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

[kspbutitscursed]

On 7/15/2022 at 10:48 PM, ballisticfox0 said:

Apollo

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

WOW what mod did you use to get that service module TU

page 1194 6 pages to go 

or 150 posts to go till page 1200

Edited May 31, 2023 by kspbutitscursed

[Blufor878]

59 minutes ago, kspbutitscursed said:

WOW what mod did you use to get that service module TU

page 1194 6 pages to go 

or 150 posts to go till page 1200

Let me help.
Second pass on the Apollo CHASM (the long one I made with the robotic arm, short for Command Heavy Ambulator Service Module). This time I used the Canadarm parts from @benjee10's mods.

[RocketBoy1641]

Perhaps the multi-role SM from EMPIRE?

[Blufor878]

6 minutes ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

Perhaps the multi-role SM from EMPIRE?

I don't know what that is.

[kspbutitscursed]

31 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:

Let me help.
Second pass on the Apollo CHASM (the long one I made with the robotic arm, short for Command Heavy Ambulator Service Module). This time I used the Canadarm parts from @benjee10's mods.

no i meant the reflective Texture Service module 

[Blufor878]

32 minutes ago, kspbutitscursed said:

no i meant the reflective Texture Service module 

I was referring to reaching 1200 pages...

[kspbutitscursed]

1 minute ago, Blufor878 said:

I was referring to reaching 1200 pages...

ah

[kspbutitscursed]

skylab but apollo block 3 

https://imgur.com/a/zvyhbXO 

 album 

[ballisticfox0]

2 hours ago, kspbutitscursed said:

WOW what mod did you use to get that service module TU

page 1194 6 pages to go 

or 150 posts to go till page 1200

Made the PBR textures and configs a while ago, never released them outside of a small group of people because it broke all the texture switching 

Edited May 31, 2023 by ballisticfox0

[RocketBoy1641]

3 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

I don't know what that is.

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/06/empire-building-ford-aeronutronics-1963.html?m=1

Pretty sure a multi purpose module with arms is discussed in that or the "After EMIPRE" article.  They were both dreaming big ideas when the budgets didn't happen, they folded to smaller stuff.

NASA has always been long on pitches, and short on closing the deal with the people that hold the purse strings.  Odd to, because NASA projects can create the ultimate tool in the war on poverty that Johnson pushed for instead of NASA.  That ultimate tool: JOBS.

[NaviG]

7 hours ago, ballisticfox0 said:

Made the PBR textures and configs a while ago, never released them outside of a small group of people because it broke all the texture switching 

What u mean by "all"? You mean all mods parts? stock ones? Or only affect the BDB mod? Thx

[ballisticfox0]

3 hours ago, NaviG said:

What u mean by "all"? You mean all mods parts? stock ones? Or only affect the BDB mod? Thx

The switches for that capsule, so there was no Skylab or white variants for the Apollo CM and only the only the standard and Apollo 7 variants for the SM.

[DaveyJ576]

23 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Are these taken on up to date Reborn and KSC Switcher? I think that black terrain is a bug in the KSC Switcher configs and it irked me enough to ditch KSC Switcher and settle on doing everything from the Cape (katniss). I miss Kourou.

The black terrain is present only in Hangar Extender when I switch to the “outside” view. 

[Alpha512]

On 5/30/2023 at 4:02 AM, Pappystein said:

That is the whole reason a lot of people speculated the Saturn II would be the champ.   The INT17 is a world-winnner with the S-II skirt being a minimal modification to the Saturn V inter-stage.   This easily allowed UA-120x series SRMs to be attached in 2x, 4x or 5x (5x is actually the least amount of modifications!) to the Saturn S-II-360 stage.

Speaking of INT-18 (wasn't 17 the no-SRB version with awful performance and 18 the one we're talking about?), what would be the canonical build? Was any particular configuration selected and/or which ones were most likely to be selected?

My guess for the most realistic 'baseline' option would be 4x UA1205, standard volume S-II with 5x air-lit J-2(S) and S-IVB upper stage, but I'm also thinking of ground-lit J-2s (either J-2T or just truncated nozzle), possibly underfueling the S-II or adding more engines onto it... or maybe I'm just underestimating the TWR of the baseline version

Of course there's always an option for UA1207s, but it would be ugly(-er), I don't like it. Same applies to 5x UA1205

Anyways, how is 5x boosters the simplest version? Did Saturn V/S-II have 5x symmetry in its... structural build? Ground infrastructure? Whatever?

Edited June 1, 2023 by Alpha512
typos

[Falcon Aerospace]

There's this glitch with the deployable J-2 Engines. When I to light them it doesn't ignite immediately. I also have a screenshot of my gamedata:

[Royalswissarmyknife]

1 hour ago, Falcon Aerospace said:

There's this glitch with the deployable J-2 Engines. When I to light them it doesn't ignite immediately. I also have a screenshot of my gamedata:

I think that's normal some engines in BDB take a second or two to ignite or shutdown.

[Falcon Aerospace]

@Royalswissarmyknife When I try to light the engines the engine sound repeats. It produces thrust but It doesn't have a flame.

[Raptor22]

On 5/30/2023 at 12:24 PM, ballisticfox0 said:

It really comes down to if you want it to function like a rover that looks like a motorcycle or a motorcycle.

I was thinking more of a motorcycle that has limits to how far it can lean over. Like, you can still turn like one, but without clever robotics work or a plugin, it'd be very difficult to coordinate SAS with steering for it. Though, I've put a total of about 5 minutes into the thought of it; if I put more time into brainstorming, there'd probably be a good solution to be found.

[marxman28]

I can’t get the BDB Octans androgynous docking port to connect to the Tantares Octans androgynous port, or at least the Octans A version. Both ports’ guide petals are retracted to allow docking but I can’t get them to actually connect. They’re just bumping around. Did I do something wrong or is the BDB Octans docking port description actually wrong?

[Rodger]

2 hours ago, marxman28 said:

I can’t get the BDB Octans androgynous docking port to connect to the Tantares Octans androgynous port, or at least the Octans A version. Both ports’ guide petals are retracted to allow docking but I can’t get them to actually connect. They’re just bumping around. Did I do something wrong or is the BDB Octans docking port description actually wrong?

Might need a KSP.log, and possibly ModuleManager.ConfigCache, to see if anything's changing something that would cause this. From looking at the base configs, it should be compatible with both the tantares parts. But going to test in-game.

Edit: Looks like they aren't compatible due to the angle-snap docking feature the BDB port has, which the tantares ports don't use. If you want to edit a config to get it to work right now, you can go to GameData/Bluedog_DB/Parts/Apollo/bluedog_Apollo_APAS75.cfg, and comment out/delete the lines "snapRotation = true" and "snapOffset = 60", lines 61/62.

Edit 2: We'll be removing the snapRotation and snapOffset lines in the next patch (it's on dev branch now), so the above is the suggested fix in the meantime

Edited June 2, 2023 by Rodger

[Rodger]

16 hours ago, Falcon Aerospace said:

@Royalswissarmyknife When I try to light the engines the engine sound repeats. It produces thrust but It doesn't have a flame.

You may need to make sure you have the latest version of Waterfall

[Falcon Aerospace]

Another glitch I encountered is with the BDB solids. The plume just appears before I ignite it

 

[Pappystein]

On 5/30/2023 at 6:49 AM, Alpha512 said:

Is this even with center engine cutoff? Maybe F-1A's throttling capability will help?

Cutting off Engines is wasteful and a net Negative to Delta V.   F-1As throttling was down to 75% IIRC so it would help, but a typical payload would still be rather high.

On 5/30/2023 at 11:22 AM, Queen Ultima said:

It's useful though! The "official" names like INT-20 and Saturn V-B and M-S-II-2 (I know that's just a tank but still) are confusing (at least to me) while Saturn III makes immediate sense. It's a Saturn rocket but with 3 big engines.

 

I am not going to downplay its usefulness.   Just that it wasn't even a quasi-official Name.  In fact, Saturn II is named for the MS-II-360 tank which was its first stage.  

 

On 5/30/2023 at 3:26 PM, Alpha512 said:

 why not shorten the S-IC by 3m? That would be about the same prop mass as 80% fueled full length stage but saving 10t on tank dry weight, and almost no additional R&D expenses

Funny you should mention that.  The R&D Budget for stretching or shrinking a tank is actually quite large.   The reason is even though you are just "inserting" or "removing" barrel sections, the whole dynamic structure, Harmonic Frequency, and Static and kinetic loadings change over every square inch of the stage.

It is a bit easier when you have separate tanks (ala Titan I/II/III/IV) because the intertank structure remains mostly consistent, and the fuel load is dense.   However, when you have shared bulkheads EG S-IC/S-II-360/S-IV/S-IVB/S-IVC/S-V and you have low-density fuel, you must rebuild the tank from scratch...    This was actually the reason North American Aviation (Rockwell) re-designed the S-II-360 into the MS-II-360.   M stood for modular... they had calculated the 3 or 4 tank lengths they thought would be worthwhile and engineered the "barrels" to be compatible with each other at ANY of the lengths they specified in their proposal.  The same is true for Douglas/McD.   I have not found similar references to Boeing actually modularizing their S-IC variants when they were designated MS-IC.   But they may have done it without the documentation being even closely available.

 

Also I want to quote from my own article (Saturn LEO proposals) on the subject of INT-20:
https://github.com/Pappystein/Space_History/blob/main/PDFs/Saturn LEO proposals.pdf

Quote

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-efficient 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.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:13 PM, Alpha512 said:

Speaking of INT-18 (wasn't 17 the no-SRB version with awful performance and 18 the one we're talking about?), what would be the canonical build? Was any particular configuration selected and/or which ones were most likely to be selected?

My guess for the most realistic 'baseline' option would be 4x UA1205, standard volume S-II with 5x air-lit J-2(S) and S-IVB upper stage, but I'm also thinking of ground-lit J-2s (either J-2T or just truncated nozzle), possibly underfueling the S-II or adding more engines onto it... or maybe I'm just underestimating the TWR of the baseline version

Of course there's always an option for UA1207s, but it would be ugly(-er), I don't like it. Same applies to 5x UA1205

Anyways, how is 5x boosters the simplest version? Did Saturn V/S-II have 5x symmetry in its... structural build? Ground infrastructure? Whatever?

*SHHH!!!!!*  You caught me out!   Yes, I was talking about INT-18   

https://github.com/Pappystein/Space_History/blob/main/PDFs/Modular Saturn Revised.pdf

I have found some newer sources that further clarified it, but I have not re-revised my article.   So while the article above is a small one, light on the detail, I now have some more "correct" information.

https://github.com/Pappystein/Space_History/blob/main/PDFs/Saturn LEO proposals.pdf

The above has SOME of the data I have collected, including the "VIABLE" INT-17 (which is why I initially said INT-17 even though I was thinking about INT-18)

So the Original proposal was for a 5x UA-1205, standard length MS-II-360, and an MS-IVB (again standard length) on top.   This was the least "new engineering" version, as 5x SRMs avoided all the interconnects, engine plumbing and mounting points on the MS-II-360 tanks without forcing a relocation.    NASA didn't like that and wanted it reduced to 4 SRMs (due to pad design concerns as well as control concerns)   J-2S Air lit would be used, and it would, in fact, have an air dam fairing below the engines to reduce vortex drag as well as heat damage to the engines prior to ignition.   The Air dam (really a slightly convex fairing below the engines shaped kind of like a heatshield on a CM)  would jettison 20 seconds before SRM burnout, with the Central J-2S starting 18 seconds before SRM burnout... the remaining 4 J-2S would start 5 seconds before burnout.  The staged starting of the J-2Ses was another concern.

 

The Final report did away with the 5x SRMs and stuck with 2x/4x even though a 4x Booster system would require re-designing all the plumbing/fueling/umbilical attachments of the MS-II-360 stage.  The redesigned stage would lose about 2-3% delta V because of the re-routed fuel lines to the outer 4 J-2S engines (extra mass, extra boiloff points.)

 

In the case of the SRMs, UA-1204, UA-1205, UA-1206 (Full segment*) and UA-1207 were all looked at.

UA-1204 is actually the best SRM for most payload/flight profiles.   And the UA-1206 is not the UA-1205.5 that was flown on the Titan 34D or Titan IIIC but the actual 6 full segments SRM.   The UA-1206 you all know about is 5.5 segments long.  The fact that the UA-120x boosters were designed to be recoverable if needed (it was never needed/wanted) does not hurt the capabilities of the INT-18 what-so-ever.

 

 

 

[marxman28]

9 hours ago, Rodger said:

Might need a KSP.log, and possibly ModuleManager.ConfigCache, to see if anything's changing something that would cause this. From looking at the base configs, it should be compatible with both the tantares parts. But going to test in-game.

Edit: Looks like they aren't compatible due to the angle-snap docking feature the BDB port has, which the tantares ports don't use. If you want to edit a config to get it to work right now, you can go to GameData/Bluedog_DB/Parts/Apollo/bluedog_Apollo_APAS75.cfg, and comment out/delete the lines "snapRotation = true" and "snapOffset = 60", lines 61/62.

Edit 2: We'll be removing the snapRotation and snapOffset lines in the next patch (it's on dev branch now), so the above is the suggested fix in the meantime

So, a future update for the BDB Octans port means I won’t have to do some program sorcery right now?