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

15 hours ago, KeaKaka said:

Uh, @CobaltWolf while you may have fixed the animation on the J-2 A-2, the texture's now borked.

Same goes for the underside of the AJ-260 nosecone.

Ah, easy fix. I forgot to change the material in Unity (since the yellow/white throttle glow material only lives in there). Can you tell which camera angle I was using when I pushed those two parts in game? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jcking said:

Big Apollo was an enlarged 9 man Apollo CM originally proposed as the Eros flyby vehicle and is similar in concept to Big Gemini, except for sharing about as much with it’s parent capsule about as Orion does with Apollo.

The original paper on the crewed Eros flyby (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedings) makes very few comments on the reentry vehicle itself while providing detail on its service module.

However, based on the diagrams, this has the same dimensions of the Apollo CM, while fitting 6 crew inside (referring to some other paper which I'm unable to find).

Perhaps we've found two different Eros flyby concepts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

The original paper on the crewed Eros flyby (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedings) makes very few comments on the reentry vehicle itself while providing detail on its service module.

However, based on the diagrams, this has the same dimensions of the Apollo CM, while fitting 6 crew inside (referring to some other paper which I'm unable to find).

Perhaps we've found two different Eros flyby concepts?

No, I mistakenly said it was a 9 crew vehicle instead of a 6 crew vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jcking said:

Big Apollo was an enlarged 9 man Apollo CM originally proposed as the Eros flyby vehicle and is similar in concept to Big Gemini, except for sharing about as much with it’s parent capsule about as Orion does with Apollo.

"Big Apollo" is not the official name it was covered under.  That is the four man Eros Command Module (ECM.)     And while the links below are for the 1966 proposal.  This wasn't the final iteration of the design but rather the easiest to find data for.

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/manned-asteroid-flyby-mission-1966/

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedings

Most of the "Big Apollo"  references are actually McDonnell Astronautics references to a "Bigger Apollo type" that was shortened to Big Apollo.  Most of the drawings of "Big Apollo" actually show a Gemini derived windows because of this!   These "Bigger Apollo" were used to compare and contrast with the Big Gemini to show why Big Gemini was the better long term investment for NASA.

EG McDonnell report F873 dated 10/31/1967

 

This is the "Bigger Apollo" from the McDonnell report above:

7p15pMM.jpg

 

Note there is no nose Probe.  Also the Gemini style roundy/drooping eye windows... and the Ring and Fork aft docking with no propulsion.  Like Big Gemini this would have only had RCS for propulsion.    And since this is a *McDonnell Astronautics* design, it is hardly representative of what a North American Aviation  "Big Apollo" would look like!

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

"Big Apollo" is not the official name it was covered under.  That is the four man Eros Command Module (ECM.)     And while the links below are for the 1966 proposal.  This wasn't the final iteration of the design but rather the easiest to find data for.

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/manned-asteroid-flyby-mission-1966/

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedings

Most of the "Big Apollo"  references are actually McDonnell Astronautics references to a "Bigger Apollo type" that was shortened to Big Apollo.  Most of the drawings of "Big Apollo" actually show a Gemini derived windows because of this!   These "Bigger Apollo" were used to compare and contrast with the Big Gemini to show why Big Gemini was the better long term investment for NASA.

EG McDonnell report F873 dated 10/31/1967

 

 

Wow, this Eros mission proposals are really interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Staticalliam7 said:

Wow, this Eros mission proposals are really interesting

I am not certain about the Hydrolox engines for the ESM (Eros Service Module) but everything else can be well built with existing Venus Flyby.   Later on the Eros and Venus missions were merged and were to use the same launch hardware and differ only in the experiments to be carried.

 

Also I should add,    Douglas studied a way to dock Saturn S-IVB or MS-IVB S-IVC (NASA) end to end to create a boost train.   The Venus/Eros flyby vehicles would launch and convert the wetlab while in orbit to dry lab.   Then a second Saturn (potentially a Saturn S-ID but more likely a Saturn II INT-18)  Would launch with a Dock equipped S-IVB upper stage that would expend nearly zero propellant to dock with the Wetlab's engine INSIDE the docking assembly...   And then this new second S-IVB stage would boost the Wetlab to it's Eros or Venus flyby destination.   Potentially they calculated they could use upto FOUR S-IVBs in a row to boost a manned mission out of LEO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Also I should add,    Douglas studied a way to dock Saturn S-IVB or MS-IVB S-IVC (NASA) end to end to create a boost train.   The Venus/Eros flyby vehicles would launch and convert the wetlab while in orbit to dry lab.   Then a second Saturn (potentially a Saturn S-ID but more likely a Saturn II INT-18)  Would launch with a Dock equipped S-IVB upper stage that would expend nearly zero propellant to dock with the Wetlab's engine INSIDE the docking assembly...   And then this new second S-IVB stage would boost the Wetlab to it's Eros or Venus flyby destination.   Potentially they calculated they could use upto FOUR S-IVBs in a row to boost a manned mission out of LEO

There were a couple of concepts that involved docking S-IVc stages together, the NAA Mars or Venus flyby vehicle used either an S-II refueled by (what looks like) Lockheed tankers or docked S-IVc stages for earth departure, and the MORL mars flyby vehicle used 3 S-IVc stages docked identically to the configuration depicted.

NAR_Mars_flyby_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I am not certain about the Hydrolox engines for the ESM (Eros Service Module) but everything else can be well built with existing Venus Flyby.   Later on the Eros and Venus missions were merged and were to use the same launch hardware and differ only in the experiments to be carried.

You could probably get away with tweakscaling for the ESM (Gemini maybe?) and using the RL10-A3 as prescribed.

Other than that, the only missing parts are those cool solar arrays (which would probably not stay like that TBH).

Skylab (dry) makes an excellent mission module, and the mass of the OWS itself might just work out to be the same as the ~70,000 lbs cited here. I’m not really sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jcking said:

There were a couple of concepts that involved docking S-IVc stages together, the NAA Mars or Venus flyby vehicle used either an S-II refueled by (what looks like) Lockheed tankers or docked S-IVc stages for earth departure, and the MORL mars flyby vehicle used 3 S-IVc stages docked identically to the configuration depicted.

NAR_Mars_flyby_1.png

Actually I just re-read the "master" Douglas report on S-IVC.    Aside from the cool linear docking of multiple S-IVCs together they also were to use a Slush fuel meaning fuel densification.  

So when compared to the 16.7m long MS-IVB derivitives (there were three) the S-IVC gives up the structural changes from the MLV program, adds Desnsified Fuel, new LOWER RCS, new nosecone that protected the forward docking port and utilized the old style Saturn V RCS, and inline S-IVC to S-IVC docking... at-least according to NTRS 19690006388

The report is a little thin which is why I didn't read it in-depth before (and I have already work 26 hours this week (2x 13hr days) so my eyes are bleary :D  

30 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

You could probably get away with tweakscaling for the ESM (Gemini maybe?) and using the RL10-A3 as prescribed.

Other than that, the only missing parts are those cool solar arrays (which would probably not stay like that TBH).

Skylab (dry) makes an excellent mission module, and the mass of the OWS itself might just work out to be the same as the ~70,000 lbs cited here. I’m not really sure though.

I was actually referencing the viability of the Hydrolox engine, not how to make it in KSP.   Even a Kerolox SM would suffer from boiloff of the LOX stage before you got to either destination.    I think the ESM would have ended up with either 2x AJ10 developments or TR-201 derivatives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Entr8899 said:

What's the cut-off date for rockets added to the mod, around mid-2000's? Also I was wondering if in the near future dedicated parts for Conestoga could be added? The Conestoga 1600 can almost be perfectly kitbashed as is.

I don't think there's a cutoff date, more like a "We don't feel like doing this." Thing. Iirc, Cobalt didn't want to do the Delta IV, but Zorg decided to do it, and that's how we got the Delta IV in BDB. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my current understanding of the situation. 

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I don't think there's a cutoff date, more like a "We don't feel like doing this." Thing. Iirc, Cobalt didn't want to do the Delta IV, but Zorg decided to do it, and that's how we got the Delta IV in BDB. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my current understanding of the situation. 

Yes. and really apart from the fact I love delta IV as much as Cobalt hates it, it did make logical sense as its the culmination of the Thor/Delta line. Something like Conestoga could be theoretically possible in the sense it doesnt feel like it doesnt belong in BDB like stuff like Falcon 9 would feel. Though I cant recall offhand what dedicated parts it would need. But it depends on whether someone on the team is interested (I personally am not really plus I feel desperately behind on my to do list as it is).

 

Edit: there might not be a cut off date but we generally do consider BDB to be a historical (sometimes alt historical) mod. So the more modern the less likely. 

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Yes. and really apart from the fact I love delta IV as much as Cobalt hates it, it did make logical sense as its the culmination of the Thor/Delta line. Something like Conestoga could be theoretically possible in the sense it doesnt feel like it doesnt belong in BDB like stuff like Falcon 9 would feel. Though I cant recall offhand what dedicated parts it would need. But it depends on whether someone on the team is interested (I personally am not really plus I feel desperately behind on my to do list as it is).

I think it'd only need altitude-optimised and inline Castor 4s, add the roll stripes back if you want, and an avionics core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, derega16 said:

Honestly for SDV stuff I want Ares V mount for RS68 atleast one that fit ReDIRECT mount, currently even compact one is too big

I believe Rogerwang’s Konstellation program mod adds an Ares V mount for the RS68. As for the ReDIRECT mod, all the mounts were made for SSMEs.

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

I think it'd only need altitude-optimised and inline Castor 4s, add the roll stripes back if you want, and an avionics core.

There might be the need for another fairing as well.   But I am not certain.  

 

49 minutes ago, Staticalliam7 said:

Were any shuttles/shuttle derived vehicles ever considered?

Considered?   I am going to say yes.   Rejected out of hand... a resounding yes :D   just based on previous posts and conversations on stream.    But who knows, as a NOTTHEDEV I really don't know :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 9:09 PM, Pappystein said:

This is the "Bigger Apollo" from the McDonnell report above:

7p15pMM.jpg

 

Note there is no nose Probe.  Also the Gemini style roundy/drooping eye windows... and the Ring and Fork aft docking with no propulsion.  Like Big Gemini this would have only had RCS for propulsion.    And since this is a *McDonnell Astronautics* design, it is hardly representative of what a North American Aviation  "Big Apollo" would look like!

 

 

 

 

There’s a color render of this vehicle that really shows the Gemini influence, but honestly it always looked suspiciously like some depictions of BALLOS (Ballistic Reentry Type Logistics Spacecraft).

IMG_4607.jpg

Edited by Jcking
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...