CobaltWolf

[1.7.3-1.10.1] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.6.3 "титан" HOTFIX 2/Aug/2020)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Well until Cobalt decides to grace us with RS-68s and J-2Xs, as well as STS parts, we won't be able to make a BDB official Jupiter III. 

It's funny. I always saw the Jupiter III as a Saturn V/STS hybrid. 

But there's a problem with the Jupiter III. The same problem why Ares V abandoned RS-68 engines for use. The engines produce too much heat to be that close to each other.

iirc the solution was going to be a new variant of the RS-68 that was fully regenerative, but that never happened.

Share this post


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

iirc the solution was going to be a new variant of the RS-68 that was fully regenerative, but that never happened.

I never heard a fix for it. I doubt a fix was ever considered since Ares got cancelled due to Ares I being to dangerous. 

A max Q abort would apparently not allow the crew capsule to escape debris from the exploding rocket. My problem with that is that they could easily solve that problem by adding a more powerful abort tower, or maybe put some push motors on to the bottom of Orion.

But it is what it is. 

Another problem with the cancellation of Ares I and the Constellation project in general is the cancellation of the Saturn based hardware upgrades. It would have  been nice to have the J-2X. F-1B HAD hope, but SLS project cancellations scratched that.

Edited by GoldForest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 12:38 PM, CobaltWolf said:

So, something I've been thinking about...

I'd like to be able to have a single-vernier version of the LR-91-AJ3, and four-vernier versions of the LR-91-AJ5 and AJ11. and, with the features that are in B9 now that weren't when we started this update, it's now possible to combine stat switching, stat switching, and eventually plume switching in the same part. What isn't easy to B9 switch is the layout of parts. What I'm proposing, is a single part for all the double-nozzle LR-87s, a single part for all the single-nozzle LR--87s (excluding the LH2s), a single part for all the single-vernier LR-91s, a single part for all the four-vernier LR-91s. That gives a lot of lego'ing potential that we otherwise might have missed out on.

As a visual aid...

So, all these would be one part: LR-87-AJ3, AJ5, AJ11, AJ11-Vac.
If plume switching starts working in B9, then we can also have kerolox versions of the AJ5 and AJ11 - slightly less thrust, slightly more ISP, mostly for my non-hypergol headcanon :)
All that's required is a simple mesh switch of the nozzle to accompany the stat switches.

o3R4VIR.png

 

Similarly, you could have Titan 1 style verniers on all your LR-91s - and yes, I'd like to have kerolox versions of these available :)

R2ONeMx.png

 

The Titan 1 LR-91 would also be able to have a single vernier if you wanted:

BWdUwEq.png

 

tl;dr replace the specific variants of the Titan engines with parts that essentially represent different layouts, with the different LR-87 and -91 variants represented by B9 switches that switch nozzles, stats and plumes?

WANTED MORE FEEDBACK ON THIS

the resulting engine list would be:

- Single-nozzle LR-87 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox, AJ11V, AJ11V-Kerolox

- Double-nozzle LR-87 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox

- Single-vernier LR-91 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox

- Quad-vernier LR-91 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox

- LR-87-LH2-SL

- LR-87-LH2-V

 

So you can see, suddenly you go from... 10 parts, to 6 parts. And the number of variants goes from 10 to 24. The kerolox variants are essentially for my own headcanon - I want to be able to use Titans without spraying dragon's blood everywhere :) Essentially they would just be slightly less thrust, slightly more ISP, kerolox plumes instead of hypergolic plumes. Since it's just a B9 switch they'd be pretty harmless - assuming plume switching gets worked out for B9, these are happening either way.

 

EDIT: The alternative would be to just add the LR-91-AJ3 single vernier, LR-91-AJ5 and -AJ11 quad verniers, and maybe the AJ3 and AJ5 single-nozzles. Kerolox version wouldn't have to be separate parts.

Edited by CobaltWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, although that sounds like alot of variants :P (Mostly for the kerolox Titan engines...for...something, IDK yet.)

On another note, the difference between the kerolox sea level engine, and the vacuum one..they look ALMOST identical.

Edited by DriftedCougar
Added opinion on kerolox engines.

Share this post


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

I never heard a fix for it. I doubt a fix was ever considered since Ares got cancelled due to Ares I being to dangerous. 

A max Q abort would apparently not allow the crew capsule to escape debris from the exploding rocket. My problem with that is that they could easily solve that problem by adding a more powerful abort tower, or maybe put some push motors on to the bottom of Orion.

But it is what it is. 

Another problem with the cancellation of Ares I and the Constellation project in general is the cancellation of the Saturn based hardware upgrades. It would have  been nice to have the J-2X. F-1B HAD hope, but SLS project cancellations scratched that.

Ares V basically evolved into SLS ( and is itself an evolution of designs stretching back to the 1970s ) and J-2X is not exactly 'cancelled', it's just on ice until there's need/funding for it, which will probably be never.

39 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

...

I like this idea and it would be a great way to de-clutter the parts list. A similar approach to adapters would be appreciated as well. Like: 1 adapter per bottom diameter with switchable top diameters/lengths/textures, though I admittedly don't know how difficult, tedious or complicated that would be to do.

Share this post


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

EDIT: The alternative would be to just add the LR-91-AJ3 single vernier, LR-91-AJ5 and -AJ11 quad verniers, and maybe the AJ3 and AJ5 single-nozzles. Kerolox version wouldn't have to be separate parts.

I would prefer that way. The other way means slightly decluttering the part list, at the cost of adding a lot of clutter to the right-click menu, which is bad enough already. Also, it's quicker to pick the part of the part list and be done with it, than having to adjust tweakables every time you want to add another engine.

Keep the switcher for nonstandard fuel types. You can add LH2 while you're at it. But don't cram everything into the right-click menu.

Share this post


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

By the way @Pappystein, you mentioned an S-1C with a "flat" bulkhead. Wouldn't it be a common bulkhead instead..? I actually have a model from... I think an old NasaSpaceflight thread, where someone figured out what a common bulkhead S-IC would look like. See the second from right in this picture:

i49xDue.jpg

 

I have not seen that picture before but neat set of rocket models.   I may get into measuring scale on them since they seem to be the same scale from one to the next.    It is easy to see why Saturn VIII and or Nova-8 failed to be considered.... Too tall and as I recall, the structure of the VAB would have to double or triple in mass to support that slight extra height (which is the actual why for the Flat or Common bulkhead S-IC variant in the first place!)  

 

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I don't think I've ever seen a description of it outside of Astronautix, yeah. But... AJ-260s w/ "drop" tanks is such a badass thing to do that it definitely has to be given consideration for the eventual Saturn rework. :)

   The neat thing is I fully think your S-IVC add on tank is the PERFECT size already :)   The lack of a good looking large nose cone (With Fuel) is the biggest failure.But given that the S-IC thrust structure attachment points are at the TOP of the S-IC or the Bottom....   It would be neat if some day you made a combined Nosecone/Decoupler that has multiple sizes of Nose-cones and the structural web also acted as a fuel conduit....Attach nose cone then attach various rocket parts below for the Strapons...    But That is kinda single use and would be cludgy looking... even if it is the correct way for the AJ-260 or Saturn LRB to attach to the S-IC.

On the Game play.   10,000+ m/s d/V is nothing to sneeze at! :P   I think on most flights I end up with about 80 units of LF left in the add-on tanks when I separate the AJ-260s due to Solid Fuel Depletion.  But that is with a fuel filled nosecone as well.

On other sources.  The 1967 Boeing MLV study has literally ONE SENTANCE that references this AJ-260 configuration in the paragraphs dealing with the Pros-cons of the full length AJ-260 in regards to the MLV program.

 

Lastly I will do a Pull within the next 36 hours as I need to update the S-I INT tankage as well as some minor tweaks to the MLV file.  @Mudwig I will double... actually tripple check the MS-IIA tankage.   I may add a second MS-II variant as well.   I also want to clean up some issues with the MS-IC family that I may have messed up in my last pull request.    @Zorg thanks for catching my mistake on the H-2 Big Navi engine... I am trying to decide if I should revert that back to the old model... or switch to a Rescaled E-1 model.  Those Rings on the H-1D engine stick WAY out of the Atlas booster Engine skirt!  Now I just need to figure how to get the new realnames system you have implemented to actually work for my parts...

 

 

Share this post


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

Lastly I will do a Pull within the next 36 hours as I need to update the S-I INT tankage as well as some minor tweaks to the MLV file.  @Mudwig I will double... actually tripple check the MS-IIA tankage.   I may add a second MS-II variant as well.   I also want to clean up some issues with the MS-IC family that I may have messed up in my last pull request.    @Zorg thanks for catching my mistake on the H-2 Big Navi engine... I am trying to decide if I should revert that back to the old model... or switch to a Rescaled E-1 model.  Those Rings on the H-1D engine stick WAY out of the Atlas booster Engine skirt!  Now I just need to figure how to get the new realnames system you have implemented to actually work for my parts...

 

 

While you're about it can you check the node attach points on the flat bulkhead variants.  I think they're off by some way if I recall correctly.

I want to update the Saturn MLV page on the wiki a bit and make it clearer how to build the different stage variants.  There's precious little info around but I'll give it a stab and you can let me know if it chimes with your understanding.

Share this post


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

While you're about it can you check the node attach points on the flat bulkhead variants.  I think they're off by some way if I recall correctly.

I want to update the Saturn MLV page on the wiki a bit and make it clearer how to build the different stage variants.  There's precious little info around but I'll give it a stab and you can let me know if it chimes with your understanding.

Actually the nodes were fixed on the FB variants a week or so ago.  And then Zorg figured out why the H-2 engine was not working and solved that issue a day or so later.     The only thing that was not updated in the Pafftek folder then was the S-IB INT-11 tankage and that just had to do with realnames changes that Zorg is implementing

 

Share this post


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

WANTED MORE FEEDBACK ON THIS

the resulting engine list would be:

- Single-nozzle LR-87 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox, AJ11V, AJ11V-Kerolox

- Double-nozzle LR-87 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox

- Single-vernier LR-91 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox

- Quad-vernier LR-91 // variants: AJ3, AJ5, AJ5-Kerolox, AJ11, AJ11-Kerolox

- LR-87-LH2-SL

- LR-87-LH2-V

 

So you can see, suddenly you go from... 10 parts, to 6 parts. And the number of variants goes from 10 to 24. The kerolox variants are essentially for my own headcanon - I want to be able to use Titans without spraying dragon's blood everywhere :) Essentially they would just be slightly less thrust, slightly more ISP, kerolox plumes instead of hypergolic plumes. Since it's just a B9 switch they'd be pretty harmless - assuming plume switching gets worked out for B9, these are happening either way.

 

EDIT: The alternative would be to just add the LR-91-AJ3 single vernier, LR-91-AJ5 and -AJ11 quad verniers, and maybe the AJ3 and AJ5 single-nozzles. Kerolox version wouldn't have to be separate parts.

While I agree with @Dragon01's concern about clutter in the RightClick menus.  I do Agree that this is more sensible than not, and this does not even come close to saturating the Right Click menu like other mods do already.  

While I would prefer Historical Parts and AB-Historical parts to be separate.... The LR87 family is so muddy and many unflown but built variants etc....   So here is my proposal.  Part count increases but I think this is a little more "Logical" to my thinking

I am probably setting you up for more work but I suggest any AB-History part get an alternative texture that is obviously not standard in Coloration?  It would give a Quick visual clue to those who do not know their parts all that well...

 

LR87 Single Bell (they never flew but MANY MANY were made!)   3 parts 13 total variants

  1. Hypergolic AJ-5/9/11/11A/11V  (5 variants)
  2. Hydrolox SL/V (2 Variants)
  3. Kerolox AJ-3/5/9/11/11A/11V (6 Variants) Slight Higher performance but much higher cost on AJ-5 and latter for part balancing purposes...

LR87 Twin Bell (As above many made but not all flew)  2 or 3 Parts and 9 to 13 variants!

  1. Hypergolic AJ-5/9/11/11A/11V (5 Variants... 11V currently has no model but I think it can be kitbashed from Single 11V part above???)
  2. Hydrolox (PLEASE PLEASE????   Sea Level and Vacuum optimized for 2 variants!)
  3. Kerolox AJ-3/5/9/11/11A/11V (As Hypergolic.  6 Variants)

LR91 4 Parts 10 total variants

  1. Kerolox Quad Vernier AJ-3/5/11 (3 Variants two being Hypothetical)
  2. Hypergolic Quad Vernier AJ-5/11 (2 Variants)
  3. Kerolox Single Vernier AJ-3/5/11 (3 Variants 1 Hypothetical)
  4. Hypergolic Single Vernier AJ-5/11 (2 Variants)

With no model addons/changes we end up with 9 parts, and 32 Variants...  Which could grow to 10 parts and 34 variants with two new parts! :)

 

Little Bit of History on the LR87/LR91
 

Spoiler

 

The LR87/LR91 family is *THE* most adaptable Rocket engine for Fuels that could be burnt in it.   Historically it was tested in at-least part with the following Fuels.

  • Alumanize-50.  Aerozine 50 / NTO with an 18%(?) Suspension of Aluminum particles in the fuel.   Turned the fuel into a near gel like substance which in theory would reduce the need for Ullage.  But more importantly Aluminum burns at low temperatures and releases more energy (thrust + Heat) than Stock AZ50/NTO thus More thrust and more ISP for same engine and tank.  For this principal, Aluminum is a common component in Solid Fuels as well as Thermobaric/Blast warheads (AGM-114M Hellfire II)
  • AZ50/NTO
  • UDMH/NTO (Bench Test only)
  • MMH/NTO (Proposed)
  • UDMH/IRFNA (only bench tested)
  • Kerolox
  • Hydrolox
  • Kerolox+Florine (small scale test only... Hydrofloric acid is just so bothersome)
  • Kerolox+Boron (not tested But proposed) commonly called ZipFuel at time of proposal

I am probably missing a few and I have probably spelled a few wrong but there you go.

Also the LR91 was never intended to run on Hydrolox because of the design changes when they shrunk the Pumps down from the LR87 precluded the use of Hydrogen in the engine.   Thus no LR91 Hydrolox versions were ever proposed....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot tax:  The meeting of the Gemini's

VTDhhSq.png

 

bonus snoot boop

1iSwmHp.png

Edited by Deltac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My MOS Space Station.screenshot289.png

Has quite the story behind it: First it was the lower segment...some spantanous KAS combustion of the lower segment, one rescue later and its big now.

Edited by DriftedCougar
what i didnt pres post that fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How am I supposed to configure the Saturn IB?  In JNSQ, it's not getting the Apollo to orbit.  I've set the service module to Orbital and the first stage engines are the 1973 H1.  I'm using 1 HE2J-515 for the second stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Deltac said:

How am I supposed to configure the Saturn IB?  In JNSQ, it's not getting the Apollo to orbit.  I've set the service module to Orbital and the first stage engines are the 1973 H1.  I'm using 1 HE2J-515 for the second stage.

What exactly is the issue? Straight dV or..? Saturn 1B has always had issues in BDB due to being underscaled. If I remember, I have more luck lofting it a bit on the first stage.

Share this post


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

What exactly is the issue? Straight dV or..? Saturn 1B has always had issues in BDB due to being underscaled. If I remember, I have more luck lofting it a bit on the first stage.

When I get to the second stage, the poor little J2 doesn't have enough thrust to keep raising the apoaspsis.  I can try giving the J2 moar thrust to see if that will do something.

Share this post


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

When I get to the second stage, the poor little J2 doesn't have enough thrust to keep raising the apoaspsis.  I can try giving the J2 moar thrust to see if that will do something.

Before you go changing thrust on the J-2....   Try making a Saturn INT-05 and a Saturn INT-05A.

 

S-IVB and above is the same but below the decoupler is the Short and then the LONG AJ260.   Confirm if you have orbiting problems with either of them.    I know that Ohiobob and Galileo have put a lot of effort into the new "Solar system" And I don't know what if anything they might have done that could cause a rocket nerf. 

I will do some testing in a bit (I need to test my updated MLV parts as discussed a few posts up anyways!)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TEsting  Goal is a stable nearly circular orbit at 300km with a Saturn IB with the 1973 Ed H-1 rocket engines.   Only non Stock to BDB items is my SM uses AZ50/NTO instead of LFO.

Launch 1 Stock Saturn IB with AZ50/NTO for SM fuel (at 50% to match real world settings )  No payload in the cargo bay (again to match real world)  1973 edition  H-1 engines.

Failed to orbit.   Delta V is 5683m/s and I did a 40% Launch slope via Mechjeb.  40% is what I use to launch Titans with Solids...

Launch 2 (as above)  80% Launch curve (about as square of a turn as I want to get with a big rocket)  FAiled when Saturn SLA overheated and blew up.   Capsule and SM actually survived and via a Dive into the Atmo was able to make orbit but still an orbit FAILURE due to overheat and blown parts.  Max altitude was 86km when on the S-IVB stage   Reached that with 2 minutes of fuel left in the S-IVB stage.

While the C/SM did make it to orbit...   I consider launch 2 a failure because while the S-IVB stage reached 86km it then fell back down below 60km and burnt up.... only Luck and my quick reactions saved the C/SM and allowed it to make orbit.  

gD0jShC.jpg

CwscPEE.jpg

tGtVhcv.jpg

Edited by Pappystein
Posted before finished

Share this post


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

Before you go changing thrust on the J-2....   Try making a Saturn INT-05 and a Saturn INT-05A.

 

S-IVB and above is the same but below the decoupler is the Short and then the LONG AJ260.   Confirm if you have orbiting problems with either of them.    I know that Ohiobob and Galileo have put a lot of effort into the new "Solar system" And I don't know what if anything they might have done that could cause a rocket nerf. 

I will do some testing in a bit (I need to test my updated MLV parts as discussed a few posts up anyways!)  

 

Where can I find these MLV parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, birdog357 said:

Where can I find these MLV parts?

BDB-Extras/Pafftek Folders.

There is the INT-11 Tankage for the Saturn I INT-11 (4 UA1207s 4 H-1s and a 20ft tank stretch over Saturn IB's first stage)

Many MLV Saturn V parts (via rescaling the BDB tanks) and a Drop in for the HG-3...

And for you Atlas SLV-3X or BIG Atlas-F fans the H-2 Engine

Share this post


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

BDB-Extras/Pafftek Folders.

There is the INT-11 Tankage for the Saturn I INT-11 (4 UA1207s 4 H-1s and a 20ft tank stretch over Saturn IB's first stage)

Many MLV Saturn V parts (via rescaling the BDB tanks) and a Drop in for the HG-3...

And for you Atlas SLV-3X or BIG Atlas-F fans the H-2 Engine

Thanks

Share this post


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

TEsting

I tried a Saturn V fully loaded for Mun landing with the Dnoces S A2's, and that failed to make orbit as well.  However with Dnoces set to 388 max thrust, Saturn V can make orbit, but Saturn IB still fails.

So my preliminary reaction would be a MM file for BDB that boosts the J2's and the H1's.

Share this post


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

I tried a Saturn V fully loaded for Mun landing with the Dnoces S A2's, and that failed to make orbit as well.  However with Dnoces set to 388 max thrust, Saturn V can make orbit, but Saturn IB still fails.

So my preliminary reaction would be a MM file for BDB that boosts the J2's and the H1's.

Did you try lofting? The real rocket was semi lofted.

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.