Jump to content

[1.12.X] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.9.0 "пробе" 13/Dec/2021)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

 

 

 

 

Iirc, 64% the real world size then rounded to the nearest ksp size for dimensions, and then thrust is 50% real world thrust, in regards to engines.

Ksp size being whole number times 0.625. 

But @CobaltWolf and @Zorg can you guys clarify when you can?

0.625* real world diameter rounded to nearest KSP size. When existing KSP sizes weren't appropriate we made new ones like 1.5m 5.625m (old S1C etc), and the new sizes for saturn, 4.25m and 6.25m

Most probes are exactly real world * 0.625

Engines are same Isp, 1/4 of real world thrust, mass adjusted to an appropriate TWR. KSP TWR in general being much worse than real world. (most stockalike mods use 50% thrust for upper stages but we use 25% for all). We try to scale engines x0.625 exactly and adjust mounting rings etc to fit our engine mounts.

There are exceptions here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, birdog357 said:

Not if you stick it on top where a spacecraft belongs. That's my entire point, replace the S-4B with the orbiter, lock stock and barrel.

Actually I was talking about the ET/Orbiter stack on top of an S-II, just like a Saturn-Shuttle with an extra stage in the middle. The idea being that I speculate this is one of the ways they could have made the lunar shuttles work in For All Mankind.

 

Anyway here's Apollo 10:

cOpwcXF.png

Again, I never realized the pre-Apollo 11 LMs didn't have plume deflectors, and I have no idea why. Still, the little differences that popped up from lunar module to lunar module really fascinate me; maybe it's because I don't always know why the designers chose to add them...

Quote

pSUKWRs.png

Now, here's the only time you'll know for certain that I flew an entire mission from launch to landing, because Apollo 10 was the only Saturn V to launch from LC-39B. For all you know I could just be using a supply of screenshots from the very first Saturn V I flew and passing them off as separate launches.

GqhaeyP.png

Of course, I actually do stencil the vehicle serial number (in this case SA-505) onto the side of the S-IC with Conformal Decals, but usually it's too small to show up clearly in the photos.

yGaftKj.png

LEVvDQ2.png

On an unrelated note, I don't know if this has affected anybody else but I always have trouble extracting the LM from the SLA. I'm not sure if it's the legs getting hung up on the SLA mounting points or what, but I usually find myself having to glitch the LM clear by abusing timewarp to kind of float past the edge of the fairing base. Not a big deal, but kind of annoying.

pQtLzPw.png

FUYZQcx.png

zy8wqF6.png

qeB48N0.png

JqKQJAK.png

5pL6QwK.png

It's actually kind of frustrating how few historical photos I can find to replicate from Apollo 10. Pretty sure this one of LM-4 Snoopy is the only one I've got.

ugwira5.png

gNgs5v7.png

b9pSkZE.png

"something-something, we is go and we is down among 'em"

09NrKj1.png

sIJUAbt.png

All of these photos were taken at around 1000m AGL over the Sea of Tranquility.

YRZhgIm.png

mdEHyQw.png

Also, I may be a pedant for historical authenticity, but I am not going to simulate the problem Snoopy had with its radar that caused it to spin out of control on staging. I'm here to enjoy myself, not give myself a headache.

5FvWPLD.png

IowWq6f.png

4Ly2waP.png

CIpOSvx.png

Of course, everyone probably knows about how Snoopy was the only LM smart enough to realize what NASA had planned for it after it finished its mission, and decided that it would go out on its own terms. Instead of deorbiting itself to crash into the Moon, Snoopy fired in the opposite direction and fled into a heliocentric orbit, forever safe from the merciless hands of the test engineers and scientists.

I really hope I can keep this save running long enough to send a craft to catch up with Snoopy and return it to Earth. It's the least that poor ship deserves.

Uyb5uJ3.png

mKjxf0O.png

And that's it. More pictures than I planned on sharing, but I just happened to have a lot of a e s t h e t i c screenshots to share this time. Hope y'all don't mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

The idea being that I speculate this is one of the ways they could have made the lunar shuttles work in For All Mankind.

I'm following you now. The problem is RS-25s are not restartable, the ET would boil off before the moon was reached, and the OMS doesn't have a fraction of the fuel needed to enter and later break orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, birdog357 said:

I'm following you now. The problem is RS-25s are not restartable, the ET would boil off before the moon was reached, and the OMS doesn't have a fraction of the fuel needed to enter and later break orbit.

Yep, the ullage problem is the biggest one you’d encounter. SSME needs 1g to draw propellant through a a certain major valve (forget exactly which one), so it’s not possible to restart it without truly giant ullage motors, even with its all-electric ignitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Actually I was talking about the ET/Orbiter stack on top of an S-II, just like a Saturn-Shuttle with an extra stage in the middle. The idea being that I speculate this is one of the ways they could have made the lunar shuttles work in For All Mankind.

But even they did then there's little reason to use a shuttle - you have the Orbiter IVA to use for like two scenes but zero stock footage that can be reused 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

h0ZnjcH.png

 

Quote

Starlab, or Big Skylab as it is sometimes known, sits uncompleted for years now, gathering dust in the assembly building that currently houses the giant space station module. Funding for the project was in question, with congress wanting to create smaller modules for the building of a larger space station, modules that could fit inside the newly put into service Space Shuttle's cargo bay. NASA leaned towards agreeing with congress, but the fact that Starlab was mostly complete made them hesitant to cancel the project out right, some of the heads at NASA lobbying congress to continue the project. The modified Saturn V which would carry Starlab into orbit was already complete, as well as the two Skylab like modules which would be berthed/docked to Starlab were also complete. The project was just waiting for Starlab, which remained in limbo while funding and plans were discussed by the men and women that sat on Capital Hill.  The decision to go ahead or cancel the Starlab Modular Space Station. SMSS, had a deadline though; July 1st, 1981. The President at the time wanted a new space station in orbit, or at least the construction of one to start, by the start of next year. One month to decide the fate of the program. One month to pump new life into Starlab, or one month to pull the life support from it. NASA was between a rock and a hard place, but certain events just unfolding in the United Nations and in a few space agencies around the world may save the in limbo space station.

(Also, just wanted to clarify, that's the whole station. That's not the station mated to S-II)

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

INT-21 and straight wall S-IV instrument units are now available. They're a simple B9 mesh switch on the S-IVB IU; I figured it wouldn't be helpful having 3 nearly identical looking parts in the list.

Also, if anyone hasn't heard the whole spiel, the green/pink discoloration on the textures should be much better on release. The current textures look bad for <complex technical reasons>.

PXP5paG.png

7TPG6xB.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

INT-21 and straight wall S-IV instrument units are now available. They're a simple B9 mesh switch on the S-IVB IU; I figured it wouldn't be helpful having 3 nearly identical looking parts in the list.

Also, if anyone hasn't heard the whole spiel, the green/pink discoloration on the textures should be much better on release. The current textures look bad for <complex technical reasons>.

PXP5paG.png

7TPG6xB.png

Good stuff! Are we going to be getting an IU adapter for ETS mission modules soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new, exciting delivery option from DoorDash™: The GusMobile*!
*Delivery area limited. Reuben sandwiches only. 4800% gratuity automatically added to final order amount. Additional delivery charges may apply. Financing available through American Express.

BWgdkSR.png?1

Edited by Jack Wolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A suggestion for when you guys get the time to further flesh out the Apollo revamp, the J-class ELMs all had a redesigned, bigger MESA on the front-right quadrant of the Descent Stage. From the look of it, the new MESA extended all the way across the face of the quadrant, protruded from the descent stage's actual skin, and unfolded to reveal a much larger equipment deck. I've tried to put together a series of in-flight photos, but many of them are from the same angle, as it seems like footage of the J-class JMs before touchdown is rare.

Quote

Apollo 15's Falcon at Hadley Base, also note the redesigned right-rear quadrant. I believe the helium tank was there and bulged out a little on previous LMs; not sure what the ELMs stored there but I'm guessing it was additional ALSEP equipment. This photo also appears to have been enhanced to show stars in the background, but I don't think the actual hardware in the frame has been doctored.

Lunar-Module-Apollo-16_1024x1024.jpg?v=1447798347

Here's a much lower-resolution image of Falcon from a slightly different angle:

zIyfVqg7lgqEwhJCsE-dRWld6fYMwo0gMqkCD6yHvpE7-O0UEK_9PHKCVuO-81-LGsRThZMkRL2BzK6saZp3PHFkjBE6jCdA

 

Quote

Apollo 16's Orion was the easiest for me to find pictures of, because a lot of the HD images you see on Apollo 16's Wikipedia article feature the LM and MESA anyway. 

Apollo_16_LM_Orion.jpg

I was also able to find what I hope is a photo of Orion in orbit before touchdown to show the MESA in a stowed configuration, but it looks like the LM has been cropped onto a black background or something, so I'm really not certain of it's credibility. Note the LRV stowed in the front-left quadrant (or the right side, to the viewer):

Apollo_16_-_F%C3%A4hre_%27Orion%27.jpg

I also have two photos of a scale model of Orion which should display the MESA in a more "idealized" form. Hopefully that will make it easier to model than if you only had the in-flight photographs where it's been scuffed up and torn apart by the astronauts. Again, i can't speak to the model's authenticity, but it's worth noting that most scale model nuts I know are super pedantic about accuracy.

01.jpg

rsporion16b.jpg

Quote

Now, I could barely find any good images of the MESA on Challenger from Apollo 17. The one photo I do have isn't even particularly useful, but I felt like I'd be remiss if I didn't at least try to reference all three J-series LMs. It does, at least, show a good angle on the right-rear quadrant, in case anybody thinks it's important enough to study that as well:

a17quad3b.jpg

Quote

From what I gather, the other J-class LMs intended for Apollos 18,19, and 20 were either scrapped or mothballed. LM-13, the one in series after Challenger, was partially completed, but later restored by Grumman and converted to resemble LM-5 Eagle, so it has the old MESA pallet. That being said, I know the USSRC in Huntsville has a LM test article configured as a J-class, with an LRV in the same exhibit, but because it's not a flight article I'd take whatever you see in this image with a grain of salt:

moon-lander.jpg

 

Anyway, I understand that something like this would be a lower priority, since it wouldn't really add much functionally to the mod and would only really be a cosmetic addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLV-SAT-V-23(L), Type II

"The modification consisted of utilizing standard length S-IC and S-II stages and adding auxillary S-IC propellant tanks on top of the liquid strapon pods. The purpose of this modification is to permit longer payloads (because of the 20 foot shorter S-IC length compared to the -23L) and a larger diameter payload by hamerheading the payload out to the diameter of the strapon pods which extend to the top of the S-II stage. This configuration was not studied in detail, but it's performance and configuration are deemed feasible."

Spoiler

IMG_4454.png

The vehicle doesn't have a great TWR, so the strapons aren't as tall as they should be (they are however fatter than the reports pods), and I didn't go for the hammerhead fairing, namely because procedural fairings tend to weigh an awful lot.

cReNEzf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a peek at the dev branch stuff for BDB and somehow broke my USI kontainers and damn, I gotta say the new stuff looks great. Love how clean the revamped parts are, and I like how the lunar lander is now a lot more modular. I can't find for the life of me some images I saw of a concept for a extended lunar stay version of the LM, where the crew hab was expanded, designed to be a separate outpost sent ahead of time before the main crew. 

Edit: found an image of it

LPMandShelter2.jpg

Edited by Taco Salad
Found an image I was looking for
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

INT-21 and straight wall S-IV instrument units are now available. They're a simple B9 mesh switch on the S-IVB IU; I figured it wouldn't be helpful having 3 nearly identical looking parts in the list.

Also, if anyone hasn't heard the whole spiel, the green/pink discoloration on the textures should be much better on release. The current textures look bad for <complex technical reasons>.

PXP5paG.png

7TPG6xB.png

Straight tank S-IV reminds me the original S-IVB before the diameter was increased to match S-IB, will it be a payload adapter of this size?

Edited by derega16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASZPB3r.jpg

0O743rk.jpg

fEzoYSB.jpg

J1HkPLv.jpg

Quote

December 20th, 1981, a day that will be heralded as the start of a new era, when countries came together in peace to build something grand in orbit around their home. The start of the International Space Station.  These plans were months in the making, and were the saving grace for the Starlab Modular Space Station modules. SMSS would live on, but not as an American project, but as an international project. Thanks to the United Nations, and one very influential person, countries around the world banded together in an effort to bring space to all. For decades only a few countries had the means to go or explore space. No longer. With the creation of the Orbital and Space Union, or OSU (O-soo) for short, initiative, the United Nations set a precedent, a message that said that space is not for one man, nor one country. Anyone regardless of age, sex, nationality, religion, monetary value or political beliefs can go to space. 

Starlab sits on the launch pad thanks to the OSU initiative. The OSU initiative gave the Starlab project the funding they were looking for, by having all countries contribute to a global space fund. This space fund saved Starlab and its other modules form the scrapyard. Many people were happy to see the project out of limbo and on its way to space. 

Starlab sits on top of a modified Saturn V rocket, ready for launch tomorrow, December 20th, 1981. This Saturn V uses F-1As on the first stage and J-2S for the second stage. The first stage is also assisted by 4 UA 1207s. Due to the nature of this launch, Starlab is a hybrid wetlab and drylab. The S-II tank holds a small fuel tank, just enough to give the single J-2S enough delta-v to complete the circularization burn once in orbit. The rest of the S-II and the S-IVB are dry, containing no fuel, but has large monopropellant tanks for the attitude control systems onboard. Starlab also boasts five docking ports. Due to the late design changes, Starlab has three different sets of docking ports. It has 3 large MOL docking ports, 1 Enhanced Common Berthing Mechanism, curtesy of ESA, and 1 APAS IDA, a joint project between the US and Russia.  The tunnels for the surrounding docking ports were shortened to allow for a more rigid structure, meaning there's no way for the space shuttle to be able to dock with the IDA currently on Starlab. Enterprise is being sent up with a MOL to IDA docking adapter, which just barely fits in the cargo bay thanks to Spacelab which also is inside the shuttle cargo bay. 

Enterprise is set to launch twenty four hours after Starlab if all goes well.

-

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...