CobaltWolf

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Oh, and don't worry about KSP2. It's about a year away, and even then, there's no telling if it'll be any good. Squad is still going to be working on KSP1, last time I've heard. Indeed, if anything, it may cause KSP1 codebase to stabilize

I'll second the sentiment.  After the initial "Oooh, shiny!" I had looking at the KSP2 trailer, I noticed that it's near-future to far-future stuff.  I don't find that as compelling as the historical and alt-historical stuff in this mod.  My current attempt at playing KSP (instead of modding it) is all BDB launchers, like using the LDC for an Apollo D-2 LV.  And, now that you've got Fatlas as well, it looks like my favorite US LV family may get some more use in this playthrough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 12:03 PM, CobaltWolf said:

I'm.... fairly certain that the Ascent stage on that is the same stage as the Lunar Recon Gemini :0.0:

Yes it is.  IIRC the Lander version came first... then The Lunar Recon widebody SM came next (AKA they reused it for a  new role proposal.)

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Unrelated but I didn't know what to do with myself last night so I made a 1.5m adapter tank for Atlas since I realized it needed one.

y1QT2RI.png

 

Um you mean I don't have to fly the Excelsior Rocket anymore?   :P   Naw I need to still fly the Blue Streak! :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For followup.  KSP2, the trailer starts off with what can best be described as a thin Sat-V with 6x LRBs so I don't think BDB will be "obsoleted"   Rather it is a question of if the needed add ons for BDB will port over.   And thanks to your vicious,  relentless and inevitable refusal to add more mods as requirements I think BDB will end up in a good place for those jumping ship to KSP(V)2.  Now if Squad is still doing KSP(v)1 then  I am a happy camper.

Oh and if you were wondering, While I may purchase KSP(V)2 I will still be pounding hours into KSP(V)1. 

@MOARdV Yes the trailer seems to focus on what KSP(V)1 would call "LATE" technology but I don't know... The trailer also says we will still be building our space programs from the ground up.    I am thinking they are using an alternative to the existing Tech tree or greatly extending said tech tree.     But we will see.   I will pre-order it but I won't jump ship unless it is everything KSP(V)1 is and MOAR (pardon the play on your name please) AND BDB can be EASILY ported over (with B9PartSwitch.)

 

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone loves the F-Atlas SLV-3X now yes?    Well... I had to do something different with another Atlas Variant that was never built....  The ORIGINAL Atlas-F.

Atlas-F was to be powered by 2x H-2 engines + the LR-105 and twin LR-101s from Atlas-D (MA-5 engine complex with new boosters)   We don't know what H-2 would look like but I have taken a stab at it by scaling up the old H-1D engine model (the new model is awesome but I built my CFG prior to it's existence)

The Reason for the new engines is Atlas-F is 1.5x longer than an Atlas-D.   And on top would either be a stretched Centaur OR a Regular Centaur D-1A + a Centaur JR.  

 

Thanks to liberal use of Module Manager as well  as Tweak Scale I chose the latter option:

tDNOBcl.jpg

Now here is the problem....   As I said we don't know how H-2 would have actually worked or looked so even after putting two of my H-2 engines in the booster skirt I only had a sea Level TWR of 0.93.    Obviously the H-2 will be getting a tweak up in thrust....  In the interim since I wanted to launch this tall beastie I subbed in one of the new H-1D models for the LR-105.   And put my comm-sat in an orbit around Minimus.... in a 2.5 scale system.  the Centaur D-1A was able to do a Disposal burn back to Kerbin... and the Centaur JR did a disposal burn that intersects the Mun in 14 days....   Will see if I properly disposed of it.   Jettisoned the Booster skirt at 3.0+G and the remaining H-1D + 2x LR101s was enough for a 0.93 TWR so I didn't loose much altitude or much performance by my early Jettison.

The only MM files I created were for the Centaur Avionics and the Centaur D-1 engine plate (the old plate, not the new one.)    I had to turn Boil off OFF to get the Centaur JR to behave properly.  Centaur JR was totally depleted before it could do it's first burn at 33 minutes into the launch on my first attempt.)   I tweak-scaled the Centaur D-1 Tank down to 1.5m diameter for the tank.

 

And my Comm-bird in space (sorry needed bigger GCU than one of the new BDB provided ones...   But there are still some BDB parts on board.....

NWO6ZQk.jpg

 

Oh and since I have not unlocked much of the Saturn parts and None of the Apollo parts in my play-through... I am planning on a Gemini based KOR-MOR mission.... here is my MOR return vehicle on the launch pad (Excelsior Vega + Agena for Munar return booster.)

 

recWim5.jpg

With the exception of the Obviously Bluestreak parts, the Parts are from Atlas, Castor, Agol, Vega, Thor, Pioneer and Agena as well as the modern BDB 1.875m fairing available in Titan Red :)     I love how Excelsior and Bossart Atlas share similar art and can be used interchangably without massive clashing of the textures.    Vega impacts the Mun and Agena only has to do a small circulation burn (using the APS engines only.)   The main Agena Engine is saved for the Burn-back from Mun with the Gemini Capsule.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random BdB launcher build for my ixv lifting body

screenshot7.png

screenshot17.png

screenshot20.png

All parts are so nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 11:06 AM, CobaltWolf said:

I'm a bit confused, actually. I don't think any of the first batch of diagrams are accurate. For instance, the internal configuration of MOL seems completely off, plus the MOL itself wouldn't have flown with a Transtage (that was just the mockup flight). Do you have any sources to link for these?

 

 

It's not much and I'm having trouble tracking down the original right now but there was a proposal that had the Transtage but not the Dorian telescope section:

mol_cutaway_big.jpg

 

Pretty sure that was a very early proposal given the mock-up has a Gemini R/V shown which was just a modified Gemini with a crew passage through the service module rather than the Gemini B with the shorter service module. Transtage is also a bit different than the actual Transtage that flew (that one appears to have a boattail around the engines). Could have also been a proposal after the cancellation of Dynasoar given that it combines the characteristics of the Dynasoar satellite inspector with the MOL Dorian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello, first of all congratulations for these new rocket parts, they are absolutely beautiful, I hope you will continue on this path.
I install the latest versions in development of the mod, and I realize that the parachutes module Kane disappeared.
sorry for my english and good luck for the future

Share this post


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

Hello, first of all congratulations for these new rocket parts, they are absolutely beautiful, I hope you will continue on this path.
I install the latest versions in development of the mod, and I realize that the parachutes module Kane disappeared.
sorry for my english and good luck for the future

Are you by any chance using BDB in Colours?  This currently has a conflict with the Dev branch which for some reasons means the Kane parachutes won't load.  You have to remove the Colors mod.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, draqsko said:

 

It's not much and I'm having trouble tracking down the original right now but there was a proposal that had the Transtage but not the Dorian telescope section:

mol_cutaway_big.jpg

 

Pretty sure that was a very early proposal given the mock-up has a Gemini R/V shown which was just a modified Gemini with a crew passage through the service module rather than the Gemini B with the shorter service module. Transtage is also a bit different than the actual Transtage that flew (that one appears to have a boattail around the engines). Could have also been a proposal after the cancellation of Dynasoar given that it combines the characteristics of the Dynasoar satellite inspector with the MOL Dorian.

Likely this is a Sanitized Picture and not a proposal in itself.  AKA one that has all the TOP SECRET and above portions removed.    

The Experiment Module is empty and doesn't even show an internal skin.  That is the big clue in for me.

Share this post


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

Likely this is a Sanitized Picture and not a proposal in itself.  AKA one that has all the TOP SECRET and above portions removed.    

The Experiment Module is empty and doesn't even show an internal skin.  That is the big clue in for me.

Possibly, but there were a bunch of proposals for MOL that were similar to this layout, heck they even had one for a Mercury MOL launched on an Atlas-Agena.

fig3.jpg

 

If I can find an official source, I'll post it up. But that one above is straight from NASA's website (early 1960 proposal) so just because it has an empty equipment bay doesn't mean anything. Don't forget those equipment bays were likely to be filled with surveillance equipment for spying on the Russians and I'm sure no one in the USAF or NASA wanted that to be public so they were sanitized. Doesn't mean there never was a proposal like that, just that it'd be harder to find as they were and likely are still classified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say this is more likely a conjecture from before MOL's true purpose was known. Lack of a Gemini B (depicting a full-sized spacecraft instead), presence of a Transtage, an equipment module aft of the experiment module and the small size of the experiment module itself mean it just wouldn't make for a good spy satellite. Seeing as the mockup had a transtage, and the Gemini B being up there isn't obvious if you don't know about it, it seems like it's a logical extrapolation from what was known at the time. It could also have been a proposal for a civilian station piggybacking on the MOL idea.

It does look like a cool alternate configuration, close to the MOL we have now (indeed, that's probably where they came from in first place). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's all sorts of crazy ideas with the early proposals or concepts. How about an Atlas wet workshop for the Mercury?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18469/nasa-first-space-station/

Quote

Although the Atlas wasn't powerful enough to deliver an entire space station into orbit, Convair engineers came up with an ingenious solution—one that was later eyed for many other space projects, but has yet to be tried. The idea was that after the rocket had done the job of delivering the mission into a 400-mile-high orbit, the now-empty forward propellant tank (which had contained non-toxic liquid oxygen) would become the living quarters of the new space station. An inflatable structure made of rubber nylon was also proposed to provide insulation inside the stainless steel body of the rocket, and to subdivide the tank into different rooms. This trick would immediately give engineers enough volume to fit a four-story habitat, complete with a laboratory, a kitchen, a washroom, a playroom, and sleeping facilities for four people, who arrived in two space gliders (both launched on one rocket).

With its vertical design, the bottle-shaped station would make 2.5 rotations per minute to give its inhabitants a little bit of artificial gravity. A hallmark of the 1950s—the nuclear reactor—would produce all the needed electricity. All add-on components of the station would be launched on Atlas rockets upgraded with a custom-built space tug. In addition, the station could be expanded by adding extra empty tanks left over from crew exchange and resupply missions.  A special airlock would allow exiting the station to board incoming ships and conduct assembly work. The no-longer-needed main engine of the rocket, and its associated pressure tanks, could be reused for oxygen storage.

Of course that was in 1958 before Kennedy issued the Moon challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 10:29 AM, CobaltWolf said:

Yeah yesterday... uh. Frankly sucked a bit for me. Just because, now the future of BDB is pretty up in the air. I don't want to stop working on it (frankly this is like one of the only things I enjoy doing with my time?) but it's really impossible to know right now what will happen. There's a lot of "what-ifs" that will make porting things a lot harder - there certainly won't be B9 functionality, at least at the start, for instance. Even if I can import the models, there's question of if the art style / shaders will change, if the scale will change, if the way stuff is built will change etc etc.

As @Machinique pointed out, there's also the matter of focus - the material so far seemed really focused on things like massive sci fi ships and colonies which..... don't interest me whatsoever? So I question if something like BDB is even appropriate. So then maybe it makes sense to keep deving for KSP1, but then will there be anyone to play it anymore? Will, to use an example again, B9PS keep getting updated?

There's also a lot else going on. Some of my friends (who I won't name, for obv reasons) have already told me they firmly intend to retire from modding and that's really sad too.

Honestly I'm just trying not to think about it right now.

Well, for what it's worth, I sincerely hope that it turns out to be easy-ish to port your current work into KSP2. BDB is, hands-down, my favorite (and, frankly, most indispensable) mod. I definitely agree that, at least from the trailers, KSP2 seems to look pretty sci-fi focused, but if you ask me, that's all the more reason to introduce a '50s-'90s section of the tree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, here's another look at the "final" MOL configuration in real life. If any MOL design were to fly, this is what it would have looked like:

NASM-58B3D74347A82_001.jpg?itok=dSAKVshX

 

21 hours ago, draqsko said:

It's not much and I'm having trouble tracking down the original right now but there was a proposal that had the Transtage but not the Dorian telescope section:

Pretty sure that was a very early proposal given the mock-up has a Gemini R/V shown which was just a modified Gemini with a crew passage through the service module rather than the Gemini B with the shorter service module. Transtage is also a bit different than the actual Transtage that flew (that one appears to have a boattail around the engines). Could have also been a proposal after the cancellation of Dynasoar given that it combines the characteristics of the Dynasoar satellite inspector with the MOL Dorian.

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Likely this is a Sanitized Picture and not a proposal in itself.  AKA one that has all the TOP SECRET and above portions removed.    

The Experiment Module is empty and doesn't even show an internal skin.  That is the big clue in for me.

Something I run into a lot, especially with these kinds of long running projects, is they change over time significantly. Additionally, remember that these paintings are done by artists, often who are only working with only part of the story for whatever hardware they're supposed to be depicting. Generally I think it's a bad idea to read too much into this sort of artwork unless there's a definitive source you can link it to (a study or proposal). I think it's telling how many paintings are of this configuration, apparently by multiple artists:

ayJm3lt.jpg

FDCywcy.jpg

eUJF0A8.jpg

 

I think it's also worth noting that while it doesn't match any MOL configuration I know of, that painting does seem awfully close to the OV4-3 (MOL boilerplate on Titan IIIC)

MisclpG.jpg

 

I also have this artwork. I have no idea what it relates to.

KJQflkS.jpg

There's also this contractor model:

WkBlRBU.jpg

 

14 hours ago, draqsko said:

Possibly, but there were a bunch of proposals for MOL that were similar to this layout, heck they even had one for a Mercury MOL launched on an Atlas-Agena.

If I can find an official source, I'll post it up. But that one above is straight from NASA's website (early 1960 proposal) so just because it has an empty equipment bay doesn't mean anything. Don't forget those equipment bays were likely to be filled with surveillance equipment for spying on the Russians and I'm sure no one in the USAF or NASA wanted that to be public so they were sanitized. Doesn't mean there never was a proposal like that, just that it'd be harder to find as they were and likely are still classified.

Hate to burst bubbles, but that's not MOL - indeed, anything NASA related is generally NOT MOL. MOL is a USAF project that NASA was pretty much entirely uninvolved in. That's not to say that there wasn't attempts to sell MOL to NASA - I think even congress critters favorable to the program tried to push for NASA to replace any station projects with MOLs outfitted with experiments NASA would find useful.

Indeed, this image which I think is probably the most often shared depiction of MOL, is not MOL at all - it's a design that Douglas proposed to NASA, and actually shows two civilian MOL-derived crafts docked aft-to-aft

mol_concept.jpg

Pretty much all the MOL material was declassified a couple years ago, but it's not available online for whatever reasons. All the links to the nro.gov pages that hosted them are pretty toast.

(Incidentally, Agena lab is something I've thought about doing a bunch of times, just not sure that its worth it)

 

14 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

I'd say this is more likely a conjecture from before MOL's true purpose was known. Lack of a Gemini B (depicting a full-sized spacecraft instead), presence of a Transtage, an equipment module aft of the experiment module and the small size of the experiment module itself mean it just wouldn't make for a good spy satellite. Seeing as the mockup had a transtage, and the Gemini B being up there isn't obvious if you don't know about it, it seems like it's a logical extrapolation from what was known at the time. It could also have been a proposal for a civilian station piggybacking on the MOL idea.

It does look like a cool alternate configuration, close to the MOL we have now (indeed, that's probably where they came from in first place). 

I believe the image that was most influential on the original BDB MOL design was this one. I honestly was really bad about doing proper research up until the last year or two, so I have to assume that at the time my attitude was something like "well this one is the coolest looking to me"

cf9f234552f4d122c1f33bb677c86e31.jpg

 

13 hours ago, draqsko said:

There's all sorts of crazy ideas with the early proposals or concepts. How about an Atlas wet workshop for the Mercury?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18469/nasa-first-space-station/

Of course that was in 1958 before Kennedy issued the Moon challenge.

God I hate that design. There's a long running issue in space art where people art depicted at like half scale or something in cutaway artwork. Atlas is big, but I don't think it's that big. There's a lot wrong with that design...

space_station_5.jpg
HawkAtlasStation.jpg

 

Of course, depictions of MOL have never been very realistic...

8GiX84DxvHL58c9KeSGgHP-1200-80.jpg

CURSE YOU HURRICANES! I'LL SHOOT YOU DEAD!!!

 

 

Smallest of updates. I've been pretty sick AND busy at work this week, so haven't had much time to work on BDB.

But, I did manage to sort out a look for the 3.125m decoupler! I think it's pretty neat looking.

F1obOlF.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kardea said:

Well, for what it's worth, I sincerely hope that it turns out to be easy-ish to port your current work into KSP2. BDB is, hands-down, my favorite (and, frankly, most indispensable) mod. I definitely agree that, at least from the trailers, KSP2 seems to look pretty sci-fi focused, but if you ask me, that's all the more reason to introduce a '50s-'90s section of the tree!

I'm definitely praying that it can be ported without having to start over completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Of course, depictions of MOL have never been very realistic...

8GiX84DxvHL58c9KeSGgHP-1200-80.jpg

CURSE YOU HURRICANES! I'LL SHOOT YOU DEAD!!!

LOL I was going to post that pic in the thread as well but thought it would make the post too long. My comment about it was:

Quote

Gotta love that hand held tether docking system there, and the space craft either coming out of or going into the hurricane.

But now that you say it, it does look like it's shooting the hurricane.

Actually I used that pic to inspire my MOL to MOS setup here: https://imgur.com/a/7teWpbn for my 'What If' space program. But yes, the hardest thing is finding actual MOL stuff that's legit rather than some artistic interpretation. So I took all the artistic depictions and rolled them into one then expanded on it. I do love the result in the end:

2al2AqQ.jpg

 

Historically accurate it is not, but incredibly fun to build and it's got that kludged together Mir quality to it that makes it feel like it really could have happened. That's why I love these parts from the pack, it might not be the most accurate part of your mod but it's good enough to make it feel alive and real. And to me, that's the most important part, how real does it feel not how historically accurate it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fun of mod like BDB is the ability to take historically accurate-ish parts and find new ways to put them together. I want to be inspired by history, not restricted by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why restrict yourself? I always play with a mix of historically accurate rockets, historically proposed but never built rockets, and of course, my own personal abominations :P

Anyway on the more historical side, continuing my "archival images" series with Titan III-A and Titan III-C. All 3 images 100% historically accurate including the rare X20 Dynasoar launch (colourised) :D

5QIT6Alh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah, so my point being it doesnt really matter tooooo much (in my opinion) if the parts are not suuuuuper historically accurate to proposals that were never even built anyway. 

Edited by subyng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zorg said:

All 3 images 100% historically accurate including the rare X20 Dynasoar launch (colourised) :D

Except the Titan IIIC on that Dynasoar. Shouldn't have fins, I blame Aerojet for that. What the heck did they know, they only made the engines. The illustrations with the fins comes out of Aerojet, Martin and Boeing never had them.

Titan-X-20-Card.jpg

Source: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.0

And Boeing's own artwork: https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/Titan-III-&-Dyna-Soar-in-Flight-2F3XC58754Q.html#/SearchResult&ITEMID=2F3XC58754Q

It really doesn't need the fins as the boosters provided enough drag to lower the CoP in relation to the CoM with the Dynasoar that it didn't need them. The Titans without boosters did need them though because the CoP would be above the CoM without them. Plus it might have caused an issue with separation given how the separation motors were aligned:

III_6big.jpg

The bottom one is canted just off the shroud which might put the exhaust right into the fin mounted on the other booster, potentially causing the nose to pitch in towards the core during separation and then aerodynamically it would want to fly into the core. The top motor is also canted in the same direction so it would add more push to the bottom than the top. Might be possible if they were canted on opposite sides of the core as the booster would spiral away like this:

rxpA1us.jpg

(Don't ask, I just get crazy ideas sometimes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, draqsko said:

Except the Titan IIIC on that Dynasoar. Shouldn't have fins, I blame Aerojet for that. What the heck did they know, they only made the engines. The illustrations with the fins comes out of Aerojet, Martin and Boeing never had them.

I just checked my copy of Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System and yeah, I can confirm that the final paintings out of Boeing at time of cancellation depict it without fins.

EDIT: Well that's a little... overdramatic...

UZmj619.png

Edited by CobaltWolf

Share this post


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

(Don't ask, I just get crazy ideas sometimes.)

One thing I've had to come to terms with since starting to learn about US space rocket development is that whenever you think you've come up with completely bonkers idea, NASA got there first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I had to buy more ram for my new laptop. Bad news I had to buy ram, good news is I can run KSP again. I may be around more often this fall.

I really like how the titan revamp went. The acceleration curves are amazing. Perfect score for falling off the clamps on launch, would topple again.

Share this post


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

One thing I've had to come to terms with since starting to learn about US space rocket development is that whenever you think you've come up with completely bonkers idea, NASA got there first.

HEY!!!! DON'T KNOCK MY BABY!!!!!!   :P:D\

It is probably one of the Better Ideas to keep Saturn Flying that was proposed.   Relatively low cost but canceled due to "lack of need" and "new engine = too expensive on top of the Space Shuttle that will have it's contract let in 2 years"

Saturn II INT-18 is my favorite Station resupply Station Building rocket.    I am the one who strong-armed persuaded Cobalt into making the Sea-Level J-2 a few years ago.   OK I admit I actually BEGGED since he was touching up some textures on J-2 already!  

Come to think of it... I have not flown it with the new Titan Revamp... Umm  Be back in a Bit! :)

 

 

Edited by Pappystein
Deleted Comment about missing new J-2SL... I should look harder and realise that not everything is tagged the same :)

Share this post


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

One thing I've had to come to terms with since starting to learn about US space rocket development is that whenever you think you've come up with completely bonkers idea, NASA got there first.

I went one step further and took that puppy to Minmus with Apollo. Of course I used the 7 segment boosters.

ra1AzSC.jpg

And the Big G Tourist bus on the INT 19, for Munar and Minar flybys.

97C08303166EC823A6138586D6F39715DA8CA229

Note that is all 2.5x scale so pretty close to something you could do for real. The Apollo one might not have made it to the Moon, it could have certainly flew by but not sure how performance would have been with a fully fueled CSM and LM. Half the fuel load is fine for Minmus, not so much the Moon.

Edited by draqsko
Words fail me sometimes.

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.