[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[CobaltWolf]

I don't even know what this project was but it is a week of my life I'm never getting back.

[Jso]

I left the enable/disable staging buttons on for the decouplers on the petal adapter in the event someone had some other use for this stuff. For normal use don't touch them. The way it works when you stage it is A: Doors begin opening. B: The top node decouples the CSM. And C: The payload node decoupler is enabled. When you turn around and dock with the LEM you can right click on the adapter and trigger the payload decoupler (which at the moment clips badly and throws you away). There is a slight delay between the doors opening and the top node decoupling to let the door colliders get out of the way of the CSM.

We're 1.2 only, this won't work in 1.1.3.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Jso

[Avalon304]

1 minute ago, Jso said:

I left the enable/disable staging buttons on for the decouplers on the petal adapter in the event someone had some other use for this stuff. For normal use don't touch them. The way it works is when you stage it is A: Doors begin opening. B: The top node decouples the CSM. And C: The payload node decoupler is enabled. When you turn around and dock with the LEM you can right click on the adapter and trigger the payload decoupler (which at the moment clips badly and throws you away). There is a slight delay between the doors opening and the top node decoupling to let the door colliders get out of the way of the CSM.

This was my experience with using the SLA... right down to getting flung away from it. Good to know it was working... perhaps not as intended, but as it currently functions.

[Jso]

3 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

This was my experience with using the SLA... right down to getting flung away from it. Good to know it was working... perhaps not as intended, but as it currently functions.

Now that I think of it, I left a note in the adapter config about that payload node. It might not be clipping, it's just going in the wrong direction and bouncing off the instrument unit. Or more likely it's both clipping and going in the wrong direction.

[Avalon304]

2 minutes ago, Jso said:

Now that I think of it, I left a note in the adapter config about that payload node. It might not be clipping, it's just going in the wrong direction and bouncing off the instrument unit. Or more likely it's both clipping and going in the wrong direction.

I just looked at the SLA config... what is the payload ejection force 500?

[DiscoSlelge]

Matthew for his performance....2022

[Jso]

13 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

I just looked at the SLA config... what is the payload ejection force 500?

That's the line, it needs to be negative. The force is applied from the center of mass of the decoupler to the center of mass of the part being decoupled, which would be a downward direction in this case since the decent engine is below the center of the adapter. Making it negative will send it in the right direction (up/forward).

[davidy12]

Solid fuel is missing from the S-IVB interstage

[Avalon304]

37 minutes ago, Jso said:

That's the line, it needs to be negative. The force is applied from the center of mass of the decoupler to the center of mass of the part being decoupled, which would be a downward direction in this case since the decent engine is below the center of the adapter. Making it negative will send it in the right direction (up/forward).

I mean... why have any force? Why not just use the RCS to extract? All you need to do is free the MEM (actually the same could probably be applied to the top node too... why have any eject force since realistically it would be the SLA petals holding the CSM inplace and they wouldnt impart force on the CSM when opening(.

[VenomousRequiem]

2 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

I mean... why have any force? Why not just use the RCS to extract? All you need to do is free the MEM (actually the same could probably be applied to the top node too... why have any eject force since realistically it would be the SLA petals holding the CSM inplace and they wouldnt impart force on the CSM when opening(.

@Jso I second this. It should all be 0 ejection force.

[Jso]

It should probably be a little shove, otherwise you'll bounce around in there.

33 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Solid fuel is missing from the S-IVB interstage

He means the wide interstage. It is missing.

[Andem]

Top notch.

 

But seriously who would steal candy corn.

[VenomousRequiem]

19 minutes ago, Jso said:

It should probably be a little shove, otherwise you'll bounce around in there.

Any chance we know how the real one did it? If there was any force it'd have to be from 1-10. Nothing that could do like anything. 

[Araym]

2 hours ago, Avalon304 said:

I am not experiencing this. I just managed to get the Sarnus to orbit and on a TMI... upon opening the SLA, the CSM was detatched and the MEM stayed put inside the SLA... then I had to right click the SLA and decouple the payload... and then I was shot away from the SLA... for what reason I dont know... probably a slight collider issue.

As I'm playing with the Sarnus V still in 1.1.3 (and i have to make some slight adjustment, as the BDB plugin for managing the SLA is not working) I'm probably experiencing something alike (slightly different, but not so much): I made the petal adapter a generic, stock "animation module" (just cosmetic thing to open it), CSM decouple go perfect, BUT when I transfer and dock to the LEM for extraction and decouple it, the SLA goes "BOOOOOM", in space...

... tested then at the launchpad, with a small 1.25 mini-rocket inside the SLA open (to avoid a larger LEM), and decoupling the paiload node(without engine activated) made the mini-rocket's engine go BOOOM, rather the SLA itself...

Probably there is somewhere a collider issue in the SLA's horizontal support inside it, rather than its walls, maybe higher than the payload node, because I used on purpose a smaller diameter than a LEM. Make it "hollow", as collider, and keep the internal support strut just as cosmetic bits without any phisical for the game???

[Sgt.Shutesie]

3 hours ago, Drakenex said:

Dunno , proper name is?

Sarnus V? I mean it is named after the Saturn V.

[Araym]

1 hour ago, Jso said:

Now that I think of it, I left a note in the adapter config about that payload node. It might not be clipping, it's just going in the wrong direction and bouncing off the instrument unit. Or more likely it's both clipping and going in the wrong direction.

 

1 hour ago, Avalon304 said:

I just looked at the SLA config... what is the payload ejection force 500?

 

1 hour ago, Jso said:

That's the line, it needs to be negative. The force is applied from the center of mass of the decoupler to the center of mass of the part being decoupled, which would be a downward direction in this case since the decent engine is below the center of the adapter. Making it negative will send it in the right direction (up/forward).

 

57 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

I mean... why have any force? Why not just use the RCS to extract? All you need to do is free the MEM (actually the same could probably be applied to the top node too... why have any eject force since realistically it would be the SLA petals holding the CSM inplace and they wouldnt impart force on the CSM when opening(.

 

54 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

@Jso I second this. It should all be 0 ejection force.

I second the "zero" force, by the way, as "quick fix" at least for the payload node (JSO has perfect reason about how decouplers work on KSP, so the payload node being buried "under" the origin/center of mass of the part make it push the wrong way): I have not searched any source about how the SLA was working (CSM was hold by petals, so its own upper pirotechnics probably made no pushing force, going sideways rather "up") but a simpler node with no forces for the payload make some sort of sense as, after transposition, the LEM was "extracted" by the CSM. Let some "puffs" of RCS do the work, and let the "payload decoupler node" just to be needed to separate the LEM's descent engine and the SLA itself, rather than "help to push away"...

 

Moving the "origin" of the part (or the "center of mass", as you could call it) too low make little sense, showing all of the petal structure well above the bottom of the part. Then a "zero" force could let less disaster occurs (at least if there is not an internal collider issue)...

Edited September 29, 2016 by Araym

[Avalon304]

1 hour ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Any chance we know how the real one did it? If there was any force it'd have to be from 1-10. Nothing that could do like anything. 

Not that Im saying Apollo 13 (the movie) should be taken as a super historical work... but the scene where the extract the LM shows them using the RCS to extract it from the SLA after docking.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Avalon304

[_Krieger_]

According to Wikipedia:

"The Lunar Module was connected to the SLA at four points around the lower panels. After the astronauts docked the CSM to the LM, they blew charges to separate those connections and a guillotine severed the LM to Instrument Unit umbilical. After the charges fired, springs pushed the LM away from the S-IVB and the astronauts were free to continue their trip to the Moon."

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by _Krieger_

[Avalon304]

Wikipedia's pag on Transposition, docking and extraction lists these steps for the procedure:

 

Quote

1. A "CSM/LV Sep" button on the control panel was pressed, which ignited detonating cord and separated the CSM from the Spacecraft–Lunar Module Adapter (SLA), and the four adapter panels from each other and the S-IVB upper stage. This exposed the LM.
2. The CSM's translation thrusters were used to move it a safe distance away. Rotation thrusters were then used to pitch up the CSM 180° and roll it to the proper alignment angle for docking. Translation thrusters were then used to move it back to the LM. A T-shaped docking target on the top of the LM aligned optically with a reticle pattern on the CMP's left-hand docking window to ensure proper spacecraft alignment.
3. A soft dock was achieved when a probe at the top of the CSM was inserted into a hole in the center of a cone-shaped drogue at the top of the LM and three small capture latches closed. Hard dock was achieved by activating a mechanism which retracted the probe and caused twelve more capture latches to close around the Command Module's docking flange.
4. A pressure equalization valve in the CM forward hatch was opened to allow oxygen to fill the LM through a similar valve in its hatch that was left open at launch. When the pressure equalized, the pilot removed the CM hatch, removed the probe and drogue, inspected the capture latches, and connected two umbilical cables which electrically connected the CM and LM. He then replaced the CM hatch.
5. The LM hold-down attachments and umbillical connection to the S-IVB Instrument Unit were released, and the CSM's translation thrusters were used to pull the CSM/LM stack a safe distance away from the S-IVB, which would then be steered by ground control either to a heliocentric orbit, or to a deliberate crash landing on the Moon.

It would appear that a spring pushes very very gently and then the RCS is use to further pull the LM out of the SLA.

[Drakenex]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

Sarnus V? I mean it is named after the Saturn V.

Fixed!

[Sgt.Shutesie]

Saturn Screenshots, a MOL habitat was the payload to LEO.

http://imgur.com/a/sHtAy

 

[Drakenex]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

Saturn Screenshots, a MOL habitat was the payload to LEO.

http://imgur.com/a/sHtAy

 

Nice! Is there an official build for the Gemini + MOL?

[Sgt.Shutesie]

Just now, Drakenex said:

Nice! Is there an official build for the Gemini + MOL?

I think all of the MOL based stuff we have isn't designed to be launched in the MOL stack that launched in real life, but I'll see what I can do.

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

I think all of the MOL based stuff we have isn't designed to be launched in the MOL stack that launched in real life, but I'll see what I can do.

Yeah you'd have to use the Hab module, the Lab itself is (annoyingly) too wide. But then again, remember that the real MOL design was never finalized. So it may have had the ribs that stick out.

[Drakenex]

26 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Yeah you'd have to use the Hab module, the Lab itself is (annoyingly) too wide. But then again, remember that the real MOL design was never finalized. So it may have had the ribs that stick out.

Like that?