CobaltWolf

[1.6.X] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.5.2 "Бруно" 8/Feb/2019)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hieywiey said:

Are you trying to say that the Titan I is overpowered in the stock system or underpowered? The first half suggests the former, while the second half suggests the latter. BDB is meant to be used in a 2.5x or 3.2x solar system (I personally use a 2.5x system myself), so most parts will be overpowered in the stock system.

titan 1 was quiet overpowered in stock system

Edited by Wirelex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wirelex said:

titan 1 was quiet OP in stock system

That is intended. And also please try your best with grammar, it makes it difficult to understand what you're trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not sure, it's probably somewhere between Thor and Atlas. It needs a kick stage to get anything meaningful, but even a small solid like the Star-20 would fill the roll.

 

I didn't catch this question earlier.   In theory Titan I and Atlas-D should have comparable launch performance.   Actual orbital performance will differ because of the different mass and engines used.   Titan I and Atlas D carried the exact same payload in USAF service.... the Mk-IV RV.... and supposedly had the same maximum range ignoring guidance types.

EDIT

Upon checking the released numbers on Designation-Systems.net, I would say the Titan-I has a higher efficiency vs Atlas.  

Max range (as an ICBM) for Titan I is listed as essentially the same as for Atlas D/E.***   HOWEVER Atlas is listed as heavier (all historical references not showcasing numbers state Atlas should be lighter due to the Balloon tanks.)   The conclusion is either A) the Publicly released info is incorrect for one or both of the rockets or 2, Atlas was designed with too much fuel.

Honestly I would say 2 is the issue because Atlas when engine upgrades and without stretched tanks seems to be able to do so much more.   but that is a complete guess on my part.  I am copying both data plaques from designation-systems.net below.

  HGM-25A LGM-25C
Length 29.9 m (98 ft) 31.4 m (103 ft)
Diameter 1st stage: 3.05 m (10 ft)
2nd stage: 2.44 m (8 ft)
3.05 m (10 ft)
Weight 99700 kg (220000 lb) 149500 kg (330000 lb)
Speed 24100 km/h (15000 mph)
Ceiling 800+ km (500+ miles) 960 km (600 miles)
Range 10100 km (6300 miles) 15000 km (9300 miles)
Propulsion 1st stage: 2x Aerojet LR87-AJ-1; 666 kN (150000 lb) each
2nd stage: Aerojet LR91-AJ-1; 356 kN (80000 lb)
1st stage: 2x Aerojet LR87-AJ-5; 955 kN (215000 lb) each
2nd stage: Aerojet LR91-AJ-5; 444 kN (100000 lb)
  CGM-16D CGM-16E/HGM-16F
Length 22.9 m (75 ft) 25.1 m (82 ft 6 in)
Diameter 3.05 m (10 ft)
Weight 118000 kg (260000 lb)
Speed 25000 km/h (15500 mph)
Ceiling 800 km (500 miles)
Range 10200 km (5500 nm)
Propulsion Booster: 2x Rocketdyne XLR89-NA-5; 666 kN (150000 lb) each
Sustainer: Rocketdyne XLR105-NA-5; 267 kN (60000 lb)
Vernier: 2x Rocketdyne LR101-NA-7; 4.5 kN (1000 lb) each
Booster: 2x Rocketdyne LR89-NA-5; 733 kN (165000 lb) each
Sustainer: Rocketdyne LR105-NA-5; 253 kN (57000 lb)
Vernier: 2x Rocketdyne LR101-NA-7; 4.5 kN (1000 lb) each

 

 

***And for the record the Titan I entry has an incorrect math error.   If the range in km is correct it should be 5454 nautical miles or approximately 6300 Statute miles....    Conversely the Atlas is listed in km / Nautical Miles.    Welcome to the "Fun" of deciphering data for anything dealing with multiple forms of measurements that use the same name!

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did it lads. (I mean except for the LR-87-AJ3 but shhhh)

uFGdE7f.png
XTo6gAf.jpg
I40bNc2.png
0ftgqId.png
36ybJMD.png

 

Oh yeah, and the best part...

It switches to 1.875m.


G6xB7tN.jpg
Y49CPmx.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

G6xB7tN.jpg
 

Yes daddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh thank God. I thought you were going to post a reusable Titan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats wrong with a reusable titan? be no different than a reusable falcon 9 first stage..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RaiderMan said:

whats wrong with a reusable titan? be no different than a reusable falcon 9 first stage..

r/woosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, I for one, would like to see a reusable Titan I. :) 
titnwing.gif
titnwin1.gif
I don't know if this was an actual project or just something that the magazines made up in the 60s. Nor do I care. :) Forget hoverslams and grid fins, this thing turns around and flies back like a decent 60s airplane. :) 

Edited by Dragon01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Well, I for one, would like to see a reusable Titan I. :) 

I don't know if this was an actual project or just something that the magazines made up in the 60s. Nor do I care. :) Forget hoverslams and grid fins, this thing turns around and flies back like a decent 60s airplane. :) 

Not sure I'm interested.

However, @hieywiey did point out something even more cursed on stream: Now, I've often seen references to "Titan 1 / Vanguard" (well, just one, on Astronautix, so take that with the largest grain of kosher salt). I often assumed that was just a misnomer for a Titan 1 / Able. It turns out, if you read it carefully, that is certainly NOT what it is (emphasis mine):

Quote

American orbital launch vehicle. The Martin Company proposed to the Department of Defense that the first stage of the Titan I intercontinental ballistic missile be combined with the Vanguard rocket to provide a launch vehicle capable of placing an instrument package into lunar orbit and on the lunar surface. NASA was instead given the mission and used Atlas/Agena and Atlas/Centaur for this purpose instead.

nick-young-confused-face-300x256-nqlyaa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the betting that Zorg is building one right now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Friznit said:

What's the betting that Zorg is building one right now....

I'm not sure, you should try and beat them :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

[Snip]

Does that mean that Vanguard will be revamped next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

Does that mean that Vanguard will be revamped next?

I'm planning for the update after the Titan update to be revamps of the Vanguard, Redstone, Jupiter, and Thor rockets, with a similar (if not more) amount of expansion as the Titan parts (adding in missing details, making things more accurate to the real rockets, texture switching, etc). I have been considering inserting an update between the two which would focus on things like revamping MOL, the Gemini lander, Big G, etc but I'm leaning towards 'no' right now, mostly just because I want to finish revamping the lower quality stuff in the mod before worrying too much about adding more.

The models for that update are already in preproduction, I've been posting pictures here of them occasionally. I also have fresh models of the H-1, J-2, and F-1 that need to be unwrapped and stuff at some point.

Spoiler

Vanguard, Able, Ablestar

NHZZlda.png

Juno S-3D

oHRoWnv.png

Juno 6k upper stage

geoydE3.png

Juno 45k upper stage (with just one vernier like the LR-91 - very WIP model)

nqGDXLp.png

Redstone A-7

gS9DRsO.png

qbgYwTF.png

NsTP7JR.png

Saturn J-2

GrvuCAx.png

Saturn F-1

8OPjNxb.png

Saturn H-1

pIt30IP.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Well, I for one, would like to see a reusable Titan I. :) 
titnwing.gif
titnwin1.gif
I don't know if this was an actual project or just something that the magazines made up in the 60s. Nor do I care. :) Forget hoverslams and grid fins, this thing turns around and flies back like a decent 60s airplane. :) 

Those are 6x J79-GE-5B (I think they were to be a derivative of the B-58 Hustler's J79s esp by pod design) engines on a fictitious rocket... Or possibly a Titan LDC proposal.   However an enlarged version was at one point proposed for Saturn V's S-1C First stage.  IIRC it was 10 or 12x J93-GE-7 engines.   The engines, that in prototype form powered the XB-70 Valkyrie.     The important thing to note is the J93 is a much more shock/temperature resistant enlarged version of the J79 designed to operate at cruise around 2000 statue miles per hour to 2000 Nautical miles per hour....   The extra shock/heating protection is what make the entire concept viable (the J79 proposal would not get anywhere because the J79 would likely melt when fired.,)

I have flown lot's of controled returns on various 1st stages in game using LGG's

Typically I ended up building the first stage in the Aircraft hanger before moving it to the VAB and assembling the rest of the rocket on top of it.   Like the pictures above, LARGE vertical surfaces with large YAW component and BIG AIRBRAKES were requirements.    In order to fly such a brick you need a lot of thrust.    But on landing that means your flight envelope is so Narrow and FAST that you will have controlability issues.    Oh if you put too big of wing on it, forget about it flying a correct rocket program.     While there are mods out there that allow for folding wings, they tend to be too small or not enough control/lift capability.    Canards, Dihidral and big Fins to the rescue for optimal return capability.

Here is an Atlas V recoverable I did several years ago.  It was very hard to fly with the 4x small tail fins.   If I could have done it differently I would have had 3x (2x on wing) tails.   Problem was this was for a cluster launcher and I only had enough room for what little tails I had.

62Gn3QN.jpg

 

And yes those are NON standard AIRBRAKES.   I have 8x different Airbrakes I use in game from Micro up to MEGA... Those are 2x Mega brakes.   In this one the Rocket is the main power (it's fuel tank is shut off at launch to prevent fuel starvation.   I unfortunately do not seem have any pictures of the 2 Jet version of this (with a bigger wing.) that I flew.   That is powered by two of the B9 DF-30 engines (from the MiG-31 Foxhound.)

I have never gone back to this style of recoverable stage so I have never tried with the new Atlas V models...   I am sure if there was a larger wing set... something in between the Shuttle wing above and either the Flat Bottom Shuttle wing or the Airliner wings I would be using this kind of recovery still today.   Since P-Wings is so hit and miss I don't fly this way anymore....   Parachutes and Recovery Control are my reusable creations now :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not sure, you should try and beat them :P

 

Challenge accepted!

Titan Vanguard refuelling at dawn...

vgw55Gol.png

Refuelling complete, ready for lift off...

0hVDK0o.png

Low Orbit achieved, coasting to TLI:

v4TQrwVl.png

Skip to the end because we've seen it all before....mission accomplished!

HzZTqmDl.png

 

This is actually in 2.6x scale Galileo's Planet Pack, landing on Iota, which needs roughly 8k dV total.  Works remarkably well!

Edited by Friznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

[snip]

I've never found reusability to be worth the extra weight and performance loss (not to mention extra time on my part) for most launches in career mode. I will use something like StageRecovery if there is a very expensive part of the rocket that makes sense to recover. I guess if I played with a mod like KCT that it would make more sense from a turnaround perspective, but I've found mods like that to be restrictive (not in the fun way) and confusing with their worker allocation mechanics and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hieywiey said:

I've never found reusability to be worth the extra weight and performance loss (not to mention extra time on my part) for most launches in career mode. I will use something like StageRecovery if there is a very expensive part of the rocket that makes sense to recover. I guess if I played with a mod like KCT that it would make more sense from a turnaround perspective, but I've found mods like that to be restrictive (not in the fun way) and confusing with their worker allocation mechanics and such.

I get that.  And I see your point as well.   However, that image above is from a Galileo 2.5x scale campaign that I was funds WAY TO TIGHT on.   I was earning science reasonably well, but since I was unlocking the parts one at a time via paying for them.......   I was basically broke the entire game.   And I never made it to any of the "fun" planets in GPP due to that issue.

 

2 hours ago, Friznit said:

Skip to the end because we've seen it all before....mission accomplished!

HzZTqmDl.png

 

This is actually in 2.6x scale Galileo's Planet Pack, landing on Iota, which needs roughly 8k dV total.  Works remarkably well!

Nice.   That had to be a "Fun" Landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2019 at 8:50 PM, Friznit said:

What's the betting that Zorg is building one right now....

 

Haha awesome pics! I'll be honest, the thought did cross my mind as soon as Cobalt mentioned it but I was too pre-occupied being productive.

Spoiler

 making EELV memes :P

D64JPMyl.png

I guess in the BDB timeline Boeing (via McDonnel Douglas) lost to Alliant

qUnQVZKh.png

Pii8SuDh.png

7GZ08zVh.png

dIjaY4nh.png

TcgRx6lh.png

Edited by Zorg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zorg said:

Haha awesome pics! I'll be honest, the thought did cross my mind as soon as Cobalt mentioned it but I was too pre-occupied being productive.

I guess in the BDB timeline Boeing lost to Alliant

An obscure classic, for sure. I need to look at tweaking the ISPs for the single and half segment.

Was canoodling with an idea last night...

NTGmh19.png

A Titan-II style 1.875m>1.25m adapter and a Titan-II style 1.5m>1.25m adapter. And then some sort of ultra-low profile hollow fairing base?

Idea being, then with the translation gizmo, you could build this:

dFfTRwZ.png

Recess an Antares or something in there and then have the payload envelope resemble the missile nose cone.

Is this necessary? Probably not but I want to do it. At the very least, I'm definitely doing the two adapters.

4qccQSf.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is being worked on or if its been mentioned but are/can/is it possible you make BDB cargo containers for the breaking ground stuff. Particularly for the LEM lower stage etc. Many many thanks. and many many apologies if this has been mentioned already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sp1989 said:

Not sure if this is being worked on or if its been mentioned but are/can/is it possible you make BDB cargo containers for the breaking ground stuff. Particularly for the LEM lower stage etc. Many many thanks. and many many apologies if this has been mentioned already. 

You could just edit the .cfg file to add whatever module the Breaking Ground containers use to the LEM Descent Stage. I don't have Breaking Ground myself, so I don't know what the name of the module is, so you'll have to do it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hieywiey said:

You could just edit the .cfg file to add whatever module the Breaking Ground containers use to the LEM Descent Stage. I don't have Breaking Ground myself, so I don't know what the name of the module is, so you'll have to do it yourself.

Better yet you could make a Module manager file to @PART add the missing component to the parts in question.    Then you could share it.   Who knows it might end up in the BDB extras folder if enough people use it.

 

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

An obscure classic, for sure. I need to look at tweaking the ISPs for the single and half segment.

Was canoodling with an idea last night...

 

A Titan-II style 1.875m>1.25m adapter and a Titan-II style 1.5m>1.25m adapter. And then some sort of ultra-low profile hollow fairing base?

Idea being, then with the translation gizmo, you could build this:

 

Recess an Antares or something in there and then have the payload envelope resemble the missile nose cone.

Is this necessary? Probably not but I want to do it. At the very least, I'm definitely doing the two adapters.

 

 

Adapters!  YES!   Nose cone.  IDK.   Does KSP's physics accept those as valid since 1.3.1?   I thought you would need something like OldSchoolFairings to do that.

 

EDIT.   @CobaltWolf  That Nose cone, in solid form + Tweakscale could be a good nosecone from 0.5m up to about 2.5m Diameter (above that and the actual tip would look too blunt in my opinion.)  I think 3.125/3.75 and beyond need a more Pointed nosecone similar to but not the same as the Space Shuttle EFT.   Not a request, just food for thought.

 

Edited by Pappystein
Comment about turning the fairing idea into a tank nosecone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Better yet you could make a Module manager file to @PART add the missing component to the parts in question.    Then you could share it.   Who knows it might end up in the BDB extras folder if enough people use it.

 

Agreed its always better to patch such things with MM so that they arent overwritten by mod updates. Since BDB already has KIS inventory compatibility in the main distribution I think it would be worthwhile to have such a patch in the main folder instead of extras. 

 

2 hours ago, sp1989 said:

Not sure if this is being worked on or if its been mentioned but are/can/is it possible you make BDB cargo containers for the breaking ground stuff. Particularly for the LEM lower stage etc. Many many thanks. and many many apologies if this has been mentioned already. 

I havent had a chance to test it yet ( I can do so tomorrow) but I think this would work. You need to save this inside a text file ending with .cfg and place somewhere in your game data folder. If you want to try it out.

Spoiler

@PART[bluedog_LEM_Descent_Tanks]:NEEDS[SquadExpansion/Serenity]

{

  MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleInventoryPart        
        InventorySlots = 6
    }        

}

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.