

Huh, I already moved the nodes upwards a good bit so the force was applied at the top... it looks like it might not have been pushed to Github though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Huh, I already moved the nodes upwards a good bit so the force was applied at the top... it looks like it might not have been pushed to Github though.

No problem then.

Also, just for the record Cobalt, for some reason the old Block I nose cone overrides the newer one. 

An easy enough fix, I just went into the old part, deleted the thing in OldParts and we're good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Also, just for the record Cobalt, for some reason the old Block I nose cone overrides the newer one. 

An easy enough fix, I just went into the old part, deleted the thing in OldParts and we're good. 

can I just delete the OldParts folder the problem is, for a lot of these parts, the file naming convention was already perfect and I don't want to make it more awkward just to avoid overwriting the older stuff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, derega16 said:

What's about "shortened" S-1C? Like one on some C-4 proposal

Has anyone found the "Surprise" Cobalt alluded to in his post about the new S-IC tanks?

If not,   It is the COMMON BULKHEAD for the MLV studies.  It is a full Saturn V fuel load in a tank ~20% shorter....   

I have a launch going right now... but my install is broken (no waterfall on the engines :(   )   But I will post some pics latter (this is my first flight with any of the new Apollo parts!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4TZK3BI.png

Saturn V with MS-IC-CB and J-2S engines (all other parts are standard Saturn V)  

This is my first flight with the new Apollo parts.    I have been *busy* with another mod on another game in a behind the scenes support role and it has severly limited my time to play KSP.     But after the Challenge by @CobaltWolf last night, and NO ONE pointing out the "Surprise" in his post last night....   Well I just had to get at-least one launch in.    

Also decided to see what would give the best "engine out" configuration for Saturn V to maintain the center engine shutdown.    Smartparts really only has Drainex sensor that applies to this situation and it unfortunately becomes a WAG as you would have to adjust the fuel percentage for each and every rocket using some hefty math.    Launch was a failure because I failed to disable MechJeb auto stage....   But I launched a new Saturn V!    on a heading of 090!....    :o

 

Spoiler

The Engine test:

uZLZv8S.png

Qk4kxlE.png

As stated above, the Engine test was done with SMART PARTS Drainex mod.    Ideally, I would love a control based on G-Forces, similar to the Atlas Booster skirt.  

6fnrE7K.png

Very apropos, but No Doubt's "The Climb" played on my Sonos when I took this climbing pic shortly after S-IC separation.

 

Vnzsivm.jpg

STUPID MECHJEB!

U3ic1hO.jpg

Coasting to our 220km altitude for this test... Pretty overhead of the North Pole

IXe8PiY.png

CM Shortly before touchdown.  Just looking at the details.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 2:48 PM, Zorg said:

I wouldnt consider mods like Near Future and Tantares dead so much as "feature complete". Its a good thing in a way especially for a tech tree maker since you dont need to keep chasing the latest updates for those mods :) 

 

I've no idea, though to be fair I've never looked.

Thats not a Centaur-Centaur, this is a Centaur-Centaur  :P

Image

We dont mind reasonable (and polite) requests, that sounds easy enough.

So thaaats what you are!

On 10/6/2021 at 4:10 PM, CobaltWolf said:

Since I know what you're on about - the artwork with the airbrakes depicts a full S-1C, not an S-1D's engine pack.

fzUslWd.png

WlB2BeW.jpg

nF0sXq1.jpg

77WqaEx.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 11:49 AM, Zorg said:

official craft files and wiki documentation will come later, but these should get you going
 

E-Tc6ipVEBANoBC?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

E-TdHxQVEBUtjui?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Left is 15/16 and right is 17

Question: are the experiments gonna have definitions for the entire stock system? or for kerbin and the mun only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, funnelton said:

So thaaats what you are!

 

There were a lot of studies trying to save what they could from Saturn.   But this was in the days when tomorrow can clean up our mess mentality (well they really didn't spend time THINKING about messes like we do today.)   

For S-IC recovery there were 3 primary and like 8 secondary options for recovery.

1) Crush Impact save the after portion like your pictures show.

2) Parachute lay-down with Air-brakes (what I alluded to in the OP on Saturn S-ID)

3) Flyback (Ala Space X)

3A) Fly back as an aircraft

 

S-ID booster or full recovery were covered in these studies but S-ID was too far down the pipe to worry about it.  In fact Recoverable S-IC wouldn't have worked with the Moon before 1970 deadline.   Which is why it does not exist in the Real world.... sadly.

Of the 3.5 options listed above.   3 and 3A are respectively the furthest away technologically speaking and the EASIEST technologically speaking.     North American Aviation went so far as to design (conceptually not in detail) a scaled up B-70 Valkyrie Wing which had 4 or 5 GE J93-GE-x engines on it (each wing having 4 or 5.)  

So the Space X landing style would take too much effort but the flyback as an aircraft actually has potential.   NOT GOOD POTENTIAL but potential.

Parachute Laydown with Airbrakes probably has the best return on investment (in so far as the entire S-IC stage would be recovered... not just the expensive half of it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

There were a lot of studies trying to save what they could from Saturn.   But this was in the days when tomorrow can clean up our mess mentality (well they really didn't spend time THINKING about messes like we do today.)   

For S-IC recovery there were 3 primary and like 8 secondary options for recovery.

1) Crush Impact save the after portion like your pictures show.

2) Parachute lay-down with Air-brakes (what I alluded to in the OP on Saturn S-ID)

3) Flyback (Ala Space X)

3A) Fly back as an aircraft

 

S-ID booster or full recovery were covered in these studies but S-ID was too far down the pipe to worry about it.  In fact Recoverable S-IC wouldn't have worked with the Moon before 1970 deadline.   Which is why it does not exist in the Real world.... sadly.

Of the 3.5 options listed above.   3 and 3A are respectively the furthest away technologically speaking and the EASIEST technologically speaking.     North American Aviation went so far as to design (conceptually not in detail) a scaled up B-70 Valkyrie Wing which had 4 or 5 GE J93-GE-x engines on it (each wing having 4 or 5.)  

So the Space X landing style would take too much effort but the flyback as an aircraft actually has potential.   NOT GOOD POTENTIAL but potential.

Parachute Laydown with Airbrakes probably has the best return on investment (in so far as the entire S-IC stage would be recovered... not just the expensive half of it.)

I should have put another image where it shows that the black and white image is part of the others, so 2.5?  :mellow:

ZOTDjma.jpg

Edited by funnelton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, funnelton said:

Question: are the experiments gonna have definitions for the entire stock system? or for kerbin and the mun only?

The actual scidefs are all existing ones from BDB (of which we have many). Most of them have system wide definitions though some are placeholder, we're always looking for volunteers who can write scidefs (with the appropriate content and style).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

There were a lot of studies trying to save what they could from Saturn.   But this was in the days when tomorrow can clean up our mess mentality (well they really didn't spend time THINKING about messes like we do today.)   

For S-IC recovery there were 3 primary and like 8 secondary options for recovery.

1) Crush Impact save the after portion like your pictures show.

2) Parachute lay-down with Air-brakes (what I alluded to in the OP on Saturn S-ID)

3) Flyback (Ala Space X)

3A) Fly back as an aircraft

 

S-ID booster or full recovery were covered in these studies but S-ID was too far down the pipe to worry about it.  In fact Recoverable S-IC wouldn't have worked with the Moon before 1970 deadline.   Which is why it does not exist in the Real world.... sadly.

Of the 3.5 options listed above.   3 and 3A are respectively the furthest away technologically speaking and the EASIEST technologically speaking.     North American Aviation went so far as to design (conceptually not in detail) a scaled up B-70 Valkyrie Wing which had 4 or 5 GE J93-GE-x engines on it (each wing having 4 or 5.)  

So the Space X landing style would take too much effort but the flyback as an aircraft actually has potential.   NOT GOOD POTENTIAL but potential.

Parachute Laydown with Airbrakes probably has the best return on investment (in so far as the entire S-IC stage would be recovered... not just the expensive half of it.)

Was SMART not even a concept yet?

recovery.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Was SMART not even a concept yet?

recovery.jpg

Nope.    Welcome to the 1960s.    Just look at the Turbine Powered cars from Chrysler.      Amazing concept, Truly multi-fuel (no need to worry about octane, petroleum products etc... could run fully on Grain alcohol....  Heck it would run on HAIRSPRAY!     But no one thought about the fact that using petroleum products was bad back then.  So no one talked about fuel flexibility and instead of investing money in emissions control and reducing the cost of the turbine, Chrysler basically shelved the product never to really dust it off....

Also remember,   The Largest helicopter that was FAST enough to catch something falling back then was the CH-53A/B.    Didn't have the carry capacity needed.    I don't even think the modern CH-53K that just entered production could do so!  For Saturn V that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39N8eSb.png

So showing the diffrence from the 9M MS-IC-25(I think) stretch and the MS-IC-CB which is basically the standard S-IC but with the common bulkhead reducing length..... 3 segment SMRU for size comparison:

Spoiler

S2iKpg2.png

Big Boi

 

hKrK6gj.png

Awe it is the same length as the SMRU-3 segment!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KeaKaka said:

INT-20 is a strangely elegant beast... 

f34screenshot132.png

Just a brief note: The S-IVB on the INT-20 could restart, so it wasn't equipped with Saturn IB S-IVB.

PS: Fairings on SLA/CSM still aren't working

PPS: Obligatory Screenshot tax.

Sarnus INT-21

rjbbwV5.png

Tweakscaled S-IVB IU+New Fairings=Beauty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The craft's rotation is the same in each picture. The only difference is that "Interior Overlay" is unchecked on the right, and checked on the left.

S6vYdxE_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grandkVOFFmp_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand

Really small thing, and I almost never use Interior Overlay. I just found it a bit goofy that Jeb was successfully looking through the wrong side of the vehicle.

Also, if it helps, I downloaded the mod yesterday.

Edited by Socowez
grammar, and clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Adam-Kerman said:

r309Ghc.pngvCrlHOz.png

1. Wait, there were 4 flags on the Saturn V?

2. IF this would become a regular LV (IE: in some timeline where we pulled out of Vietnam/JFK survived or whatever, I think they would have removed the Ullage motors on the Interstage).

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...